The Agrinautica

   At the time, running on promises to end ASUCD corruption and shadiness, the Friends Urging Campus Kindness facebook group accrued an unprecedented 2,000+ subscribers. Since then, official leaders of the group have one by one been guillotined until only three of the original seven remained: Pete Hernandez, Kristen Birdsall, and Rob "Robespierre" Roy. For fear that the mighty banhammer would be used to squash further dissent, leadership of the group was placed under a Protection Committee and Roy was temporarily relieved of bannorizing privileges.
   I then sent out the following message: (title: F.U.C.K. Officers to be Removed by ASUCD)

Friends Urging Campus Kindness was founded in opposition to the corruption and shadiness that had been prevelent at the time within the ASUCD Senate.

Last Thursday the Senate passed legislation retroactively eliminating requirements for office so they could seat certain people. This Thursday the Senate has placed on its agenda the removal of four long-time Friends Urging Campus Kindness supporters for having expressed dissent over this.

Senators Roy and Birdsall, elected via F.U.C.K. themselves, are poised to support this action.

I urge you to tell Roy and Birdsall yourselves whether you feel this represents what F.U.C.K. stands for.

Message Kris Fricke for more ways you can help keep the F.U.C.K. in ASUCD and prevent Senate from fucking F.U.C.K.

   I oftentimes find myself wishing I wasn't part of the highest judicial authority in ASUCD -- wishing that there was some appeal above me. Unlike everyone else, I don't get the priviledge of being vindicated by being proved right by higher court.
   Former senator Darth Lloyd says "The Court's improper action was the reason for removing its authority. What Kris's proposed action overlooks is that it violates the constitution," and senatorroy says "had they not requested Senators elected in Fall 2004 to still sit at the Senate table to determine the legitimacy of the court’s opinion, despite that the constitution explicitly states no Senator’s term shall last longer than a year, then I would have heard the court’s opinion." Now, of course, the latter quote would seriously have any lawyer or elected official ROFLing their asses off (since the method he's disparaging is how its done in every "real world" situation), but I hate to depend on the involved to take my word for it (they evidently haven't anyway)(as to the former, it is literally impossible for the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, I know this answer is unsatisfying, thats why this entry is about my wish for vindication). When we amended the judicial article of the Constitution last winter I personally was in favour of allowing cases alleging the Court was in violation of the Constitution to go to the Campus Judicial Board, but that didn't happen, due to concerns about subjecting our judicial system to an administration body.
   Furthermore the fact that any idea that comes up in Court is in a certain sense appealed instantly to the other justices seems to be given no weight. I've only been in two meetings with the other justices so far, so you can't honestly allege they've all fallen to my jedi persuasion yet. The first thing I always tell all new justices is "we have what is written, and everything else, even what I'm saying right now, is just an opinion," and the second thing I say is "never feel like you can't disagree with me, even adamently," and on every substansive matter I never speak first. When the justices were all confirmed by Senate, the Senate could have implaced justices that would take a very strict literal interpretation of the bylaws a la former Justice Raff, but at that time they chose the people whose opinion they now discard. All this is to say I find it silly that the Court is seen as my opinion (see first quote), or to imply the Senate knows jurisprudence better than us.
   Anyway, despite these things, I am confident that an analogious body would absolutely uphold our rulings, if not find in a manner even more unpleasant to our detractors. If any senator wishes to take me up on this, I welcome you to arrange for either (1) the Courts of any two other UCs to consider the constitutionality of our rulings, or (2) an ad-hoc Court of the collective Chief Justices of the UCs (minus me of course) to consider the constitutionality of our rulings. It would of course be informal from their end, but if they find against my court I'll see to it that our rulings are retracted and future rulings more limited (and at the very least I'll admit to being completely pwned - though be prepared for the same). Though arguments will probably be made electronically, we'll come up with a fair way to moderate that, and the selection of any two Courts must of course not take into consideration how one expects each court to rule. I have not communicated with any of them regarding this case.
   Or another similarly fair system would be acceptable to me if someone thinks of something. The bottem line is: we are the Court, we are your judicial authority, and we fully believe that our opinion has been as just as possible and would be vindicated by an analogious body.
   The truth shall set you free, and history shall justify me. (=


In Other News
   Kristy and I went to another party at Sarah Jones' place Saturday night. The theme was "ghetto" so Kristy and I got all ghettofied (archival footage of what it may have looked like). My camera is still out of commission but hopefully we'll pull some decent pictures off someone else's camera. I wore my wallet chain around my neck as "bling" and wore a a sideways baseball cap. Kristy wore a pink bandana on her head, lipliner without lipstick, and sagged her sweatpants (exposing her "rubber ducky" boxers). It was good times. Someone puked in her cup when she set it down (omgwtf?!). Eventually for unclear reasons the power went out (not due to the circuit breakers?) and everyone dispersed.


Picture of the Day

from the archives