Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Even More Fee Increases... ASUC?

http://dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=20585

When the class pass used to be a $30 mandatory fee, a few students would complain about paying for the class pass. I, for one, didn't because I used the bus routinely and at least thought they were doing somethign good for us.

But $55-70, by the way, at least how much the ASUC charges us, is ludicrous. What happened to fighting fee increases? Are fee increases now an accepted part of being a student at Cal? We paid the External Affairs office how much to "fight" against fee increases?

"I would support (the referendum) if they have to raise the fees," said senior Pammy O'Leary, a former Student Action candidate for ASUC external affairs vice president. "I don't like the fee increases, but I don't want to lose my bus pass."

Says WOULD HAVE BEEN EAVP losing to Liz Hall by less than 200 votes, I recall. The EAVP last year would have voted to raise student fees. WHERE IS THE ASUC? The External Affairs office simply lobby to delay a vote, but remember how effective lobbying is. Thanks, UCSA. Then what happens when the crap hits the fan?

Friday, November 25, 2005

Resigning on a Positive Note and Outlook

Dear Cal students,

Happy Thanksgiving!
I am hereby resigning the Abolish the ASUC Movement for several reasons, none of which are negative. I feel that the movement is growing significantly and I think it might succeed. Much more needed than my time writing (I trust DTI will do an excellent job) is time to my own things across state lines. I trust DTI, smashT, Organized Chaos and Jimmy Integrity will do splendid things and have legislation ready by the end of the semester.

I would like to say a few things. The student leadership needs to get better and not worse. We need leadership that will lead the students toward progress. I would like to see the ASUC abolished, and the only thing saving it will be improved relations with students. Otherwise, the ASUC's demise is certain.

The primary reason why I joined the ASUC Abolition is because of the actions of one corrupt elected official. I would really like an apology from this person because this person knows who he or she is. I really trusted this person and I am sad that I ever did. I trusted this person with the power of being elected and this person lost my respect.

ASUC officials, please do not fall down the path of the person I am describing. All of you are automatically morally superior in my eyes and I don't want to see any person sink to that level. I give you all my best regards.
Sincerely,

RepBast1984

Sunday, November 20, 2005

ASUC/UCSA Does it Again

Believe it or not, I usually give the ASUC the benefit of the doubt when it comes to external affairs issues because, well, frankly I don't know what they do except Cal Lobby Days and wasting our ASUC money. Sort of like how we give the president benefit of the doubt before the War Powers Act kicks into gear.

The protest at the regents meeting was PATHETIC.

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=20470

I mean, I'm of course no fan of fee increases and propose that we should find other ways to look at finding like find private sources who would gladly donate to such a fine campus. However, as I found out on CalStuff, apparently our wonderful Chancellor has rejected over $150 million in funding because the funding was for specific purposes. Thanks for our fee increases, Chancellor.

But if you take a look at how responsible the ASUC (the stduent representatives to the meetings were fromt he ASUC) and, in particular Student Action has been, in organizing these events, it's been pathetic. First of all, it was late and, of course this will make the Regents SO interested in a student body that didn't even find the right day to protest. Tyrant Anu Joshi (tyrant for her usage of propaganda and student money to do as she wishes), quoted:

"For as long as I've been here, they've always had the vote on Thursday," said Anu Joshi, president of University of California Students' Assocation, which organized the UC-wide march. "It is the first time in five years they've voted on a Wednesday."

WOW! The regents' meetings are not secret, nor do they deliberately trick students into thinking the meetings are on one day over another. The tyrant who apparently became president of the UCSA screws up again, and this is proof that once we see someone like Joshi, we never hear the end of her. She's a graduate student in Education and here to haunt us forever. EAVP Sharon Han is supposed to work closely with her. Thanks for No on 54. And thanks for the No on 73.

Yet another reason why the ASUC and all their compartment allies like the UCSA are USELESS and should be abolished. Thanks for taking our student fees to make sure that our fees remain raised. If you want a real fee cut, abolishing the ASUC will give you $55. For some people, that's food for a few weeks. For ASUC officials, that's part of their $4,000 a piece stipends. Whether the ASUC is liable for fraud or negligence it's a waste of money.

Friday, November 18, 2005

And it continues to grow

I'd like to introduce myself as OrganizedChaos. I feel that what DTI is doing is long overdue and decided to join the cause.

I know that there far more of us who agree on this, so we need to take action.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

ASUC Senators by Ethnicity, Gender, Political Affiliation and Sexual Orientation

Does the ASUC represent you?

Here are some statistics about the ASUC senate 2005-2006 if anyone is interested.

1 Arab Man
0 Arab Women
0 Black Men
1 Black Woman
0 Caucasian Men
1 Caucasian Woman
4 Chinese Men
0 Chinese Women
1 Filipino Man
2 Filipino Woman
1 Indian Man
1 Indian Woman
2 Korean Men
0 Korean Women
4 Jewish Men
0 Jewish Women
1 Latino Man
1 Latina Woman


“Continent-of-Ethnic Origin”
European-American: 5 (20%, underrepresented, Berkeley ~ 30%)
Asian-American: 12 (60%, overrepresented, Berkeley ~ 40%)
Latino-American: 2 (10%, underrepresented, Berkeley ~ 14%)
African-American: 1 (5%, overrepresented, Berkeley ~ 3%)
Native-American: 0 (0%, underrepresented, Berkeley ~ 1%)

Men: 14 (70%, overrepresented, Berkeley ~ 45%)
Women: 6 (30%, underrepresented, Berkeley ~ 55%)

19 Democrats/Independents (95%, overrepresented, Berkeley ~ 80%)
1 Republican (5%, underrepresented, Berkeley ~ 20%)

19 Straight (N/A, probably overrepresented)
1 Bisexual (N/A, probably underrepresented)

So Republicans, women, caucasians, Latinos, Native Americans, and the LGBT crowd are all politically apathetic. Strangely, Asians are the least apathetic, and are the most diverse as half the women who won were Asian. They also have the only registered Republican. Also black men and caucasian men are equally underrepresented in this sample.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Election Returns for Prop 73

Thankully, it seems like the ASUC's stupid stunt didn't affect Prop 73 as it failed by a margin wide enough that even if every Berkeley student voted against it because of an ASUC endorsement, it still would have failed.

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/mapR073.htm

But the ASUC has to realize that it needs to be held accountable to the students and not go around passing random bills they feel strongly about that don't benefit all of the students. What would have been more beneficial would be sponsoring debates and workshops that represent both sides so voters can make up their own minds.

