CalJunket

Friday, April 30, 2004

THE HEURISTIC SQUELCH: THE BEST UNDERGRADUATE PUBLICATION AT UC BERKELEY!

Yeah, like CalStuff says, we won a few awards last night. Yay for our hard work.

This is especially appreciated given how in the past week our funding has been slashed in excess of the all-around percentage cuts delivered to other publications and student groups.


(0) comments

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Hmmm...Not a bad idea.

An NYU student is getting a free place to stay from the university after living in the library for several months.

"...despite receiving $15,000 a year from a scholarship and working 30 hours a week, he could not afford the money for a room on top of his tuition fees."

The moral of the story? If you sleep in the library and have a weblog about it, the administration will shack you up free of charge to avoid a PR problem. The other moral of the story? Don't go to a university where tuition is $31k a year.

I find this plan extraordinarily tempting. I think I'm gonna sleep in the Squelch office for eight weeks to protest the $730 of summer session tuition and fees that I had to pay last month, thus leaving me with not enough money to pay for May rent, thus forcing me to call my mom to ask to borrow a few hundred dollars. Of course two minutes into our conversation I remembered that I can transfer money from savings to checking, which, though she would have been happy to donate it, is preferable to suffering the embarassment of taking money from my parents. Three cheers to stubborn pride and misplaced ideals of the merit of self-reliance!

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to propose a revised formula for determining "financial need." I don't get squat from the government because my parents make "too much" money. I get unsubsidized loans and that's it. My mom starting paying back my lower division debt last year to the tune of $180 a month, but I don't receive any other money from them.

Problem number one with the FAFSA is that it doesn't take into account parental credit card debt. Mom and Pop shell out $13,000 a year to their credit card debt consolodation company (they were young, it was the 80s, my step-dad couldn't get a job and take care of his new new kids at the same time, my dad wasn't a real champ about child support because he himself was struggling financially, etc.); coincidentally, it costs about $13,000 a year for me to go to Cal. Problem number two with the FAFSA is that it doesn't take into account parental willingness to fund their college student. The old Pee and Em, if they tried a lot harder, could skimp and/or save and be able to write me a check every so often to pay for books or food or whatnot, but they're not really interested in skimping, saving, or making any more sacrifice than they need to. Problem number three with the FAFSA is that terrible green ink they use. Honestly, federal government. Green is so 1990s.

At this point I've convinced myself that even if my parents could and would pay for my education I'd politely decline in the name of independence and hard work. Given the impossibility of that alternate reality, however, I would be pleased as punch if the kids in Washington cared that I'm not getting any money from home.

See you in the Squelch office.


(0) comments

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Budget Meeting

I'm pretty sure the senate meeting in which the budget is discussed and/or finalized is tomorrow night. Look for us Squelchers to come out adn defend our resources. And democracy. 'Cause the ASUC is a bunch of terrorists. Who hate democracy.

No, that's not true at all.


(0) comments

Sunday, April 25, 2004

Up in Smoke (HA! A pun.)

Any individual who purports to advocate for so-called "smokers' rights" could just as well fight any legislation that impinges upon "chronic public shitters' rights." Both smokers and public poopers greatly inconvenience bystanders with their smelly peccadillo, after all. The difference, of course, is that it doesn't cost taxpayers and health insurance subscribers $100 billion a year to treat diseases related to dropping trow and crapping in the middle of the sidewalk. Nor does someone publicly laying a misplaced bowlwinder in close proximity to children subject the kids to second-hand carcinogens and increased rates of asthma and bronchitis.

So why do smokers pull such rank with legislators?

I and most my readers are California residents, and thus for nigh on a decade haven't had to deal with smoking in restaurants. As we turn 21, we don't even have to deal with smoke in bars or clubs. Not everyone (including every person in the world outside of New York, our own Golden State, parts of Ireland, and Singapore) is so priveledged.

