Friday, February 23, 2007
Josh, Tommy, & All Your Turncoat Favorites!
Ah, the man that accused me of "slandering" Gator in a written essay, returns with one of the most socially-irresponsible/Sad-Turncoat columns to grace the Alligator in a long time. Members of the Indie Bastard Class of '07 seem to becoming slightly desperate in their ways as of late. With more and more Indie leaders supporting PANTS officially (e.g. Nikki Grant), tepidly (e.g. Ryan Nelson), like chicken-shits, fearing to burn social ties (e.g. can't say), or giving free & sketch campaign advice to the side they abandoned (e.g. can't say), the offering of the bastard class to their Greek/FBK masters may not pan out quite as accurately as they'd pereceived early on.
The Indie vote won't win an election. Let's put that baby to sleep already. However, the turncoats didn't go in offering the AA community or the IFC houses, they went in with an offer that albeit no one at Gator particularly cared about, they still made bold assurances even on this very site that the Battle for the Independent community was a non-factor.
This morning before heading over to school (the joys of a planning period to post), I sent several folks a question and an opportunity to comment on Josh Simmons' horrible letter to the Alligator. One of the first responses was Will Foster, whom simply replied with this:
"Heh and just over a month before the sell out wrote this
This letter was written by a genuine GDI -- or was it? Those of you that remain in denial in regards to my theories tell me, explain, enlighten me...how did this GDI go from writing a letter for students to vote, to writing a second letter encouraging students to not vote? TURNCOAT! TRAITOR! TURNCOAT!
From Charlie Grapski:
I cannot comment on this individual - as I have no idea who he is. And I have not followed the particulars enough to know.
However I have seen this kind of sentiment before. And I believe it reflects an extremely naive as well as irresponsible sentiment.
It often reflects one of two things, however:
1) This is often the sentiment expressed by those who have been thoroughly defeated - they have given up the struggle. This is unfortunate. But it is understandable. When facing this kind of entrenched power - and when the "law" that is supposed to prevent their abuses is silent - it is not easy to continue the struggle. But that is what they rely on. Because it is not a particular victory that is important in such a struggle - to fight an entrenched power, when you are but individuals without such authority, requires a war of attrition strategy. No single battle will determine the eventual outcome. No single victory will solve the problem. Nor will a single defeat be a disaster. The key is to keep up the struggle. Many, however, will give up - and when they do - this is one of the most common reactions.
2) I have also often seen this come from those who were only in the
struggle for their own self-interest. They first try to join "the system" - but are shut out. Then they stand up against it - and in such cases they blend in with those who are struggle against it for principle (not self-interest). When they gain some power in the opposition in this way - they are often approached by the system to work cooperatively with them. They often do - and effectively become co-opted by the system. But they are never really taken in to that system. So if their self-interest is their motivating factor, they tend to then react back again. This time they don't come back and fight - they give up the fight. But they cannot do so simply - so they discourage others from joining in the struggle. If they can't win, no one can. But then again - their goal was never the same goal as those fighting for the principle. Thus this is not inconsistent behavior - from the perspective of their aims and objectives.
Like I said - I cannot judge this individual or their motives - as I have no idea of the facts of the situation or the person.
But my experience suggests the likely explanation for this kind of
column - which if you review the history of SG elections you will find is nearly identical to others over time - is one of the two above. Which one - that is up to those who know the facts and the individual to decide.
From Gavin Baker
***J.S. Alligator quote(s)
***"The Gator Party has been nothing but forthright, friendly and considerate - at least as much as an SG political party can be."
***"Pants, on the other hand, has run the dirtiest campaign in recent memory."
I haven't heard that much about Gator's tactics (other than the ratherunsubstantiated rumors about candidate intimidation). But Pants clearly does not fit the description he labels it with. It's been a bit negative, but -- the dirtiest in recent memory? Where was the author last year when a Unite partisan wrote that John Boyles had sold his soul? Mr. Simmons worked on that campaign, and I would argue it was alot worse than Pants has been. And I guarantee that Unite is not the low mark "in recent memory". So basically, this is bullshit.
***""The outcome of this election has been assured for a while, and despite whatever the blue- or brown-clad campaigners tell you, your solitary, worthless vote is not going to make one iota of difference. On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, I encourage you to flaunt with pride your indifference, your apathy and your deliberate lack of an "I Voted" sticker."
It's pretty fucking lame that, rather than focusing on all the reasons TO vote, he would rather encourage voter apathy and perpetuate the disengagements of the students from their Student Government. Pretty fucking lame.
From Amanda Kane
My opinion on the matter (for publication or not, your choice):
Josh is one of the most intelligent, hardworking people I met at UF; regardless of personal differences people may have with him now, I don't think that opinion will ever change. He also has the snarkiest and most cynical sense of humor on campus. I think anyone who selflessly worked on three campaigns (either side) has the absolute right to get up and say whatever he thinks in a public forum without being called names, much though I may disagree with idea and underlying sentiment of his column.
I also think it is quite important to remember that many of the people you criticize are 18, 19, 20 years old. I'm sure at 19 I was a barely formed human being (probably not even capable of tying my own shoes). Yet these kids have had to develop in an environment that I can only describe as toxic. I'm not sure what I would say about SG and voting if my first three semesters at UF were spent in such a state.
Thanks again for keeping me updated and all the best,