The Tater Awards Issue is now available for your viewing pleasure. Anarchists! Bike Lanes! Whitney Houston! All served up with some nice, buttery snarkiness.

Well, this guy has, anyway.

Three likes. Three likes. I believe that constitutes a job well-done.

(Oh, and here’s the article the comment is attached to, in case anyone cares. Whatever.)

Three of our distinguished staffers, Mr. Colin Keating, Mr. Nicholas G. Ekblad, and the lovely Allison Berl imbibe alcohol and ask people questions. The results may surprise you… but not really.

Adam Nathanial Yauch, a great hero and matchless artist of the innovative group The Beastie Boys– the three original proponents of fighting for our right to party– has passed away. He sadly lost his long battle with cancer this morning.

Having announced his battle with a cancerous parotid gland and lymph node  in July of 2009, MCA, along with fellow Beasties Ad-Roc and Mike D, postponed their new album and tour. Just last month, The Beastie Boys were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame– only the third hip-hop group to accomplish this.

Sure, we all love throwing ODEs in the trash, but at the end of the day, its just plain wrong. Katie Taylor’s “liking” of this meme is just another example of her total lack of respect for “Your school,” and “Your voice.”

*Check out her shady campaign website on which she instructs students how to vote on the ballot measures !

Name

Katie Taylor

Year in School

4th Year

Major

Planning, Public Policy and Management

Hometown

Queenstown, Maryland.

Tell us your slate, ever so briefly. And more importantly, provide a succinct yet compelling set of sentences that aim to rationally persuade us to adhere to it.

The Katie & Alex slate is a diverse set of passionate students with proactive plans to empower and advocate for students. This is our school, it only makes sense that we get what we want out of it and that our voices are heard in the decisions that matter to us, from the cost of our education to campus sustainability to fairly representing all communities on campus.

 Which inadequacy or injustice at the UO keeps you up at night the most? How do you plan to remedy this?

 I think whenever students don’t have a voice in the issues that affect them that’s not right and it’s problem. Students can and should take the lead on this campus. They should lead the EMU/SRC renovation project. Students of color should lead any changes within CMAE. Students should take the lead on addressing the cost of our education. Students should take the lead in bringing back anonymous report forms to protect survivors of sexual assault.  I will reach out to every student who has not had a voice on campus and dedicate my time to making sure their voice is heard.

 Without listing experience, what’s so special about you anyway? Why are you doing this?

What’s special about me is that I have the good fortune to be part of this amazing student body. And what’s special about them? You name it. There are so many different kinds of people from so many back grounds who are passionate and engaged  and looking for something more out of their time here and looking to give back to their campus community. I do this for them. I have had the privilege this year of working with so many awesome students on a wide array of issues. I want to keep building student voice around these issues so we can start making some real changes for everybody.

Students have found that ASUO elections rouse a kind of futile discourse consisting of many “empty promises.” To quote Shakespeare, candidate promises truly sound like “much ado about nothing.” Obviously there’s a lot to be done at the UO, but let’s not forget how short an executive term is. Slates aside, what are your principal, feasible priorities?

I will prioritize funding for student groups and programs. I will help address the cost of our education by bringing student voices to Salem and Washington DC to fight for more higher education and financial aid funding.  Furthermore, I will work with administration to bring down the cost of the EMU/SRC renovation project—I’ve been in enough meetings to know that it can be done. Reinstating anonymous report forms is another  attainable victory that will greatky improve student lives. I also will continue to be an ally to students of color as they fight for transparency in the transition from OMAS to CMAE. Finally, I will keep pressing the State Board of Higher Education to keep guns and tasers off of this police force.

 Although the ASUO is one of the most established student governments in the country, a majority of the UO student body remains apathetic (and annoyed) during elections. If you could speak to these apathetic students in particular, what would you tell them?

There’s a lot of rhetoric thrown around on campus through various means that I think disempowers students. They don’t believe that they can or should fight for an affordable education, or a sustainable campus, or for social justice. That rhetoric is wrong and it’s a lie. Students can do so much. We have the power—this is our school. It’s your choice whether to care or not, but if someone tells you not to care, don’t listen. They aren’t leaders.

 And now for the most pressing of inquiries: As you may or may not know, we’re all about the booze here at the Commentator. If you could have a drink with anyone, who would it be and what would you be drinking? Be very specific.

 One of the most important leaders of the twentieth century and perhaps the most influential woman in the civil rights movement, Ella Baker. We would drink red wine, something modest and inexpensive.