When I was in Munich, I couldn't go out for a bite without coming home smelling vaguely of a low-stakes black jack table in Reno. Though the natives with whom I ate had of course gotten used to the dense fog of smoke that fills every restaurant in Germany, they admitted that it was preferable to confine smoking to outdoors and private homes.

One international newspaper I read on the train reported on legislation in Ireland that outlawed smoking in bars and restaruants so long as there were employees in the building. One smoking interviewee claimed the law was "unfair to smokers" and "Orwellian" in its control. Not so fast, paddy. "Unfair" would be if all smokers were summarily kicked in the stomach by Borlaf, the Swedish underdog for the Stongest Man in the Wold competition. "Orwellian" would be if the Irish governement installed screens on your livingroom wall that monitered whether you smoked in your house. "Unfairly Orwellian" would be if the punishment for smoking in your home was Borlaf coming over and kicking you in the stomach, then crushing all your porcelain cats with his bare meat claws.

Now Santa Monica legislators are gonna outlaw smoking on the pier, and the "smokers' rights" constituency is brustling. Business owners are complaining that restricting smoking will drive customers to other restaurants and piers in LA. Perhaps it never occured to them that good number of people are MORE likely to patronage their businesses if there ISN'T the possibility of having smoke blown in their faces or having a wayward cigarette butt light the turn-of-the-century wooden pier ablaze.

Or maybe it never occured to people that making smoking as difficult as possible will keep people from smoking. Since all those nasty anti-smoking laws took effect in California, our smoking rates have been dropping consistently. The fewer people who smoke, the less we have to pay for treating hypertension and throat cancer. Everybody wins.

I have a good friend named Matt Loker, and he's an occasional smoker. He probably disagrees with me on this. He probably doesn't think the law should be used to regulate personal behavior. He also has long hippie hair. I say this to you, Hypothetical Matt Loker: Smoking ceases to be personal when it's public and/or incurs so much financial cost to society. Take THAT, HML!

In conclusion, don't smoke. Or shit in public.


(0) comments

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

COMEDY SHOW!

Come to the Bear's Lair tonight at 8pm for an awesome comedy show from Laura Swisher and friends. (Laura is very cute and funny.) Eight bucks at the door, five if you buy them on Sproul today or show up at least 15 minutes early to the show.


(0) comments

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Not my field of interest, but apparantly of academic value nonetheless

Even Wikipedia is hip.

Happy 14th wedding anniversary tomorrow to my beloved mother and step-father! May their relationship please continue to be the longest in the modern history of my mom's side of the family. I strongly support divorce because it gives the children of the first marriage the chance to be in the second wedding. I was the flower girl.


(0) comments

Monday, April 19, 2004

The latest chapter in the never-ending saga on Free trade

(As much as I hope a bombastic writing style may entice people to read what would otherwise be boring free-trade arguments, I will respect Orlando’s right not to have discussions about free-trade stray onto the subject of his own posterior. Let us never speak of it again.)

You and your friend want to go to Paris. After consulting the blue-prints to your ‘79 Camaro you posit that driving to Paris will only take two days and that it would be to your advantage to do so. Your friend inspects your actual Camaro and finds that it does not exactly measure up to the blue-prints. It’s gets two miles per gallon less than predicted. Content that he has shown the inapplicability of your theory of “Camaro-Paris Advantage” he suggests that you give each other piggie-back rides to Paris and that he gets to be on top first. You spend the next two days happily driving to Paris with another friend.

Almost no theory perfectly applies to real life. This is as true in the field of auto-mechanics as it is in economics. But just because a theory doesn’t apply perfectly doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply at all. Recently, our protectionist friend Orlando gracefully dropped a lot of his crazy-talk concerning free-trade to enlighten us with some insights into the theory of comparative advantage. Having finally taken the time to learn about it, Orlando proclaimed that though it is a sound theory, it does not apply to real life because it makes the following unfulfilled assumptions:

“Goods are assumed homogeneous (identical) across firms and countries. Labor is homogeneous within a country but heterogeneous (non-identical) across countries. Goods can be transported costlessly between countries. Labor can be reallocated costlessly between industries within a country but cannot move between countries. Labor is always fully employed. Production technology differences across industries and across countries and are reflected in labor productivity parameters. The labor and goods markets are assumed to be perfectly competitive in both countries. Firms are assumed to maximize profit while consumers (workers) are assumed to maximize utility.”