We're not stupid. We won't be driven by, as Anu Joshi put it with the No on 54 Campaign, "propaganda". It's kind of insulting that the ASUC thinks we're so dumb that colorful signs will sway us to vote one way or another.

Update: Kudos to Matt Bunch, I hope he prevails in Bunch v. Han.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

ASUC Senatorial Antics: No on 73

The ASUC is officially endoring no on 73, based on a Senate Bill

http://www.asuc.org/documentation/view.php?type=bills&id=463

This a clear violation of its pledge to represent all students. As I've said before, the senate never asked us if we wanted No on 73, nor have they inquired to see if even a majority of the campus supports no on 73. Did I miss some sort of poll? They didn't even ask if the majority of the campus is pro-choice. If this elitist ASUC feels it can sit here and pass bills without the consent of the governed, they don't deserve to be an entity of government, period. This bill probably won't even affect the outcome of the initiative! The people already have their minds made up.

I don't care if a bunch of senators feel strongly about the issue. I don't care if they support whatever set of rights they're trying to protect. They violated the trust of the people in the same way Anu Joshi and the Graduate Aseembly violated the trust of the people 3 years ago. I don't care if this were a Yes on 73 initiative, it's still wrong.

Update: Matt Bunch is suing the Senate in Judicial Council for actions over No on 73.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Not Doing the Job

Simply put, we agree with the Daily Cal editor in that the ASUC is not doing its job in a fair sense with regard to the Eshleman library. The library that they promised is a shoddy example of student government promises.

http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=20235

Selling our student library and putting it at the 7th floor in Eshleman hall is selling the students out. The University has plenty of spaces to accomodate multicultural centers, etc. but the ASUC sells out its own students our ONLY speace for a library/student union/career center. So much for the ASUC being independent. The ASUC is losing faith in its supporters one by one.

A student government does not do its job when it claims that it's helping students by limiting the little space students have on campus, selling out to a University that is increasing its fees upon us like ranaway inflation.

Monday, October 31, 2005

Condolences and Problems

First of all, I express my condolences for Christine Dao who was killed by a hit and run. I offer her my prayers and hope this tragedy never happens again.

The ASUC sponsored event, The Prop 73 Maze, was conducted on Monday, October 31st, to show how difficult is was for a teenager to get an abortion. While this was clearly a reasonable poitn of view to hold, it does not justufy the ASUC's endorsement and spending as it is a particular stance on an issue that is important to both sides, and is very well represented on both sides. Many people who are pro-abortion are also pro-Prop 73, like myself. The ASUC is meddling with state propositions, something on which they have no affect and should not take a stance. The last time the ASUC took a stance on a state proposition, Prop 54, they violated free speech codes by allowing propaganda against prop 54 to be at the voting registration tables but NOT PROPAGANDA FOR IT. They were never censured for that.

So before the ASUC starts down the road of infringing upon free speech, they must remember that as many as 40-50% of the students may be for Prop 73, and just because the loudest activists are against it doesn't mean they are the strong majority.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Presidential Material?

President Buenrostro's 3 goals (from the ASUC website)

Three goals for the year:

1. Make the ASUC a vehicle for the education of different political and social issues of importance to the students and the world around us.
2. Encourage students to get involved in this campus and come out of their college experience as strong leaders.
3. Bring students of different ideologies and backgrounds together through fun events and programs so that they may learn from one another.

Issue 1 is very vague... how do you succeed at this? How do you fail at it? So far the multicultural center is still not even underway and near complete. When you preach "education" as a goal when you're holding a school office, it's very hard to prove or disprove your success rate.

Issue 2: how would you achieve this, President Buenrostro? What have you done so far where students are participating and becoming more active in the community? If you want to preserve the ASUC you need tangible goals and examples of success in the past.

Issue 3: Once again, what are the details... debates (like the affirmative action debate where everyone wanted to kill each other), speakers, pie-eating contests? It seems like both sides seem to hate each other more than embrace different views right now.

Reform means tackling specific issues head on. "Helping students" won't prove anything, you have to have concrete goals and show concrete examples of success, not just be the leader who smiles and gives "motivation". Your supporters want to know it all...

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

A Broad Coalition

I would like to introduce myself as RepBast1984, the newest member of the team to Abolish the ASUC, and hopefully as a moderate reformer who would like to see change and, if that isn't possible, abolition. I have worked for the ASUC in campaigns for a number of years and have made many friends in the walls of Eshleman Hall. However, I realized that campaigning for the ASUC meant endless promises and little action. As a moderate reformer I hope to create a broad coalition.

I would like to introduce some reasons why I think the ASUC should be reformed or abolished:
1) The executive offices, the administration and the Graduate Assembly take 2/3 of the student fees; only 1/3 of the student fees are given to student groups. Many groups have to grovel on the ground for money even though they themselves have already paid their dues.

2) Many student groups are overfunded, sometimes due to the representation of the Senate. Greeks and Underrepresented minority groups get a disproportionate amount of funding, and SUPERB gets $130,000 which will inevitably be wasted.

3) The ASUC senators and executives rarely, if ever come through with campaign promises. They are not held accountable for their promises (what happens if they don't come through? Most don't even run for a second term). Remember CalTV proposed over 2 years ago? It was supposed to be a project done in 2003-2004 as a TV station but instead, two years later, it became a website with video clips, something even an advantageous president could accomplish in a year.

4) The ASUC is not an independent organization. It is at the whim of the University and automatically takes $55 from every student. This needs to be reformed.

The ASUC needs reform and if it cannot be reformed it should be abolished. The students should have ultimate say over their funding and they deserve better.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Sucking in the Freshmen, Spitting out Corruption

According to Ben Narodick, the ASUC is currently trying to suck in more free labor (i.e. Freshmen who don't know what the ASUC is) from the student body with the Judicial Council, Elections Council Chair, and Greek Affairs Officer open.

Elections council chair: The elections council was given tens of thousands of dollars in the 2005-2006 budget, and every year they screw up the elections process or take up to two months to deliver election results.

Judicial Council: If anyone can remember Amaris White, she lied about her qualifications when confirmed as the latest Judicial Council member. Most of the senators who voted to have her confirmed KNEW she was lying and still appointed her to this position.

Greek Affairs Officer: This should be the smoking gun to prove that the Greeks are an interest group that is heavily influential upon ASUC decisions. It's no wonder that a majority of the ASUC has strong Greek ties.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Partisan Politics: "No on 54" All Over Again?

