The Agrinautica

Unexcused Behaviour
   Tuesday's opinion section in the Cal Aggie had some lulz, with a guest opinion from Kai saying the Aggie blew the altercation out of proportion on one side, and an editorial from the Aggie editorial board saying Kai's behaviour was totally inappropriate ("Juvenile Behaviour Unacceptable" specifically) on the other side.
   Incidently, if Kai's editorial was supposed to be the apology he promised the Aggie he'd make, I'm not sure he ever got around to saying he was sorry. I can't double check, because for some reason it isn't on the webpage anymore, but from my recollection it was much more of a justification of his actions and an attack against all who would say otherwise than anything resembling an apology. At the very least, it smacked of attrition (regret that one was caught or punished) rather than contrition (regret because one realizes ones actions were wrong).


Court Today
   Anyway, two Court cases were filed on Monday morning. They have been designated Case 33 & Case 34. But I don't like people to get all in a dither over the very act of filing a case so I'm not going to go into any further detail on the cases until we've decided whether to accept them or not.
   Agenda for tonight's Court meeting (8pm, ASUCD Conference Rm) includes, provisionally in this order: Case 33, Case 34, Judicial Proposal 7, Other Proposal 1*, fieldtrip to Berkeley right after our meeting?, election of an Inter-Collegiate Judicial Federation Liaison, & Judicial Directive 13.
   *OP1 = the proposed change of Senate agenda item "announcement of new ASUCD Court cases and reading of prior week’s verdict(s)" to "announcement of new ASUCD Court cases and reading of prior week’s verdict(s) and Court announcements." Personally I think as long as we don't have "Controller Report & announcement of any new financial decisions" on the agenda we shouldn't have a sentence telling us exactly what to tell the Senate either. But since Internal Affairs Commission Chairman Rivera's question to me about that was only rhetorical he didn't want to hear that from me I guess, jerk. (=
   Tomorrow at Senate I will be making my farewell speech, and the Senate will be discussing JP7 & OP1 (which will both be assigned an SB# by then).

   In other news, the impeachment of Chief Justice Banerjee is scheduled for tonight down in Berkeley. As I mentioned, a bunch of us are thinking about going down. I'd like to laud Beetlebeat's excellent coverage of their Senate's antics: Vice President Gupta claims Senate can use powers constitution reserves for Court; Former Defendant Gupta Denies Conflict of Interest in Chairing Impeachment

In Other News
   After extensive research and testing, I have determined that any kind of soup tastes better with graded cheese added, and the vast majority of them also benefit from the addition of sour cream.
   On that note, my food selection has improved. When I was first released from the dorms to become a feral undergraduate student, I lived on ramen and macaroni & cheese. After like two years of that I settled on a steady diet of salami-sandwiches. Lately, however, I've been getting a selection of canned soups, & chili. Also some hot dogs which I cook in the toaster oven (boiled hotdogs are kind of a travesty). And most shocking of all, I got a big back of lettuce & some italian dressing last time I was at the store and have been devouring salad with my dinner! So long scurvy!!


Picture of the Day

   In the spirit of the Impeachment Fever that has been sweeping through society of late, I have decided to propose a solution. It will be discussed in Internal Affairs Commission tomorrow (Monday 11/13)(at 5pm, MU Garrison Rm). The only problem, despite the fact that the background section is only two paragraphs long, I can't seem to get it to look right. Specifically, I can't seem to find a satisfactory replacement for the word "spurious." I do like the word, but it found its way into just about every sentence and the harder I try to get it out the more entangled it gets.

   So help me fix this problem. The current Background of the proposed bill reads:

   In order for the Judicial Branch to function properly, it must be protected from political influence. A major threat to this is the prospect of justices being removed over political disputes. Over the last four years there have been impeachments (removal hearings) against ASUCD Justices directly following unpopular court decisions at an average rate of once a year. This also occurs at other schools with similar student governments. Sometimes, however, there are legitimate reasons to impeach Justices, such as failure to attend meetings. The Bylaws should seek to allow impeachments for legitimate reasons while protecting the judiciary from those that are spurious.
   The Internal Affairs Commission currently reviews legislation submitted to the Senate and vets out that which is spurious. Spurious removal hearings however are significantly more troublesome than spurious legislation, being inevitably accompanied by more drama, stress, and a significant disruption of the meeting by having a closed session. It therefore is in keeping with the IAC’s existent duties, and in the interest of the ASUCD Senate, to have the IAC eliminate spurious impeachments.