While Orlando could probably pick anyone of these to nit-pick (since when has Labor ever been fully employed?) he decides to go with these two;

  1. Labor can be reallocated costlessly between industries within a country but cannot move between countries.
  2. Production technology differences across industries and across countries and are reflected in labor productivity parameters.


Orlando is right to observe that these assumptions are not completely fulfilled in real life. He is wrong however, to assume that this proves free-trade isn’t beneficial. Let us look at them one at a time:

Labor can be reallocated costlessly between industries within a country but cannot move between countries.

The second half of this statement is generally true. The first part however, is a fair observation. Labor cannot be relocated costlessly. In fact, every time an industry moves in from overseas or gets created or reinforced, actual real-life people have to leave their old jobs, retrain, send out resumes, and start all over again. What this means to the theory of CA is that the price or relocating labor must be factored into the amount generated by allowing increased trade.

Orlando is suggesting that the one time costs of moving labor to new industries outweigh the reoccurring benefits of being able to specialize in you’re your country does best. Let us be clear here: labor movements due to free-trade are one time only because they occur only while a nation is opening up its markets. Yes, labor will never stop moving to new industries. But this is not due to free trade. This is due to new technologies opening up new fields and closing down old ones. I strongly believe that if the government is going to pursue free-trade policies, it should provide retraining and unemployment insurance to the people who will be relocated. Unlike Orlando, I don’t think that a one time cost can possibly outweigh the reoccurring benefits of relative specialization. Also, unlike Orlando, my political philosophy doesn’t make me averse to using government to help out those who through no fault of their own find themselves temporarily out of work.

The second randomly chosen assumption Orlando takes umbrage with is this one:

Production technology differences across industries and across countries and are reflected in labor productivity parameters.

Let’s pay close attention to what this does to the theory of CA. If the above is false the theory states that means of production and technology will flow across borders instead of goods and services. Basically, Orlando imagines that any given product can be produced in any given country for the exact same cost. This is the exact same kind of foolishness that lead Pat Buchanan to complain about having to buy South American roses in New Hampshire on Valentines day. Apparently, Orlando believes that North America can grow roses in winter just as well as South America.

Well then, what does the theory of CA predict will happen if Orlando is right? Well, since shipping things always cost money, and since nothing can be produced more efficiently abroad than right here, than no international trade happens at all. Again, here we see the lunacy of a person who has accepted a conclusion without thought and seeks to support it by any means necessary.

By now Orlando is back to not accepting the theory of CA. “Of course, International trade will occur.” He thinks to himself, “Even if Mexicans make everything as efficiently as we can their labor is so cheap they can undersell us.” But then, why would their labor be so cheap? Why not import technology and up productions to American levels? “Because their government is corrupt so their economy isn’t as well managed and they can’t make things as efficiently as we can.”

And the circle goes round and round.


(0) comments

Friday, April 16, 2004

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and the myth of the "Hollywood Heavyweight"

For those of you who don't have anything fun to do this weekend, I strongly rebeccommend that you see "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" at your local theatre. I interpreted it as a lovely testament to the importance of not shoving unpleasant memories out of our heads, to the validity and invalidity of impulses, and to the value of pursuing ventures even if you know they won't accomplish anything so long as they bring you joy. That sentence was convoluted, but it would make more sense if you'd seen the film. It may seem like the director is being weird for the sake of it at first, but I promise that all the loose ends are thoughtfully put together by the end.

And Elijah Wood is totally hot. No, seriously. Even when he's playing a hobbit or a dude who steals underwear or Huckleberry Finn, he's terribly irresistable. (What? He was only 12 when he played Huck Finn? Whatever, dude.)

