aggienaut: (Numbat)
   ( Beginning of this Adventure )



Thursday, May 25th - Next stop on my agenda was to to see some old friends in Seattle. I'd meant to leave the Kettle Falls area earlier but like a river caught behind a glacial ice dam, we pooled in the Kettle Falls interpretive center too long, so it was around 1pm when I finally got on the road. Doug was concerned that some of the roads I intended to take might be snowed in, which was a novel thought, but we checked online and they were all open. I was also thrilled that this trip would require almost no retracing my steps or roads I'd ever been on before.

   The road took me down along the broad Columbia river, surrounded by pine forest and only occasional habitations. At one point I passed a ferry landing where a small ferry was loading cars, and at another there was a small townlet in a hairpin turn in the road that was gone in the blink of an eye (looking at the map that must be Hunters, population 306, "a focal point of the surrounding smaller communities" according to wikipedia). After about an hour of following the river I came to where the river Spokane joined the Columbia, and here, just over the bridge, I saw signs of Fort Spokane historical site. I pulled off here and drove into the parking area. The area was sort of a broad meadow overlooking the rivers, with a few restored wooden buildings. Other than the highway there was very little of the modern world in sight. I would dearly have liked to get out and look around but looking at the time I knew I had to keep moving if I was going to make dinner in Seattle with my friends. So I had to continue rushing down the river valley like a jökulhlaup.
   Shortly after leaving the fort the road turned west and no longer followed the river. The land opened up from hilly forests to broad fields of wheat and prairie. A few more small towns here with names like Wilbur (claim to fame: crop circles reported nearby) and Creston (claim to fame, last surviving member of Butch Cassidey's gang shot here in 1902) with giant grain silos towering over them. After about an hour of sailing along the quiet and straight highway through waves of grain, I came back to the bedammed river at Coulee City, and a very long dam was clearly visible above the town which I assumed was THE famous dam, but no I see "the" Coulee dam which had flooded so much upriver is actually located upriver a bit at the city of Grand Coulee, which I had bypassed (or rather it would have been out of my way). In actual fact I just realized looking at the map that this wasn't the Columbia river here at Coulee City at all but some other river, the Columbia splitting off above here. It's highly weird and unusual for a river to split in two directions going downstream!
   It turns out the gorge chewed through the landscape by the Missoula Floods in the Ice Age is not exactly the course of the Columbia River, and this seeming river valley south of the city of Grand Coulee is that ancient riverbed, the Grand Coulee itself. The Coulee riverbed was dry in modern times until the Grand Coulee dam was built, the one that flooded everything up river, and water is pumped from it through the rest of the Coulee riverbed to irrigate farms downriver. The more you know!

   All I knew at the time was that my GPS wanted me to take a road south here to connect to the boring looking interstate 90 running between Seattle and Spokane, and I wasn't having it. Despite my hurry, it didn't add to much time to stay on on the same two lane highway I'd been on (the 2) headed West into the mountains.
   Just across the Coulee I pulled into a turnout with a grand view into the "channeled scablands" of the Coulee valley, not that I was quite sure what I was looking at but it was nice. Through rising prairie farmland again for another half hour, then following a river south for a ten minutes which I didn't realize is the Columbia again (can't get away from this thing!), across a bridge and immediately into mountains! The road corkscrewed up a narrow valley beside a rushing mountain stream and eventually passed a faux bavarian alpine village and ski resorts. There was only a very light amount of snow at the level of the highway though.
   And then gradually descending the other side the mountains unwind and peter out and I found myself coming into the Seattle metropolitan area and big highways with rush-hour traffic! As it happens it wasn't actually that bad and my friend Mike ([livejournal.com profile] xaositecte) lived on the East side of the city, from which I was approaching (for those who know the city, his address was in Kirkland, for those, like me, that don't, it's separated from downtown by a large lake)