NO ON PROPOSITION 73

Part of the ASUC's duties is to be non-biased in state propositions, candidates and other ASUC races. This was substantiated when Anu Joshi in 2003 funded an extremely biased "No on 54" Campaign. She spent $35,000 of student fees to reach her goals. Many people who opposed Prop 54 also opposed spending money against prop 54. Still, the ASUC taking sides in somethign that, by definition, does not satisy students in Berkeley is wrong. No matter what side of the debate, the ASUC has a duty to create an open forum for students to voice their opinions.

Fast forward to 2005. Proposition 73 is on the November ballot, and the ASUC senate is taking a stance against prop 73. Prop 73 requires minors to get parental consent to have an abortion because currently, it's not a requirement. Any teenager can walk into the hospital and get an abortion. In reality, it's really not a pro-life/pro-choice but an issue of minors' rights, and contract law. This issue is really irrelevant. The relevant information is that the ASUC SENATE IS TAKING AN ISSUE. They were going to go as far as campaign against it at the ballots but this would in effect spend student fees, which would put it in the same category as the "No on 54" campaign.

The bottom line is, does the ASUC not get it? The students are tired of this paternalistic one-sided government telling us what to vote for and against. If it praises intellectual diversity (among the hundreds of things Student Action promises, it promises to uphold intellectual diversity... oh well), how can you be diverse and only allow one opinion to be voiced from the senate? Why does the ASUC even take a stance? Does it benefit students to not be informed of both sides' arguments?

Join us in protesting not anti-Prop 73 pundits, not any one senator's beliefs but the fact that the ASUC is wasting our time trying to shove an agenda down everyone's throats. They're in effect silencing free speech. On Sproul Plaza, the home of the Free Speech Movement, you will see the ASUC officials telling us what we should and shouldn't believe in, that one side is better than the other. I am personally pro-choice (or pro-abortion), but pro prop 73. I think abortions should be given with the help of those who consent, and minors can't consent. Minors should not have privileges if they don't have responsibilities. My views are meaningless, however. I would be protesting just as loud if it were a Yes on 73 campaign. 103 years of service? 103 years of shame!

P.S. Sorry for not posting for a while. Classes are difficult but I'm back on schedule. Expect a post every few days onward.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Infosession: A Breakdown of ASUC Parties

Many readers may not be fully familiar with the party systems in place. Six parties dominate ASUC politics and two of those parties are able to command the most votes. Each party is egregious in its own way but some are more egregious than others.

Student Action: The current party in power, Student Action has dominated ASUC politics for the past 10 years, with a short unsuccessful exception in 2003-2004. It exists upon a philosophy of "benefitting all students", ironic because this is exactly what it doesn't do. The party is known as a "moderate" party because of its rejection of communist revolution. Its odd alliance largely comprises of mainly Jewish, White and East Asian voters, Greeks, environmentalist hippies, dormitories, oddball progressives and conservatives. The strangest alliance is with the conservatives, who are told "vote for us because you have no choice" (we'll get to that in a second), even though Student Action has never benefitted conservatives. Under the "moderate" coalition in 2004-2005, this was one of the first times the Berkeley College Republicans got less funding than the Cal Dems. Student Action representes the most voters but never acts upon its campaign promises. It embodies the principle of resume-building for its senators, executives and countless brainwashed interns. They elect only good-looking candidates, most of whom have no backbone, and are true politicians. The girl seen prancing around in a miniskirt with too much makeup giving guys kisses on Sather Gate is always elected. The guys all look somewhat similar in different ethnicities wearing their fraternity pins, single-colored buttoned shirt and will awkwardly try and talk to you if they see you at a fraternity party, pitching their campaign slogans even though you're extremely drunk and the music is blasting Lil' John and the Eastside Boys. They will use any means necessary (any I really mean by any means!... more on that in the near future) to be elected or advance in power. They are told not to take any stance on issues but to "agree and disagree with you and once I'm elected I shall possibly impliment whatever ideas you have, but in order for that to happen you should list me as your #1 vote choice."

CalSERVE (Cal Students for Equal Rights and a Valid Education): The most powerful minority party, CalSERVE is the oldest ASUC politica party, originating in 1986. It is staunchly progressive, and its philosophy is social justice. Because it professes that it only benefits the underrepresented students at Berkeley it is somewhat narrow-minded, with a reputation of being hostile to many groups on campus, among them some groups that traditionally support Student Action. Rigidly controlled, CalSERVE senators are forced to vote with the party line in fear of being liquidated or sent to a Gulag. It appeals to underrepresented minorites (Blacks, Latinos, all 5 Native Americans), overrepresented Filipinos, progressive Whites and Asians, and Graduate Students. Slightly more honest and candid than Student Action it loses its appeal because it targets certain voters and communities. Strangely, it has been recruiting many ethnic moderate libertarian/conservatives (Justine Lazaro, Ashley Thomas) and Jews (Max Besbris) in an attempt to fight back attacks of being racist and bigoted. Of the senate candidates who are elected, all of them are extremely attractive and hot; of the executive candidates elected all of them are extremely unattractive and ugly (go to ASUC history to see what I mean). A few of their male members have resorted to physical violence or the threat of physical violence on the senate floor.

Bears-UNITED: A disgruntled third party created last year with honorable intentions, to make the ASUC more financially accountable. Each executive vows to give up his or her $4,000 stipend and give it back to the students. Unfortunately, no executives from Bears-UNITED have ever been elected due to many similarities to Student Action (2003-2004), or the perception that its head was crazy (2004-2005). Kind of like a libertarian party, it was able to indirectly elect senator Billy Wang, a liberal evangelical Republican to the senate for a third term, his first term with Bears-UNITED. He was, in reality, piggy-back riding on the party to get votes.

SQUELCH!
: The Squelch! party's platform is a reform platform with humor. No one takes this party seriously, even though they manage to get a senator elected (Ben Narodick) every time. If this party were able to unite behind a few goals, like Abolishing the ASUC they would get more support from the student body.

DAAP: Defend Affirmative Action Party's goal is to defend affirmative action (duh!) and overturn Prop 209. It has acted upon its promise by doing nothing and waiting out for conservative African-American regent Ward Connerly to outlive his term. Somewhat closed-minded but noisy, its membership comes solely from BAMN and strangely has a senator in the senate who is among a group of overrepresented students (Yvette Felarca). It successfully sued the ASUC for $15,000, which in effect screwed over students at the cost of some vague notion of principle. The infamous ethnic studies major Hoku Jeffrey used to be a senator for this party as a seventh-year undergraduate, seven years on top of the two he did at community college. Their amicus briefs were somehow cited in the Sepreme Court decision Grutter v. Bollinger, proving that Sandra Day O'Connor had nothing better from which to craft an argument for diversity than a bunch of graduate students who make a career out of serving in a student senate as a vehicle for social change.