The main female protagonist in the film was played by Kate Winslet. Now, call me crazy, but I get a little confused when high-quality entertainment publications like Parade or Entertainment Weekly or People denote her as a "Hollywood Heavyweight," or, less euphamistically, a "Fat Lady in the Acting Business." Especially around the time "Titanic" came out, the media was congratulating itself for allowing a woman as "large" as Kate Winslet to be portrayed as sexy. I've also heard the Hollywood Heavyweight designation attached to Christina Ricci, Alicia Silverstone, and Melissa Joan Hart (of "Clarissa Explains it All" fame).

I'm not usually one to attack such well-traversed exigencies as the media's unrealistic expectations for its women's bodies, but c'mon folks. When an industry is patting itself on the back because Jennifer Lopez and Beonce Knowles, two thinner-than-normal-sized women, have defied the waif norm and still found success, we've obviously dug ourselves into a ditch too deep to simply crawl out of. At this point we need a rope ladder.

Almost any girl or woman (or boy or man) with body image issues can tell you that magazines and TV and movies alone aren't enough to induce self-hatred and eating disorders. But I think we can all agree that it helps.

I don't really have a thesis or solution or point to this rant. I guess I just get increasingly frustrated with the conflicting messages disseminated to young people today. (A) It's good and attractive to be thin. (B) We should accept people for who they are, even if they're so overweight that they're endangering their health. (C) You should eat at McDonald's. (D) But you should get the salad.

Perhaps I'm most perplexed by the adversarial relationship humans have developed with food. Rather than using food as a means of fueling our bodies, we decide to wage The Pleasure of Eating against The Tragedy of Gaining Weight.

I reiterate, I don't have a conclusion to offer. I just don't think that Kate Winslet has ever been too fat.


(0) comments

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Outsourcing our understanding of economics

Recently, in the comments to one of Mr. Bruno’s posts, Orlando tried to advance his belief in the evils of allowing certain people to trade goods and services (specifically, free-trade). After I tried to explain the standard text-book argument for free-trade, Orlando accused me of drinking the kool-aid. First, read up on the actual theory of comparative advantage. Now, let’s discuss:

No seriously, please read this. The meat and potatoes part is in the example in the second section. It’s really basic.

Ok, so Orlando misunderstands the process of comparative advantage. He thinks that he has a awesome counter-example “what happens when the US produces neither T-shirts nor software cheaper than India?”. Well, it’s not a counterexample. In fact, the law of comparative advantage is so impressive because it states that even in this “Awsome efficient India” world, free-trade is to society’s advantage.

Let’s state this again: What Orlando thinks is a counter-example is in fact the whole point and the reason why the theory of comparative advantage is so powerful.

I won’t walk you through the “Awsome efficient India” example because they go through it here. Orlando should keep in mind that the “efficiency” of production here is not effected by how cheap labor is. Assuming that India is better at computers and t-shirts means assuming that it actually takes fewer man hours than in America. The worker wages reflect their productivity on the world market which is why Indian workers get paid less: They aren’t as good at computers as we are.

Let’s go through his “points”:

1) “In the first place, some investment is individual but much of it is corporate.”

Orlando must be blessed with a very special ass. Answers don’t come out of my ass, but Orlando is different. He’s gifted. He lives in a magical world where the stock market doesn’t exist and where corporations in non-growth sectors needlessly plow all their money into R&D, vainly wasting money that they admit would probably be better spent researching something else. In Orlando’s world, non-growth corporations don’t pay dividends to their stock-holders for them to invest, in fact, in Orlando’s world apparently, no appreciable amount of money ever gets invested in new sectors at all. How did India get to be a software giant in the first place? Why didn’t they just keep spending money on new and better basmati rices? Tell us oh great and wonderful owner of the almighty ass!