   Mike I know from Model United Nations (MUN), (we figured out he was in my committee at a conference in Vegas circa 2003 where I was representing Libya (despite having a green mohawk at the time), and filled my speeches with fiery quotes from the Quran (which I had in hand as I was taking an Islamic Scriptures class). Mike previously lived in Portland (or rather the "Vancouver" thats just beside PDX), and I think last time I saw him was when I crashed at his place the night before first joining the tallship Lady Washington there in 2009. He is, I believe, some kind of (software?) engineer, and his wife/and/or/girlfriend is a teacher (I really should take notes I suppose, given my memory). He had an adorable dog that I feel like was a pit / corgi cross or something? Is that a thing?
   We had made dinner plans with another MUN friend, Sameer, nearby. Sameer and I were jointly in charge of the America Pacific (Ampac) conference in Southern California in 2007. I was the Secretary-General, which in most MUN organizations would be the highest position, but this organization, PAXMUN, had Governor-Generals whose duties were supposed to be more over-arching while the SG was supposed to be in charge of more of the details. As it happens, Sameer appeared to totally not remember that he had tried to fire me (but failed because he tried to do so by email during a PAXMUN conference I was present at, along with all the board, and he was not, so they were very easily persuaded that I shouldn't be fired). Despite that we got along alright with no hard feelings, after all this is MUN, intrigue is in our blood, and diplomacy is the name of the game.
   Shortly after our conference, a coup d'etat had taken place on the board, wherein a certain power-hungry member (whom I shall name because their perfidy should stick to them, it was Mary McKenzie of one of the San Diego universities) through maneuvering (Sameer finally filled me in on a number of the sordid details during dinner) managed to fire the chairman of the board and other key opponents, and then went about cleaning house and in a flood of blacklisting got rid of most staff associated with the old regime, including my humble self (Sameer survived another year just because Governor-Generals had multi year appointments), and... did something new and shiny rise from this dripping scoured desolation? No she managed to run PAXMUN right into the ground in a stunning nosedive that saw it completely cease to be an organization within two years. Its a real shame -- I probably would have ceased being involved anyway since I had just graduated college, but its a shame its gone because it ran most of the big conferences in the the Southwestern United States (Ampac in LA, Amwest in Vegas, Amsouth in New Orleans, and several smaller ones) and Mary destroyed it like a toddler smashing a toy just to see what'll happen.
   Anyway, Sameer, Mike and I had a grand old time reminiscing about the antedeluvian days of yore. Sameer had gone on to run a Seattle based conference that he's still involved in to this day.

   Mike had a guest room so I didn't even have to sleep on a couch AND, a true hero of the people, he made biscuits and gravy and bacon for breakfast (he seemed particularly outraged when I described the lack of real bacon in Australia and valiantly brought forth some very high quality delicious bacon). And then as he headed off to work in the bright morning light I was headed north to a land of beautiful seaside towns I had visited during my life as a sailor and... ex girlfriends ::dramatic fade::

TO BE CONTINUED!

aggienaut: (Fiah)

   Something kind of horrible happaned over at [livejournal.com profile] ljshootout. The final poll had closed late because I was caught in that storm, and when I came back I was under enough heat so I just closed it immediately and since it was a tie we went to a runoff.

   ...and I didn't get around to looking for fake accounts voting. Well just now, right before announcing the season winner, I thought I'd spot check a few names I didn't recognize. Aaaand well.... it turns out there were a LOT of fake accounts voting. 21 to be exact.

   With these fake votes discarded the results of that vote and the subsequent runoff may well be completely different. So it's a dilemma.

   I posted a poll over at the community but it's community-only (in retrospect I should have made it open so I could ask you guys to vote too). And I don't have a paid account anymore so I guess just answer in comments. I could really use some guidance on how this should be resolved:

(1) Should these usernames be discarded from the poll?
(A) Yes
(B) Yes with a specific exception I will tell you about in comments
(C) Yes but unfortunately the poll already took place, make no changes to who remains in
(D) No, end of story.

(2) Assuming the votes are discarded...
(A)Consider the runoff poll to be against whichever two actually survived the adjusted poll
(B) Consider all three to be in for the runoff poll
(C) Do not change who went on to the runoff poll
(D) If it's not a tie do not consider the runoff to have occured at all!


***EDIT - There seems to be a general consensus the names should be discarded so that's no longer a question. HOWEVER, since there was a vote after this one (the messed up vote was the "final" but it was between three people and then there was a runoff), and especially since the runoff only occurred because there was a tie, there's still a totally open question as to how the runoff should be counted.

The main options seem to be to either run the runoff between the two top people who came out of the now-adjusted final poll (all three of them had pictures in the runoff, the already-eliminated person just couldn't win), or not count the runoff as happening at all. The argument in favour of the runoff itself being discounted is that it wouldn't have occurred if there wasn't a tie. The argument in favour of counting the runoff is that, well, it DID occur, and is an otherwise valid poll. Opinions greatly appreciated.

aggienaut: (ASUCD)

   It's that time of the week! LJ Idol polls are up, and that means its also time for my weekly drama-que (polls will be closed already by our usual time of Sat morning). So throw some OMG-weiners and WTF-burgers on the grill, crack open a nice cold can of STFU and pull up a chair!