Berkeley College Republicans
: A conservative group, this group is able to either elect one or two senators into the ASUC or get pretty damn close every election. Their senate candidate is the next in line if a senator drops out. Their influence has always been strong, but nevertheless a fruitless cause in a liberal university. At least they have a political party unlike the Cal Dems. They are always sold out to vote for Student Action executive representatives and like to stir up trouble on the sidelines. Like the National Republican Party, they don't stand for very much in general but like CalSERVE are somewhat honest in their intentions, even if ideologically centered and um, intolerant.

Friday, September 30, 2005

The Abolitionist Movement....Finally Here?

Well Ladies and Gentleman, the moment is soon arriving when you too can join the movement to abolish the ASUC. As we speak, the petition is being drawn up. Using Section 7 of Article III of the ASUC constitution we hope to get an intitiative on the ballot this spring.

As soon as the petition gets formally written and watertested, expect the petition to premiere on a Sproul Plaza near you.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

CalTV... Finally Here?

http://www.fictionfelicis.com/berkeley/

If anyone remembers the 2003-2004 ASUC election, former President Kris Primm ran his entire platform on creating Cal TV. I remember talking to then-Senator Primm about his issues. He told us "what has the ASUC done for you?" and he told em "I'm going to create a Cal-TV station" (which he actually promised me I could make an appearance on).

Now, two years later, we hear about Cal TV on as a WEBCAST, not a TV channel, but a Webcast! These conatin "clips of stduent life." Any idea of how many people use CalTV? So the campaign of an ASUC president was entirely based upon a shoddy project completed 2 years after his inauguration. Interesting.

Here are some more campaign promises of our elected officials:

Lauren Hubbert in 2003-2004 and Shaudi Falamaki in 2002-2003 proposed off campus swipes for our meal plans. Currently they don't even work in the Bear's Lair. I was promised Cafe Milano swipage.

Christine Lee promised a huge network that joined all the clubs together that would eventually eliminate a lot of flyering on Sporul. The result? live.berkeley.edu... who has used that?

Mengly Tiang in 2004-2005 ran on the CalTV platform. She proved that Kris Primm the year before didn't do his job.

Many senators run and win on some sort of safety platform; who agrees that safety on campus is better? Whenever you ask them about safety on campus and why it's getting worse, they respond with "Well we spent $XYZ this year on..." when you realize they didn't do anythign meaningful.

Yvette Felarca has several occasions run on a platform of "Removing Ward Connerly from the UC Regents." She claimed victory when he "ended his term." That's not an accomplishment, his term ended last year! Also, she claims to run on a platform of bringing affirmative action back to Cal... something only accomplished on a statewide referendum.

The bottom line, the ASUC sepnt a lot of money developing this CalTV initiative for several years and we're just hearing about its existance now. It's not even CalTV, it's a webcast low-quality mpeg. Even the Cal Patriot was able to do a better job, webcasting every senate meeting so we know how accountable our senators are.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Sellout Extravaganza

Selling Out the Students Once More

http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=19476

The ASUC sold out to the University at the expense of all the students at Cal when they transformed our stduent Union into a multicultural center that is TEMPORARY and will never utilize its full potential. Now, years later, the ASUC has sold out the very students it intends to help,

According to Calstuff, there could be possible positive outcomes:
* The space has been underused for quite some time now, and the expansion of multicultural programming brings a major development to the Sproul area.
* The students behind the MCC were the only group motivated enough to propose a long-term development for the space - it’s not like the ASUC was choosing between options.
* UC Berkeley is one of the only UC schools in the state not to have some sort of multicultural space on campus.

I will make the argument that, what exactly are we getting out of this multicultural center? We have a few posters on the walls, underutilized student services and, as I explained in my post before, the ASUC spends money on this! This highly anticipated Multicultural center has been negative for the very people who protested and striked for this center that doesn't even reflect their efforts.

Remember a few things:
-The Multicultural center sellout emerged from ASUC FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY a few years ago. They had to get out of debt, showing the terrible leadership of the ASUC
-The Multicultural Center is helping cover up the real ASUC problems, namely that student groups only get 33% of the budget while executive offices get the other 66%
-When no one questions the ASUC because they throw a little bone like a crappy multicultural center, students don't protest

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Student Groups Only Get 33% of ASUC Budget

First of all, I want to clarify that the 2005-2006 budget was passed AFTER the election, so senators who were aspiring to higher office would not be held accountable for the money this year's groups were given, albeit much lower than many groups wanted.

But how much do student groups actually get from the budget?

Student Publications: $43,683.80
Student Activity Groups: $194,680.48
Student-Initiated Service Groups: $245,105.05
In total, that's about $483,469.33 ~ half a million dollars to student groups

But wait a second, I thought the ASUC has revenues of $1.5 million dollars! We're forgetting the executive offices and "operation costs"!

Government Operations: $194,900
Executive play money. Apparently the people on the second floor of Eshleman Hall are more important than ALL THE STUDENT ACTIVITY GROUPS AT CAL

Graduate Assembly: $416,531
Notable operations: No on 54 campaign; should have been independent long ago

Operations: $139,742.50
This includes the money they pay for lawyers in case someone finds out how corrupt they are and sues them; also, BAMN's cash cow

"Programs": $218,750
This includes SUPERB, our favorite money waster; they spent more money on 1 Dane Cook show than allt he student publications put together

"Funds": $30,412.44

Total money spent on student groups: $483,469.33 (33% of total)
Total money spent on "other" items listed above: $1,000,335.94 (67% of total)
Total ASUC Funds: $1,483,805.27 (100% of total)

When the ASUC says they care about students, remember that only 33% is spent on student groups. Under our plan after abolition, 100% of the money will be spent on student groups. No more executive cash funds, no more corrupt ASUC officials and their cronies. The ASUC was supposed to be about you, and now it's about them.

Monday, September 12, 2005

12% Loud, 50% Strong?

Greeks make up 12% of the Cal community but 50% of the ASUC Senate. This includes the multicultural sorority, Phi Nu Xi, and all of the IFC and Panhellenic Council. Is this another interest group that has any significant sway in legislation? Remember the Greek Philanthropy Fund, which got $10,000, exactly what it requested in the 2005-2006 Budget. Remember, I am criticizing this as an active member of the Greek communtiy, but we demand to know the special interest ties. The following is a list of Senators and Executives who are members of the Greek community.