   ...And the answer is indictment! (First link is the actual Bill, second is the changes in context. Underlines are additions.) And you thought the ICC "Confirmation of Charges" hearing last week was unrelated didn't you.

   Unfortunately alternative synonyms such as superfluous and specious still sound enough like "spurious" that it still sounds weird, and everything else I've thought of has a subtly different meaning. Extra points if you can work in schmaltzy (fatty, unnecessary), contravention, or some other saucy word.


Meanwhile at ASUC Berkeley
The illustrious Beetlebeat continues to provide insightful coverage of the impeachment of Chief Justice Banerjee.

   Ladies & gentlemen, no longer can you say ASUCD has done nothing for you!! I have recently learned that ASUCD is going to probably the most awesome thing they'll ever do -- have a fake election to run-through their software ... and I'm a candidate!!! (Other candidates include Darth Paul "thinks he's the Pope" Harms & Kyle "Kris has never heard of him" Flick)

   So of course, I made a FACEBOOK GROUP asap, which you should all join. Current information is:

Accomplishments / Qualifications:

Kittens in the MU Lounge!


*The ASUCD Papacy
   The thing with the title of Pope of ASUCD is, kind of like contending for the real office of the Pope, actually declaring yourself it (or a contender) is considered exceedingly bad form. As such, though I have been the undisputed ethical authority in ASUCD for years now, and have even issued judicial encyclicals and appointed secret legates to do my bidding, actually declaring my title would have made me unfit for it.
   Harms had declared himself the pope once already but he quickly found himself booted out of his ASUCD position, something I believe even he himself attributed to appearing far too ambitious. But now he's gone and made a second attempt, and thats just too much. Anyway, declaring himself first (and second) invalidates his claim, and forces me to show my hand to put a stop to this foolishness.
   So I'm Pope Kristov IIIVX of ASUCD. Yes thats wrong Roman numerals, but Kristov II didn't look as good. (There's already a Pope Christof I you see)

In other news I totally can't figure out why this text is avoiding the right of the screen. )=

   So awhile ago I had created a facebook group dedicated to the game of Assassins. Nearly a year later there were still only six members in it because I never got around to promoting it and in the dark days before the Facebook Newsfeed things tended to go unnoticed on Facebook unless you put effort into them.
   Well this morning I finally got around to sending facebook invites to a number of my friends. Some 12 hours later, 9 more of my friends have joined, and due to their joining being echoed on their friends' newsfeeds, 13 more people joined bringing membership up to 28.
   I think I'll declare an actual physical meeting for next week. I will do this declaring tomorrow.

   (And yes, for those who don't remember (& the 95% of you who weren't around back then) thats ASUCD Senator Jon Avidor & then-President Tiqula Bledsoe in the picture to the left here.)


Seceding from the Union
In a special operation today Emosnail agents obtained photographs of a draft bill that would remove ASUCD from the UC umbrella organization UCSA. In addition to the picture at right, a close up where the writing is more legible can be found here.


Judicial Adventures
   I thought I'd highlight what we actually do on the ASUCD Supreme Court by posting a general summary of the last two meetings.

   Last week ( On the Succession of the Chief Justice )

