Progressive At Cal
Friday, April 30, 2004
Who Won?
All this arguing about the election lawsuits is getting ridiculous, because we should not lose sight of what really matters: Who did the student body actually vote into office? What purpose does it serve to keep the election results secret until the summertime? For this reason, I am putting out an all-points bulletin for any informant in Eshleman Hall (for the moment, I'll call him/her Deep ASUC) who wants to do the right thing and release to me the verified results of the election so that I can publish them on this blog. Anyone who wants to reach me can send an e-mail to me at jpenning AT berkeley DOT edu. (Please send corroboration with your e-mail, because it doesn't do the student body or this blog any good to publish bogus results.) Without transparency in government, including transparency in the reporting of election returns, we will never know if somebody is trying to steal this election. And that would be a terrible thing, regardless of whether the victim of the theft is Student Action or CalServe or somebody else.
P.S. Do the computers involved in the ASUC election remind anybody of Diebold? I mean, there are really big Canadian provinces who do elections with pencil and paper ballots that have released their election returns faster than the ASUC. What's the holdup?
|
When It Comes to the Rules, Davis Gets Schooled
Today's newsbriefs section in the Daily Cal has proven to be an embarassment of riches. Unlike doing things like...I don't know...actually trying to win elections, Student Action and its lackeys, Paul LaFata and Mike Davis, have usurped a great deal of political control on this campus by claiming that they...and only they...have true knowledge of ASUC election rules and bylaws. Fortunately, the newsbrief seems to show this for the nonsense that it is. Where as LaFata usually takes about three or four paragraphs to contradict himself, Davis head-butts into one big blunder within the space of only two paragraphs:
Davis said nothing in ASUC rules which requires Kroll to be given 48 hours notice, and that Kroll could be misunderstanding the rules.
According to the council’s Rules of Procedure, “All evidence relevant to a hearing must be submitted to the council and opposing parties 48 hours prior to the time briefs are due.”
This is just too good. To break it down for you logic students, "Davis says the rules say X. The rules say not-X." The conclusion: Davis isn't the expert on ASUC rules that says he is.
Granted, I'm sure I'm going to from LaFata, Davis, and their dittoheaded chorus of underlings about how I don't truly know the rules blah blah blah. But that debate is truly beside the point. The basic point is that LaFata and Davis both have a great deal of power over which students have political control over this campus. Even if they had a completely flawless memory of the rules, no partisan connections, and their character was completely above reproach, the amount of power that has been ceded to them (by virtue of public apathy) has the potential to corrupt anybody. The fact that LaFata and Davis are prominent members of the Berkeley College Republicans, while the members of CalServe are at the opposite end of the spectrum, makes it only worse. Skepticism regarding LaFata and Davis's claims to impartial knowledge of the rules the only logical move at this point.
|
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Secret Agent Man
When he filed his suits against CalSERVE, Paul LaFata claimed, "I am not an agent of Student Action." Yet, if you look at the post below this one, you'll see that Paul LaFata is now Misha Leybovich's counsel in Misha's suit against David Garcia and Kenny Kroll.
Hmmm... Why don't I look up the meaning of the word "agent" in the dictionary?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the meanings of agent is "Of persons: One who does the actual work of anything, as distinguished from the instigator or employer; hence, one who acts for another, a deputy, steward, factor, substitute, representative, or emissary. (In this sense the word has numerous specific applications in Commerce, Politics, Law, etc., flowing directly from the general meaning.)" Dictionary.com gives the much simpler definition of "one empowered to act for or represent another," which certainly applies to LaFata's role as counsel. Since LaFata is certainly acting as Leybovich's legal representative, his claims not to be an "agent" of Student Action are disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst.
|
The Further Misadventures of LaFata the LawGiver...
According to a recent Daily Cal newsbrief, "David Garcia and Queer Resource Facilitator Kenny Kroll charged that Leybovich abused his power as an ASUC official when he included his senator title at the bottom of the e-mail."
