aggienaut | Entries tagged with paul harms

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! )

Trivia of the Day!
Which famous person once said "I rationalized the "final solution" because the government had to keep on functioning."?

Current Music: The Weakerthans - Our Retired Explorer

   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.

Current Music: Cocksparrer - Take Em All

A Right to Shadiness?
   Yesterday in the ASUCD Internal Affairs Commission, a member of the public tried to videotape the proceedings. Several various ASUCD officers got extremely upset, with Paul Harms even threatening to call the police and/or sue the individual. The commission's chairman ended up adjourning the meeting without addressing any business, rather than submit to videorecording.

   The reason given was that all people in the room had not given consent to be vidoed. However, the people who "didn't give consent" had absolutely no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public meeting in which public minutes are taken, and therefore have no right to, well, expect privacy. But another issue, which is more important to me, is that as a public meeting of a public governing board the public have an absolute right to government transparency which includes recording the proceedings.

   The video of yesterday's IAC incident is already on youtube. The outspoken lad is Paul "I Love the Status Quo" Harms, sitting next to him is Andrew "ACLU" Peake. You would think Mr ACLU would be more sensitive to people's rights for government transparency.

   I've always seen ASUCD as a sort of crucible, which shows people's true character. Its easy to criticize the American government when you can't be faulted for anything similar yourself. We all know college students love to criticize the government, but what happens when you give them a government of their own? Now don't get me wrong, there's good people in ASUCD, but I think ASUCD also shows us how many people who walk among us would make absolutely terrible leaders.
   People say they believe in people's rights versus the government, and they'll certainly maintain that they feel that way not because they aren't in government but because they are rightious like that. But you give these same people a government-like position and they do not hesitate to squash the rights of others to government transparency (and many other topics).
   And that is why I find it so interesting to follow ASUCD politics, and why I was so interested when the leaders of ASUC Berkeley were trying to make off with student money. Its self-rightious people showing us how badly your average person can behave if given a little bit of power.

   I do not believe that power corrupts, I believe that power enables those who are already corrupt to show themselves.

Thomas Lloyd's Legacy
Lloyd's All-Seeing Eye    If one ever makes an edit to any page pertaining to Thomas Lloyd, one will find his all-seeing eye will immediately notice and jump into an edit-war with you. This is because Lloyd believes he has left an amazing legacy behind in ASUCD which vile detracters wish to taint. Also, he apparently believes that potential employers will look him up on Daviswiki, and presumably follow all the links to everything he ever touched, and be impressed (or not, which is his argument for eliminating anything negative about things pertainign to him). Finally, this is really creepy: it took him only an hour and a half to discover someone had created the ASUCD Legislative Clerk page despite the fact that he graduated over a year ago, and THREE MINUTES last time someone made an edit to his own page. To the right is an artist's impression of Thomas Lloyd.
   Anyway, creation of the Legislative Clerk position is one of many things that Thomas Lloyd did and still champions as another shining example of him benefitting society. Others alleged that the position is useless and Lloyd was just using it to boost his accomplishments (ie, that it was just pork). Lloyd of course immediately jumped in defending the position as highly useful, and urged detractors to take it up with the current clerk and/or their supervisor the Vice President if they thought it wasn't fulfilling its potential. ...but then the current Clerk weighed in saying he himself thought the position was just pork! Zing!!

Current Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Current Music: Johnny Cash - When A Man Comes Around

I. OMG Bees!!
   So earlier today I'm sitting at my desk and I look up to see our yard is filled with bees. I think "oh the bees are swarming again," but then I realize, oh wait we don't HAVE any bees anymore. I run out to investigate. By the time I get my shoes on the swarm has moved up the hill. I find a clump of bees about 2/3rds the size of a basketball on a branch.
   Later mum comes home and I tell her about it. She says we're still getting bee droppings on our cars regularly (lots of little yellow dots) and speculates that maybe there is a colony very close that we are not aware of. We're looking at our roof and seeing nothing. Just for novelty's sake I mention that bees usually inhabit the pitch where two parts of the roof come together and we go around to look at that part of our roof. Lo, there are bees there!! Further observation indicates they are probably just scouts from the passing swarm though (they were just bouncing around rather than making, so to speak, a bee-line in and out).
   There was some discussion of having me execute the swarm. Interestingly though, while I generally didn't feel overly much remorse when I killed hundreds of thousands of bees a day for my job, the prospect of killing some on my own time actually feels rather morally unsettling to me. d=