The Journey Home
   I was up most of last night reading about people with names like Vercingetorix, Vortigern & Catigern. Then, since I've managed to accumulate some important tasks at the Courthouse I had to go into work. Finally I escaped from there, but had to AMPAC Governor-General Sameer for an hour on the phone about the conference we are in charge of putting together next April, which was all good and well but it was hellorz hot out and I really wanted to go home and take a nap. Then I got home only to find someone parked in my parking place. The office determined the offending vehicle belonged to the guy who should have the spot next to it. When maintenance man Modesto contacted him regarding this, the guy said with attitude "well someone was in MY spot," as if that justified it all (and I hope you all know that you are retarded if you think it solves anything by parking in the person's spot next to you when someone has parked in yours). Finally I made it into my apartment only to find two catsup smeared plates belonging to my flatmate Jason on the livingroom floor, where he seems to think they belong.
   This latter offense is in clear violation of the policy my roommates and I had agreed to unanimously, that dishes must remain in one's room if one cannot clean them immediately. I've decided my current policy for dealing with this is moving the dishes for him when he's not home ... onto his bed.
   Also the solution to the best way to confront him regarding the fact that he's in flagrant violation of something he just recently agreed to with minimum awkwardness came to me after some thought... next time he's home and I find him in a clear violation of policy, or if he asks me about my relocation of dishes to his room I think I'll ask him in an earnest manner if he thinks the policy is too draconian and needs to be changed. That way I will come across not as accusatory but compromising, while he'll be faced with either feeling like a complete flake by saying this simple policy is too difficult (which I really doubt he'll do), or reaffirming the policy in direct reference to his plate behaviour.
   Anyway, then I was finally able to take a nap, but in my delirium was unaware that I'd left my phone in my car so I missed a call I'd been waiting for regarding some stew. )=

30 in 30 III
   Anyway, the result of all this is that I'm not really feeling like a top-notch slinger of hilarity at the moment, so 30 in 30 III is off to an inconspicuous start for me this year.

   So far we have 30 in 30 posts by apoplecticfittz, otimus, pavel_lishin, roter_terror & shid. Best entry so far I think is roter_terror's: "Listen up, folks. 30 in 30 is here and I am not ready for it! THEREFORE YOU GET BABY ANIMALS... with a twist! Here are 16 of the best baby animals I could dig up at a moment's notice. Your job is to vote for the best."

   Anyway, you may all be relieved to to know that one of my goals for this 30 in 30 is to try to steamline my blogging by spending no less than 30 minutes per post (30 in 30.. IN 30?)

Meanwhile in the real world
   In other news, last friday we had the initiation party for the newest batch of Φ A Δ pledglings. On Sunday I went to recently-former Califorina Aggie Editor-in-Chief Matty Jojola's party. It was a very interesting mix of people, with four guys wearing Davis Players Society polos hanging out with Kalen Gallagher in one corner while from the opposite side of the political spectrum city council candidate Rob Roy campaigned in the kitchen wearing a suit & tie. I got a scandalous picture of him eating a watermelon rind with some girl, as well as another of him giving someone a classic politician handshake, I'll put them up when I get a chance. Also my fellow justice & reverend Tim Coady was there, marrying people at random and granting indulgences.

   On Tuesday most of the Court came to the Internal Affairs Commission to discuss their opinions on the Court. Also this day we were reinforced by an editorial in The Aggie advocating that our Court be strengthened rather than abrogated. IAC was unwilling to concede anything, but none of them would speak in support of any of their arguments (other than that ASUCD is a business), preferring rather to try repeatedly to end the whole conversation by saying there was no legislation regardnig the subject. Aside from the fact that the discussion the preceding week had ended with "we'll talk more about this next week," I've certainly been around long enough to know that there's always "no plans," until suddently there are, and the plans are never put forward until after the political maneouvering stage.
nbsp;  Also they made an obvious effort to put us off as long as possible, which I thought was kind of petty & desperate. Regarding ASUCD as a business, it went around a few times until Chairman Harms announced his revelation that "ASUCD is not a government OR a business, it is an association." To which I responded that that was great but "what we are specifically arguing about here is that Kai Savaree-Ruess said ASUCD is 'not a public institution ... but in fact a business,' and a Court has no place in a business. If you say we're not a business but an association, you're not backing Kai's argument that I am here to counter..." I believe 90% of arguments improperly lost are lost because one allowed the opponent to change what the argument was about.. never let them get away with this.

   Anyway, since then Paul Harms has ceased to be the Internal Affairs Commission Chairman...