60% Loud: ASUC Executive Officers
President Manuel Buenrostro: Phi Delta Theta
EVP Anil Daryani: Delta Chi
AAVP Jason Dixson: Kappa Delta Rho

50% Loud: ASUC Senate
1) Oren Gabriel – Delta Chi
2) Igor Tregub – Alpha Epsilon Pi
3) Edward Lam - Pi Alpha Phi
4) Chris Abad - Sigma Nu
5) Vishal K Gupta – Sigma Phi Epsilon
6) Ben Narodick – Alpha Epsilon Pi
7) Ernie Macias - Acacia
8) Sapna Mehta – Phi Nu Xi
9) Ashley Thomas – Kappa Alpha Theta
10)Lisa Putkey – Alpha Omicron Pi

Admit It, I Was Right... I'll hold you accountable for that

I would like to think the lack of comments on my Plymouth Rock post extends from the fact that I was right. Apparently there are no justifiable reasons for the ASUC to charge entering students without consent, knowledge, or notification. I find it highly entertaining that my comments were undisputed considering some of our opponents. Clearly, no gold stars were given out this weekend. But we always have this week.

I would also like to thank all of you. You have responded positively and with constructive criticism. Your response shows us that there are people listening and thinking critically about our posts and about student government. We would not be writing without your interest.

Here are a few of my responses to specific recent comments from those who cared to share them:
-Don't worry, we write normally. We all just have different styles, last time I checked this was allowed somewhere in the constitution.
-To the person who said "But I guess that rich pricks like you won't understand how much these services benefit students." I guess it’s easy to insult us when you stay anonymous. I find it interesting when people suggest this when we haven’t said anything about being rich. We only wish to show why the ASUC is wrong, and that has nothing to do with being rich or not. Another person suggested "Gosh you are an idiot!" As much as we enjoy input, we definitely do not listen to thoughtless and insulting comments. Though I could go on a tirade and embarrass the lot of you, I refuse to insult you and I refuse to go on that level. This blog is meant as an exchange of ideas about the ASUC, from democrat to republican, liberal to conservative. If you disagree, I only ask you to think critically about what we have to say and write your thoughts constructively. However, if you are incapable of thinking critically please visit happytreefriends.com.

Now onto today’s thought to ponder:

There lies an inherent problem in the ASUC. A problem that’s apparent in most forms of student government or temporary government. The problem is accountability. One of the biggest reasons that most public officials listen to their constituencies is that they want to be reelected. Public officials want to remain in office. And in order for most public officials to be re-elected, they must reflect the interests of the constituency they serve. A public official’s desire to be re-elected and not have to search for a real job creates reasons why we have public opinion polls and have idiots who call us incessantly for surveys asking if you have any bulldogs and whether or you would be disposed to proposed bulldog legislation. The idea of re-election helps creates accountability. It forces officials to do their job if they want to keep their job.

Accountability is a truly beautiful thing. It keeps the waiters from spitting in our food. It keeps students from plagiarizing. It also keeps me from being lazy and smoking too much pot.

However we cannot say the same about an ASUC official. This is most common in the executive ranks. You know the saying, once an ASUC executive, never an ASUC executive again. Within recent history, no ASUC executive official has run for re-election for the same position. Why? A couple of possibilities listed here. One, they hated the job and are so burned out they could not possibly do it again. Two, if we suppose that the University of California college lifetime is 4-5 years, maybe longer if you don’t want to grow up and are a Toys "R" Us kid, the average ASUC executive official would not have that long of a lifetime. Considering that executive would have to spend two to three years to ascertain some degree of popularity within Berkeley to run for the office. Whatever reason, the bottom line is that ASUC executives rarely run for re-election. Therefore, if ASUC executives do not run for re-election, the executives are practically immune from public accountability. Voters would not have a voice to share the approval or disapproval of ASUC executives.

Without accountability, an ASUC executive may do as he or she pleases. He or she may abandon his or her constituencies at will. The ASUC executive is granted unnatural and unaccountable freedom, despite whatever constitutional notion of recall exists in the ASUC. No one raised a hair or gave a damn when President Primm was drunk and disorderly.

The beauty of democracy is accountability through the votey thingy (sorry Beetle) …However, what is the use of the votey thingy when you cannot hold an official accountable for what he or she did in the past year. Instead, we elect a new executive and give them unaccountable freedom for the next year. It’s a system of an Endless Cycle of Shit (trademark pending)

Okay comrades, this ends my executive accountability argument. And I know what you are thinking, what about re-elected senators. Don’t fret. I’m saving that argument for the next addition.

Happy Hunting Do Gooders.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

A Lil Trip Through Da "Programs" Portion of da ASUC Budget

Hello again chums. time to take a lil pleasant ride through da pork fest known as da 2005 ASUC "Programs" Budget. I've assembled a vewy nice lil list of items for us to perouse =)

Remember daT dis is only one part of dere budget.... dis section accounts for about 15% of da monies dey spend. i decided to start out wiT da small pork programs and work my way up to da real giveaways in subsequent posts. dose will examine da oter areas of da AUSC budget.

Intellectual and Social Community Fund $8,901.

WTF is dis fund? where does it go? who receives dis money? WTF does dis fund do? does any1 fukin know? da answer is no one has a fukin clue lolz. 9k of ur money wasted on who knows wut. can any1 say pork money for well connected insiders...

Executive Officer Leadership Institute $1500

......

Educational Enhancement $4,076.75

can any1 say pork spending? dis money gets spent on food and shiT. once again it goes to well connected insiders...

Undergraduate Student Mentorship $5,000
how many of u have benefited from dis? dis is pork money for connected insiders...

Academic Oppurtunities $20,000

same question as before... dis is pork money for connected insiders.

Greek Philanthropy Fund $10,000

hehe. dis fund is so sleazeball daT it is not even worth explaining. =)

Cal Corps $28,000

so we got... Office of External Affairs with 14k funding... we have UCSA which gets 25k.... we have oter offices in da budget dedicated to lobbying....

STUDENT FEES KEEP ON INCREASING. so for da pleasure of having the regents laf at us more and raise our fees dey spend another 28k of ur moneys. =(

ASUC Lobby Corps $7000

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

City Affairs and lobbying bullshit $4000

we alrdy have 2 student commisiones on da rent board daT get paid by da city. dey cant lobby for us? wut is dis 4k for?