II. Defendant Rights in ASUCD
   As one will recall, recent prominant ASUCD Case # 34 regarded whether a witness could be considered the party to a closed session on an ASUCD employee's job performance, and therefore override that employee's wish to have the session closed. The ASUCD Supreme Court found that the codes clearly stated that only "the appointee / employee being discussed" had a right to cause the session to be closed.
   Subsequently, counsel for the Defense (ie those who lost the case), have written a Senate Bill which would change the bylaws to support their side. It redefines party as "(1) The ASUCD employee or appointee the session has been called on. (2) Any witness giving testimony that the Senate President Pro Tempore has deemed to be a Party in the matters discussed in the closed session."
   Incidently, the background for the bill reads "A recent court case showed that there was a need to define the term “party” in the bylaws on closed sessions." I think its debatable at best if the case "showed" that. I was there and I found the current definition of who had the relevant rights to be extremely clear.

   Anyway, the point is this is about the right to confront one's accuser. If the defendant waives their right to privacy, they should not be accused of anything the accuser wouldn't say in public. Also I remind you, the Defendant is the person with everything to lose in the situation, they are the one whose rights should be carefully protected.
   Now it has been mentioned, almost ad absurdum but vaguely possible, that it might be that the case regards sexual harassment, and therefore the witness-victim may have legitimate privacy rights. Firstly, this will certainly be the exception, rather than the rule, as it does not resemble the circumstances of 99% of Closed Sessions. Secondly, ASUCD is NOT the appropriate primary forum for addressing such a problem, the Police or at least Student Judicial Affairs (SJA) is. And with that thought in mind, I'd say I could agree to allowing sealed witness testimony IF it is only allowed if the witness has already filed a report¹ on the same subject with SJA or the PD, and minutes of the entire proceeding are made available to that same investigatory body. I believe nothing less than this would prevent sealed witness testimony from being abused.

   And it should be noted that this is being changed in light of the circumstances of Case 34. The closed session that was the subject of Case 34 CERTAINLY would not fall under an allowable circumstance for sealed witness testimony. That situation was entirely political, Peake could have chosen not to participate, and/or the other persons involved would have had just as much a right to say harmful things about him outside of the session as in it, its closure just allowed him, a politician, a venue to subject Savaree-Ruess, a politician, to a political circus without being judged himself (though it should be noted that it wasn't Peake's idea to call it, but he instigated its closure to the public). And furthermore, since the matter was already being discussed at length in public, all the closure allowed was for the Senate to deliberate in private, which is even further from allowable circumstances.

   Anyway, fortunately this idea to vindictively redefine parties was shot down in Internal Affairs Commission, where incidently both Case 34 Plaintiff Kai Savaree-Ruess and Case 34 Defense Counsel Paul Harms are former chairpersons. Sources tell me it devolved into some kind of shouting match.
   Reportedly upon being voted down Harms commented "This isn't the IAC I used to know." Which is ironic because before HE "knew" IAC, Savaree-Ruess was its charismatic chairperson for much longer. Though Harms' brief experience as the chair of IAC (before being shamefully dismissed and left with no position at all by the Senate) was the pinnacle of his ASUCD career, he should have known better than to think he'd have more influence there than Savaree-Ruess.

   And such is the hard-hitting ASUCD commentary I can provide to you when I'm for the first time in four years not under an obligation to remain unbiased. Incidently I have it on good authority that I was originally put on the Court to shut me up. (=
   Though actually I'm still on the Court for another forty minutes. I feel this is a de minimis consideration however.

Coming Soon: The current ASUCD Cold War

Current Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Current Music: Filthy Thieving Bastards - Sealed Confessions

   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."