Strangely enough, LaFata argued that Misha Leybovich's spam e-mails do not constitute a violation of election laws:
Leybovich’s counsel, former APPLE Senator Paul LaFata, who fought against Leybovich in another hearing Monday, argued that since the ASUC did not explicitly give him the power to send the e-mail, Leybovich did not violate any ASUC rules.
“In order for him to be held accountable, he has to be given an authority to be used,” LaFata said. “There was no authority given by the ASUC.”
Strangely enough, our would-be John Ashcroft said the exact opposite when CalServe External Affairs Vice President Anu Joshi allegedly sent an e-mail with her ASUC title.
LaFata claimed another violation occurred when External Affairs Vice President Anu Joshi sent an e-mail “in official capacity” and used her ASUC title to encourage student groups to vote CalSERVE.
So let me get this straight. If a Student Action senator and presidential candidate sends out spam with his ASUC title, that is not a violation of election laws. But if a CalSERVE executive office sends out a message with her title, then this is grounds for her entire party being disqualified. Excuse me if I can't seem to wrap my head around the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of this warping of election laws.
|
756
Apparently ProgCal is the 756th most visited blog on the internet according to Sitemeter. Pretty good considering that there are over 100,000 blogs.
|
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
When the Hypocrites Attack
Hovannes Abramyan replied to my previous post calling him out for hypocrisy on his position on immigration. Since I think his posting deserves a more detailed rebuttal, I decided to post some supporting documentation here on the blog:
1) Brimelow, and others who take issue with the 1965 Immigration Act, do so for the following reasons: immigration levels were supposed to remain substantially the same, this obviously did not happen; ethnic-mix was supposed to remain consistent, which is hasn't; and following that, there was supposed to be an assurance that no one country would bring about the number of immigrants that dwarfs all other countries, (look at Mexico today).
This is just typical of the "I'm not racist. I just hate Mexicans." mentality that typifies Res Ipsa, Angry Clam, and the right wing of BCR and the California Republican Party. If you know anything about American immigration law, you'd know that the most notable provision of the 1965 Immigration Act was that it abolished immigration quotas based on national origins. You'd have to a seriously deficient sense of cause and effect not to realize that this would change the "ethnic mix" of the United States. In fact, the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act during the height of the civil rights movement was no accident, because the civil rights movement made it less acceptable for government policy to be based on prejudice about national origin (which is linked to race and ethnicity).
2) Had the Act not passed, it's true I may not be here because my father may not have been able to come to the country. But by linking this argument to Brimelow's opposition, you assume he opposed the Act based on it's expansion of regions, which is obviously not the case and I challenge you to show that it is.
It's "obviously not the case"? It's no such thing. Brimelow's opposition to the 1965 Immigration Act is precisely connected to its "expansion of regions," i.e., its abolition of the national/ethnic/racial quota system for immigration. Here's a juicy quote from Brimelow's Alien Nation on just that topic:
As late as 1950, somewhere up to nine out often Americana looked like me. That is, they were of European stock. And in those days, they had another name for this thing dismissed so contemptuously as 'the racial hegemony of white Americans.' They called it 'America.'
According to a review of Alien Nation in the Michigan Law Review, "Brimelow invokes the image of white America in the grasp of "pincers." He displays a graph in which whites are squeezed over time by a growing Hispanic population -- rising from the bottom of the graph -- and by a growing Asian and black population -- choking them from above (p. 63)." Since Armenia is technically part of Asia, I wonder whether Brimelow thinks Hovannes sufficiently "looks like" him.
Last but not least, you should note that the sources for all the damaging quotes about Brimelow come from the VDARE web site itself. If Brimelow isn't denying what he said, why should I doubt what these quotes say?
3) In order for your argument to have any merit, you must show that I oppose the 1965 Immigration Act in whole (including the geographical expansion of US immigration).
