Monday, April 30, 2007
Don't overstate it...
Jimmy Carter again! The headline was:
Carter Visit Sees Some Controversy In Jewish CirclesThe headline for the continuation was:
Some Dispute Carter Book's ObjectivityLet's not understate things here. Was the book supposed to be objective? I'll admit, I haven't read it. Neither, for that matter, has Sammy Averbach, who knows how to make a convincing argument.
ASUC Senator Sammy Averbach, who is involved with Hillel and has not read Carter's book, said he thinks that having Carter speak will not be positive for the campus community because of what he called "inappropriate and blasphemous assertions" made in Carter's book.Blasphemous? Is that really the right word to use for this situation, considering the context?
. . .
Friday, April 27, 2007
That doesn't seem accurate
I hate kids. They're like misbehaving dogs without leashes, but even uglier.
Hundreds of children shadowed UC Berkeley faculty and staff members yesterday as part of national "Take Your Child to Work Day."I don't think magic shows are part of "a typical work day on campus." For a more realistic feel, they should've plopped kids in front of computer screens for hours, or let them be harassed by annoying folks demanding services.
The event offered faculty and staff the option of bringing children along with them to experience a typical work day on campus.
Departments hosted various activities including a magic show, library tours, a tour of the new Stanley Hall and rides in UCPD cars, said Colleen Rovetti, director of university events and ceremonies.
. . .
That's a feature, not a bug
Booze police! Free country? Since when?
Berkeley police Officer Ed Galvan said the grants are essential because without funding dedicated to alcohol control, other police actions take precedence.And what a travesty that would be.
. . .
"In our letter of invitation we explicitly stated that we did not want this to become a politically divisive event," [Aidan Ali-Sullivan] said. "People like contentious issues and I think that's healthy—him coming to campus is going to present an opportunity for some healthy dialogue."That doesn't sound quite right, or likely. Maybe there'll be violent, murderous protests, and perhaps a deadly riot. I'll probably stop by to see.
. . .
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Still waiting on some kind of correction... I guess if they wait long enough, it'll become true.
Update: I see they corrected it online only.
. . .
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Stephanie Lam has resigned from the Judicial Council. That puts them 3 short, despite Oren Gabriel's vigorous attempts to fill the positions.
. . .
The Daily Cal's correction section seemed a bit lacking today.
. . .
So, after Jen Avelino's bitching about the horrors she went through on the campaign trail, while praising the glory and integrity of Student Action, Igor Tregub has a few words of consolation.
. . .
There's something wrong here...
I just can't put my finger on it...
. . .
This picture looks less like someone posing for a picture, and more like someone who just spotted a hidden camera. By the way...
While she said she plans to stay in the residence halls next year, freshman and Unit 1 resident Linda Moon said many of her friends are moving off-campus.Did she check out some of those brand new buildings in Unit 1?
"If I didn't get a scholarship, I would get an apartment," Moon said. "I don't see why we we're raising costs. I don't see any new buildings."
. . .
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The SQUELCH! Signatory Poem
By Ben Narodick
Recited on the floor of the Senate
Hello my friends! Gather around
for a story that's a bit off key -
The life and times, feats of wonder,
it's the SQUELCH! Party history.
For thousands of years, we have done our best,
to be humanity's protective veil;
slaying dragons, defending the weak
and guarding the Holy Grail.
Then nine years ago, like Brian Boitano,
We embraced a challenging test:
"Reform the ASUC!" students cried.
They pled, and we acquiesced.
In those few years, we did enough
To publicize our intentions
Jello wrestling, budget reform,
and of course, online elections
Today, we're stronger than ever,
led to battle most recently,
by David Israel Wasserman in the Senate.
Our signatory, of course, is me.
So what did the Senate do to earn
this lesson of our legacy?
The true reason is, I am sorry to say,
that this is our last month in Berkeley.
But to allay your fears that, in our absence,
Our leadership grows weak and porous -
I announce tonight our two new signatories:
Joe Rothberg and Andy Morris
These two men, of brilliant mind
And amazing qualifications
Will take the heroically brave SQUELCH! Party
To unheard of elevations
So, FEAR NOT! students of Berkeley,
Your future looks quite hearty,
With Joe and Andy, heroes of justice,
Leading the illustrious SQUELCH! Party!
Needs more officers like us
SQUELCH! is here to stay
. . .
Jen Avelino wrote an apology for her Facebook message. Apparently, Student Action does not speak negatively of other candidates. (HA!) "I apologize for breaking Student Action tradition. It was impulsive and uncharacteristic of me and I apologize for that." Oh, and "I am not a racist."
She didn't actually apologize for her comment that Van Nguyen should've supported the VSA culture show because he's Vietnamese. She made some vague comments about how people shouldn't be identified based on their ethnicity, but the extent of her apology was "I apologize to those who may have been hurt by that part of the message" after bitching about candidates approaching ethnic groups. (The "everyone else does it" quasi-defense)
She then proceeds with a lot of complaining about the backlash. She apparently suffered in the same way that Jews did before the Holocaust. Okay, she didn't quite say that.
I expected a negative response from those who opposed my opinion which I am entitled to, but I did not expect the kind of recourse that was taken. No student, no human being should ever have to go through what I went through and actually am still going through. What people did to me was outright dehumanizing. Let me put this in psychological terms. There's group-think where people in a group tend to think alike, then there's ingroup/outgroup. This is when one group sees another group as not belonging to their group. Then there's dehumanization. This is when the in-group treats the out-group like they are less than human and have no emotional feelings. This is the framework that led to the Holocaust, this is the type of behavior that ends in 1st grade after your teacher puts you in time out for calling someone a name. This kind of behavior was displayed to me moments after my message was leaked. And this kind of behavior was displayed to many people during this election season.How old are we? Is she complaining about the childishness of others while talking about her own temper tantrum? Pardon me while I play the world's smallest violin.
I was called names, yelled at to my face, blocked from entering buildings, told never to show up to "our" events, I was pranced around while being chanted to like I was an inanimate object, I was told that we hate you, I was told what kind of Asian are you, I was told that I was a disgrace to my community, and the list goes on. My goodness, how old are we? Even days after the elections have ended, I got told to keep on walking, yup you're not wanted here. I didn't even attend the API Issues Conference because of fear from being attacked. I couldn't enjoy the one API event on campus that I have been publicizing to you all about since the moment I took office. This is only my story. What about others? Two people were attacked with eggs during chalking. Egging happens to houses during Halloween, not to people during chalking. These chalkers are helping their friends, and someone thinks that they are a threat and thus has the right to physically harm them. Unacceptable. There are government laws against that kind of behavior. People were yelled at to their face, as if they didn't have eardrums, while they walked someone to class. People got their lit ripped from their hands, and thrown in the trashcan; that's called stealing. Some things are all in fun and games, but other things were taken way too far. I'm not saying any group is responsible for these things, but this should never happen, and I hope no one has to go through anything like this again. This kind of behavior should have ended in 1st grade. I did not expect this from educated college students especially from the University of California Berkeley and those who are trying to represent the entire student body. I do not want this kind of people representing me.
. . .
Last week, on ASUC, terror stuck:
Mr. Poullard said there have been problems regarding the chalking policy, specifically as related to the past election campaign. He had a chance to talk about this with Mr. Permaul, Executive Offices, and members of his staff. He thought they should revise their current policy regarding chalking, and thought they've come up with a way to have a win-win-win situation, not just for elections, but at all times. He didn't know why the campus didn't allow chalking. He understood it could cause some drama and be a nuisance, but he also thought it was a way to communicate. At a previous school, people could chalk and had 48-hours after an event to clean it up, with fines if that didn't occur.I don't think minor parties "win" with that.
Mr. Permaul said he's been working with other professionals on the campus to conceive of a shared concept of student leadership. He, the Dean of Students, and others working on this will unveil these ideas through a variety of approaches to student leadership development in the coming year. He and Ms. Crowder will hold meetings and introduce their version at the Student Leadership Institute. They have a novel and interesting approach they have agreed, as a group of professionals, to use. It was advanced to them by the Director of the Multicultural Center, Lisa Walker. He thought it will be an interesting and thoughtful way to approach student leadership. They're looking forward to changing the culture of student leadership on the campus in a positive way."Positive," in this context, means "more favorable to administrative interests."
Mr. Daniels said he would apologize for not coming last week because of the elections. The MOU between the GA and the ASUC stated that the GA would pay 12% of election costs, or higher, if the percentage of grad students voting was higher. The GA President and the ASUC President would negotiate payment of $30,000 from previously. That has not happened that year. This was the first year they were supposed to pay that back. So he'll talk with Pres. Gabriel, and Pres.-elect Nguyen about how they wanted to work that out, to pay back the amount of money for this year. If that didn't happen, for whatever reason, Mr. Daniels said he wanted to put everyone on notice that the GA would send a check to the ASUC for $6,000 of the previous $30,000 that it owed, and 12% of the election costs from last year. So he was putting people on notice. The reason was because the GA didn't want to go into next year owing and not following up on its side of the agreement. So unless Pres. Gabriel came to the GA with some sort of request to negotiate, that's where they stood.So... even after bitching about their obligations before and not following through with them until the ASUC just gave up, they're still behind? (I thought grad student turnout last year was higher than 12%, by the way) It's good to see that Oren Gabriel is taking a hands-off approach to government. Still, he might stop by every month or so and do his job. How are those Judicial Council appointments coming?
. . .
Next week, on ASUC, Senators may actually show up.