[Poll #1359752]
See also my homegame entry: Dream Home

Recommendations )



Weekly Drama-Que )

aggienaut: (santa hat)
   One of the LJ Idol topics this week is "Irish Revisionist History." I'm sure most (all) of you have dismissed this out of hand as ridiculous. I, of course, was all about it. But then I decided I don't actually feel like writing about it, but here's what it is:

Perhaps revisionism is more easily identified where one historical interpretation has very high political/moral stakes attached to it. We all know what "Revisionism" means in relation to the history of World War II and the Holocaust. In Irish history, revisionism began by challenging the "Irish-Ireland" tradition of history, which claimed the Irish people are a unified Celtic nation oppressed throughout their history by English/British imperialism. Revisionists questioned, among other things, the mythological scope of Irish suffering, and employed statistical methods to analyze the 1845-51 famine. They were deeply criticized by historians and politicians for this, accused of sucking the blood and heart out of Irish history and stealing the Irish story from Ireland's children. More recently, though, historians have begun using revisionist methods to verify that, in fact, Irish suffering during the famine was just about as extreme as traditionally held. The April 1996 issue of The Journal of British Studies contains several articles on trends in British and Irish revisionism. - Source

   So there you go. Irish history, revisioned, and unrevisioned. Turns out we did suffer Just That Much. And, personally, I still haven't forgiven Cromwell and throw mud at his memory every chance I get.

Topic 2: Holidays
   As sort of a piece of performance art blogging, I bring you the entire (comments included) wildly unofficial totally unindorsed nothing-to-do-with-lj-idol greenroom-like Holiday Party post I made. There was glögg, there was some kind of delicious looking Australian cake, there was [livejournal.com profile] superhappytime never showing up despite a young lady waiting for him under the mistletoe. There was pin-the-wreath on [livejournal.com profile] clauderainsrm. There apparently was also a major major scandalsplosion regarding it. I'd just like to reiterate for the record that I had no intention to hijack the Green Room (tm), and was using greenroom in strictly a non-proper-noun sense.


   And now, I'm off to Nor Cal! ::jumps in sleigh::

aggienaut: (gavel)

   In my five years of involvement in ASUCD, I have seen a lot of extremely shady antics. As I’ve mentioned before, I do not believe power corrupts, I believe power allows the already-prone-to-corruption to show themselves. There are a lot of scandals in real government, and students love to point these out – but what most people don’t realize is that its not because the people involved in our government are more prone to corruption than your average person – its that they have much greater opportunities (and are under much much greater scrutiny, thus revealing every indiscretion).
   That said, I believe what ASUCD does is show us how badly your average ambitious person behaves when given a little bit of power. Or at least, when not behaving downright badly, it really exhibits how much their perspectives change to what is convenient for them.


The Good List
   Unfortunately, those with exemplary good ethical standards don’t necessarily stand out the way bad ethics do. I would like to start on a good note however, by mentioning those who have impressed me with their ethics:

Surprisingly Admirable:
(ii) Ari Kalfayan )


(i) Nafeh Malik )


Exemplary Nonstudents:
(ii) Don Dudley, SJA & CJB )
(i) Mark Champagne )


Actually Exemplary:
(5) Go Funai )
(4)
& (3) Justices Powers & Wheat )
(2) Jon Leathers )
(1) Aggie Editor-in-Chief Matty Jojola )



   It should be noted, that I cannot account for the most EFFECTIVE people in ASUCD, since I am not in a position to judge how well people are running the busses or running GASC etc etc. The above is a list of those who have had the opportunity to show exemplary ethics (or at least, for the group above that, have more value than people give them credit for). And below, below is a list of the most lacking in ethics.


ASUCD’s Most Ethically Misguided

Mildly Annoying:
(iv) Paul Harms )
(iii) Kalen Gallagher )
(ii-i) Sara Henry & Paloma Perez )

Ethically Dysfunctional:
(22) Thomas Lloyd )
(21) Anyone who, during their term, abandoned or defected from the platform they were elected on )
(20) Jamie Ackerman )
(19) Chris Goran )
(18) Mary Vasquez )
(17) Aggie Reporter Talia Kennedy )
(16) Aggie Reporter Aimee Theron )
(15-11) Aggie Editor-in-Chiefs Vo, Whelan, Fuller, Stone & Hamilton )
(10) Andrew Peake )
(9) Kai Savaree-Ruess )
(8-6) The Unqualified Candidates )
(5) Rob Roy )
(4) Kristen Birdsall )
(3) Chief Justice Turner )
(2) Vice President Beaman )
(1) Tiqula Bledsoe )
(BONUS) Bonus! )