Current Music: Filthy Theiving Bastards - Bad Afternoon Sun

As before, I'm having the Vice Chiefs pretty much run things. At today's meeting: Justice Aguilera: "Hey how are you?" Me: "I don't have my laptop, I don't have an agenda, I don't have anything, its great not having to stress about that anymore!" ... a few minutes later Vice Chief Wheat comes in and asks me how I'm doing as well "I have no idea what we're going to talk about today, I'm not stressing about any of it.. I feel like I should be wearing a hawaiian shirt!" ... a few minutes later after some fidgeting "okay guys it actually freaks me the hell out, & thats why I keep talking about it!!"
( Mainly Ratto v Vakil )

Anyway, so the Mock Election is still on. Vote if you have not yet. The Judicial Dictatorship in ASUCD! party is recommending you vote Kris Fricke #1, Mark Champagne #2, Brent Laabs #3, & Paul "Will never be forgiven for putting five justices off at an IAC meeting until the very very end, after a ten minute 'icecream break'" Harms #11.

In other ASUCD news, a prominant Lead senator, Jon Sanders, has defected from the Lead party and declared himself independant. Lead senator Christine Rogers called for a closed session to discuss removing Sanders from the position of Senate President Pro Tempore immediately after his announcement, though she says it is unrelated.

Quote of the Day
[00:11:28] Darth Laabs: the problem is that everyone running in this election is more qualified to be a senator than anyone on the current senate
[00:11:36] Darth Laabs: except Kai [Kai being a candidate]

Picture of the Day
totally unrelated to the Court Meeting

A close up of my Clockwork Orange makeup Tuesday, because I thought it was novel.

Current Music: Against Me! - Walking is Still Honest

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:

Jedi Powers - The Senate on 03/10/05 determined Fricke to have dangerous jedi powers.

Reverend - really.

Survived three impeachment attempts - and various assassination attempts as well no doubt

Politically slaughtered countless enemies

Destroyed whole politcal parties that annoyed him

Is the real Pope of ASUCD*

Can speak Swedish!

ASUCD Chief Justice

Platform:

Judicial dictatorship in ASUCD!

Reinstall the ICBM in the campus Silo

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. )=

Current Location: Davis, CA
Current Music: Red Army Choir - Anthem of the Soviet Union

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)

Current Music: The Stills - Still in Love

   At our Court meeting last Tuesday I was giving a history lesson on the follies of "The Reverend" Tiqula "My Friends Call Me Half-Man Half-Amazing" Bledsoe. When I happened to mention that I too am a reverend, since the Universal Life Church will ordain anyone, several other Court members immediately went to the website (we had multiple laptops present, since we're a particularly advanced body) and got ordained during our meeting. I think we're going to form our own church.

   Anyway, the Administrative Office (SGAO) does not yet have the minutes from the IAC meeting last week where Kai-romwell made the original presentation on how ASUCD doesn't need a Court. But thats okay, because I have the minutes anway.
   The relevant portion is only a page, I shall reproduce it here, with my own commentary in bracketed nonitallics.

IAC Minutes, 06-05-15
( You're never alone when minutes are being taken )

And I still think it was a serious breach of good faith that Kai came to IAC with the intention of making this presentation without notifying the Court.

Round III will take place at the IAC meeting next week, on Tuesday, 5pm, De Carli Room. Should be interesting to all those interested in ASUCD, law, or philosophy...

Director of External Affairs James Schwab reads the IAC minutes during a Court meeting.
He thinks they're kind of ridiculous.
Justice Harney holds a copy of the Federalist Papers in the foreground.
And thats newly appointed Justice Kevin Powers on the left.

Current Location: The Trees Apartments
Current Music: Flogging Molly - Tobacco Island

Profile

Aggienaut

Bee Aid International

April 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

Vendettas and More!
The Ultimate List of Shadiest People in ASUCD
Public Figures Behaving Badly
Stinging Commentary
ASUCD Jurisprudence
ASUCD Wednesday
ASUCD Mock Elections!
30 in 30 III - 1 - 30 in 30 in 30
"Same Interests"

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 06:41 am

The Agrinautica

Tales of a Beekeeper Errant

Entries tagged with paul harms

Vendettas and More!

The Ultimate List of Shadiest People in ASUCD

Public Figures Behaving Badly

Stinging Commentary

ASUCD Jurisprudence

ASUCD Wednesday

ASUCD Mock Elections!

30 in 30 III - 1 - 30 in 30 in 30

"Same Interests"