Picture of the Day

Kristy and I at Rock It

Previously on Emosnail
   Three Years Ago Today: Jello Shot Night - What we all did before we had 30 in 30 to occupy ourselves: slosha's dorm-mates throw a party which shall live on in infamy as "jello shot night." ...Kristy is eventually determined to be missing and is then found wandering aimlessly three floors down outside... d=
   Two Years Ago Today: 30 in 30 I - Day 1 - mrkevincostner was actually first out of the blocks at 10:20am, followed by stephenl who at 12:56 posted the official call to action. apoplecticfittz began with a new version of his recent Frasky Awards; lerani started with an amusing story about a retarded lawyer that managed to exponentially exacerbate her own ethics violation; fragglerocker84 started out strong with a well composed entry apparently about people on her vollyball team (its very well done for its subject matter, but the subject isn't the most interesting to random bloggers); and feuders also vows for the course of 30 in 30 to drink no beer (except for a number of frequent exceptions), eat no fast food, and run five miles every day. Additionally, jdryznar declares he's going to make 30 posts in 30 days about politics, while incomple also just posts half baked ravings against conservatives (at least for the first five I checked today).
   Year Ago Today: 30 in 30 II - Day 1 - First day of the second annual 30 in 30. Best entry for this day has been identified as Professor David, with second place going to otimus (who has since deleted his all his 30 in 30 II entrie, because he does strange things like that)

ASUCD: Not a Government?
   So I went to the ASUCD Internal Affairs Commission meeting yesterday, to counteract the arguments made last week about how ASUCD does not need a Court.
   It is unclear whether the discussion last week was pre-planned, or just kind of happened. IAC commissioners first said "we were just kind of getting ideas out there to see how we felt about it and then we were going to talk to you if we wanted to do something," implying a planned discussion, but later other commissioners said it just randomly came up and bristled at the implication that they couldn't randomly bring up whatever they want. The minutes are unclear, since they indicate a jump from talking about something completely different to an in depth discussion about why we don't need a court with no transition at all.

   Commissioners insisted at length there was no room for a Court in a "business model," I tried to point out that it says in the first article of the ASUCD Constitution, and in the ASUCD Administrative plan, that ASUCD is explicitly not a business, but the commissioners didn't seem to be very open to seeing ASUCD as anything but a business... and businesses don't have Courts.

   I was also asked "how non-elected officials can serve this purpose." Honestly I wasn't at all prepared for such a complete lack of understanding of the American government system. Next week we are going to be prepared with choice quotes from the Federalist Papers.

   There were also some choice quotes in last week's minutes, such as "I have no respect for their legal opinions" (coming from "The Goodly Kai" himself I think). I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy of those minutes for more in depth review here.

   Next week its Round III at IAC, 5pm Monday in the MU Garrison Rm. Should make for an interesting debate about the very nature of ASUCD.


UCDMUNC 2006
   This weekend we hosted the UCD MUN Conference. I chaired Special Political & Decolonization Committee (SPD), discussing Chechnya & the Spratley Islands. I forgot my camera the first day, so I only got pictures of the clean-up afterwords.


Picture of the Day

Davis City Council candidate Rob Roy speaks during the ASUCD candidates forum. ASUCD president Darnell Holloway looks attentive while actually listening to his Ipod.

   So on Thursday afternoon I parked at the end of Oak St --since it is the closest free parking (after five) to the Memorial Union, at a distance of about a furlong)-- to go to Senate & give them the recent case opinion.
   I'm taking Intro to Public Speaking right now. People think its tedious to make a speech on some topic of their choosing to 20 or so people in the discussion group? Well try addressing a room full of Senators & other officers on a subject that (A) is kind of tedious to explain, & (B) is something they disagree with. Not that I stressed about it, I'm used to the senate, but it was a bit awkward that I was basically telling a room full of people that they were wrong on several important points.
   Anyway, I thought the issue was pretty clear when you got down to it, but some such as former senator Darth Lloyd say "to say that i disagree is an understatement my friend," so I've been meaning to once more try to lay out the issues in easily understandable terms. (see below)

   After Senate I was to play intertube waterpolo with Lyrakeet & others, so I left as local legislation enthusiast Brent Laabs was giving a presentation about why we should secede from the union University of California Student Association (UCSA) ("Their charter says 'Student Association,' but their webpage and a number of other documents say 'students association' -- it appears they don't even know their own name").
   Next I needed to get my swimtrunks which I thought were at Kristy's place in The Colleges, about four furlongs across campus -- I could drive there to have my car with me, but since there's only ten "guest" spots for the several hundred people that live there, the odds of getting one are slim and the closest free parking spot would probably still be Oak. So I walked over there.
   Only, they weren't there! I was supposed to be at the pool in fifteen minutes, yet I was half a mile from my car and it was hot and I wear wearing a suit & tie! )=
   Lyric & Kim picked me up and we made a mad dash to my place for my togs and back to the pool.... but the other team hadn't shown up anyway so it was all for nothing.