2) “world demand for T-shirts is nothing like adequate to guarantee full-employment to India's one billion plus workers”

Which world demand is Orlando referring to? Could it be the current world demand? Or could it be the world demand after millions of Indians have enough money to buy multiple t-shirts for the first time in their lives? If Orlando’s supply-side blinders were on as tightly as his demand-side ones, he would be taking about how wonderful it would be that new consumers were being created around the world. Does Orlando really imagine a world where Indians produce goods at the level of Americans without consuming on the level of Americans? Does he think Indians are particularly ascetic or something? He would have felt right at home with those complaining about how cheap Korean labor was putting Americans out of business. Of course, those people aren’t around anymore, not since Koreas wages shot up… predictably.

3) “[India] is perfectly situated to become the T-shirt AND software maker to the world”

What, did I just step into a time warp? This is the same misunderstanding of the theory of comparative advantage that we saw earlier. Only now it’s wearing those funny glasses with a fake nose and mustache. Yes, the theory is usually only presented with two markets for convenience. But economics text-books (apparently, the kind which if you read is equivalent to “drinking the kool-aid”) present multiple industry models with the same results. Countries end up specializing in industries they are more efficient at than other industries. Wages are dictated by how over-all efficient a country’s companies are: efficiency measured in how many man-hours to produce a dollar of goods.

Orlando seems to suspect that America’s relative advantage lies in making T-shirts, which is how is closes his post. Most economists think that it actually lies in other more favorable fields. But let’s for a moment, imagine that it does. Let’s imagine that for every hour I work at my computer programming job, I produce less “goods” than if I worked at a T-shirt factory. Let’s say, $1 worth of completed programs vs. $2 of T-shirts. What kind of idiot would waste his time programming computers when he could be living the high-life with his own T-shirt company? Apparently, Orlando.

Update: Fixed now-annoying misspellings of “kool-aid”. I want to say that this shouldn’t devolve into a fight over who can come up with a better put-down. I like to write in an animated style and Orlando’s lack of familiarity with the theory of comparative advantage was very good grist for the mill. Orlando should be commended for standing up for what he believes in, regardless of whether we agree. Certainly he is much better than the protectionists (and free-traders) who don’t want to learn more about the subject and don’t want to argue. Lastly, I do want to underscore that Free-trade is not a magical cure-all for society’s ills, but I will go into the downsides of free-trade at another time. It suffices to say that the good points can easily be made to outweigh the bad ones with the appropriate government policies.


(0) comments

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Daily Cal Endorsements are out

Uh, yeah! So I'm more functional than I thought. Awesome. I think I deserved number two. Alfred definitely deserved number one.

All around, a good set of endorsements. I'm glad to see Jake's refreshing take on the ASUC actually got to some people.


(0) comments

Sunday, April 11, 2004

More endorsements!

The Daily Cal endorsement forum went swimmingly tonight, and for what it's worth, the responses I heard from the candidates helped me to make a more informed candidate ranking than I would have made otherwise. Plus, I got to call Claudia Bermudez a "big douche" in front of about 100 people.

Here are some CalJunket endorsements that I hope you can find helpful:

Student Advocate

1. Dave Madan, independent. I can mostly take Kevin's word for it, but he also offered reasonable and concrete solutions to publicity problems, and he supports a student's right to legal representation when faced with charges from the university.

2. Kevin Deenihan, Squelch!. The Squelch! party has a way of winning this office without much effort, and it would be fun to see that legacy continued.

3. Vivien Lee, independent. An intelligent woman with a sharp wit, if not the always noble desire to spread mirth. Death rays rock!

Academic Affairs Vice President

1. Matt Holohan, Squelch!. Who doesn't want to have sex with professors?! CalSERVE, that's who. Plus voting for him first isn't dangerous because, when he drops out first, your vote can transfer to...

2. Rocky Gade, Student Action. Like Misha, Rocky is a major sellout for joining forces with SA, but, again, resources are a problem when you run independently or with small parties. Rocky strongly supports student groups and publications and giving them proper funding. Further, like Misha, he has tangible plans (such as cheaper webcasts!) to improve academic affairs.