   And now… I probably have significantly more enemies. It should be noted that I think many of the people mentioned above are very nice people in general. In particular I feel a bit torn about the “Unqualified Candidates” themselves because they all turned out to be pretty nice people and kept themselves out of any further shadiness that I know of, but it would be hard to justify not including them on the list.
   Anyway, my hope in posting this is that people who are just becoming involved in ASUCD will read it and keep in mind what NOT to do in the future.

aggienaut: (Default)
I found out Matt snuck off and had a burrito with Isabelle, that skank, yesterday! What a traitor!
aggienaut: (nuke)

   I've been trying to resist blogging about this particular scandal for days, but as it continues to erupt I can no longer resist.

   Recently, the UC Davis Campus Media Board1 appointed the new California Aggie Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 year: Sports Writer Eddie Lee.
   Current Editor-in-Chief Peter Hamilton shortly fired sports writer Eddie Lee. The charge was plagerism. Presently, despite currently fired status, Lee is still lined up to become the next Editor-in-Chief.
   Today a letter surfaced signed by 31 staff members of the California Aggie. It alleges that current E-in-C Hamilton fired Lee because he wanted Campus Editor / Features Editor Talia Kennedy (whom he is having a thinly disguised secret relationship with) to become the next E-in-C.
   Additionally, in the letter, the staff demanded an explanation for over a thousand dollars that are unaccounted for from Peter & Talia's trip to the California College Media Association awards banquet, calling it "tantamount to embezzlement."
   In response, Hamilton has asked for the resignation of all 31 signees of the letter.


   Talia Kennedy is also noted as, while the Aggie reporter assigned to cover ASUCD, having allegedly mated with ASUCD Senator Darnell Holloway. ASUCD history repeats itself.


   Incidently, the E-in-C previous to this, Matty Jojola, is the only one in known memory to have not been involved in a major shame filled scandal. Gold star for you Matty.
   The unfortunate history of Aggie Editor-in-Chiefs is recounted by the illustrious former Chief Justice Fricke in the Case 29 Opinion:

"Currently the Aggie Editor-in-Chief poses a more significant threat to the Aggie than the ASUCD government does -- As highlighted by the recent resignation of Editor-in-Chief Stone over allegations of abuse of power, the near mutiny of editors against last year’s Editor-in-Chief Fuller, the loss of lawsuits by the previous year’s Editor-in-Chief Vo, etc etc." Laabs vs California Aggie ASUCD Supreme Court, Case 29, 02/21/06 (p8)

   In the opinion, the ASUCD Supreme Court noted that the current set-up in effect resulted in ASUCD passing the buck of authority unto the Media Board, who thereupon passed the buck to the Editor-in-Chief, leaving the E-in-C essentially unchecked and free to make the basement a kingdom unto himself (/herself).

   While it wasn't the Courts place to recommend a solution to that problem, it did seem to be that a good solution would be to make the Editor-in-Chief share authority with the two most senior other editors. This way they would be prevented from firing people on a whim, getting into bad contracts that no one besides themselves think are a good idea, and the numerous other hijinks Editor-in-Chiefs have gotten themselves into lately. On any account if the Media Board had bothered to read the Court opinion I'd like to think it might have occured to them that the system needed some kind of fix.


1 The Media Board is a board of miscellenious persons from University Administration or student media organizations, to which the ASUCD government has delegated governing authority for the ASUCD-run media units (KDVS & the Aggie) in order to provide some separation between the sordid politics of ASUCD, and the sordid politics of campus media.


See Also
The "Budget Hearing Scandal" - What began with mere accusations of people attending budget hearings while high eventually expanded to exposing intricate plots involving dirty secrets and sex.

aggienaut: (Default)
Wow that was some crazy drama. I can't believe I'm still alive.
aggienaut: (asucd)

   Just two more things on the ASUCD situation: (1) Its not democracy if you don't know important details about what you're voting for. I mentioned this passingly the other day, but since then its occured to me that its actually pretty important, considering that the rallying cry of the Senate is "this is the democratic way" and "they were elected!" (2) (i) [livejournal.com profile] senatorroy says "Kareem was sent to SJA due to a grammatical error within an essay. He forgot to put quotation marks around a quote but he still sited the source giving the website where he got it word for word. But the professor was a hardass and sent him to SJA. Natalia was caught drinking in the dorms." (ii) in response, Elections Committee Chairman Leathers says "Because of an agreement I made with Kareem and Natalia, I'm not going to publicly state what exactly they were put on probation with SJA for, but the reasons listed above are not the reasons given by SJA." (iii) SJA in my experience has always been extremely lenient. Of cases I have known to go there, they've always resulted in the most minimal / understanding arrangement that could have been expected; (iv) in conclusion, we still don't know the full story. I don't want to hear it really, but (v) the student body clearly showed in the Ackerman case that they did not want a senator who had committed an unethical act, so (vi) I think one can pretty reliably say that if people had known the full story, these individuals would not have been elected. (vii) which once again isn't to say I'm against them specifically being placed into office, but I'm seeking to deflate another ridiculous misconception that is being bandied about.