A Bill in Support of Open Records and Police Accountability: Yeah, that. The police disciplinary process thingamabober was closed due to some court case, and some bills are out to open it or some such. I'm very interested.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF All Forms of Patriotism: Uh... So, this will strike the By-Law that requires the EVP to lead a pledge of allegiance at the beginning of each session. Not that folks have been following it, anyway.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF Accessible ASUC Documents: This will include a reference sheet with distribution of the ASUC Constitution and By-Laws because they're long and convoluted, supposedly. I don't know what's on that reference sheet, though, since the bill packet follows with a blank page.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF Existing Programs: This eliminates the Cal-FACTS program from the By-Laws, since no one was doing it anyway. I'm not sure that supports existing programs, but whatever.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF Updated ASUC Documents: I guess this puts a specific procedure in place for updating ASUC documents, because the ASUC sucks at this. It's not clear whether this will be reflected in the stuff on the website which is accessible to the public.
A Bill in Support of Improved Communication with ASUC Officials: This will make sure that ASUC officials actually have contact information so that folks can use it, instead of just trying to guess for most of the year it takes to update any information.
A Bill in Support of the Creation of Senate Impeachment Procedures: Yay! Impeachment procedures! I believe this change will allow the Judicial Council to refuse to release names with opinions in the future. I don't think they really succeeded that well in adapting the JRPs. For instance, there is no procedure for recusing Senators from ruling on the hearing procedure itself even if they have a clear conflict of interest (e.g. are the people bringing the charges). This means that the plaintiffs will be able to rule on their own motions in the hearing. Also, the Senate can hear "questions of interpretation." ? There are still some comments, including "Do we think people should be able to waive their rights?" Yes, don't trust ASUC Judicial Councildudes to take care of their own rights. Also included are various contradictions in terms of due dates.
A Bill to Approve the ASUC Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of the Legal Challenge to Stop the Implementation of the Anti-Affirmative Action Proposal 2 in Michigan: Not actually attached.
A Bill in Support of the Greek Philanthropy Fund: This tries to screw around a bit with the rules for the Greek Philanthropy Fund, and adds some stuff. I believe it bars groups who got money from Contingency and/or Budgeting from receiving money from Philanthropy. Thus, I think it removes the restriction on Greek groups from seeking those funds in the first place.
A Bill in Support of Eshleman Safety: Spend $5,000 on buying new doors for Eshleman.
A Bill In Support Of the ASUC Senate Contingency Fund: More money from Carry Forward!
A Bill in Support of Graduation Stoles: Yay! More spending for Senators to congratulate themselves!
. . .
I see that the DAAPers fought their Judicial Council case, perhaps hoping to sue and win more money.
By the way, I didn't go. Does anyone want to guess what was said? I'm guessing something along the lines of bitching about unelected Judicial Council members seeking to exercise power and subvert the democratic process.
Update: Oh, sorry about that. It seems like there was a small error in the story. Or, maybe more than one. No DAAP cases were heard.
. . .
Stuff about Shams:
Kozak's original charges asked that Shams receive one censure for every organization listed in the Facebook group verified as endorsing Shams, one censure for every group that did not endorse Shams, and two censures for every group not taking a side.The way this is written, with the word 'however,' it suggests that Kozak screwed up and requested more censures than the By-Laws allow. He didn't, of course, since he was claiming that each endorsement was a violation.
If the requested censures had been issued, Shams would have been disqualified from his position, as the bylaws state that five censures or more warrant a candidate’s disqualification.
However, a maximum of only two to three censures can be given for the violation of using ASUC authority to campaign, the bylaws state.
"I felt the original charge sheet I filed was less fair than the settlement," Kozak said. "I most likely would have asked for lesser charges ... I don't know that disqualification would have been constructive in any sense."Amazingly untrue. A disqualification that stuck would have been hugely effective in discouraging student groups from endorsing candidates in the future. As things stand, with no real consequences, I won't be surprised when these very groups endorse a candidate next year.
. . .
The Daily Cal is going to try to talk about a national issue, primarily by spitting out boring, already-been-said lines.
To listen to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial birth abortions...I'm pretty sure it was a legislative decision to ban partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court is tasked with a very different job.
Of course, there are limits inherent in his judgment—he is neither a doctor, nor capable of giving birth.Wouldn't a ruling the other way still have exactly the same problem? Or would it be okay if Ginsburg had voted with the majority? Is this really the standard we want to set when it comes to determining constitutionality of laws?
This conflict is indicative of the major problem with the ruling: It puts men (all of the five justices in the majority decision were male) with no medical training in charge of what is potentially the most personal decision a woman can make.
There is little practical argument in the ban. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, it will not save a single fetus. Should a woman choose to have an abortion at between 20 and 23 weeks into her pregnancy, she will be no less able to do so—she will just have fewer options from which to choose.We are talking about a law passed by Congress. Was the Supreme Court supposed to change the law so that it made sense?
The lack of real results that could stem from the ruling make it seem less like a carefully crafted legal decision and more like a moral crusade with insufficient rational backing.
If the Supreme Court wanted to make women less able to have a medically facilitated abortion (which does not necessarily imply fewer harmed fetuses), then it failed, because this ruling does nothing of the sort. But if they sought to limit the choices of individuals pursuing their own good health, they have succeeded.What if they were trying to determine the constitutionality of someone else's law? Shouldn't we give a tiny bit of consideration to that possibility?
I think the Daily Cal gets an F for U.S. Government in this editorial. "Why didn't the Judicial branch of government make a better policy!!???"
. . .
Monday, April 23, 2007
So, that interesting case with Nadir Shams and the endorsement of student groups will not be heard, as they have settled for three censures. The terms are:
The maximum of three (3) censures to be issued to the defendant for a violation of Section 12.3.6, with the remedy specified in Section 12.10.4.I'm not sure why those letters are being presented to next year's senate, since I don't think the budget is final yet for this year. I have no clue why a present Executive ASUC office would need to get them.
Presentation of a letter signed by every ASUC sponsored student group listed in the charge sheet acknowledging endorsements for Nadir Shams in the '07-08 election. These letters are to be presented to next year's Senate and a present Executive ASUC office for review.
Acknowledgment by Nadir Shams that he has the obligation to help inform candidates and student groups of their election restrictions in Title II for the next year's election season.
Shams still has one more case, and I think he'll be making a one-censure settlement for that one, which means that no one will be disqualified for the Senate race.
(Other settlements seem to have similar language about informing folks about violations to, I assume, avoid them in the future)
. . .
Friday, April 20, 2007
Had Van Nguyen not dropped from the Senate race, he would've won, even though I don't think he was running a campaign. He would've knocked Chad Kunert out of the race, though if he then resigned, Kunert would be back in. Of course, if he resigned as president, that would have given CalSERVE 7 senators, and then the Senate would've had to find a replacement for the vacancy. Ideally, it would never have been filled, because the Senate would never agree on someone, and the president's office would do what it was designed to do: nothing.
. . .
So, Vishal settled that Student Life Fee referendum case thingie for one censure, since there wasn't much point for the hearing. Still, check out this from the settlement:
Currently, SG Kozak is pursuing one censure against the Student Life Fee Referendum for a single flier posted by tape to a non-public posting area of Wheeler Hall. The single flier can be seen in several angles in the evidence submitted with the Charge Sheet, and it is a very clear violation of the ASUC By-laws in Title IV (Elections By-laws)."He broke the rules, therefore he couldn't possibly have been part of our campaign!" If he actually believed that, by the way, it would not be a violation of Title IV, since the referenda aren't punished for actions by those not related to their campaign. But I don't think his argument is anywhere near legitimate. The fact that campaigners weren't supposed to break the rules is used as evidence for the claim that it wasn't done by a campaigner. Great.
The defendant (Mr. Gupta) does not deny that this took place, and that it was likely done by a supporter of the referendum. However, the Mr. Gupta wishes to make clear that all individuals who campaigned for the Student Life Fee Referendum were educated about all the rules of campaigns. The individual involved in this incident was clearly uninformed, and thus not directly related to the organized campaign itself. Nonetheless, it was a mistake made and a violation of Title IV.
(Note that he doesn't argue that it isn't clear that the violator is part of the campaign, which is accurate. Instead, he argues that his campaign staff is completely incapable of error.)
Taking responsibility: Not DONE!
. . .
So, I've put the number of votes for each exec race, first with first place votes, and then after all third party losers are eliminated.
President: (8772 votes)
Van Nguyen - 3538
Ilana Nankin - 3010
Joe Rothberg - 924
Travis Garcia - 432
Dimitri Garcia - 390
Eric Marshall - 351
Justin Azadivar - 127
Van Nguyen - 4284
Ilana Nankin - 3583
Executive Vice President: (8383 votes)
Eunice Moon - 3548
Taylor Allbright - 3482
David Wasserman - 966
Justin Azadivar - 387
Taylor Allbright - 3901
Eunice Moon - 3804
External Affairs Vice President: (7913 votes)
Daniel Montes - 3075
Dwight Asuncion - 3028
John Waste - 1038
Megan Hopkins - 537
Justin Azadivar - 235
Daniel Montes - 3619
Dwight Asuncion - 3333
Academic Affairs Vice President: (8123 votes)
Curtis Lee - 3316
Caro Jauregui - 2903
John O'Connor - 1057
Gabriela Galicia - 518
Justin Azadivar - 329
Curtis Lee - 3713
Caro Jauregui - 3470
Student Advocate: (6563 votes)
Ajay Krishnamurthy - 3195
Ben Narodick - 1764
Justin Azadivar - 1604
As you can see, CalSERVE tends to pick up more of those third-party voters than Student Action does. Note that every exec race but Student Advocate had to go through all rounds in order to reach quota (that is, the other major party candidate had to be eliminated).