   Friday morning I toured McGeorge Law School with Φ A Δ, and then that evening Kritsy & I went to see the Yeah Yeah Yeahs at The Warfield in SF.
   I'd never been to the Warfield before. It was pretty awesome. Looked like an Opera-house or something. Kitten-princess & I were only four rows back from the front of the balcony, which means we had an excellent view -- though Krispy Kritter would have liked to prance about on the floor.

   This morning I took a mock LSAT over at the UCD law school (BTW, I mentioned a bit ago that Sara Henry was running for president of the Law Student Assn -- well she lost). Before and after this I made an appearance at the dry run Davis MUN was doing for the upcoming conference we put on here. I started to take the "UberCAT" test (CAT = Chair Aptitude Test, but really it was megalomaniacally backronymed to be named after SG Catherine, who created them)to test out of chair training but then I had to leave for the Mock LSAT.


Picture of the Day

Bailey & Kristy slumber

Van Schoelandt v. ASUCD Senate
   Since its long and tedious to explain it in any more understandable terms than it already is in the opinion, I think I might address specific parts of the case in different entries. For now, an outline of the arguments:
   Of course the case regards a closed session that occured on 01/12/06 in the midst of a constitutional crisis. No reason for the closed session was announced, but after it was over the Senate had a Bill written to retroactively change the requirements for Senate office. The codes state that notification in various forms is to be given for closed sessions, and that these sessions can only be called for specificly listed reasons.
(1) Defence asserts the session was called as a "personnel matter." Does it fulfill the requirements for a personnel session?: (A) can a personnel closed session be called "in general" about nothing (and no one) specific? (B) Can Senators-elect be considered subject personnel? (Can the outcome of an election be considered a "Personnel Matter?")
(2) (A) Can a personnel closed session be called on people without their knowledge? (B) Can a personnel closed session be called without notifying the public?
(3) How can this situation be remedied in light of the potential privacy concerns of hypothetical subject parties who may hypothetically have been discussed?

   Once you are familiar with the discussion of these subjects, I believe you, like me, will be completely at a loss as to on what grounds Lloyd completely disagrees.


Current Music: I dedicate the song Hefner - To Hide a Little Thought to the Closed Session of 01/12/06 and everything that ensued. (= Dl it while its hot!

Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Last Wednesday: Getting Shafted By Airport Security - A chair my first PAXMUN conference down in San Diego. Mara talked me into it. This girl Swati was in my committee, two years later she's introduced to PAXMUN as a staffer for the San Diego conference 2006.
   Two Years Ago Yesterday: Day Before the Pixies Show - Which was followed by the day OF the Pixies day, incidently, which was a lot more exciting.

   As you should recall relations between Chad and Sudan had flared up into a state of war regarding overflow of violence from the Sudanese region of Darfur (which borders Chad) but was resolved two months ago by the Libya sponsored Tripoli Agreement. The precipitating violence was carried out not only by Darfur antogonists the ganja-weed Janjaweed Militia, but rebels within Chad who call themselves F.U.C.K. and are believed to be urged on by Sudan.

   Now I bring this up again because war has resumed ... and I've been covering the story at least as well as anything else you're gonna hear about it so I might as well keep it up.
   In early March the Janjaweed Rebels got the munchies and crossed the border with a shopping list that included "700 camels, 1,000 cows and 1,500 sheep,"¹. The Chadian army was able to chase the Janjaweed back to Sudan & recapture the livestock. This incident caused tension but did not precipitate war as the Janjaweed's purpose is to oppress people in Darfur (therefore thouhg Sudan-backed, not a Sudan-backed Chadian rebel force), and is ostensibly not under the control of Sudan. Janjaweed emosnail informants report that they were driven to such measures by the recent withdrawel of UC Davis investment.
   Last Thursday, however, a large force of F.U.C forces launched an assault on the Chadian capitol, almost capturing the national assembly before being driven back. There were 400 deaths including both sides & civilians. This caused Chad to go "oh no you didn't!" broke off relations with Sudan again, and threatened to return to Sudan the 200,000 Sudanese refugees they are sheltering.
   Additionally, the Central African Republic, --a place I bet you didn't know existed-- which shares borders with Chad & Sudan, got pissed off that the rebels crossed their territory on their way to the party, & closed its borders with Sudan.
   The Janjaweed still have the munchies.