As stated above, the whole purpose of the 1965 Immigration Act was "the geographical expansion of US immigration." If you oppose that, you are in de facto opposition to the 1965 Immigration Act. Since Hovannes Abramyan has not directly stated a position on the 1965 Immigration Act (or even showed any knowledge of it before I posted on the subject), I think my inference is reasonable.
Your argument goes as follows: Hovannes posts on Res Ipsa Loquitur. Res Ipsa Loquitur has a link to VDARE. VDARE has an editor who disagrees with some parts of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Immigration Act broadened the amount of immigrants who could come from certain areas, including Armenia. Hovannes' father came from Armenia. Hovannes, therefore, opposes his own existence.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. My argument is based somewhat on guilt by association, but on the other hand, the California Patriot has never shied away from tarring liberals with guilt by association, so it's not exactly going to cost me any sleep at night. However, just to show that I'm a nice guy, I'd be happy to give Mr. Abramyan a proposal. All you have to do is post a public denunciation of the right-wing crypto-racist, anti-immigrant web sites linked by Angry Clam and Res Ipsa and I will happy retract any statement (explicit or implicit) that you are a hypocrite. Right-wingers often call on "respectable liberals" to denounce this, that, or the other thing to show that they are not extremist. I'm merely returning the favor. The ball is in your court, Mr. Abramyan.
|
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
VDARE To Be Stupid, Part II
Hovannes Abramyan is an occasional blogger on the anti-immigrant Res Ipsa Loquitur, which reveres VDARE founder Peter Brimelow, a supporter of repealing the 1965 Immigration Act. What's rather ironic about Abramyan's contribution to the blog is that, if the 1965 Immigration Act had never been passed, Abramyan would not be at Berkeley today, because his family almost certainly could not have entered the United States. In the California Patriot, Abramyan has written about his parents emigrating from Armenia and Colombia. Before the 1965 Immigration Act was enacted, the basis for American immigration law was the McCarran-Walter Act, which strictly limited immigration from the "Asia-Pacific Triangle" to 2000 people per year. In addition, because Armenia was part of Soviet Russia at the time and the McCarran-Walter Act discouraged immigration by "subversives," the Abramyan family would have had two strikes against them as residents of both an Asian and a Communist country. If Brezhnev had decided to do a reprise of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, Abramyan and his family would have been completely out of luck.
Given Abramyan's hypocritical stand on immigration, he sounds like the type of guy who would let you open the door for him, just before he slams the door in the face of the person behind him.
P.S. I would like to express my condolences to Weird Al Yankovic, whose song "Dare to Be Stupid" inspired the title of this series.
|
Monday, April 26, 2004
Isn't It Obvious
The folks at CalStuff are beginning to see the light. Paul LaFata's fanatical crusade against CalSERVE lacks substance.
|
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Comments Gone for the Weekend
At the request of a frequent conservative visitor, I have removed the comments. This person was concerned that his or her identity had been revealed in the comments by me. I believed that because this person uses the same alias for his or her non-anonymous blog, I was OK in mentioning the name. Oh well. Enetation is broken and not allowing us to log in to delete the offending comment, so I have taken the system down temporarily.
|
Thursday, April 22, 2004
LaFata the LawGiver
CalFiles recently posted Paul LaFata's suit against CalSERVE and I still cannot understand why LaFata has such a reputation for invincibility before the Judicial Council. The most absurd charge is LaFata's accusation that CalSERVE engaged in "significantly restricting the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on campus," because some CalSERVE members participated in a Students for Justice in Palestine rally that included a mock-up of the infamous Israeli "apartheid wall." LaFata accused the demonstration of including "a large wall that instructed a significant amount of pedestrian traffic." Excuse me, but it's not a wall! It's a replica of a wall. The Daily Cal more accurately described it as a "9-foot cardboard placard." You see, Paul, if I make a model of the Taj Mahal out of popsicle sticks, it may look like the Taj Mahal, but it's not the Taj Mahal! Same thing with SJP's model of the Israeli wall. This photo from Indybay also suggests that there was more than enough room for students to maneuver around the fake wall with minimal difficulty. Berkeley students are old hands when it comes to dodging groups handing out pamphlets and papers on Sproul Plaza. A fake cardboard wall is not going to hurt them either.