. . .
So, I finally got the votes and such. If Nadir Shams gets disqualified, Shawn Jain gets a spot, but no one gets knocked out.
. . .
So, some dude argues that Winnie Kuo, Alex Mastrodonato, and Wayne Feng are in danger of disqualification, since the campaigning within 100 ft. charge is against the entire Student Action party, and they were endorsed by the MSEA. Kuo is one of the early winners.
They are not Student Action folks, though. They are APPLE-Engineering, so I don't think it'll happen, since the charge was against the Student Action slate. This may have been an oversight (the dudes may have been campaigning for APPLE-Engineering, too), but at this point, there's nothing that can be done about it.
. . .
NEWS ANALYSIS!!! Run for your lives!!!
The Student Action party, which currently holds 13 of 20 senate seats and four of five executive offices, will hold 10 senate seats and one executive position next year, if preliminary results announced Wednesday are approved pending the result of 17 ASUC Judicial Council hearings.13 Senate seats, eh? Did someone switch parties when I wasn't looking?
. . .
Never miss an opportunity to use corpses to get more money.
. . .
Pay more attention!
Brian Farwell wants the Daily Cal to cover the Virginia Tech killimifcation thingie more. I don't know why he finds national news organizations inadequate to do the job, nor do I know why he thinks the Daily Cal is more capable than national news organizations to cover this.
For this generation of students, this event will mark our lives in the same way that Sept. 11, the Bush-Gore election, the Katrina Hurricane, etc. all did and the Daily Cal barely discussed it and had no images from the event.He wants pictures of dead people, or what? And dude, no one will give a shit about this in a couple of weeks. It is not Sept. 11. Not even close.
However, I am blown away at the lack of coverage for this major story and I think it reflects the distance your paper has to go until it is respected by all UC Berkeley students.The fact that some dude thinks the Daily Cal is up to the task seems to be indicative of a lot of respect, mostly misplaced.
. . .
Thursday, April 19, 2007
I'm still waiting on the vote files to play around with, particularly to see what the implications of Nadir Shams's disqualification might be. I don't expect it to happen, but if it does, it will almost certainly mean Shawn Jain gets in, and may knock Chad Kunert right out of the Senate. The other beneficiary may be Jessica Parra-Fitch, rather than the next-in-line Amanda Pouchot or Loretta Kwong, since I imagine the enormous number of votes Shams got will go mostly to CalSERVE folks. (the next person in line would be Dimitri Garcia) But there were a lot of votes (he almost made quota on the first round), so it's tough to predict the implications.
By the way, quota was 446 this year, up from 419 last year, despite the decrease in total voters. This means there were more Senate voters. I'm not too surprised by that, since there was no University-led effort to get people to vote on a referendum this year, beside the pathetic ASUC-run Lower Sproul push. What a bunch of losers.
Senate votes were counted first, so when we saw 10 Student Action senators, we were almost sure we were going to see an SA sweep for executives. For whatever reason, though SA kicked CalSERVE's ass in the Senate, they lost for many of the executive races, which was unexpected.
Split government, by the way, is awesome. I'd be a bit happier if SA didn't have a near-majority in the Senate (I expect Dave Rhoads to get poached by SA, though it would be nice if he didn't), but maybe Van Nguyen will have to break out that veto pen. The veto pen actually sucks pretty badly. It needs a 2/3 vote in the Senate to be overridden, but most meaningful Senate actions require a 2/3 vote anyway.
Speaking of Van, he said during the campaign that he would seek to reduce executive office budgets. Will he go in front of the Senate, currently in the middle of budgeting, and say "give my office less money"? Student Action still controls the Senate, so they should be able to cut those budgets a lot for their CalSERVE successors.
. . .
No surprise, but
So, just to confirm, the Elections Council has officially figured out what the problem with the AAVP race is. Apparently, my nickname's comma and John O'Connor's apostrophe brought the entire system down. We rule!
Anyway, the result is the same.
. . .
I hope the Taiwanese Student Association is planning a Daily Cal sit-in. In today's crossword, 55 across has the clue "Chinese Province." The answer is "TAIWAN." (Oh, spoiler)
. . .
There were 10629 voters, out of 32930 students (32.28% turnout).
Elections Flexibility Constitutional Amendment
Yes: 3896 (36.65%)
No: 3265 (30.72%)
Abstain: 3468 (32.63%)
Line of Succession Amendment
Yes: 5295 (49.82%)
No: 1078 (10.14%)
Abstain: 4256 (40.04%)
Greek Life Amendment
Yes: 2561 (24.09%)
No: 6611 (62.20%)
Abstain: 1457 (13.71%)
The Heuristic Squelch Life Fee Referendum
Yes: 2910 (27.38%)
No: 5651 (53.17%)
Abstain: 2068 (19.46%)
The Green Initiative Fund Referendum
Yes: 6528 (61.42%) (19.82% of campus)
No: 2899 (27.27%)
Abstain: 1202 (11.31%)
The Student Union Complex Fee Referendum
Yes: 2733 (25.71%)
No: 5613 (52.81%)
Abstain: 2283 (21.48%)
Student Life Fee Referendum
Yes: 3033 (28.54%)
No: 5534 (52.07%)
Abstain: 2062 (19.40%)
I'll have some info about correlations later. Just remember that when folks talk about how "the campus" passed TGIF, not even 20% supported it. Also, if the ASUC used a reasonable process for constitutional amendments (where you actually have to convince voters to support you, rather than just convince them not to oppose you), the Line of Succession Amendment may not have passed, either.
(Some of these calculations may be off. Feel free to point them out if you catch them)
. . .
Thoughts on referenda
I'll talk about candidates later.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure they support the fact that, had all TGIF "No" voters instead not voted at all, the TGIF fee would have failed. That's how fucked up the 20% turnout requirement is: You can pass a fee by voting "No" on it. It would make so much more sense to have a "Yes" turnout requirement, e.g. "a fee cannot be considered passed by the student body if less than 20% of the student body voted for it."
Since DAAP lost (and pretty badly, too), I'll have to do their job and claim credit for the failure of those fee referenda. I gave the Daily Cal endorsement forum speech against them, and had "Vote No on Fee Raises" as my Student Advocate nickname, so I'm sure it's my accomplishment.
Josh Daniels and the University: You LOSE! Hahahaha! Losers! You suck! Next time you want the ASUC to bend over for you, make sure you abuse university resources better. Oh, I mean, next time you want a cooperation, actually agree to cooperate.
The Greek amendment failed because I really doubt anyone had any clue what it did, and just said "God, I hate those fucking Greeks with their screaming and their horns." Maybe a campaign to tell folks about it might have helped. Then again, it might not have.
The Polling Locations amendment failed, perhaps due to a similar lack of campaign. I'm pretty sure it was brought down by the fee increases. There were folks I talked to who voted "No" on everything because they were sick of these fees. While this is understandable, the amendment for polling locations did not raise fees, and actually would save money, but folks didn't really pick up on it.
. . .
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
So, I've got a document which may or may not answer the question, where I got 329 votes for AAVP. This seems more reasonable.
. . .
Here are some issues with the election counting meeting.
1) My #1 vote counts:
That last one is bullshit, of course. I think they screwed up the candidates text file, and when they tried to fix it, they screwed up the names or numbers or something, putting me second (ahead of Caro). I wonder if this happened in other races, too. I'm investigating.
2) SQUELCH! got about 1000 votes for each exec race.
3) Referenda abstentions were around 20%.
4) CalSERVE screams really loud.
5) When Eunice was leading after first place vote counts, Student Action was very excited. They got unexcited very fast. It was like a wave as excitement moved from right to left.
6) The exec races were very close, and all third party candidates and the loser had to be dropped to reach quota.
7) Dave Rhoads came out of nowhere.
8) Recounting may be very interesting, if someone gets DQed.
. . .
These are preliminary, and I have reason to believe some are wrong:
Polling Locations Amendment: 54.41%, fail
Line of Succession Amendment: 83.08%, pass
Greek Life Amendment: 27.92%, fail
Squelch Fee: 33.99%, fail
TGIF: 69.25%, pass
Lower Sproul: 32.75%, fail
Student Life: 35.40%, fail
President: Van Nguyen
Executive Vice President: Taylor Allbright
External Affairs Vice President: Danny Montes
Academic Affairs Vice President: Curtis Lee
Student Advocate: Ajay Krishnamurthy
Winnie Kuo (APPLE)
Danielle Duong (CalSERVE)
Gabe Weiner (SQUELCH!)
Roxanne Winston (CalSERVE)
Maurice Seaty (CalSERVE)
Grace Shen (Student Action)
Christian Osmena (UNITE Greek)
Chris Wong (Student Action)
Jason Louie (UNITE Greek)
Gabriela Urena (CalSERVE)
Philip Kim (Student Action)
Albert Wu (Student Action)
Rebecca Coleman (CalSERVE)
Scott Silver (Student Action)
Daniel Galeon (CalSERVE)
Lisa Patel (Student Action)
Corey Jackson (Student Action)
Chad Kunert (BCR)
Shawn Jain (CalSERVE)
Amanda Pouchot (UNITE Greek)
Loretta Kwong (Student Action)
. . .
I won't be able to liveblog everything, but the only fee that passed was TGIF, and the only amendment that passed was the Line of Succession. Everything else failed. More later.
. . .
So, I haven't said much about Virginia Tech because there isn't really anything to say.