Picture of the Day

Chad, as seen from the top of the awesome geodesic
climbing thing I had put in at Oxford Circle Park while I was on the City Renovations Subcommittee

   Last night a reference was added to the ASUCD Senate History page about a case filed by ASUCD vs the Regents. I poked around on Lexis-Nexis, but couldn't find such a case.
   This morning while at work at the Yolo Superior Court, I was thinking about this case. It suddenly occured to me that if such a case existed, it would have been filed with this very Court! I searched Jalan our computer database, but it didn't have anything previous to the early nineties, so I went back to working on the case index I was assembling. Where would I be able to find a case filed previous to computers?
   ...On a paper index I suppose -- and then I realized that was what I was working on. I found the case two pages from where I was already in the 880 page binder.

   Now that I had the case number I could go look up the actual case. Cases previous to 98 are kept across the street in "the Bunker," so I grabbed some cases that needed to be conveyed there anyway and headed out. This involves having security let me out the secret employee entrance, going across the street the sheriff's department annex, using my key to get from the entryway into the courtyard, unlocking gate leading down some stairs, unlocking door into lower levels, proceeding through the entirely manila hall and unlocking the door marked "evidence / property storage," to reveal shelves and shelves of forgotten cases. But alas they only went down to 1987 and it was an 83 case. So I have to retrace my steps.
   Later I find out that older cases have been taken offsite to McClellin Air Force Base (wtf?).
   Reportedly a summary of this case was discovered in the ASUCD Vice President's office (wtf?), so I guess I'll just have to be content with that for now.


In Other News: My car is reportedly repaired. Now I need to find a way to get it back from Roseville.. preferably tomorrow (Thursday) )=

This Week in ASUCD
   Every Monday the Aggie runs a story on the latest happenings at ASUCD Senate. It took me about four years to realize this, because the article is always written with maximum confusion. I think it suffers from a misguided quest for "objectivity," where they have misconstrued "fair and balanced" as "completely lacking in substance." Its like, more bland than C-SPAN.
   Consequently, I decided I'm going to try to write an update every Friday on the general happenings of ASUCD within the last week.¹

   The ASUCD headlines this week of course were the Winter Elections. Fourteen candidates (Six Leadites, two Focites, two "Ignites," four independants) ran for six positions. Several weeks of campaigning culminated this week in online voting Wednesday through Thursday. Reportedly turnout was rather low for a winter election. Some have speculated that this is because the F.U.C.K. party convinced everyone to trust in ASUCD candidates again last winter, and then dashed their hopes when their elected candidates "defected" from the party -- thus leaving everyone bitter and cynical this election.
   While Michael Molner was projected to win by expert analysts, as one conservative candidate invariably gets elected, few would have expected his first place finish. Molnar also prefaced the official results announcement by declaring all over the wiki in the hour before announcements that he had been the subject of "negative campaigning" and "bullying tactics" by Lead inner party member James Schwab. These claims were subsequently deleted from the wiki by others by some sort of black magic such that now I can't link to these earlier versions. Schwab notes that Molnar was referring to Schwab's bringing up the Molnar quote referenced here. This may be a foreshadowing of a very tense Senate term. See also: a webpage dedicated to "Molnarisms"
   Lead took four seats, Ignite one (Molnar), and Focus one. Lead now controls the presidency and two thirds of the senate, meaning that Lead can do literally anything they want.
   Schwab further notes "I think this election may be scandal free."