And Now For Something Completely Different - The Dishwashing Deficit
   I always do dishes by hand because the dishwasher doesn't do the best of jobs. As such I tend to ignore the dishwasher completely. My two roommates, like normal people, like to let the dishes pile up until they can run the dishwasher. Possibly because whenever I do my dishes I try to do one or two more than I made dirty, so as to ensure I'm not running a net cleaning debt, and because I'll just start doing dishes if the pile in the sink has gotten so large I can't use it anymore, I have a feeling I'm doing most of the dishes around here and the other two are growing just to rely on me cleaning the dishes they leave in the sink.
   Some people (mostly on TV it seems) allegedly have jars in which they put a small amount of money every time they do something they're trying not to do, like curse. Phi Alpha Delta has begun collecting money from people who come to meetings late. It occured to me that theoretically one could require that persons depositing dishes into the sink to deposit something like 10 cents per dish into a nearby jar, and persons cleaning dishes could extract the equal amount. This way there's at least a slight motivation to do as many dishes as one makes dirty, or at least one is more aware of their net impact.

Picture of the Day
My camera appears broken -- has refused to open the lense for several days. )=

aggienaut: (clinton)

   So as you may have gathered we had a bit of a debacle in Senate on Thursday. The novel-length account of the situation can be found on daviswiki, or a shorter summary can be found in someone's livejournal here (though note that the candidates are allegedly on disciplinary probation, not grade-related academic probation -- see my comment if you read the entry for further explanation).

Prologue
   Basically, though it was discovered that some candidates were on disciplinary probation (ie plead guilty before SJA for some kind of ethical or criminal lapse), once they'd been elected but before taking office, they had survived what was supposed to be a verification of disciplinary probation earlier because due to some kind of miscommunication they weren't reported as on probation. The question came to the Court to decide whether or not the verification had taken place, or should be done again.
   The seating of senators was delayed while everyone waited for the Court to hear the case, and the outgoing Senators remained in office for two additional meetings because Senate met on the last day of fall quarter and first day of winter -- and the Court needed three days notice to have a hearing. When the Court did meet, it was discovered that quorum could not be met because Justice Johnson had neglected to inform anyone that he no longer attends UC Davis. Anyway, I decided to hold the Hearing and then have Senate decide if it was legitimate before the ruling was announced. Plaintiff and Defence did not object to this arrangement prior to the hearing; both sides objected following the hearing. Which brings us to last night:

Extraordinary Session of ASUCD Senate of 12 January 2006
   The Senate rejected the legitimacy of the hearing, insisting that quorum rules are there for a reason. They then held a lengthy closed session during which they all tried to escape through the window and determined that election rules are not there for a reason, and eliminated the requirement that candidates not be on disciplinary probation. They further removed the Elections Committee Chairman from the certification process --because he didn't agree with their actions--, thereby breaking with all precedent (all political elections in the United States are certified by the elections administrater). While they were working on this bill during the closed session, however, the Court had been convened across the hall. Once the Senate read their bill (SB 36), the Court read the order they had just completed themselves:

It has been argued that Judicial Code Three Section 301 could literally be interpreted to grant quorum during the hearing. The Court rejected this as against the Spirit of the bylaws.

Senate appears now to be seriously considering overriding bylaws to accomplish the opposite of their spirit.

If the Senate does this, the Court's objection to the literal interpretation of section 301 will be overridden. Quorum will immediately and retroactively be considered to have existed during the hearing. It's opinion will immediately be official and binding.
   This makes what happened next very complicated. The Senate passed their bill, thereby retroactively making the Court's opinion binding before the bill was signed into law by the president. The Senate immediately steamrollered everything by having the President sign their bill before the opinion could be published. They then seated the candidates in accordance with their Final Solution, including those allegedly ineligible.