The rush to determine whether it was because of too much gun control or too little is stupid. Bad things happen. That's not necessarily evidence of a policy flaw. Is there a "right" policy that would prevent bad things from ever happening? No.
The fact is, this incident didn't change, in any way, the facts surrounding those arguments. If they were right before, they're still right, and if they were wrong before, they're still wrong.
The reason I support access to guns has nothing to do with reducing or limiting these kinds of incidents. (I imagine more gun access would make these incidents less deadly but more common) It's a moral argument that the government has no right to tell us to leave responsibility for our self-defense to a police force that isn't able to do the job.
This dude, while apparently calling for the suicide of VT Prez Charles Steger for his support of the policy making campus "gun-free," explains:
It is simple logic. Once you deprive an individual of his right to defend himself, you assume the responsibility for their safety. If you fail at that responsibility, there must be a consequence. Now, if the law will not do the right thing, then the responsible party must do the right thing and accept the consequence of his colossal failure in the execution of his duties.Whatever. The point is, folks cannot morally limit the ability of people to defend themselves when they are unable to defend those people. It essentially forces folks to enter the "will you be protected?" lottery.
. . .
So, there's a budget proposal for next year. Lets look at one line item.
The President needs $14,400 to:
serve as the chief representative of the ASUC,
monitor the health and well-being of the ASUC and the student body which it represents,
have the power of veto over legislative actions of the ASUC Senate, and
direct by Executive Order the taking of actions which are urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can again meet.
Propose budgets! How much of that $14,400 is needed for each of these activities? Make sure it adds up to $14,400. You'll need some Iraq war contractor math to pull this off.
. . .
So, it looks like every non-redundant charge sheet was accepted. This means there are currently 17 Judicial Council hearings scheduled for the next few weeks. I've listed them below, with the maximum number of censures sought. In bold are the interesting ones that I may attend. In italics are cases that have potentially interesting aspects. (Times are almost certainly going to change)
As a note, the decision not to charge folks for missing Clean-Up day may turn out to be major.
SG Kozak vs. Student Life Fee Referendum (Flier placement, 1 censure)
Fri. 4/20, 6:30
AG Upshaw v. DAAP (Dorm campaigning, 3 censures)
Mon. 4/23, 5:30
ECC v. DAAP (Flier placement, 1 censure)
Mon. 4/23, 7:30
ECC v. Kunert (Truncated disclaimer, 1 censure)
Mon. 4/23, 9:30
ECC v. Parra-Fitch and Urena (No disclaimer, 1 or 9 censures)
Tue. 4/24, 7:00
ECC v. Galeon, Duong, Seaty, and Winston (Truncated disclaimer, 1 censure)
Tue. 4/24, 8:30
ECC v. Jain (Flier placement, 3 censures)
Tue. 4/24, 10:00
SG Kozak v. Shams (Claiming group endorsements, 20 censures)
Wed. 4/25, 5:00
ECC v. Shams (Flier placement, 1 censure)
Wed. 4/25, 6:30
ECC v. Wong (Covered flier, 1 censure)
Wed. 4/25, 8:00
ECC v. Wong and Patel (Truncated disclaimer, 1 censure)
Wed. 4/25, 9:30
ECC v. Student Action Slate (Campagning within 100 ft., 2 censures)
Thu. 4/26, 5:00
ECC v. Student Action Executive Slate, Mastrodonato, Kuo and Feng (MSEA endorsement, 3 censures)
Thu. 4/26, 7:00
ECC v. Student Action Executive Slate, Osmena, and Shen 1 (Flier placement, 1 censure)
Fri. 4/27, 6:30
ECC v. Student Action Executive Slate, Osmena, and Shen 2 (Flier placement, 1 censure)
Fri. 4/27, 8:30
ECC v. Student Action Executive Slate and Kwong (Flier within 100 ft., 1 censure)
Sun. 4/29, 6:00
ECC v. Asuncion, Feng and Kuo (Flier placement, 1 censure)
Sun. 4/29, 8:00
. . .
So, the Judicial Council has started accepting and assigning hearings for the few (19) charge sheets that have been filed so far. As usual, I'm available for FREE CONSULTING!!! My advice: Unless you're in danger of a DQ, settle for the number of censures you're charged with ASAP. The Judicial Council isn't restricted to that number if the case goes to a hearing.
. . .
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
And next week...
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF Virginia Tech: The ASUC again pushes the definition of "support."
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASUC Senate hold a moment of reflection and thought, to be administered by the Executive Vice President at the start of the next regularly scheduled Senate meeting.Okay, then. Relief funds? Covering counseling costs? No, not that kind of support.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF The Right to Give Life: The ASUC will "demand" the FDA change its policy preventing gay men from donating blood. It'll also help advertise the "Right to Give Life Blood Drive."
ASUC Resolution Calling for Review of the BP-UC Berkeley EBI Dea1: Yes, that's a one. As you might expect, it's a resolution doing the same whining the GA did earlier about something-or-other on the BP deal. It's the first bill in the bill packets that I've seen that has footnotes.
A Bill in Support of the May 1st Immigrants Rights Demonstrations at UC Berkeley and Around the World: This, I guess, calls for a student strike or something at Cal. I have no clue why Cal needs to be... uh... "striked" against. I do know that professors love student strikes.
. . .
Last week, in the ASUC
One of the folks absent last week (during campaigns/elections) was Jennifer Avelino. Let me remind folks of something Jennifer Avelino said last week while bitching about Jessica Wren:
She has not come to a senate meeting during the campaign season, and she probably won't.Hmm...
In fact, only 10 senators were legally present, and only 13 were present. Those three couldn't be marked as legally present because they didn't have enough senators to suspend the rules (unconstitutionally) to do so, as normally occurs. In fact, the Senate didn't do much of anything, since they were too busy securing their jobs for next year to do their job this year.
. . .
One more charge
There's one more charge, I believe, which Jessica Wren filed against the Material Science and Engineering Association (MSEA). MSEA is not ASUC-funded, but it is an ASUC-sponsored student group, and used an OCF-hosted website to endorse candidates. The charges are against Ilana Nankin, Eunice Moon, Dwight Asuncion, Curtis Lee, Wayne Feng, Winnie Kuo, and Alex Mastrodonato, for using ASUC resources to campaign, and Wren is seeking 3 censures for each. I don't think there's any doubt that MSEA broke the rules that it was held to as an ASUC-sponsored organization (the OCF thing is a bit more iffy, in my opinion), and I hope the Senate reasonably considers consequences. (They endorsed the party in power, of course, so don't expect much)
For the candidates to be charged, MSEA would need to be their agent, which could be interpreted in various ways. If MSEA just unilaterally endorsed them and posted that endorsement, it's unlikely that the candidates are responsible. If they sought the endorsement, though, they may be responsible. I guess they could just lie.
. . .
Even more charges
Keep a count...
Maurice Seaty, Danielle Duong, Roxanne Winston, and Dan Galeon are being charges for not writing "Titles for identification purposes only" on their Facebook group, instead only writing "for identification purposes only," I think. One censure each.
Chad Kunert has the same problem, and a censure is being sought against him.
Chris Wong and Lisa Patel, similar thing, same single censure.
Jessica Parra-Fitch and Gabriela Urena are accused of not putting any disclaimer for their Facebook groups. One censure each, according to Jessica Wren's charge sheet. However, Alex Kozak has also filed a charge sheet for both of these, seeking one censure for each endorsement, which would DQ them both. I guess they'll have to come up with some kind of agreement as to how to proceed.
Nadir Shams is charged by Alex Kozak for two violations for his claiming endorsements from various student organizations. The first is that he is using ASUC authority to campaign, and the second is claiming the endorsement without those groups' consent. This, I guess, means that either each student group will admit endorsing him (the first violation) or will claim not to have endorsed him (the second violation). If they refuse to make a claim, Alex will push for both violations. Alex is seeking one censure per group, which will be enough to DQ him.
. . .
More charge sheets:
One censure for Chris Wong for covering up an ASUC-sponsored group flier.
Another censure for Ilana Nankin, Eunice Moon, Dwight Asuncion, Curits Lee, Christian Osmena, and Grace Shen, for fliers in a different classroom.
Yet another for Dwight Asuncion, Wayne Feng, Winnie Kuo for classroom fliers.
Another one for Ilana Nankin, Eunice Moon, Dwight Asuncion, Curits Lee, and Loretta Kwong for a flier within 100 feet of a polling location.
One for Nadir Shams for another classroom flier.
Two censures for the Student Action Executive Slate for two dudes campaigning within 100 feet of polls.
Three censures against Shawn Jain for classroom fliering.
This puts Student Action folks in DQ-land, which means they're actually going to have to defend themselves if all charges are accepted.
The deadline for filing charges is later today.
. . .
Monday, April 16, 2007
When you find illegal stuff in campaign literature, tell the Elections Council. Don't post in a public blog. Nadir Shams changed his Facebook group to suggest that those endorsements from groups actually came from editors/presidents, while the Materials Science and Engineering Association deleted its endorsement of Student Action, both without telling the Elections Council.
Update: Folks with evidence of the pre-adjustment stuff for Nadir Shams's Facebook group (and probably the MSEA endorsement), should contact Solicitor General Alex Kozak: akozak at berkeley dot edu. Or, I guess, any evidence of Shams claiming group endorsements.
I sent him both pages I saved, but he's probably looking for other stuff, too.
. . .
The turnout for the ASUC Elections was 10,629 total votes. Only 15% came from the on-campus polling stations. I don't know total enrollment, so I can't give a percentage turnout, but if we use last year's data, I think it comes out to about 31.7%. If anyone knows current enrollment numbers, let me know.