   Earlier in the week the ASUCD Supreme Court issued their verdict on Case 29, Laabs v. The California Aggie. They basically found that (1) The California Aggie DOES need to follow at least "reasonable regulations with respect to the time, the place, and the manner²" in which ASUCD says their paper is to be published; (2) The California Aggie DOES need to obey the decisions of the Media Board, which has been delegated oversight over them and tasked to deliberate on any significant operational changes; (3) to quote the United States Supreme Court in Joyner v. Whiting³ "A college newspaper's freedom from censorship does not necessarily imply that its facilities are the editor's private domain;" (4) Basically the United States Supreme Court pwned Daniel Stone and the ASUCD Court merely provided choice excerpts.
   The California Aggie allegedly does not intend to cover this case in the paper.

   On Thursday morning the California Aggie ran an editorial accusing Mayor Ruth Asmundson of delaying the bill to allow the return of interned Japanese in order to pass it at a time politically beneficial to her, and that such political use of such a bill was in poor taste. The editorial was notably harsh, likely because former Editor-in-Chief Stone (& Opinions Editor before that) was for once not watering opinions down in hopes of getting letters of recommendation. By Thursday evening Ruth Asmundson was at the ASUCD Senate meeting explaining to them how she wasn't evil and has supported students. In response, Schwab commented "[former ASUCD President] Kalen Gallagher did more for students!"
   Mayor Asmundson also mentioned created a position in the city of Omsbudsman. Omsbudsman, Asmundson ... they're very similar. A coincidence? You decide.


   Also at Senate, the Tapsy Ticksy director made a report. Interestingly, she reports that there are ongoing taxi wars between Tipsy Taxi and local taxi services, with commercial cabs regularly trying to ram Tipsy Taxi busses(!!). Senators Kalfayan & Higgens questioned the director at length regarding their goals of lowering the Tipsy Taxi charge back down to $1. The director noted that among other things, changing the price again will likely just confuse riders, as "drunk people and confusion go hand in hand."
   Sen. Avi Singh humorously proposed we levee a $1 fee on all undergraduates and offer it to the City with "Hey City of Davis, I hear you have a budget problem ... here's 20 Gs!" to which Director of the Office of External Affairs Greg Russel immediately responded "Avi do not treat the City like a whore!!" Much lulz were had by all.

   Meanwhile elsewhere in the MU, the ASUCD Entertainment Council was putting on a free show.

¹Persons are encouraged to bring our attention to ASUCD events which take place of which they suspect an EMOSNAIL correspondant is not aware, such that it may be included in future issues of This Week in ASUCD.
²Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, at 192-193
³Joyner v. Whiting 477 F.2d 456, 462 (4th Cir. 1973)


Today in Woodland
   I ran into former ASUCD President Sara Henry at the Fat Cat Cafe. Enactment of the "Student Bill of Rights" is her only accomplishment to be recorded in history (via Daviswiki at least). Incidently apparent complete absense of this Bill of Rights two years later is the subject of ASUCD Court Case # 32, which will be heard next Tuesday. She was also known for trying to remove me twice (the fact that Focus controlled 2/3rds of the Senate & thus could remove people all on its own probably made this particularly tempting to her). Two years later she is working in a family law clinic, and I'm working in the civil division of the local courthouse (ie the division dealing with family law, among other things), and so it seems I'm still handling Henry's cases.

   Later, it was noticed that a girl in the Courthouse lobby reeked of marijuana. She was subsequently arrested, and confessed to having smoked out about half an hour previous, and then driven to the Courthouse. I believe some marijuana was found on her as well. In addition to possession, and being under the influence, she may be charged with driving under the influence of controlled substances, and having controlled substances within a courthouse is a felony in of itself. I remand to the honourable blogocratic Judge roter_terror for further speculation on what she ought to be charged with. Presumably the girl in question was not Sara Henry.

   Today I got to venture down to "the Bunker," where older cases are archived. Its under the sheriffs station that adjacent to the Courthouse. The hallways under it have manila coloured floors, walls, ceilings & furniture -- its like seeing everything in sepiatone.
   Also I put this case back in the vault today. Its more than a foot thick.


This Week in International Politics
   Rumour has it there was a coup in the Phillipenes, but every news article I've found about it mentions the coup in passing and then goes on about the government response for several pages. While the government may have responded shadily, I am always rather suspicious that the underreported side of the story has more value than given credit for.