By the way, one commenter on CalStuff noted that CalSERVE's recent predicament was similar to the disqualification of the progressive Students First party at UC San Diego. Want to know what the horrible violation that Students First committed was? Failing to take down posters before a midnight deadline. The insanity of these election rules has to stop before we forget that elections actually are supposed to have some resemblance to what the voters actually want.
|
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
VDARE To Be Stupid
Right-wing Berkeley blog, Res Ipsa Loquitur, approvingly links to the anti-immigrant VDARE website. Some of the Berkeley wingnut population would have you believe that VDARE is just some harmless conservative site endorsing "immigration reform," but the history of VDARE's founder Peter Brimelow suggests a more racist agenda. Here's a letter from the ACLU's Ira Glasser pointing out several racist quotes from Brimelow's book, Alien nation. Highlights include:
The American nation has always had a specific ethnic core. And that core has been white. p. 10
Americans have a legitimate interest in their country's racial balance. . . . Indeed, it seems to me that they have a right to insist it be shifted back. p. 264
Brimelow also compared an Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting room to "an underworld that is not just teeming but is also almost entirely colored." He then ended the book by saying that immigration from nonwhites should be stopped in order to save his son Alexander, a "white male with blue eyes and blond hair."
The interesting story about these quotes is that VDARE does not deny them, but in fact has posted them on their own web site.
|
Killing with Kindness
Daily Cal coverage of Natan Sharansky's visit to Berkeley was a bit dull for me, not as meaty as the SF Chronicle's far superior article on the subject. As a comparison of the two articles makes clear, the Daily Cal completely whitewashes Sharansky's status as an obstructionist in Ariel Sharon's plans to withdraw from parts of Gaza and the West Bank, while attempting to portray him as a paragon of democracy and human rights.
Typical of Sharansky's commitment to "human rights," at a speech at Stanford, he attempted to portray the 2002 Jenin massacre as an exemplar of Israeli kindness:
To illustrate his state’s commitment to human rights, Sharansky presented the April 2002 action in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp on the West Bank. According to Sharansky, efforts to “avoid massive killing of civilians” while raiding the refugee camp to “destroy the centers [of terrorist activity]” led the Israeli government to pursue the operation without artillery or planes.
Read what a real human rights organization had to say about the Israeli Defence Force's actions in Jenin and you'll realize how laughable Sharansky's claims to respect human rights are.
|
Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't
Howdy ho! My name is Jon P, aka Jon Pennington. I'm the new mystery poster invited to post here at ProgCal. I first met Mano as an undergrad at Brown University, when the university first started installing blue security lights in response to feminist activism against sexual assault. Back in those days, blue lights were dismissed by feminist-bashers as a manifestation of female paranoia that unnecessarily scared women on campus. Here's a relevant quote from a review of the then-popular "how I learned to stop worrying and enjoy date rape" book, Katie Roiphe's the Morning After:
"The endless sex-ed workshops, the solemn warnings at orientations, the installation of campus emergency phones with blue lights on top - all receive the stamp of administrative approval. "People may have always been scared walking around campuses late at night," Roiphe reflects, "but now, bathed in blue light, they are officially scared." She worries what happens to some women who spend four years in the cloistered atmosphere of the rape-sensitive, harassment-sensitive college campus. Perhaps they become needlessly embittered and fragile through it all, and far less prepared to deal with the post-college world."