. . .
Best ratio ever!
Even being so friendly, Ilana spent money.
Student Action presidential candidate Ilana Nankin spent the most out of any of the executive candidates. Her total expenses were approximately $630 dollars.I was actually going to seek this data out, but I guess the Daily Cal already did. Kudos to them. By the way, that 0 is so mine. I'm going to have the best cost per vote evar! It'll make everyone else look like wasteful losers. All I had to do was spend $0 more, and I would've had every single vote! (Point: Cost per vote is not a reasonable measure of... uh... anything)
Spending on other presidential candidates' campaigns ranged from $0 to approximately $560, according to the preliminary data.
. . .
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Jim Fung points us to Nadir Shams's Facebook group which is littered with endorsements from ASUC-funded student groups.
For the two-second civics lesson: A government can't fund groups that take sides in its elections.
. . .
Jessica Wren is requesting one censure against DAAP for a flier in a classroom. Not accepted yet.
Similar charges have been filed against Ilana Nankin, Eunice Moon, Dwight Asuncion, Curits Lee, Christian Osmena, and Grace Shen.
. . .
Saturday, April 14, 2007
I showed up to Clean-Up Day to make a point of not participating. I even wrote and then crossed off my name. When the censure monster comes, though, I'm sure that last year's Student Action defenders will leap to my defense, insisting that it's wrong to punish someone for something that happens after the election.
By the way, I threw the hint out that perhaps the referenda are required to show up, too. They do, after all, fuck up campus with their ugly fliers.
. . .
In this weather, I'm sure everyone will show up for Clean-Up Day. I performed a rain dance this morning and summoned the rain, so I've done my part.
I'm actually really interested to see how many censures I'll get for skipping out, so I think I'll use that as an excuse, and also claim "Civil Disobedience" or something.
. . .
During the election, I got some hits from e-mail and Facebook messages, which of course I can't read. I don't think I've reported anything that folks would need to tell each other about, but who knows? Let's all speculate who those messages were for, and what they said!
I think someone on Facebook received a message pointing them to the color scheme, which the sender was very impressed by.
. . .
By not particularly popular demand, let's throw out random predictions in some categories (my predictions are given, but meaningless)
The margin by which TGIF will win: 85%-15% among folks who don't abstain.
Losing referenda: None!
Fee referendum with highest abstention rate: Lower Sproul.
Number of 1st place Senate votes I get: 14.
Number of executive offices I reach triple digits in: 0
Serious candidates who get fewer votes than I do (HAHA! Losers): No clue, but you can be sure they'll be identified in a "post of shame."
I also made the apparently bold prediction that BCR candidate Chad Kunert wasn't going to win a Senate spot last week, which a bunch of folks thought was wrong. I also made the bold prediction that SQUELCH! would win two seats. I'm more confident about the former, and pretty doubtful about the latter.
Tabulation is Wednesday evening.
. . .
With that, voting has ended. Feel free to admit what it was you lied about to get votes. I'll be honest: I don't actually believe the rumors that Ilana murdered a transgendered prostitute in Florida.
. . .
Friday, April 13, 2007
Another charge sheet
AG Rosezetta Upshaw has charged and gotten accepted a charge against DAAP (the party) that Dimitri Garcia called her at her dorm phone (message picked up on answering machine) endorsing the DAAP slate. The hearing is scheduled for next next Monday.
(Again, the smart thing is to wait until Tuesday to find out how many total censures have been charged against you, and if it's less than five, just plead guilty and avoid digging a deeper hole)
. . .
So, tomorrow is Clean-Up Day, where candidates like me, who made a special effort not to mess up campus, have to go clean up the mess left by the lamers from the other parties who litter like hell. Those parties won't bother sending their candidates, of course. They're too important to clean up their messes.
. . .
So, Joshua Daniels doesn't like it when graduate students get involved with the ASUC Senate. You can sort of see it here, with his "You can bypass the candidates and go straight to the referenda. They all directly affect grad students, including law students" comment. The reason, of course, is that if the elected ASUC Senate represents grad students, then his unelected GA will lose its legitimacy. The GA-MOU from last year reinforced the point, as he did personally to me when we met.
. . .
SG Alex Kozak has filed and gotten accepted charges against the Student Life referendum for taping fliers above the bulletin boards in Wheeler. If I were the Student Life dudes, I'd just settle for a censure and avoid digging myself a deeper hole by lying my ass off or something in the hearing. The hearing is next Friday.
. . .
Where was SQUELCH!
I was hoping for a big, election-ending riot or some such from SQUELCH!, preferably one which violated campus rules, but I didn't see one. I'm teh sad :(
. . .
So, the TGIF folks staged a big bunch of folks running in the most idiotic way possible shouting something about the fee. What a waste of energy. Can we really trust these folks to work for sustainability with this kind of energy waste?
. . .
I really hope Chris is right, that SA will deny the actions of some chalkers, and that the Elections Council goes aggressive and demands a record of all chalking by Student Action agents. If they can't provide it, how can they know which chalking is theirs and which isn't?
. . .
I apologize that some of my posts have been a bit curt and cryptic. I'm a bit beat from the strain of running six simultaneous intense ASUC campaigns.
. . .
This is an interesting story about some cop stopped by some other cops who didn't believe the first cop was a cop and... uh... someone pissed herself, I think. Anyway, I'm interested in this:
Seward filed a claim with the Kensington Police Department in February citing her arrest as a violation of her constitutional rights guaranteed by the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments.I can see the fourth and fourteenth, but what would the first amendment argument be?
. . .
Yay! A good result from a Judicial Council advisory opinion. If anyone has a copy, shoot it my way.
The obvious point is that ASUC-funded groups cannot campaign in ASUC elections. Of course, the Men's Octet did. And the Academic Affairs Office did. On behalf of Joshua Daniels's fee referendum, by the way, which makes his laudatory comments a bit odd.
I dunno how accurate the TGIF folks are, though, when they say nothing provoked the opinion. Engineers for a Sustainable World's board endorsed the TGIF fee as a board, and they were forced to take that endorsement down. I haven't heard if either group has suffered consequences.
. . .
Oh, no, negative campaigning
Cry me a fucking river. My original quote was "People who complain about negative campaigning are really fucking lame." It's an election, guys. Quit bitching when the folks whose money you want to have control over have some critical words for you. You aren't running as a social experience. We don't owe you our deference.
I don't even recognize "It's a sense that (other) people want to get involved and have things to say." Did I say that? That seems a bit out of character for me. And when I say "this isn't a popularity campaign," I'm not saying "this isn't a popularity contest," because clearly it is. I'm saying "this isn't a campaign to become popular, it's a campaign to become more popular than the other guy." This quote is accurate, though. (I really don't think the first one is, but whatever)
. . .
When hazing, if you get caught by police, don't explain that you're hazing.
According to a police report, UCPD officers found the eight veteran baseball players near Evans Diamond with six freshman players who were wearing only G-string underwear and shoes just after 11 p.m. on Jan. 15. Two of the freshmen were blindfolded.No, you describe it as a "team-building" event. A "social bonding" event. An "experimentation on the societal limits on sexuality" event. You don't just blurt out "Yeah, man, we're hazing!"
The players described the incident as an "initiation" event to the police.
. . .
A little too sarcastic
Personally, I hate seeing bands for free on Lower Sproul. I'm into paying for concerts, seeing movies at full price and prefer complete silence at football games. I can’t stand the singing on Lower Sproul, and would much rather hear the rants of our campus personalities than the voices of our a capella groups. In fact, I would like to propose a referendum that would ban fun altogether.Uh... this is an op-ed in favor of the Student Life fee. I'm not sure you can make the argument that we're getting "free entertainment" by paying a fee.
Let's face it, free entertainment on campus is awesome.
Or you could spend your $12 on the Student Life Fee Referendum and get more movies, bands you've heard of, big name comedians, more a capella groups and swinging jazz. I don't see why "no" is an option on the ballot.Ah, yes, the "nobody exists but you" fallacy.
Some have argued that the more than $100,000 that will be freed up in the senate is not guaranteed to be allocated to other student groups. But this referendum is designed so that the groups covered will never need to ask for more money.Bull fucking shit. The Squelch guys had no problem putting in language to "reduce the senate's autonomy." If you're so concerned about the Senate's autonomy, why not propose a $12 increase in the general fee we pay to the ASUC?
Unfortunately if this guarantee were inserted into the referendum language, it would reduce the senate's autonomy and prevent it from doing its job. As a democratic institution elected by the student body, we can trust that the senate has our best interests in mind when reallocating this money. And anyway, if these groups had the audacity to return, the senate would just turn them down with a big smile.
Apparently, we're supposed to trust the Senate to budget in our best interests. But we need the specific fee, rather than a general fee, because we can't trust the Senate to budget in our best interests. Fascinating.
Secondly, in the last four years SUPERB's budget has been cut 42 percent, while Student Musical Activities (Cal Band, UC Jazz and UC Choral) has suffered budget cuts of 25 percent. Providing entertainment for the entire university for free is not cheap.The contradiction is still unclear to the writer, a Raeonna Einerson? Are these people this dumb, or just this obtuse?
Don't think of the referendum as spending money on other people but spending money on yourself. So go ahead, indulge and treat yourself to the entertainment offerings of the Student Life Fee Referendum.Oh, sorry, I didn't need to point out the "nobody exists but you" fallacy above. They went ahead and pointed it out for us. You heard the dude: Don't worry about subjecting other people to fee increases because you want some entertainment. Why should you? They're only your fellow students. Fuck them.
