The Agrinautica

Vendettas
   On further reflection, and with the support of Matty, I would agree that perhaps Matty and Leathers should be swapped putting Leathers as the most exemplary person in the known history of ASUCD.

   Additionally, I'd like to address the fact that when I criticize officials for behaviour I don't approve of, there has frequently been a response of you just have a vendetta against them!! Do not confuse me disapproving of actions with me allegedly not liking someone because of their actions and therefore being too biased to comment on their actions (!?).
   But moreover, who do I have a vendetta against? Well if I have a vendetta against anyone, its probably Oliver Cromwell, since he's been dead some 350 years but still comes up three times in my list of shadiest people in ASUCD. (= Otherwise, I'll admit I have kind of a pretend vendetta against Paul Harms. But if I WERE to have a real vendetta against someone, it would probably be Sara Henry. I'm pretty sure she had a vendetta against me anyway, and tried to impeach me twice. Note, however, that I ranked her appx 23rd most shady. This is because in my opinion trying to axe someone because you have a vendetta against them is less abusive than trying to axe people merely because they disagree with you. Anyway, as evidenced by my relatively not-bad ranking of Henry, I do not have a vendetta against her and I'd be interested in hearing arguments as to why I have more reason to have a vendetta against anyone else.


   7 of 9 people yesterday voted that they thought I was more associated with Lead than Focus .. you guys forget I was a Focus appointee, hah! (but really I am solidly of no party) Also 10 of 10 of you said you expected more Focus than Lead on the list, whereas I counted 7 Lead and 3 Focus on it. But then again, none of you remember how Lead used to be.


That Which is Not Sanctioned is Forbidden
   Someone brought my attention to an Aggie article today about how the Gofers have been pushing definitions of soliciting in the dorms. But I find what they did not as comment worthy as these comments about it:
"They have every right to go out and talk about ASUCD, but they should have gone through the appropriate avenues by talking to the executive office and president," said Kevin Powers, chief of staff for the executive office.

"[GO] never contacted the executive office about ASUCD outreach," said ASUCD Controller Paul Harms.

   Fortunately this reporter knew to ask the right questions:
However, Powers also noted that slates are not required by ASUCD bylaws to inform the executive office of their ASUCD outreach activities.

"We're under no obligation to inform LEAD about everything we do," Friedman said

   Seriously though, since when do members of Congress have to get George W Bush's permission to do outreach? (Maybe Harms should intern for the white house to give them some ideas)


Endorsements
   Now that I can, several people have approached me about endorsing student government candidates. Several people and Steve Ostrowski several times. Anyway, I have found a candidate I would like to endorse:

( Endorsement-Like Statements! )

   The Case 34, Savaree-Ruess vs. Carnes et Al, Hearing has been postponed until Wednesday next week pursuant to a motion by the Defence.

   I stopped by the Student Government Administrative Office (SGAO) today and found Plaintiff Savaree-Ruess, Defence Counsel Powers, Associate Defence Counsel Harms and ASUCD Advisor Tucker all hanging out. Ruess said that his team (which includes Defence Counsel Greg "Big City Lawyer" Russel) is already working on one-liners to use during the Hearing. Powers vowed to be equally prepared for the battle of wits.
   Powers has also created an "ASUCD Legal Defence Team" facebook group. Clearly, the legal armsrace is on!

   Anyway, during my twenty hours of driving this past week, as I said I had altogether too much time to ponder the deep questions in life ... such as how to make ASUCD even better! I came up with two brilliant insights:


Deliberate Oral Exams
   The actual reason I was lurking around the third floor was to pitch this idea to Tucker.
   Basically, I was pondering how the interviewing process for prospective justices could be made to better highlight the skills one wants justices to be selected based upon. The normal interview process only works if the interviewers ask brilliantly insightful questions, and even then they might get at the mentality of the Justice, which is important, but it leaves utterly no guidance as to whether tehy will be an involved and effective Justice.
   Now the way the US State Department examines prospective foreign service officers is, after making an initial cut in written exams, they put a dozen or so applicants in a room ... and have them fight to the death! Not really but they make them work on some theoretical project in which they'll need to compromise and work together.
   And so I was thinking, what if we get the judicial applicants together in groups of nine provide them with a hypothetical case, and watch them deliberate! The people currently mandated to be on the interviewing committee observe these deliberations and can then make selections on a basis of effectiveness, insightfulness, judicial mentality, and all kinds of other relevant informations!

   I pitched it to Tucker and he thought it was a great idea and could even be implimented for the interviews that are coming up asap. He's still got to pitch it to President Holloway though, who as chair of the interviewing committee is the one who decides. But I'm very excited about it. Time to rustle up a case.

   And hey take note UC Merced, I know you've been stalled for weeks on the judicial interview process!


Fully-Automatic Recall
   Currently, at universities nationwide, there is a problem with elections. That being, that (1) if a candidate gets disqualified, they very frequently sue anyone and everyone until the right people roll over and let them take office, since no one but the candidate themselves cares about it enough to go to court over it; and (2) the candidate invariably cites a misguided interpretation of "democracy" or "will of the people" to support their position. It has been of little avail to advise them that its not "will of the people" if they had an unfair opportunity to influence "the people" or "the people" didn't know critical information about their character. But I came up with a solution that utterly resolves both these problems.
   Keep the system of "campaign violations" or "censures" which are given in various amounts for various severities of violations. BUT where currently a certain number mandate disqualification (three in ASUCD, five at Berkeley I believe), replace disqualification with automatic recall. Basically, the candidate still gets elected into office, but a recall election is immediately scheduled for them the following week.
   In this matter, it can be conclusively determined whether "the People" would overlook their indiscretions, and I can't imagine a lawsuit overcoming this second voicing of the "will of the people."