Discussion OTI*
   At the time and since then, representatives of the Senate have repeatedly stated that they had no better solution, that "we're damned if we do and damned if we don't." This statement is essentially a lie, as they had numerous better solutions. There are even solutions wholly within the existing bylaws if you discard their imagined assertion that they'd be out of office after that meeting and ASUCD would therefore dissolve (though this was the third meeting since their terms would have ended, what was special about this meeting?) -- in every case in the real world incumbent officials remain in office until replaced, so there's really no grounds for them to create a crisis over it. I go into detail about the numerous other alternatives here. The debates that have ensued since then have interestingly consisted of real people with real livejournals arguing that what the Senate did is wrong, and anonymous commenters defending the Senate's action.

Also During the Session
   To address another point that I didn't address before, some senators have defended their actions as being in the name of democracy. Democracy according to the American model is democracy hinged upon respect for the qualifications that have been set forth for office already. If someone ran for US President and won, and only then did we discover that he was born in say Austria and therefore not eligible, would we eliminate the requirement that he be born in the United States?? Senator Roy would have us do that, but I don't think the rest of us would be much pleased. Furthermore, in this case I'm supposing we somehow didn't know the candidate was born in Austria during the election -- if we at least knew he had been when we voted there might be some claim to seating him. When you don't know nearly the complete story when you vote for someone, thats not your democratic choice at all.

   Also of note, some such as senate candidate (now ostensibly senator) Sanders, claimed that the very lack of a public outcry was justification for the Senate's actions. I'd like to propose that there wasn't an outcry because people had been awaiting the Court verdict and didn't expect something so extraordinary to occur that night. Sanders pointed to the opinions of two gentlement wearing Delta Chi shirts as representing the student body, as they were the only students other than the Court and Elections committee who were still there after five hours or so and expressed an opinion. On a larf I immediately checked the Daviswiki Delta Chi page and found pictures of both Senator Thomas "I hate Livejournal" Lloyd and Sanders himself smiling back at me.

   I thought it was weird that I was updating from the third floor while things were going on ... but at least three people elsewhere on the floor NOTICED and came by to say they noticed. Now thats just silly.

   Anyway, I really didn't want to summarize everything again but people were actually asking me when I was going to make an official entry about it. What happens now largely depends on the public reaction to the news (Senate defenders are falling back on "no one cares!"). I think we're all dying to know how the Aggie will cover the story on Monday.

Discussion IRL*
   Last night (Friday night) while at Cafe Bernardos, a number of people asked me what was going on or volunteered their outrage at the Senate. Later when I went to the party at Dan Masiel's house, I was greeted with "why couldn't you guys just make quorum!?" so I'm assuming someone had been praising the virtues of the Senate there earlier.


Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Thursday:
The Soviet Legacy - I post the first "picture of the day," and link to a paper I wrote about the country of Georgia. A year ago today they adopted their current flag, the Five Cross Flag.
   Two Years Ago Today: Case # 23 Filed - And the Student Gov't Administrative Office refuses to do any administrative work for the Court. What is it they do again? Such problems have completely disappeared however with the elimination of Vicki Swett
   Year Ago Thursday: Confessions of a Campaign Manager - George Andrews, campaign manager of Michael Dugas' admits that elections are won through "evil phone banks and evil phone calls."
   Year Ago Today: Resigning Senators - The Campaigning in the Dorms Controversy ends with the resignations of the accused Senators, despite the fact that they were "democratically elected" -- too bad they didn't have Senator Lloyd thinking of loopholes back then, I mean, requiring candidates not to break University regulations is really a detriment to the democratic process as well.

aggienaut: (WTF)

   So its been like two weeks since I've had time to make a livejournal entry, this is surely some kind of terrible terrible record. And even now I don't have much time at all. So just a quick update here.

   MUNgate: recent developements on the MUN front: Under-Secretary-General Rinaldi resigned upon the discovery that former Secretary-General Myung and others were maliciously spreading rumours about her with intent to bring about her utter character assassination. Character assassination like the bombing of the UN HQ in baghdad -- if it had been done by the unfortunate mission director's best friends. While doing so Myung notes* that she must appear uninvolved so she can count the MUN ballots and congradulates co-conspirator Shemek on similarly avoiding suspicion while gaining the other ballot counting position. Go team!

   But to be fair, two current law students, former members of MUN, have come out in support of the current MUN administration. Read their perspective here. In addition to these weighty counter-arguments, Myung herself commented, and, possibly doing more damage to their cause than help, member and former SG Janet Rossi made an amusing comment. Rossi argues that the fact that $20 dinners have only about a fifth of the turnout of lower cost dinners may be not because the rest can't afford it, but because only those who are friends with the others on Secretariat go to the expensive dinners. Yes Janet, you might be right, that might have something to do with it, but I think that portrays it a lot worse than the simple "only those who can afford it" theory.