Of course now in Berkeley, right-wingers have gone 180 degrees and they are now bashing CalServe for not putting in enough blue lights. I guess you just can't win with these yahoos.
|
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
New Poster Coming
I have invited a new poster to join our ranks here at ProgCal. This person has joined the team and hopefully will be posting soon! I am unsure as to whether we'll have another anonymous poster or whether this poster will use his/her name as Mano and Paul have done.
|
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Have any of these LaFata fans actually read the bylaws?
If they are the same ones I'm reading, then the suit seems incredibly stretched... Not of the usual LaFata caliber. The relevant statues:
6. Purchasing paid political advertising, or soliciting unpaid political advertising, in an ASUC-Sponsored Publication.To show this violation you would have to prove the candidate or party (1) SOLICITED the advertising. and (2) that it was in fact advertising (as opposed to, say, an opinion piece).
7. Using ASUC authority, facilities, funds, or resources, including Eshleman Hall, for campaign purposes, including for long term or bulk storage of campaign materials.This refers to ASUC funds, and resources only. Its unclear whether this refers to funds given to student groups. They cease to be ASUC funds when we get them. Thats why, for example, SAGs can spend those funds on things the ASUC can't.
3. Persistently blocking any entrance or tight space, or otherwise significantly restricting the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on campus;Duh.
1. Filing malicious, frivolous, or bad faith charges against any candidate or party. If another candidate engages a third party to file such charges, both parties shall be held responsible;See, now this one would appear to apply to LaFata and Student Action in this case.
|
Friday, April 16, 2004
Some Comments Reprinted
from Kevin's Site's Comments
As usual, LaFata doesn't know what hes talking about.
BHSA does not receive any money from the GA. Seems like he got that one wrong. oops.
The rest seems like a bunch of petty crap as well. They left flyers in the wrong place? Come on.
Does SA really think that students want this stupid election to turn into Bush v. Gore? they already don't care.
I agree with the strategy of sticking to the issues to win campaigns. Of course, LaFata can't win on his issues here, which is why he tries to jockey around the technicalities.
Of course, as a law student, most of these election rules are totally unreasonable restrictions on free speech. I hope the ASUC doesn't find themselves in a real lawsuit soon.
The "other Boalt student" Holohan endorsed a platform of ensuring that professors and TA's can have sex with professors.
Entertaining but not very funny for the Boalt Students when facing $10,000 fee increases. Of course they endorsed CalSERVE.
|
Monday, April 12, 2004
Pam O'Leary
Just to point out the obvious: Pam O'Leary is an admitted Republican. She was in Florida in 2000.
Giving us George W. Bush: DONE.
|
Daily Cal Endorsement Predictions 2004, President
Renita Chaney and Jake Kloberdanz Toss Up.
This endorsement will take the Daily Cal editorial board a long time. The decision between Renita Chaney and Jake Kloberdanz will be incredibly hard for them.
The Daily Cal will not endorse Misha Leybovich. His once promising career has turned a shell of its former self. The Daily Cal will not respect Misha's 180. For nearly two years, he criticized Student Action and then joined it. Last year, he helped lead the nearly successful efforts to disqualify Student Action for its dishonest policies. Now he is part of Student Action. He refused to endorse Daniel Frankenstein because Daniel hypocritically left APPLE for Student Action. Now he has done the same thing. In doing so, he has given his name to the most dismal slate to be offered up by a major party in years.
The Daily Cal will be pulled toward endorse Jake Kloberdanz. He is an outsider, a plus for the Daily Cal, with a vision for the campus that makes Student Action's usual nonsense look pitiful.
The Daily Cal will probably choose to endorse Renita over Jake. Renita is the candidate that combines the outsider's perspective with the insider's knowledge of the ASUC. As someone who is not institutionalized, she will bring fresh ideas to the office of the president for leading the campus. Her charisma, witnessed during the debate and by anyone who speaks with her, is sure to go a great way toward accomplishing her goals for the ASUC. Plus, as a powerful leader, she will be able to deal with a campus facing budget cuts.