Speaking of competence, these folks were bitching on Tuesday that they wouldn't be able to get an opinion into the paper until Friday. Do they really not know the schedule of the Daily Cal's opinion page?
. . .
Another tough one
Editorial about campaigns. The good punchline:
Students angry about facing an onslaught of signs in April are in effect saying two different things. Yes, the electioneering efforts can sometimes seem disingenuous or even annoying. But implicit in such a criticism is a feeling of being ignored for the rest of the year. And in a frustrating full circle, it is most frequently elections that occupy the time of ASUC officials and prevent them from more effectively serving students.The not-quite-on-the-ball statement:
If one were to look through the events at the beginning and end of the ASUC administrations in the past few years, one would see a consistent pattern of election controversies limiting the ability of the ASUC to get real work done. And it has to stop.I don't think things would go any better in the ASUC if there were no election controversies. It still is the only exposure that many students get to the ASUC, which is the problem.
Whoever is elected can best earn the confidence of students not by positioning themselves as the true voice of voters, but by turning away from elections and toward what got them elected.... wouldn't that be "elections"?
. . .
Huh. Everyone hates Lower Sproul? Everyone hates the Lower Sproul Referendum? Are we supposed to say "Hey, look, an underdog, let's support it!"? (Sadly, that would probably work, since folks are too dumb to distinguish people under attack and ideas under attack. Usually, if everyone hates an idea, there's a reason for it.) Iunno.
Update: A commentary on how lame editorial cartoons can be, in their personification of non-people?
. . .
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I received an endorsement of sorts. Yay! Too bad I already voted. And for someone else.
. . .
This time, it's from Jennifer Avelino, also about Van Nguyen. Also through Facebook. It's long as fuck, so I'm going to just take pieces. (Available in full here) It was apparently in response to the Daily Cal's endorsement of Van for prez.
I do NOT support Van for President!Imagine that. From a Student Action senator, no less.
In leiu of today's Daily Cal endorsment of Van Nguyen, I thought I should share my experiences with CalSERVE candidate Van Nguyen. Let's get this clear. He has shown no interest in serving ALL students on this campus. He is only about empowering the minority voice. What about the rest of us? He did not support Spring Concert which would serve over 3,000 students.Wow! That is everybody on campus! Not a minority at all! How could he not support it?
He did not support fixing the Cannon, which impacts 20,000+ students.That could be... uh... worded differently.
He did not support the Student Life fee which affects well over 28,000 students.It actually affects all students, since it is a mandatory fee increase. And it's not like none of those 28,000 (wherever the number comes from) would be entertained without the fee. Then again, odd bookkeepping is not new for her.
He did not support the Student Union Complex Fee which would support almost ALL the students.See, this is exactly wrong. That fee supports nobody, since it doesn't do anything. It supports the University.
He has shown no support for current activities in the President's office. President Gabriel has worked very hard with the administration to get the Lower Sproul redevelopment project off the ground. He and AAVP Joyce Liou have even put together student forums to hear the student voice.Where's the loyalty?
It is clear that the university will not move unless students are ready to put down a monetary committment. Van thinks that money is not the solution. What the heck does he know? He hasn't been involved with Lower Sproul Redevelopment at ALL!! His only involvement is asking whether or no there will be a multicultural center in the plans. This project is going to cost the university millions of dollars! A nice student union is a privilage not a RIGHT! We have to show we are committed. He hasn't shown that committment at all.Well, it's good to see where Avelino falls on the question of who should pay for it. You know who else hasn't shown committment? The university. What the heck does Avelino know?
His sentiment that "Students should not have to pay for their voice" will fall flat on its face when NOTHING is done next year.So, if it passes, and "NOTHING is done next year," which is what is required by the referendum, will she take back this complaint?
Representing his community? I think not! Van wanted to lower the amount of money for the VSA Culture Show. What? That's your community!! He said he wanted to be more financially responsible and leave more money to other groups. If you're not supporting your own community, then who ARE you supporting?His community is VSA, eh? Stick to your kind, boy! We don't need that interracial communificatin', boy.
Then there's some bitching about Jessica Wren, some of which is somewhat valid.
Van said that she will act professionally. She has sent emails to the entire senate disrespecting me and my role as a senator.I want to see these e-mails!
She has not come to a senate meeting during the campaign season, and she probably won't.Did you need her for something?
She said that she would mark off the polling stations before the elections so no chalking violations will occur in those areas. Where are the markings? It's the day before voting and its the first time I've seen advertisements for voting posted up.If Avelino actually showed up to ASUC functions, such as last year's Judicial Council hearings, she'd know the answer to the question of "where are those markings." The University doesn't allow the Elections Council to put them down until the night before/morning of voting.
Cal is a community. It encompasses the students, the faculty, the staff, and the administrators. Van supports more ASUC independence from the administration. Well there is a reason there is an administration in the first place. First and foremost we are students, and the ASUC should come second. The administrators are there to put the ASUC first, the students first. Without their support, a student would be overwhelmed, and lots of things would not get done. The Cal community needs to work TOGETHER to accomplish things. Not independently.Wow. Just fucking wow. Why not just say "Let's let the university run the ASUC" and be done with it.
I have sat in senate with him this past year and all I have seen from him are complaints. He's been running his presidential campaign since day 1 and has spent little time making CHANGE this year. What makes you think he'll make any change next year. He complains about the executive offices, but takes no action in changing things. So much progress has been made in the president's office. Voting for Van is taking a step backwards. Actions speak louder than words, and Van has been a sitting duck in senate this year.That tends to happen with minority parties. Not being a majority, it's tough to get your way in the Senate.
Why I support Ilana Nankin?She's an alien?
She bleeds BLUE and GOLD.
As a good friend of mine, I have sat with her to talk about my goals in the Asian American community. She has shown me that she has an open mind about issues, and continues to offer her assistance in achieving my goals. Unlike Van who constantly criticizes me efforts. (Bitter? Yes.)My feelings! Won't somebody think about my feelings? Don't be critical! It's mean! That's not what you're supposed to do as a representative of students!
Being a woman, the first one in 10 years, would not only empower women on this campus but show the world that Cal is PROGESSING.But not away from white Jews. Or Gabriels, for that matter.
. . .
Man, where was the shit-talking earlier? All the interesting stuff comes out so late.
From someone to a bunch of CalSERVE dudes on Facebook:
I was told by my group today that Van, the presidential candidate for CalServe, yelled out "Taiko sucks" as he walked by during our practice Friday night. Did CalTaiko do anything to deserve this open insult? Pay careful attention to that date and time. The Daily Cal endorsement forum was that night, and Van Nguyen was there for most of it. (I don't recall if he was there for all of it) I guess it's temporally possible, since we don't have times, but dude... seriously... Van is one of them politician-types, and this seems a teensy bit out of character for him. (He says he didn't, but then, like I said, he's one of them politician-types, so the denial itself probably isn't as compelling as the mismatch with his character)
Does this mean that CalServe does not support our student group?
After receiving a flyer from Dionne Jirachaikitti I was very impressed with the diversity of CalServe and I support many of the cultural issues that CalServe appears to be concerned with. However, as a member of a student group based off of traditional Japanese culture, I am beginning to doubt that CalServe's candidates and members are true to their word.
Is it necessary to insult an entire student group like this? It's not just insulting the members in CalTaiko, but it is also insulting a culture, a style of music, an art and for some people—a lifestyle.
The members of our group are not told who to vote for, but I believe Van's open insult gives the members of our group, any cultural group, any musical group and everyone that enjoys any of these a reason to not vote for him or those in the group he represents.
Doris Chen, by the way, is part of the Student Action Facebook group. I'm told she's pals with Student Action signatory Jaime Hirashi, but I wouldn't know about that.
. . .
In response to this, Jonathan Poullard, Dean of Students, responds with:
Thank you for your email. I'd be more than happy to meet with you and other interested students on this matter. That said the demonstration was not peaceful as students had to wait until individuals stopped throwing water balloons on a crowded plaza to pass.
Again, I'd be more than happy to meet with you to discuss this matter.
p.s. This was not an action taken by Nad. It was one taken by me.
I should note, though, that this standard has never been enforced when big-ass marches tie up huge portions of campus. I dunno if you can get a permit for blocking pedestrian traffic for an entire march, though.
. . .
A letter from Ben Narodick:
Dean Poullard & Director Permaul:I can certainly attest to the fact that a bunch of folks promoting some revolution or some crap was using amplified sound, and watched as Nad Permaul strolled on by without particularly caring. I don't know if they were students. I was not there for the incident described here, and don't know the basis for the university's complaints. I can guess that they were complaining about the tossing of water balloons that may have threatened bystanders with moisture, but I'm not sure. There was a water balloon fight earlier in the day, when Sproul was packed, but I didn't see any response.
To be blunt, the treatment that you, as officers of this university, gave members of my organization this afternoon was simply unacceptable. These members deserve an immediate written apology for the utter contempt with which you showed them in your actions.
At approximately three o'clock this afternoon, the two of you forcibly interrupted a group water balloon activity by members of the SQUELCH! Party on Upper Sproul Plaza. To be clear, these individuals were acting peacefully, without amplified noise, and in a matter that was not just recreational for them but also a political demonstration in the ongoing ASUC Elections. This demonstration, which followed the rules and regulations of this campus, is protected free speech under the US Constitution, California State Law, the University Code of Conduct, and the ASUC Constitution. The only actions which were in error were those taken by you when you disrespected these hard-working students, abused the power dynamic in the situation by singling out certain individuals, and violated our right to campaign for ASUC office.