In Other News
   Yesterday the BBC called me to ask about a US Supreme Court case. True story. It was because I'm listed as a contact for the AGnostic & Atheist Student Assn (AGASA), and it was the 10 Commandments case.

   Currently one of my papers about Chechnya is being discussed at an international relations conference in Texas. I feel special.


Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Today: UCBMUNC '03 - and IHOP adventures. Missed the first day of Berkeley because I had work. Learned today actually that some people thought I forgot about UCBMUNC the first day. Yeah not so much, I'm the only one who actually spends the whole time in committee. Who was the only one of our 37 people to win an award this time? Yeah that would be me, and I don't forget about MUN conferences.


*source: an accidently intercepted AIM conversation. Seriously if you are planning on backstabbing someone, don't leave the conversation up on a computer they use. Excerpt about the fraudulent election aspirations:
amazonjedimaster: no
amazonjedimaster: then i might be tainted
amazonjedimaster: for the election-ness
PrzemekP: yeah, well, I worked on her and Priya on the way over
amazonjedimaster: so far there is not a peep from gena about getting you on the elections -vote counting-ness

aggienaut: (fiah)

   Daviswiki officially has the Aggie's pictures of the upcoming ASUCD presidential candidates up before the Aggie does, such sauce!


   Today user "SenateScandal" started commenting again on the contentious "Budget Hearing Scandal" (which I believe had been deleted previously). This time the situation became even more apocalyptic than before, with user "DPSforLife" eventually posting serious incriminations against most of the members of Senate (note, anonymous names such as these are extremely rare). Just a FEW of these allegations (quoted verbatim) are (and keep in mind I make no claims whatsoever on the veracity of any of these):

  • Former Senator Sean Ruel is a former drug dealer, has used steroids, beat his former girlfriend, and snorted cocaine on regular occasions.
[other reports indicate he sold people patently bad drugs]
  • Adam Barr had an intimate relationship with former Aggie reporter Aimee Theron
  • Donald Cohen-Cutler had an intimate relationship with former Aggie Reporter Aimee Theron, hmm media bias maybe.
  • Paloma Perez is heavily involved in Swords and Sandals, and smoked marijuana during the student funded ASUCD retreat. She also has a clitoral peircing.
  • Former president Sarah Henry frequently used the executive office on the 3rd floor of the MU to have sexual intercourse with several ASUCD members including former senators. She is also a member of Swords and Sandals.

  •    The entry has since been deleted. If it has been resurrected, it would be here.

       This posting caused such a stir that not long after the editing began I received a frantic call from the senate office on campus from a Senator who wanted to know what I knew about the situation and the legality of it all. Apparently over on the third floor the entry had caused mass panic.
       Incidently at this moment Senate has just begun for the day. For once I have no business there and can actually make use of my Thursday evening. I'd like to see the current state of everyone though (keep in mind nearly all of them were named in a devastating way in the entry).

       A major continuing topic of discussion on that page is why the Aggie never picked up on the Budget Hearing Scandal (that certain Senators smoked the cannabis during budget hearings). One source associated with the aggie points out this timeline:
    1. While Aimee
    [Theron] was at The Aggie, she covered senate stuff, including the meetings
  • We did try to gather enough evidence to do a solid story on this, and Nafeh came in for a one-on-one with a manager
  • The story died
  • [see allegations 2 and 3, above]
  • Aimee no longer works at The Aggie


  •    Also this whole thing caused me to make a nerdy entry on the Wiki Ethics page (currently last entry - look for US v Spinelli in bold).


       Also Dyanna Quizon is back on the list of people allegedly involved in the Budget Hearing Scandal.

    aggienaut: (Default)

       So yesterday around 11:30pm I decided to acually go for a run. As I was egressing my apartment lair I noticed a couple (college students, trendy ones) sitting in front of the next apartment over, talking quietly and looking very grave.
       Anyway I scampered down the 100 yard dash I make daily to the bus stop, and then down out into the fields down "Olive Tree Lane" - this little paved lane that heads from a giant victorian house I believe is the local original farmhouse (it looks the classic haunted house) out into the fields. The lane is lined, shockingly enough, by olive trees, and was so dark placing each foot in front of the other was really just a matter of faith that there was actually more pavement there and not some large object. Then I ran along this road out there among the fields - not more than 400 yards from my inhabitation and I was running between cornfields, with the smell of tilled soil and no streetlamps to spoil the stars.