Although an outsider, Renita has an insider's knowledge of the ASUC. As the director of one the campus's extremely large and active student groups, the Black Retention and Recruitment Center, Renita has had extensive dealing with campus administrators at the highest levels. She knows how the fourth floor of Eshleman works and has significant experience working with the staff there to get her group's tasks accomplished. She is used to running an organization in trouble [in her case do to dwindling enrollment, thanks Ward] with poise and determined leadership.
The question remains, will the Daily Cal stand up the conservative pressure from the DC-hating Cal Patriot minority of campus who desperately want a Student Action sweep and would frown upon the Daily Cal endorsing CalSERVE? Or, will the Daily Cal to continue to endorse the best qualified candidates every year, even if those candidates all happen to be, for the second time in a row, from CalSERVE? For this reason, I could see the endorsement going to Jake. But I'm pulling, along with the progressive community and a hundred plus student groups, that the Daily Cal endorses proven leadership, integrity, and knowledge by endorsing Renita Chaney for ASUC President.
|
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Daily Cal Endorsement Predictions 2004, Executive Vice President
Karina Sarabia-Delgado
So, this one will be closer for the Daily Cal. Luckily, Student Action has followed the Han Hong model once again and run one of their weakest senators for the position. Student Action is hoping that the Daily Cal will forget a number of things in making their endorsement. The first thing Student Action wants the Daily Cal to overlook is Christine Lee's awful tract record in the senate as one of the most ineffective and partisan of senators. Not to mention that being part of this fractious senate is nothing to be proud of.
The Daily Cal will endorse Karina because she has a proven record. After the disaster that was last year's EVP office, Karina lead the office in turning around. This year's accomplishments by EVP include the incredible work the office has done with long term planning, such as with the MLK lounge and new bookstore [which everyone tried to ride off of at the debate] and the Lower Sproul Development project to make new student center. The office also:
- Moved Eshleman Library to improve safety and make room for the new and improved bookstore
- Increased Eshleman cage space 2 times
- Finally put together a working ASUC.org that is useful [read CalStuff for update]
- Implemented the Student Government Page
- Worked to improve ASUC environmental sustainability
- Worked to meet student demands and administration promises for TWLF
- Implemented a new course of action for the Observers Program
- Sponsored such events as the Revolution 2004 [Dead Prez] and the Night of Cultural resistance
- Gave massive support to the Hate and Bias Task Force
- Worked out 9/11 Memorial for all students
The question is, will the Daily Cal endorse Karina who has already led so much, or will it endorse someone who unabashedly wants to return to the Han Hong era of ropes and trees? The choice is obvious.
|
Why CalSERVE Will Sweep Again...
...and what went wrong in the past.
I'll take a short break from making my 2004 election predictions to discuss why I am confident that CalSERVE will sweep the elections again. There is one reason that Student Action was dominant in elections for a number of years: Proposition 209. Ward Connerly's proposition was the best thing that ever happened to Student Action, because it decimated the historical base of CalSERVE. A few years ago, things started to change. Under the amazing leadership of Jessica, Evan, Denise, and Cathernie, among others, CalSERVE began to expand so that all progressive student groups and underrepresented students began to realize that CalSERVE spoke for them. The process was completed last year. Since then, more and more students have recognized that CalSERVE represents. This year's community meeting had over a hundred student leaders, representing student groups whose membership extends into the thousands, show up and stay for fifteen hours. All aspects of progressivism were respresented: the RRCS, the LGBTIQQ community, the women's community, environmentalists, people of all races, religious groups, liberal political organizations, and more.
CalSERVE is stronger than ever and ready to take on the conservative/opportunist coalition.
|
Daily Cal Endorsement Predictions 2004, External Affairs Vice President
Liz Hall.