Superb $130,000

finally a student group daT aims at all students..... prob is dey waste lots of money. dey spent 60k on daT comedy show last year. any of u go to it? da only good ting dey do is put on feature films a couple times a year. but dey need 130k for daT? =/

Grand Total Around $220,000... how much of it is put to good use and accessible to ALL students? mebbe 5-10k from dose movie premieres. everyting else is a waste of ur money!!!

chums, gents its time to smashT da ASUC. get rdy to sign dose petitions on sproul to put dis on da ballot.

ASUC President Not Registered Student

If you go to https://students.berkeley.edu/regstat/regstat.asp you can check if your elected officials are registered students. In fact, it's a constitutional requirement that an ASUC official be registered to serve (ASUC constitution)

SECTION 3: ELECTED AND APPOINTED POSITIONS

In order to assume or remain in an elected, appointed, or confirmed position in the Association, a person must be a registered student at the University of California at Berkeley, unless the position is explicitly designated as non-student, or - for not more than one semester - if the person can demonstrate that s/he is actively working towards the removal of a University imposed impediment of her/his registration for that semester. This provision does not apply to the Summer semester provided that the person intends to be a registered student in the Fall semester.

Manny Buenrostro, our ASUC President remains unregistered. Lack of registration does not mean that one did not pay bills (I would probably be unregistered), but that there is a significant block on one's registration. What if the President of the USA was a British citizen, should he or she be allowed to remain as president?

By the way, the following senators are also not registered:
Felarca, Yvonne (Yvette)
Gupta, Vishal
Liberman, Zachary (not a senator but I just had to throw that in there)

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Special Interests or Justified Spending?

Some people have pointed to specific student groups with direct ties to the ASUC and disproportionate funding. A proper journalist reports all data in question. This includes some of the ties to CalSERVE's recruitment and retention centers and Student Action's ties to the Greek community. Once again, this was taken from the 2005-2006 ASUC budget, which can be found at http://www.asuc.org

Black Recruitment and Retention Center: $37,480
Raza Recruitment and Retention Center: $37,230
Mecha de Berkeley: $3315
Berkeley Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan: $1470
(I bring up these two groups because they stand for the exact same thing: they are Spanish and English equivalents)
Native American Recruitment and Retention: $9,860
Pilipino Academic Student Services: $20,055
REACH! the Asian Pacific American Recruitment: $12,810

Before I am accused of being a racist, I strongly support recruitment and retention efforts, as do people all over the political spectrum from progressive CalSERVE senators and conservative UC Regent Ward Connerly. All of the bloggers on this blog are students of color and I am a proud activist in my community and I strongly identify with one of the groups which benefots from recruitment. However, the amount given to these groups questions the accountability of these groups, and how the money is being spent. After all, it was CalSERVE president Renita Chaney who commented, "If it's activism or some kind of fight they're looking for, then come here. But if education is what they're looking for, then don't come here."

Another area of interest is the comfortable amount that the Greek Philanthropy Fund received, $10,000. When all groups except a few notables were being cut, the Greek Philanthropy Fund got exactly what is requested. The Greeks are heavily Student Action. I am not an anti-Greek bigot (in fact I am a proud member of the Greek community), but asking questions leads us to possible answers.

Do these controversies show that the ASUC is in the pockets of special interests and vice versa?

Livejournal Censors Anti-ASUC Material

Hi chums dis is my first post on da blog. =)

I tried to get a debate started on the UC Berkeley Live Journal Site a couple of weeks ago. After getting mostly positive responses the moderators took it down for whatever reason.

Two days ago I went ahead and tried to post it again, within a couple of hours it had more than 25 responses but yet again the moderators took it down.

My current effort is this post which deals with the policies of the live journal moderators.

Response from some users thus far:

"Hey dude. If you want, email me the thing and I'll post it on my LJ. A lot of ppl read my shit"

"
YES, PLEASE... can a moderator please just let us know why these posts got deleted? they weren't offensive, and they were topical, even interesting."

"I give Mr. SmashT all my non-financial/non-tangible support. His statements are relevant. His facts are substantiated. And his reasoning is sound. His writing is mildly annoying at worst and comedic genius at best. Regardless, it's unfair to discriminate against a particular vernacular."

Conclusion?:

so as we can see da community is responding very well to getting rid of da ASUC. but for some reason da ASUC's fwends the mods at live journal are twying to suppress my message. dis is fukin bullshiT censorship.

its time to smashT dese fukers. go make ur voice heard on da live journal site!

"smashT da ASUC, smashT livejournal"

Friday, September 09, 2005

Numbers Don't Lie: 2005-2006 ASUC Budget

I got a criticism from my post that listed Daily Cal Articles. I've decided to use actual budget numbers ebcause numbers don't lie. You can easily download the final budget from the ASUC website (http://www.dailycal.org)

Here are what I feel are the most egregious offenses:

ASUC SUPERB: $130,000, what group possibly needs this much money?? Oh wait, they need to waste money on Dane cook shows. For the record ALL of the student activity groups are funded $194,680.48 in total.

BAMN: $3880.25, asked for NO FUNDING but got more than most groups. Special interests? This doesn't include the $15,000 the ASUC gave to them.

Attorney's Fees: $48,000, are they expecting lawsuits from their egregious behavior?

Legal Defense Fund: $14,838, didn't they just spend $48,000 in legal assistance?

Elections Council: $50,000 - in addition to wasting our money, we pay money to elect these clowns using advanced, fast, quick electronic voting, and then we get our results more than a month later?

UC Student Association: $25,200, for the record this is our lobby group that's supposed to help us lower student fees. Nice job.

"Senate Only": $15,000, what the hell is this? Do senators use money on themselves?

ASUC Secretariat: $48,500, the SECRETARIAT gets paid this!

Your wonderful executive offices. These are supposed to be volunteer positions:
Office of the President: $14,000
Executive Vice President: $12,000
External Affairs Vice President: $14,000
Academic Affairs Vice President: $11,000
Student Advocate: $8,500 ("volunteer" legal services)
(This list doesn't include chief of staff stipends, the senate aid stipend, etc.)
More numbers to come!

Thursday, September 08, 2005

From the 8th to the 5th

This was a message from the Office of Academic Affairs. This is the office in charge of making sure our drop deadlines are sufficient, basically the Academic Lobbying Arm of our wonderful ASUC. Remember, our esteemed lobbyists promised to retain an eighth week drop deadline and now, it's at the fifth week. Also, the early drop deadline was at the third week and now it's at the second. Most professors don't give exams until after the fifth week. Remind you, we paid this lobbying arm tens of thousands of dollars.