This is third consecutive year that this event has occurred, and the only time where we have had any sort of problems with the university administration. On a day where students were using unlawful amplified noise, loudly marching campus, and potentially disrupting classes in the surrounding areas, you chose to target a small group of students using public space on this campus for their own enjoyment. This hypocrisy is not only laughable, but it is extremely telling of a poor establishment of priorities by the Office of Student Life and the ASUC Auxiliary
We will continue our campaigning efforts tomorrow, and expect the respect and recognition of personal rights to which we have been and will continue to be obligated. Additionally, we feel that this is a serious matter that warrants a written apology from you to all students involved.
I look forward to your reply.
Signatory, SQUELCH! Party
(I think the stuff about constitutional rights may be overblown, depending on what the complaint was.)
. . .
Campaign accusations rule!
Chris points us to some campaign violation accusations against Ilana Nankin. I took a look at the e-mails, and can summarize the two as follows:
This is an e-mail to a small percentage of Ilana's close personal friends (around half a thousand of them). It's usual "vote for me and my party, and tell your friends" stuff. The signature includes:
Ilana NankinI guess the claim is that this constitutes using ASUC authority to campaign. I can sort of see it, but that may be pushing it. It's a signature, and she's identified by it. The canonical form of this violation is using the ASUC logo.
Senator, Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC)
University of California, Berkeley
This thingie accuses Student Action of leaving their base unattended, but there aren't any pictures. There are pictures of a sign reading "Ilana's Meeting! 118 Barrows," apparently for her campaign kickoff, stuck on a wall. This one I did know about before. If it's "campaign material," it's a violation. Is it campaign material? Iunno. Probably not, if the Judicial Council uses the definition in the campaign finance section:
Campaign material is defined as material initiated by a party or candidate, with the intent to contact voters publicly, that explicitly speaks, pleads, or argues in favor of the election or defeat of a candidate or party.This is a good time for an interlude, though. Why can campaigns use university rooms for these meetings? The week before spring break, some discussion of this was in the Senate. From the minutes, when Travis Garcia showed up to complain about something-or-other:
Ms. Avelino asked if he was aware that any registered organization in OSL could rent a room. Mr. T. Garcia asked if Student Action was organized like that. Ms. Avelino said that if someone from Student Action was a registered signatory, they could rent a room for a meeting. Mr. T. Garcia said that if they're a signatory of a club, he asked if they were supposed to reserve campaign rooms under the pretense of holding a meeting for that club, and if such meetings should be open. Ms. Avelino said they were.No one ever really answered the question he was raising: Do student groups reserve rooms for ASUC political parties? Because that, I think, is a serious issue, especially if the student groups are ASUC-sponsored.
. . .
Credit where it isn't due
Reporting on the efforts of the pro-fun folks, the Daily Cal says:
A student coalition is racing to collect signatures for a petition against a city code passed last month making party hosts responsible for underage drinking at their events.The ASUC? The ASUC is getting credit for this? What has the ASUC done? Has it spent money on this campaign? Has it hired signature-gatherers? There are groups that deserve credit, but the ASUC is not one of them.
With less than two weeks before the April 26 deadline to submit the petition, students including members of the ASUC and the Greek and co-op communities have gathered 500 signatures in the past eight days. Organizers hope to collect 8,000 total signatures to try to force the changes to be reviewed by voters in 2008.
. . .
Shady Campaign Stuff 2
I guess Andy Kelley is a CalSERVE dude. He sent an e-mail to his dorm's listserv, using his position as RA. While the Elections Council can't do anything about it, doesn't the university have a policy about this kind of thing?
. . .
Drums are annoying as fuck
My head hurts like hell. Folks were banging on drums all day, while communists were bitching about... uh... something, with a bullhorn. Nadir Shams had the loudest, sharpest, most hell-inducing drum with his campaign.
. . .
Shady Campaign Stuff 1
Some shady campaign stuff.
A blue sheet, perhaps put out by the Committee on Student Fees, lists the three fee referenda. Yes, the three. For some reason, the Squelch fee didn't deserve further advertising.
There was also a chick who came by trying to hand out brochures for the Lower Sproul fee. She was working for the ASUC, in particular under Joyce Liou, I believe. She tried to explain the fee to me for "informative purposes only" and then proceeded to make arguments for it, such as "if we don't pay the fee, nothing will get done" and so on. Yes, the ASUC is using its authority to "inform" us in a highly biased way. No big surprise here, of course. I don't run negative campaigns because I don't want to take on the entire apparatus of the ASUC and university. But the conversation was interesting, as the person who was trying to "inform" me had no clue what the fee did. She eventually had to run off and get backup, and then bitched to me about how I wasn't "nice" as she sat there, spending my money to convince people to spend even more of my money while demonstrating her utter incompetence on my dime. The discussion went something like this:
The fee increase will redevelop Lower Sproul.
Um, no. It doesn't do anything. The redevelopment is going to cost a $100 fee increase or more. This is just for "planning" or some shit.
Oh, sorry, I meant that it's out there to get the students' opinions about Lower Sproul.
Then why is there a fee increase attached?
Well, it's not like, if you vote for it, it'll automatically increase your fees.
What the fuck are you saying now? It's a fee increase! If it passes, it increases our fees.
Well, we wanted to see if people were willing to pay for Lower Sproul redevelopment.
Then why not propose the entire fee increase to see if people are willing to pay for Lower Sproul redevelopment, rather than proposing a smaller one which will be easier to pass and won't answer that question.
Well, I'm here just to inform you. If the fee doesn't get passed, nothing gets done.
Are you arguing for the fee increase?
Yes. I mean, no! That's not my job!
Nothing gets done if the fee does get passed. Did you read the discussion in the Senate minutes.
That's not my job! I'm just here to inform you!
Then why do I know more about this than you do? How can you inform if you don't know what the fuck is going on?
... ... I have to go get my director.
How DARE anyone ask questions.
Finally, Men's Octet was using the crowd it assembled during their frequent performance on Sproul to push for the Student Life Fee. Yay!
. . .
I like big fees
I was chatting with a campaigner for Maribeth Moore, who folded over the flier which lists all the executives so that only the "Maribeth Moore" part was visible. She was explaining how Moore is going to lower fees.
Also in that folded over part is a sticker that reads "YES on Student Life" and "YES on Student Union." It was tough to reconcile with the "lower fees" platform, and the campaigner disowned it. She also admitted she had no fucking clue why Moore needed to join the Senate to make Greek Philanthropy more "legitimate," so I guess she gets points for honesty.
. . .
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Unfortunately, the best Daily Cal article today is not online. It's called "Lack of Resources Forces Creative Campaigning," and includes the obligatory picture of the SQUELCH! Vibrator Races. I don't know what's creative about them, since every major statewide or national campaign includes vibrator races, too.
Still, the best quotes from the Student Action folks, specifically signatory Jaime Jiraishi, on having candidates' apparently unemployed parents show up to campaign.
The parents fit into a general Student Action campaign goal of making personal connections with every student on campus.I dunno, dudes. Shouldn't those personal one-on-one connections take place with Student Action folks who'll still be on campus once campaigns are over?
"We're actually trying to talk to indivduals one on one," Hiraishi said "We're out here all day."
. . .
History's a bitch
This is a fairly ill-informed article. So, the "California Alumni Association Scholarship Office" sent an e-mail telling some folks to vote for the Student Life Fee. There's some pointless discussion in the article about spam, but there's simply no way it's an election violation, since the folks sending the e-mail are not running the campaign. Recall that last year, even the folks who helped write the proposition weren't considered proponents.
It's still good to see this in press, so we can see that a lot of the pressure for the referenda is coming from outside the student body.
The e-mail from the scholarship office stated, "While we're not about to get into the business of lobbying for ASUC ballot measures or candidates, but we're passing this message on as a one-time courtesy to our great friends from Student Musical Activities who have been great friends to Alumni Scholarships over the years."How courteous. "We're not about to do A. But we're doing A."
. . .
Stuff of various sorts
Story on Vishal's suit:
The ASUC Judicial Council issued a ruling at 8:30 this morning that the presentation of the referenda on the ballot does not give one referendum an advantage over the other.I dunno how accurate that is. I don't think the Judicial Council ruled that there was no advantage, but rather that Vishal hadn't proven it exists and randomization granted equal opportunity.
In that other case:
The Judicial Council further said that it was not obligated to require the Elections Council to reprint the voters' guide.I'm pretty sure the ruling said that the Judicial Council lacked that authority since the voters' guide thingie was not a constitutional obligation.
. . .
Issues with voting I've seen so far:
Gabriela "Gaby Campe" Ure???a is running, according to my ballot.
My party name is miscapitalized/mispunctuated.
The coupon at the end is still not valid on textbooks. This issue came up last year, too.
. . .
Another note from the ASCU Voter's Guide. Simon Ganz runs an illustration of Mohammed as his candidate picture, but no one has rioted or said "Death to those who insult Islam." What gives?
. . .
The Judicial Council recognized that Guillermo Murga got kind of screwed by the process, and the candidates' meeting held at a time inconsistent with the By-Laws. He is not held responsible for failing to attend the candidates' meeting for this reason, and the candidates' meeting should have been held April 3. The Judicial Council also recognizes that he is at a relative disadvantage.
The Judicial Council blames both parties for the failure to get the information to Murga.
They ruled that delaying the elections would not be "proportionate to the severity of the offense," which means elections are on.