External Affairs Vice President

1. David Duman, Squelch!. No I am not totally biased on this one. In the event of David's victory, he of course could not serve the position (he's starting his MFA program at SF State this fall). But the other three candidates are so dreadfully bland or single-mided that voting for them even second or third would make me feel insincere. Pammy O'Leary, like Misha and Rocky, has solid ideas, but she doesn't seem terribly humorous. I would much sooner see her in office than Liz or Josie, but I can only confidently give one vote in this office. And my vote goes to the candidate with the cutest butt.

Executive Vice President

1. Rebecca C. Brown, Squelch!. She has good ideas for increasing ASUC bookstore revenue and for improving the seismic safety of Eshleman Hall. And she runs the coolest blog in town. And she has natural blond highlights.

2. Mo Benny, independent. He has clear-headed, non-ideological ideas to help students run the ASUC more effectively (or should I say MO effectively?). He's friendly and positive, which goes a long way in getting people to listen to your side of the story.

3. Alfred Twu, independent. As the Editor-in-Chief of Berzerk (the primarily Asian-oriented comics mag on campus), I could trust Alfred to support student groups and, more importantly, publications. His quirkiness is likable, and his sincerity could inspire student leaders to work together more smoothly.

President (revised)

1. Jake Kloberdanz, BEARS-United. (I got his name and his party right this time. Yay for me.)

2. Misha Leybovich, Student Action.

3. Dan Freedman, Squelch!. (I love you, Dan. But you're graduating. And a Jake or Misha administration might actually accomplish some good for this dumb organization. You bust rhymes like a mutha fucka, though.)

My senate pics are on the way. Voting is Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week.


(0) comments

Friday, April 09, 2004

I wanted to jot out a few ideas while I had the chance.

Fist off, I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I think free trade is totally without problems. My previous scuffle with Orlando offered me a better chance to vent my anger at people who don’t seem to understand the trade offs and opportunities involved than to put my nuanced beliefs on display. Orlando says he now understands the law of comparative advantage but thinks it doesn’t apply. I look forward very eagerly to his upcoming post. Hopefully, he will be able to explain why industrialization and mechanization creates jobs and outsourcing doesn’t. Just a quick note for now: If we are willing to invest in our citizen’s education to make ourselves more competitive, free trade is good in the long run. If we fail to make ourselves competitive, we’ll become a national Detroit (a city whose failure to invest in new industries caused havoc when someone else figured out how to make better cars). That would be our fault though, not free trades.

I’ve been listening to Air America lately and I must say that for all his caustic reputation, Al Franken is actually pretty fair on actual issues. He recognizes that people can disagree on issues like how best to manage mid east policy, but he seems to save his bile for the Republican establishment which I think is pretty right on. For the kind of partisan three-hour long three-minute hate that made Rush Limaugh famous Randi Rhodes provides boundlessly. Thank God liberals finally have someone they can point to and say “I don’t agree with everything that radio host says, but I love how it drives conservatives insane.” I strongly suggest that conservatives who want to find out about moderate Liberals tune into to the O’Franken Factor. If you want to get upset, try Randi Rhodes… please.

Also, I don’t really want to weigh in on the ASUC Elections very much. I still take my connection to the Election Council seriously and I don’t’ want to make any official endorsements. I do want to relate how difficult a job it is to actually run an election and how well Leslieanne has done in the face of adversity. Of course, I support the squelch’s right to completely unfettered free speech and disagree with judicial council decision. But, if this is the most scandalous thing that happens this election, I consider it a smashing success.

Also, “Happy Easter” to everyone who celebrates it. “Happy Sunday” to everyone else.


(0) comments

The Daily Cal's ASUC Elections Forum! Be there, yo!

This Saturday, April 10 at 5pm in 10 Evans Hall. All executive candidates (about 25 of us) will heartfeltedly (yeah, that's a word) deliver our important messages about this election to all students and Daily Cal representatives in attendance. I can only promise that five of us will deliver a message that is not snore-inducingly boring and trite. The five Squelch! candidates, that is. We will in fact be out in full force, and a good time will be had by all when we take the stage.