ASUC MESSAGE
---------------------------------------------

Cal Undergraduate Students,

This is the first semester with the new 2nd and 5th week Drop Deadline policy. There are some changes that students should be aware of to prevent problems with signing up and dropping classes. The break down of the deadlines is as follows:

SECOND WEEK:
The end of the second week of instruction (midnight Friday, September 9th) is the deadline to drop Early Drop Deadline (EDD) courses. The list of these courses can be found at:
http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Scheduling/edd.html

FIFTH WEEK:
The end of the fifth week of instruction (midnight on Friday, September 30th) is now the deadline to:
1) Drop all courses EXCEPT EDD courses (above)
2) Add all courses
3) Change the grading option from pass/not pass to a letter grade
4) Change the unit value on variable-unit courses

TENTH WEEK:
Students who wish to change their grading option from a letter grade to pass/not pass (NOT the other way around) now have until the end of the tenth week, Friday November 4th.

To avoid problems this semester:
1) Put yourself the waitlist if you want to join a class that is full, because departmental staff
can only add you to a class this way
2) If you do not want to take a class, remove yourself from the waitlist as soon as possible to
avoid being accidentally locked in because the second or fifth week deadline passed
3) Check Tele-BEARS or Bear Facts to see your waitlist status

The College of Letters and Science will be expanding advising hours all the way through the fifth week to help students adjust to these changes. Please contact your specific college and departmental advisors for the most up-to-date and specific information. Have a great academic year, and visit www.asuc.org if you have any questions or concerns regarding academic policies for the year.

-The ASUC Office of Academic Affairs

We Did Not Land on Plymouth Rock....

Okay ladies and gentleman, after that little piece of flowery revolutionary language, it is time to speak of the business of abolition. The business of abolition or revolution involves less flowery language. I am much more adept at writing in this style than the flowery style I published before, so I apologize to the readers who bemoaned my first post.

But going back to my post, I said I will provide reason and rationale. Translated into normal language, that just means that I will give you compelling arguments for the abolition of the ASUC. Moreover, Beetle (by the way ive been a huge fan of yours in the past), though I would love to make change and provide you with a name, I will be operating under this alias until a little bit of smoke clears. I will guarantee you though that I will give a name in the near future when the plans of abolition have been pushed forward.

And now the real reason why I am wasting your time today, an argument for abolition:

The ASUC is a student body government that has been in existence for many years. Throughout those many glorious years (I hope you feel the sarcasm) the ASUC has inherited many freshman classes, by classes I mean student bodies, to govern over. The ASUC charges fees to each UC Berkeley entering freshman class. For the most part this has been a mildly contested process, freshman have other things to worry about such as learning where his or her first class is or picking a fraternity or sorority to get drunk at (some parties disregarded the moratorium completely). Freshman have better things to worry about, i.e. housing, to even think about the possibility that the ASUC charges them student fees. Most of them do not even know that they have been assessed that fee, considering the fee is lumped together with registration fees on CARS bills. Hell, most freshman don't realize an ASUC exists until they read the Daily Cal or hear someone complain about it. And a few freshman don't figure out what the ASUC is until the campaign circus starts after spring break. To simplify, the ASUC charges freshman fees without ASUC consent, knowledge or notice.

We have a term in the "real world" when we are charged fees without consent, knowledge or notice...That term is fraud.

How much fraud you might ask. Well lets see... $55 multiplied by roughly 4000-5000 freshman, that gives the ASUC quite a bit of unearned money. Congratulations.

Okay, given the situation, what arguments can be made by the ASUC to allow them to charge incoming freshman ASUC fees without consent or notice? How can the ASUC defend itself when it defrauds incoming freshman? (I apologize for rhetorical questions, but this isn't an essay now is it?) Perhaps we can say that previous senators or classes acted in the best interest of the freshman, and it is necessary for the ASUC to charge freshman fees. But of course, the British used that argument before in dealing with North American colonies and I hope you know were that led. Maybe the ASUC can argue, that those fees are being put in good use. But then if we bring up the Heller Lounge situation, the $15,000 to a stark raving lunatic, and the no on 54 campaign, I would guess those fees are being put to shoddy use at best. Maybe the ASUC fees are needed to provide different services to freshman. HAHAHAHAHA. In that case it would be smart to say what services were being provided to freshman, how much they would cost, and then charge the freshman money. After that I have run out of good ideas...

If you or any one of your friends can provide me with compelling arguments for the ASUC to charge freshman without notice and continue to commit a version of fraud, I will be happy to meet you and give you a gold star.

I just do not see why the ASUC is allowed to charge fees to incoming freshman who have no idea what the ASUC does. I do not see how the ASUC charges freshman fees without giving innocent freshman direct benefits. I do not see why the ASUC is allowed to charge freshman without consent.

Now consider this from an incoming freshman perspective. I am sure some of you have been here for so long and are so jaded that you don't remember a time when you are innocent. If so, please try to remember a time when you were 5 and were somewhat happy. That will suffice for this argument. A freshman will soon find out that they were charged this fee, without consent. A freshman will realize this choice was made for them. Freshman will soon figure out that this ASUC government was not created by them. This reminds me of the movie Malcolm X. Denzel said, "We did not land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed upon us". This happens all the time. The realization is made every day by many freshman, that freshman did not choose the ASUC. Instead, the ASUC was forced upon them. The ASUC charges freshman fees on the ASUC notion of the best interest of the freshman, without asking the freshman themselves. How do we separate these ASUC actions from the criminal charge of common fraud?

I apologize to freshman, on behalf of the ASUC for committing this fraud.

Maybe it might be time to turn in this fraudulent organization. Maybe it might be time to abolish this fraudulent organization... I don't know, you tell me.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

A Time To Do What Is Right

I would like to introduce myself as Jimmy Integrity,

As pompous as that may sound, I can honestly say with a contrite heart that for many years I have helped maintain the ASUC as it stands now. Through my work and effort I have helped people enter the ASUC in the hope that those people would change the face and politic of the ASUC. I stand corrected. As we have seen in recent years the ASUC, my ASUC, has become an embarrassment. I am embarrassed by the institution that represents the students of this fine university, and I am embarrassed by the actions of the ASUC.

The ASUC stands now as a corrupt, negligent, and wasteful organization that remains non-responsive to the demands of the student body of the University of California Berkeley. It has defecated on the ideals of diversity and democracy.