The Daily Cal editorial board will endorse Liz Hall with little internal debate. Such little debate that I need not spend much time going over the different candidates. Few people [if any?] on campus have as much experience as Liz with lobbying activities. Her resume boasts extensive experience working with the UC Student Association, Cal Corps, in addition to leading the enormous efforts of the ASUC External Office's Lobby Corps. Liz speaks with poise and confidence. Her experience and leadership will ensure that she meets the goals she has set out for her office.
The Daily Cal will not endorse Pam O' Leary. Most people I have spoken with honestly laughed when they looked at her literature and read the "Qualifications" section. Pam speaks of exciting the campus community, holding forums to inform students, organizing students, and so forth. One is reminded of the unreasonableness of the "One Campus" project when she speaks. However, she has never been a leader in a student organization. She has no experience organizing a townhall. Bluntly, she has no experience leading.
|
Daily Cal Endorsement Predictions 2004, Academic Affairs Vice President
Mike Sheen. This one is not even close.
The Daily Cal will not endorse Rocky Gade. If there was any doubt on this endorsement before Saturday, the Daily Cal debate convincingly settled this point. As the Daily Cal article last week makes clear, Rocky is seen by the Daily Cal as being insincere, to say the least. "When Student Action candidate Rocky Gade ran for senate last year, he was one of the party?s most public critics as a founder of the independent Fresno Party. But this year, Gade abandoned those roots and jumped onto the political powerhouse?s slate." The Daily Cal has a history of not endorsing candidates who are blatant hypocrites and opportunists. Rocky 2003 stood for anti-Student Action rhetoric and a no chalking campaign. Rocky 2004 stands for Student Action, impractical and expensive webcasts and not much else. This begs the question: what will Rocky stand for next year?
Furthermore, Rocky is the most unqualified of the three candidates for office. His only claim to experience is one term as a senator, a senator who rarely speaks, rarely writes bills, and had largely been on the periphery of the senate. The Daily Cal will most likely note in the endorsement that Rocky had no actual leadership experience, having never run an organization. The DC will also note that Rocky lacks experience with the Academic Senate, campus administrative committees, and other institutions that are central to the office. Finally, the Daily Cal will recognize that Rocky has no plans and is running a seemingly confused campaign. At the debate, he could not get his numbers correct even during his opening speech. His only concrete goal is encourage students to skip lectures through enormously expensive webcast operation.
Mike Sheen, on the other hand, is a highly qualified candidate for Academic Affairs. His sophomore year, he served as director in charge of the large Academic Opportunity Fund in the AAVP office under the highly effective Catherine Ahn. Unlike his opponent, Mike has incredible leadership experience both within the ASUC, on campus, and even in the city. This year Mike served as the chief of staff for External VP Joshi. He also serves as Vice Chair of the Berkeley Police Review Board, an astounding position for a student. He has served on the board of a number of diverse clubs and acted as president for many of them. Mike's goals for the office are as impressive as his resume. During the debate, he was able to clearly articulate specific goals for improving the student experience and education at Berkeley.
The Daily Cal editorial board will not hesitate to endorse Mike Sheen for AAVP.
|
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Good old "Moderate" Student Action, Part 2
The Cal Patriot, Berkeley's own reactionary press, has endorsed the entire Student Action slate.
|
Could Student Action's Slate Be Any Less Qualified?? Part 1
Let's compare:
Job Description: "A liaison between UC Berkeley students and local and state government"
Liz Hall's External Experience
• Legislative Liaison for UC Students Association [the system wide policy body that loves CalSERVE because after years of SA inactivity, Berkeley is finally doing something]
•Lobby Corps Director for ASUC Office of External Affairs
•Bonner Leader for Cal Corps Public Service Center
Pam O'Leary's External Experience
• None
Verdict: Not only is Liz Hall one of the most qualified people ever to run for the external office, her opponent has no experience whatsoever. Pam is an RA and a member of a club. Surely such experience will give her an edge over Liz's experience of working with UCSA, the regents, Berkeley, Sacramento, and Washington? We think not.
|