Speaking of the election, it's about time I gave you my endorsements. First, the head honcho, in order of favorites.

President:

1. Dan Freedman, Squelch!. A very sincere and hard-working fellow with an excellent sense of humor. And he's buff.

2. Jake Kloberdgfhlqwd..., BearsUNITED. Okay, I forgot how to spell his name. But I can gurantee he'd be fiscally responsable. A straight shooter. Very easy to get along with. Doesn't take himself too seriously. Also very muscular.

3. Misha Leybovich, Student Action, etc. He's a big sellout for joining forces with SA, but I suppose he wouldn't have enough resources to run on his own. Non-ideological. Tries too hard to make his job sound important (for example, likes to say things such as "When I wake up the morning, I try to think of what I can do to make students' lives better" or something to that effect), but he means well, and will make sure the ASUC serves students and not state campaigns. Actually has accomplished things as a two-term senator, including the Bookswap and helping to keep the Squelch magazine from losing more funding than it would have without the help of him, Rocky, and Adnan. Curiously enough, very buff as a proportion of his body wieght.

Renita of CalSERVE plans on continuing to use the ASUC as platform for non-campus poitical funding and activism; DAAP's candidate is, well, the reverse Pat Buchanan of CalSERVE; and the other miscelaneous candidates are unimpressive.

More endorsements to come, not to mention maybe some non-ASUC-related posts. Maybe.


(0) comments

Thursday, April 08, 2004

The sweet pang of misrepresentation

For those of you who read the pics on EVP candidates in the Daily Cal this morning, you should know that I TOTALLY DIDN'T SAY MOST THE THINGS THAT THE REPORTER SAID THAT I SAID during her interview with me. I never said anything about the ASUC being involved with students' private or personal lives. I did, however, say that the ASUC shouldn't spend money on state election campaigns.

Also, I'm getting tired of the Daily Cal listing the candidate pics in the same order each day: SA candidate, then CalSERVE, then any other viable party, then Squelch!. Student Action is always on the front page, and everyone else gets buried.

Here's to lazy reporting!


(0) comments

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Wheeeeeeeeeee!

For those of you foolish enough to take Summer classes (foolish like I am, that is....who wants to take 15 units per regular semester?), you can look forward to an additional $150 in fees being added to your upcoming CARS bill.

The University of California is raising summer fees as a step in
dealing with the budget deficit for the 2004-05 academic year. At
Berkeley, an additional fee of $150 for undergraduates and $220 for
graduate students will be assessed for all UC students attending the
2004 Summer Sessions. Visiting students are already paying higher fees
in the summer, and are not subject to this increase.


Berkeley Summer Sessions regrets the hardship this may create for
students. We are committed to ensuring that the benefits of
accelerating progress toward your degree and broadening your academic
experience through Summer Sessions is still an outstanding value. We
have tried to anticipate your questions--please send any others to
info@mail.summer.berkeley.edu, or visit the Summer Sessions Office at
22 Wheeler Hall.


You have until Firday, April 16 to cancel your Summer registration and get your $6 plus $166 per unit back.


(0) comments

Monday, April 05, 2004

Semi-sweet victory

The J-council has spoken. All seven of the members in attendance agreed that Rebecca Simon overstepped her boundaries when she decided to censor the candidate statements of Dan, Dave, and Matt. However five goofballs decided, despite the lack of any rules to this effect in any set of ASUC bylaws or constitution, that candidate statements have to be politically relevant to be immune from censorship. Bullshit.

(Hey, Mike Davis actually got it right. He was one of the two who didn't spontaneously decide that speech had to address the ASUC in order to avoid censoring. Whee!)

Anyhow, more analysis from Matt Holohan. Look for his op-ed piece on the topic in the Daily Cal within the next few days.