A wise man once said that when government becomes corrupt, negligent, and irresponsive to the community it serves, it is the right of the people to overturn that government.

The way it stands, students have the right to overturn the ASUC. And I consider it my responsibility, because of my actions in maintaining the ASUC, to give students reasons and rationale to rid the university of this terrible institution. Finally, I choose to no longer to feed the monster.

It is time for me to do what is right. I shall provide reason and rationale to the revolution. I shall sharpen the sword to slay the beast with my words. And I shall leave it to you, the students to be the heroes.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Fantastic Four: Most Famous ASUC Scandals

I have compiled articles from the past most publicized ASUC flops and scandals. If these are just the headline stories, imagine what your student government does underneath the table.

$35,000 For ‘No on 54’ Campaign Breaks ASUC, UC Spending Codes
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=12802

ASUC President Arrested
Police Say Kris Cuaresma-Primm Was Drunk in Public
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=13102

ASUC to Settle Suit for $15,000
After More Than Six Months in Federal Court, Senators Vote to Cover DAAP’s Legal Fees
http://www.dailycal.org/particle.php?id=17601

Theft Mars ASUC Bookswap
Auxiliary to Reimburse Up to $30,000 Stolen From Sproul Plaza
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=17339

And just to show how bad the political parties treats some Senators,


Student Action Boots Senator Out of Party

Party Leaders Question Dedication to Party
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=17665

Friday, September 02, 2005

President Buenrostro Makes Some More "Promises" (But Can He Fulfill Them?)

(Excerpts from Daily Cal, September 2, 2005)
A Presidential Welcome

ASUC President Manny Buenrostro emphasized his dedication to representing every student at the university during his state of the association speech at the first ASUC Senate meeting of the semester Wednesday night.

The ASUC has never, in reality represented every student; 20 representatives can rarely ever meet the requirementrs of serving the needs of all the students. This has been a promise made from the beginning of the ASUC until the current day. For as many eyars as the ASUC has been in existence, it has failed miserably.


Buenrostro also said he was excited for the progress made on a final memorandum of understanding for operating the multicultural center, which he said would come before the senate in the next few weeks.


Let's be realistic. A multicultural center that serves all the students is fine and dandy, but doing it with student space that was sold out two years ago is questionable. What's going to go on in this multicultural center? Will there be lots of performances, that merit the cost of tens of thousands of YOUR dollars? The important thing to note is that Heller Lounge is no longer under student control, as it used to be.

Our mission to see the ASUC abolished can only come from the hard work of the people who respect and believe in demcoracy and individual rights. A system of government at Cal that wastes $2 million every year can hardly be responsive to the people.

To be honest, Manny seems like he really means what he's saying he wants to do. He is one of the most honest people I know in terms of what he WANTS to accomplish. This would be great if the ASUC was not an institution of power; within that institution there are power struggles. In the battles between Student Action, CalSERVE and whoever, the President has little say over massive change. Only the destruction of the ASUC can really create meaningful change. Manny's hands are tied like any ASUC president, by the ASUC itself.

Minor Changes Fixed

Sorry, the comments were deleted. I encourage everyone to rewrite their comments. Good news, though. Anyone can post on the blog now, so I hope everyone (including ASUC senators) will contribute feedback.

More on the Heller Lounge Sellout/Multicultural Center Sellout

Parties Close to Agreement on Multicultural Center
(From the Daily Cal article, September 1 2005)

Let's just put aside partisan beliefs about multiculturalism and racism and the string of topics that like to have us get riled up, emotional and not thinking. Let's just assume that diversity is an important interest and that building a multicultural center is a good idea.

ASUC officials, students and the university are nearing a long-awaited agreement outlining the operation of the campus’s multicultural center—a project that has been in the works for more than five years.

Final plans for the center, which has been temporarily housed in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Student Union’s Heller Lounge since last January, have been stalled because of disagreements over how it should be run.


If you're a supporter of the multicultural center, doesn't it seem strange how a project took five years to complete for a relatively easy to administer task? Lack of communication, anger on all sides have slowed this process down for students. Even a skeptic of multiculturalism as one of the most important aspects in our society like I said "Dammit, why is this taking so long, just build the frickin' thing already!"

Although Daryani did not specify a date, he said the major changes have already been presented to key administrators, and the agreement should be finalized “very, very soon.”

First of all, when your officials say something will be done "very, very soon", usually it means "not anytime in the near future but TRUST us, it's coming!" However, if we hope for the best it's possible that this year's administration will be somewhat faster than last year's.


If the memorandum is passed, it will be effective for between two to three years, Lazaro said.


So the ASUC, who had already sold out Hellor Lounge to the University (as we had a vacant Heller Lounge for a year) kept it basically barren and then essentially rebuilt it back to what it looked like before, built a multicultural center that will only be in effect for 2-3 years. Where is this going afterwards? How much did the ASUC and University spend and sacrifice to have a structure that willbe gone before the current freshmen graduate?

Bloggers!

Anyone who would like to become a blogger to spread the word (and ideas) is welcome. Just give me a shout.

End The Corruption!

Calling all Cal students. The ASUC has sold us out to various special interest groups. Over 100 years of "tradition" have led to student government corruption. Many will tell you that the ASUC is the "best thing for students, even if it's flawed".

Senator Narodick admits the following:
"Yes, the ASUC is somewhat corrupt and bureaucratic. But that is how any democratic government is supposed to be by design. Try looking at some of the good with the bad."

The ASUC belongs to you, you paid $55 dollars for it, and the senators spend your money on ideological issues and whatever suits their interests. How have you benefitted from the ASUC?

Every year the party not in charge (CalSERVE/Student Action) runs on a platform of improving student government. Each year, it gets progressively worse and progressively less efficient. Illegal No on Prop 54 campaign, the ASUC Bookstore scams, $15,000 payoff to BAMN, a President getting arrested and fighting cops, the multicultural center fiasco, the sellout of Heller Lounge, the bookswap "theft" (negligence), the Dane Cook Show... that's about .1% of the corruption.

And the worst part of all is every single ASUC officer and senator is NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE. They're elected for a year and their term is over. The only way to remove one fo them is to impeach them (that needs a 2/3 majority... not happeneing) or recall them (that needs 2/3 of the students voting... also not happening). Basically the only way we can have say over our senators is to 1) yell at them (not likely to work... talking never works) or 2) seeking out who's running for higher office and not vote for them.

I could go on for hours, but the important point is change needs to start and it needs to start soon. We're at the center of social change and we're letting a $2 million gorilla take advantage of us.