Jessica Wren is not compelled to run a Murga's Voter's Guide information, but is strongly encouraged to do so.
. . .
Vishal Gupta lost his case. While the Judicial Council agreed that propositions should be given Equal Protection as proponents are given it (I disagree, since I think the equality is between proponents and opponents, but ignoring the existence of opponents is not uncommon), it disagreed that Vishal had proved that the fixed order would cause problems for those at the end of the list. It also notes that, by randomization, Jessica Wren gave each proposition an equal opportunity.
. . .
Eric Marshall forwards another e-mail from the RSF folks, telling folks to vote and pointing to the referenda. Even when they aren't involved, they still want to get involved. I have no idea why.
As a proud recipient of the successful Rec Sports Referendum last year (that's why the membership is $10/semester), we would like to remind you about the four fee referenda on the ballot for this year.Does this count as the calling Student Action liars? I don't see why being bailed out by a subsidy is cause for "pride."
. . .
Vote or suffer the consequences
Man, today is excellent voting weather. Is there even an election today? I don't know. I still haven't heard from the Judicial Council.
(Yes, the Elections Council had to sneak out and tape off polling locations this morning)
. . .
It's nice to be the only blog in town. No one else points to stuff.
Student Action: Done Nothing is now online. These folks were responsible for those DONE parody fliers.
I haven't actually read through the content of the website.
. . .
Student Action senator Jeff Manassero endorses CalSERVE.
By the way, I haven't seen this negative campaigning that he refers to.
. . .
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Ben Narodick sent me the list of serious SQUELCH! candidates. If you're interested:
Joe Rothberg - Senate & President
Kenan Wang - Senate
Gabe Weiner - Senate
David Torello - Senate
Andy Morris - Senate
Will Cole - Senate
Sarah Branon - Senate
. . .
So, there were two Judicial Council cases. They were pretty boring, and there wasn't anything blatantly ridiculous to comment on. I predict the defense will win both cases, though the reasoning may not be strong. (The word "Kafkaesque" came to mind during some of the explanations)
. . .
Two weeks after last week in the ASUC
Bill packet time!
A Bill in Support of Legislative Officer Status for the ASUC Director of Environmental Sustainability: It... well, just guess, dudes.
Nothing particularly interesting this week.
. . .
This week, on Last Week in the ASUC
Stuff, from Nad Permaul
The Vice Provost made a commitment to ask in her budget for next year, $4.1 million if the students passed the Referendum, which would make up the entire $6 million to do the planning. Mr. Permaul said he thought that was very significant. It's not a commitment that the money will be there, but she went to the Provost and the Executive Vice Chancellor and said she would ask for the money. She made it part of her budget submission for the coming year. So that was a clear commitment on the part of the campus to work with the students on this project.Considering maybe giving money in the future counts as a "clear commitment"? See, to me, a clear commitment would be something more like "If you pass the referendum, we'll give you money." That's not what we're going to vote on, though. From Josh Daniels:
He didn't know whether Director Permaul mentioned this in his presentation, but Cathy Koshland's steering committee submitted a request for next year of $600,000, with a total, over four years, of $4.1 million, for planning. This was pretty remarkable, and they've gone from nothing to $4.1 million, over four years.Well, no, we're still at nothing.
Josh Daniels is running for GA president again next year. Yay!
Apparently, Oren Gabriel is failing to do his job of nominating Judicial Council members (SHOCK!!!) and so folks are asking Josh Daniels to pick up the slack.
Mr. Chu said he wanted to thank people who went to Cal Lobby Day. It was a success. He had a great time for the second year in a row.Interesting standard for success. I would've called it a success if it, say, stopped fee increases or something. It turns out I wasn't the only one struck by that comment:
Mr. Nguyen said that regarding Cal Lobby Day, he asked how many people attended and why Mr. Chu considered it a success. Mr. Chu said that for him, even if only three or four students went who really wanted to go, that would have been a success to him because. They had a chance to talk to district Assembly members, Congress members, and people were excited.Huh. Interesting. Empty.
. . .
Shawn Jain rules
CalSERVE Senate candidate Shawn Jain did not pull punches as the Student Action family continues to show up. Holding a sign reading something to the effect of "We're Shawn Jain's grandparents and hate him, but are still voting for him," he points out how pathetically lame Student Action folks are by getting their parents to campaign for them.
. . .
The ballot of absolute goodness
So, I forgot to endorse John O'Connor in my last set of final endorsements. As a way to get around doing post-final endorsements, I'm just going to tell you what my ballot is going to look like. Everyone should vote exactly the same way, and if you don't, you suck and should be shot. Things are in order.
Executive Vice President
External Affairs Vice President
Academic Affairs Vice President
Student Advocate Office
Serious SQUELCH!ers (in whatever order I see them)
CalSERVErs, picked at random, since I don't know any of them
. . .
Not that rare
"Disabled Council Member a Rarity" says the Daily Cal. I dunno. I don't think I've ever been in Berkeley without a disabled Councilperson. And I've been here quite a while, compared to these other student-folks. Dona Spring makes for good jokes.
"I used to not drink during meetings"That is fifty times funnier without context.
. . .
An error? In the Daily Cal? Impossible!
With elections just days away, the campaign for The Green Initiative Fund referendum has vastly outspent any other referendum campaign this season. The ASUC Judicial Council nullified the existing spending limit on referendum campaigns.Um... no. The Judicial Council noted that there isn't one. That is, there was nothing to nullify.
However, junior Rachel Barge, another co-author of the referendum, requested an advisory opinion from the Judicial Council as to whether referenda could be considered as individual candidates in the campaign.I'm not as confident about the wrongness of this, but I was under the impression it was Jessica Wren who requested that opinion. (Update: Apparently, Rachel beat Jessica to the request)
Graduate student Josh Daniels and senior Joyce Liou, who are both proponents of the Student Union Complex Fee referendum, said they plan on spending a combination of approximately $250 in out-of-pocket expenses on their campaign.Um... Why? Why would you get reimbursed for that? Do you need to make the fact that you're the university's bitch any less subtle?
Daniels said he was in contact with campus administrators to try and get reimbursement for their expenses.
By the way, Greenies, if your concern is getting folks out to vote, there's a shitload of folks waving around signs who'll do that for you. Let's see some efficiency!
. . .
The Daily Cal says no to the fee referenda. Well, except for the TGIF, but that almost doesn't count as a "referendum" (implying a possibility of not passing).
. . .
I guess I was sort of right about the Daily Cal endorsements.
Why don't I get my party mentioned in some races? Everyone else does. Even the independents do. I think my suggestion for more riotous behavior is exactly what the Senate needs, by the way. (I don't recall the photographers even taking pictures of me during the forum... the fix is in!)
John Waste doesn't even get a mention as a candidate who sucks.
. . .
So, there are two hearings tomorrow night, I think.
The I was too lazy to write laws before it hurt me case is at 7, and the I told you they shouldn't have changed the filing deadline case is at 9. So I hear. I'm not a party to any of them! Yay!
chambers Lounge, I assume.
. . .
Monday, April 09, 2007
Another charge sheet
Here's a more serious one.
Vishal Gupta has filed a charge sheet that says that the fixed order of ballot propositions violates equal protection. See if you can figure out why. (Hint: The Student Life and Lower Sproul fees come last.) He wants the order randomized.
This is, of course, bullshit.
1) The equal protection applies to proponents and opponents of particular measures. There is no basis for extending it to proponents and opponents between measures, especially when there are no conflicting referenda (where the one with the most votes would void part of the other).
2) Randomizing the order is similarly bullshit, since candidates, who do have equal protection with respect to each other, don't even get that randomized order. (They probably should, by the way)
3) His alternative remedy of reversing the order of the ballot questions on half the ballot makes more sense, but still leaves the poor fee referenda in the middle with the unenviable position of always following another fee referenda.
Still, he may win the case if nobody bothers to argue against it. Check out this quote:
I argue that this violates the clause of Equal Protection in the ASUC By-laws because the order does not change and the psychological influence placed on one fixed order puts the later propositions at a disadvantage. I do not have the opportunity under the time constraints to show the exact psychological effect, but I do know that statistically, this effect exists, and it does not afford equal opportunity for each proposition on the ballot."I can totally prove it, I just don't have the time."
That said, there's no problem with his remedy in a policy sense (i.e. maybe a By-Law should be written to that effect). The more legitimate one, in my opinion, is for the referenda to be on the ballot in the order that they were placed there.. But for the Judicial Council to unilaterally declare this policy without any real grounds in the equal protection right would definitely be the kind of "Judicial Activism" that always seems to swing in favor of those in office.
Hey, dude! You were in the Senate a while ago, weren't you? Why didn't you fix it when it made sense to? Or does having sensible laws only matter when you think they might negatively affect you, and never before?
. . .
This dude went ahead and filed charges, demanding space in the Voters' Guide, a candidates' meeting, and delayed elections.
. . .
I grabbed a flier off a telephone pole pushing the Lower Sproul fee:
THE "NEW" LOWER SPROULIf you like those ideas... voting for the Lower Sproul fee won't get us any closer to them. (Somehow, this detail was left off the fliers)
A CENTER FOR STUDENT LIFE
Renovated Student Buildings
Student Group Spaces
. . .
Student Action has more moms out campaigning for it. They also engage in animal abuse and force dogs to carry campaign material against their will. I hope a clone of the dog was submitted to the Elections Council.
Does this make Student Action the party of traditional social roles, where the women in the family don't work and have enough free time to come to campus to campaign for their kids? When Student Action wins, will they call their moms whenever they need to get something done?
. . .
. . .