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

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Last last week, on ASUC-Drama

80 pages for the minutes!
Mr. Passah said the reason he was bringing all this up was because during this protest, students in Tikvah, another organization on campus, walked in front of SJP's sign, in front of 30 of them lying on the floor, and put up signs saying "Victims of Palestinian terrorism." Instead of staging their own, counter protest, they were actively hijacking SJP's protest to carry over Tikvah’s message. As a result of that action, passers-by approached him and asked what the posters were for. This was not exceptional, and there was an unwillingness by the counter protest to keep a reasonable distance from SJP's protest; and there have been a series of confrontations in recent weeks.
Oh, noes! SJP didn't have a "sign," they had a bunch of them, so I don't know which sign Passah's talking about, but if we go back to Islamofascism Awareness Week, when World Can't Wait took signs behind speakers trying to give a different message to the speech, I don't recall Passah throwing a fit. I guess the 'rules of civilized protest' or whatever he's arguing for only apply to causes he supports.

There was a bunch of whining about the Pilipino Cultural Night allocation, which was set to come from Carry Forward because allocating from Contingency would include a limit of $1500. Yes, the way they react to a limit on expenditures for these kinds of events is just to get the money from a source not for these kind of events.

Lisa Ang had this to say:
Putting $100,000 into investments was a very hefty sum. She understood why some Senators were looking far into the future. She discussed earlier with Sen. Patel about what tangible and concrete change she'd see in allocating $75,000 instead of $100,000. Ms. Ang said she really didn't get the response, which was just something like "more interest." But there were students in the room now, and this money would matter to them now, not in the future.
But if we can't spend it now, someone in the future will benefit! That's sort of the exact definition of "not looking far ahead into the future." I like how "something like 'more interest'" isn't a tangible or concrete change. "Yeah, something like more money. Pshh. Accounting mumbo jumbo." Andy Kelley later made a slightly more coherent argument that with the economy going down, investment was bad. After an attempt to change the allocation to coming from Contingency:
Mr. Galeon said amending the allocation from carryforward to Contingency was bs. The ASUC was giving priority to ASUC-initiated projects, and that wasn't fair.
Um... if you don't like the rules which set it up that way, change the rules. But those are the rules. Instead of arguing in particular, stand up and change the rules.

From Pacific Islanders at Cal
Ms. Samuelu said the Fi-Comm meeting on Monday was disheartening and hurtful. She made an impassioned plea and it clearly fell on deaf ears. People attempted to cut the group's funding further. The amount they got was offensive. She left there with her President and Co-Chair crying because they felt so hurt.
Haha. Hahaha. You offend me by not giving our group of 23 members $1500 to run an event! Other people want money? Screw them. We are superior! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist!
Ms. Samuelu said that on Monday, Senators asked how many students would be served, and Ms. Samuelu said this was for all 34,000 students.

Somewhere in the discussion, the number of Pacific Islanders at Cal (89) was cut to 23, the number "active in the community." (i.e. those who joined their club) See, if you don't show your loyalty, you just don't count. You lose your Pacific Islanderianism. After complaining about how folks only want to see Pacific Islanders in certain ways (athletics, etc.), they said that if you don't join them, you aren't a member of their race.

Overall, it looked like a meltdown. Awesome!

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/01/2008 07:38:00 PM #
Comments (1)
. . .
it's obvious...

the rules don't apply if the dean likes your message more

aren't deans supposed to be neutral?
Post a Comment

. . .