       Upon returning, I was informed by my roommates that I just missed a huge breakup outside our apartment. Apparently objects were thrown and the girl was at times incoherent.
       And then roommate [livejournal.com profile] wdsguy related how this one girl is stalking him, and called him 11 times that day, so he had a female friend of his pick up the phone and claim to be his girlfriend.
       So we had roommate bonding time discussing these things and eating beef jerky that [livejournal.com profile] wdsguy provided. But it wasn't as good as the BJ that Coleman gave me the other day - Coleman apparently made (jerked?) his own beef jerky and it was mad good.


    In Other News: I have no money in my wallet and the atm tells me my bank account is at -$991.17. Just last week I had $3,186.62.
       As far as I can tell looking at the account history, the $1,420.50 payment I made to the UC Regents yesterday was deducted twice. Looks like I'm going down to the bank again today.


    Related
       Year Ago Today:
    Sashiepalooza '03 - and a trip to body-part drive

    aggienaut: (fish)
    TODAY, SUNDAY
       Today I did nothing in particular all day really; I alternated lying on my bed listening to music with doing various miscellaneous things which needed doing. It was very therapeutic. That combined with having not seen the sun since Friday afternoon has largely cured the depression I was suffering from these last few days. I really need sunglasses.. I used to wear sunglasses always, prompting everyone's favorite Lee Weissman once to speculate "I thought you had an eye sensitivity condition" or something. They prevented the sun from making me depressed. d=

       in other news... another feature!
    Did You Know...?
       ...that I'd never said a bad word till I reached college? Fuckin crazy isn't it. See the thing is, there's no precedent (and man I'm starting to realize I use that word a lot.. what can I say, I like the word) for me overruling absolute decisions I've made. As in, when I was in like.. second grade or something ..I said to myself "bad words are lame, I hereby declare that I shall never use them." And I dunno about other people, but I'm big on not allowing myself to break promises, even to myself. And so, with no mechanism for overruling or repealing my own decisions, the ruling I had made in second grade stood till the end of high school. Finally I was just like "look Kris, this is freakin ridiculous, let us declare this thing repealed." And so it was.. but only after lobbying on the part of numerous among the voices in my head for years on end.
       There remains mental legislation preventing me from smoking or doing any drugs other than alcohol, legislation I have no intention of repealing. I am immune to peer pressure. Heck you have no idea how much peer pressure I went through of "kris.. say fuck... c'mon... pleease?" and awkward situations where it became obvious to everyone around that I was lamely avoiding profanity.
       I also will not lie. This of course poses problems growing up with parents who say think that drinking and numerous other completely acceptable things should be soundly prevented. On such subjects where one may find it advantageous to lie I set a firm policy of not answering in any conditions. To "Will there be drinking at this party?" the answer was always "I will not answer that question" even if I knew as a fact there would NOT be drinking. In the end I think these policies really paid off, in disagreements with my little brother (who inversely had a tendency to be creative with the truth) and questions of my activities the night previous I could provide answers without the parents doubting the validity of my answers; as opposed to my good friend Alberto who's parents suspected him of deviousness in the most mundane of pursuits.


    On Current Allegations
       Much as I hate to stoop to the level of drama-mongering that a certain individual has abjectly immersed herself in, the gravity of her most recent insanity I feel warrants one more firm counter-strike of reason.
       The evil and malevolent female who shall go unnamed has now deviated so far from the truth as to make it my justified obligation to rebut, and I apologize to those who are not party to this little drama for dragging you in, and to those held inescapable to her webs for not being there to and aware of these trickeries when first they were set out.

       As to her allegations which I did things and/or was involved in things which I was not -and I assure you I was pretty much not involved in anything she has asserted- I ask her audience to ask her for specific dates, and why and how it came to occur. I can account for every day and every evening of these last two months thanks largely in fact to this livejournal. I fear not the truth for truly am I innocent.

       As to her allegations that I made claims regarding other people which were not true, I challenge anyone to find someone to whom I've made such statements regarding anyone. It has always been my policy to NEVER confirm nor deny (for the habit of denying can obviously lead to accidental confirmation when denial cannot be made) such a relationship with ANYONE, and as such neither false nor even true testimony on my part on that subject has ever been issued.

       And doesn't all this underhanded treachery firmly fit the definition of the one original claim made against me, of "talking mad shit?"

    April 2025

    S M T W T F S
      123 45
    6 7 89101112
    13141516171819
    20 212223242526
    27282930   

    Syndicate

    RSS Atom

    Most Popular Tags

    Style Credit

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags
    Page generated Jun. 9th, 2025 07:54 am
    Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
    OSZAR »