Monday, January 22, 2007

The Radikal Speaks!



Rapes can be reduced if we are alert"
This is the kind of article that Mr. Harwell should have written. A well thought-out, sensitive, and factual article that continues to put emphasis on awareness but also cites previous year crime figures in a way to alleviate those on the verge of becoming franticly filled with fear. I guess one reason I was so outraged at Mr. Harwell's choice of words was the fact that the pea-brain editor over there ran the story in the front page and as if that were not enough, she added insult to injury by placing the article in the friggin' Public Safety column, I mean how stupid is that.

The Alligator is the student paper and should have some kind of social responsibility to the community. They are infamous for writing against the Greeks and have become notorious for raising skepticism in student leadership and at times fullblown distrust in the efficiency of Student Government. For the Alligator to run a socially-irresponsible article in the face of noble and successful operations by AAREST/SG made me literally furious. Good Work SG'ers! Great Job Patrick Barrett

Rapes not getting enough attention


Students are angry and are writing letters. While in SG we wrote and passed several bills involving int'l affairs (including but not limited to the War on Terror). How proper would it be for a senator to pen a resolution condemning the Alligator's direct contradiction of the work of AAREST/SG in trying to thwart the campaign at raising awareness across this campus against sexual-crimes. I applaud Jessica Bronson, a UF Graduate student no less, for taking the time to write to the Aligator and voicing her concerns regarding Mr. Harwell's bizarre article.

No online voting for SG


Ok...so having had SOE Brian Aungst here last month, this is sort of old news. Still, as an Independent I'd like to address my reactions to this article. I'm hoping to hear from fellow indies Capezza, Argento, Carmody, et. al. The issue of online voting, meaning internet voting is muddled. Yes, I served on an executive commmittee exploring the option, yes I have always rallied for higher voter turnout, but if intranet voting is any preview of internet voting, it shouldn't happen.

The integrity of the ballot remains key. I used to dread hearing that phrase in chambers, I used to imagine driving needles through voodoo dolls hoping that the Innovate/Orange Ignite'ers that would utter it would somehow fall down the steps or something...ah...the memories. Still however, I secretly agreed with them. Many more Indies than might be suspected, oppose Internet voting. People that held high positions in Impact, Progress, Voice, and even the more recent Action Party had substantial reservations.

I have concerns with the court's ruling and I am not sure what means of recourse (e.g. an appeal) are open to students rejected by UF's highest court. Still, the decision is pretty clear and those opposed to it I'm sure are already working on ways to have it overturned.

I insist...the only way to beat the establishment is through a powerful ticket. How can Indies hope to defeat the big boys if they don't even secure their own bloc? Let's see who the GDI's pick for '07, then we can talk some more. As of the Sowell/Puckett/Ngin ticket, NOTHING has come close to that level of quality. Nothing.

3 comments:

Pedro said...

The most annoying result of the Court decision against online voting, is not the decision itself, but the timing.
Jan 18 was the deadline to put constitutional amendments on the ballot and by delivering their decision this week, after this deadline has passed, deprives proponents of online voting the only true way to make online voting constitutional: by explicitly making it legal in the constitution itself.
Effectively, this has tabled the issue for another year by defeating the most forceful way to settle the issue, since the constitution can only be amended in general spring elections.

But a more appropriate action would be proportional representation, but that might be even a tougher sell for the Student Senate to put on the ballot. If you can find 7000 people to vote for it, then that's the dream-come-true for independent movements to flourish. It is the only way of indies to ever win a district A or B seat, or a freshman seat. PR must be put on the constitution too, because if not, more activist judges could take it down too.

Anonymous said...

The opinion was actually issued on December 21 as an advacne opinion and it was e-mailed to Rosemarie and Tommy Jardon, the two who I assume are "fighting to overturn" the decision. If they are not competent enough to read their E-mail before January 18, it is their own fault.

Pedro said...

Yes, but Tommy and Rosemary were probably enjoying their holidays away from their lives at UF. They could have reconvened quickly on January 9th or maybe even collected signatures during the display of the championship game at the O'Connell Center.

But the general student body was not informed, and thus by informing us. on the newspaper of greatest circulation among the Student Body after the passage of the deadline, the act has been done. The discussion, if any, is effectively tabled until next year. New or the same actors will need to work to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot, and make it surface as as a campaign issue again, if it does.

I would probably vote against online voting, given the fiasco of the 13th district in Florida, and the ease of which computer software can be re-programmed maliciously. Given that the source code of the election software would probably not be available, making an independent audit would be impossible.

Regardless of what the proponents of online voting would have done, the timing of the Court's announcement is clearly irresponsible.