(0) comments

Friday, April 02, 2004

UPDATE PART DEUX DOT UNO

Sigh. Rebecca Simon is currently planning to publish the ASUC Voters' Guide with the words "c*nt" and "f*uck" in lieu of the words originally submitted in David Duman's and Matt Holohan's respective profiles.

Matt Holohan has accordingly submitted an injunction with the Judicial Council citing the Election Couoncil's various violations of the ASUC Constitution and election by-laws.

We very honestly didn't want it to come to this. We didn't want to have to get the law involved. We genuinely don't want to be forced to make Rebecca Simon look irresponsible and foolish, especially given that the decisions she has made up to this point regarding speech in the Voters' Guide have been made without consulting Elections Chair Lesliann Cachola.

The irony of all of this is that the Squelch! Party members aren't planning on making obscenity and negativity a platform of our campaigns. Nor are we doing anything more questionable than we've done in previous years. If anything, this year we're tamed. Somehow the computer and financial crises of last year are going to be prevented this year by Rebecca and Angel selectively and arbitrarily censoring speech.

If you've yet to do so, please send Rebecca a friendly email regarding your opinions on the topic at Publicitycoordinator@asuc.org. Even if you're on her side. She might welcome the affirmation of her misplaced political correctness.


(0) comments

Thursday, April 01, 2004

UPDATE PART DEUX

Further word on the street has it that the Elections Council will in fact be running previously unacceptable content in the ASUC Voters' Guide. Thank you to David Duman, Kevin Deenihan, and the threat of Matt Holohan for seeking justice in the face of so much incompetance and misguided ideology of political correctness.

Candidates have yet to receive any official notification, however, indicating that Angel Brewer's and Rebecca Simon's intentions to censor have been reversed.

With that in order, I highly recommend that you give your number one senatorial vote to the Squelch! Party's Ben Narodick, who is candidate #56. Under the cajoling and puppeteering of the aged leaders of the Squlech! Party (and maybe through some of his own volition), he will defend the funding of student groups and publications, and he will stand up for such essential student rights as free speech and the right to dissent. And he has a funny last name.


(0) comments

THE SAGA CONTINUES

The ASUC Elections Council just doesn't get it yet, do they? This excerpt is from an email EC Publicity Coordinator Rebecca Simon sent to all candidates last night:

This email is to inform you that your candidate template has be received, however it not yet approved....Please be aware that in the next 24 hours I will be sending mails out regarding a need for formatting revisions, additions, deletions, etc....I will email a final list so you can cross check that your statement has been approved.

No, there will not be a need for any revisions, additions, deletions, or etceteras (unless the profiles exceeded the 100-word limit). In accordance with the ASUC constitution and by-laws and more specifically the Quigley-Heilig Elections By-laws, the profiles will be printed as provided by the candidates. Please note Article IV item 4.1 of the aforementioned election by-laws regarding the purpose of the Voters' Guide:

The Voters’ Guide shall provide an opportunity to candidates, parties, proponents and opponents of propositions to express their opinions on the Elections, and for information to be disbursed to the electorate about the ASUC, the voting procedures, and the candidates and propositions.

See where it says that the Voters' Guide provides an opportunity for candidates to express their opinions on the Elections as edited and approved by the Elections Council? No? Me neither.

I'm hoping the EC is intelligent enough to provide for the free speech rights of all candidates, and to provide for them before the Voters' Guide is printed. Otherwise, the issue will be taken to the Judicial Council, the EC will most likely lose, and they'll have to re-print the Voters' Guide. Given the already tight budget, that would not be a desirable option for any parties involved.

I very strongly hope that I've posted prematurely, and that between the time that I fell asleep last night and now this matter has been favorably resolved. I would also be pleased if Elections Chair Lesliann Cachola sent an email to all candidates officially explaining that No, you will not be censured or forcibly removed from the Candidates' Forum if you use offensive or negative speech.

Depending on today's events, look for an Op Ed in the Daily Cal on Friday penned by my favorite shit-stirrer of them all, David Duman.


(0) comments