Snatching defeat from the bowels of victory.

The 2012 ASUO elections are currently underway, but Sam Dotters-Katz is still riled up (and rightfully so) about 2011. In an email sent to the Con Court in the late hours of Tuesday night, Dotters-Katz petitioned for the removal of Ben Eckstein and Katie Taylor, on grounds that are perhaps less traditional than normal: “This is not an impeachment petition. This is an elections grevience [sic]. The Court has the power to remove candidates from the election. Further, the Court has the power to remove elected officials from office after elections occur, if evidence comes to light regarding egregius [sic] violations.”

The grievance refers specifically to the dirty financial dealings of the Ben and Katie campaign reported by the ODE. On that matter, Dotters-Katz isn’t pulling any punches: “The election rules differentiate between different levels of violations, based on severity of the action, ‘Egregious Violations’ being the most extreme, followed by ‘Serious Violations’. Turning in incomplete contribution forms is listed as a serious violation…However, I also argue that the violations outlined as ‘egregious’ are also applicable and more correctly describe the misconduct Ben and Katie.”

And what is the plan? It’s something of an odd-ball, and yet refreshingly frank approach:

“I understand why some might have the initial inclination to simply let [Ben and Katie] finish our their term and move beyond the issue. I believe that it would be a great miscarriage of justice to set a precedent that no matter how egregious your misconduct may be, if you are good enough at hiding it you won’t be punished. There is no statute of limitations on this claim, and the rules clearly state that the Court has the power to remove elected officers post-elections…Sinjin and Kaitlyn should be named interim President and Vice President until May 24th at 11:59PM. Both are members of the ASUO and full-time students currently and will be through the end of this term. In the alternative; Currently the student body is voting for new Executive Officers, and whoever is elected fairly and without fraud should be immediately instated as interim President & Vice President.”

So, as of yesterday, we have another major scandal coming out of the ASUO executive, one that may involve an impeachable offense, and at least one person is taking up the charge to make it happen.

Excellent.

The Petition for Review/Motion for Consideration submitted by Senator Ben Rudin and Former ASUO Prez Sam Dotters-Katz that called for the ASUO Constitution Court to simply look-over an approved ballot measure– has been denied!

Thus, come elections, THIS RIDICULOUS MEASURE shall be voted on: Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain incidental-fee funded programs?

In their decision to simply do nothing as per usual, the Con Court upheld…

Only claims relating

to factual errors, procedural errors, the designation of

the prevailing party, or subsequent changes to the

applicable rules or law may give rise to an opportunity

for the Court to reconsider a previous decision. A Motion

for Reconsideration cannot be based on claims that the

Court erroneously construed or applied the applicable

rules or law.

Rudin and Dotters-Katz were trying to question the constitutionality of  a previous decision! No wonder it was denied. They really should have gone after the Court and its decision on more compelling grounds, with more “permissible justifications,” like “procedural errors,” perhaps — rather than a daft questioning of constitutionality. For according to the Con Court,

 None of Co-Petitioners’ claims are

permissible justifications for the Court to reconsider its

previous ruling in 29 C.C. (2011/12). Co-Petitioners

argue that the Court erroneously interpreted the ASUO

Constitution when it approved these ballot measures.

These are exactly the types of claims prohibited under

Constitution Court Rule 10.3.1.

Here are those Constitution Court Rules they’re referring to, (thank you Ben Rudin, I’m a terrible journalist):

10.3.1 A Motion for Reconsideration shall not be based on a contention that the Court erred in construing or applying the law, but shall only be based on one or more of these contentions:

10.3.1.1 A claim of factual error in the order or opinion;

10.3.1.2 A claim of error in the procedural disposition of the case requiring correction or clarification to make the disposition consistent with the holding or rationale of the opinion;

10.3.1.3 A claim of error in the designation of the prevailing party; and

10.3.1.4 A claim that there has been a change in the Constitution, rules, statutes, or case law since the Court’s decision.

ASUO Con Court, I get it now. You’re in a bind. You’re bound by the Constitution. There ain’t nothin’ you can do. Well with that in mind, could you go ahead and elucidate 1) how this ballot measure was passed in the first place, considering its unconstitutionality combined with your being bound to the Constitution and everything 2)  your utility 3) how exactly you serve students, the University in general 4) the reason for your existence, etc. ?

And P.S., the ASUO Senate body talks mad shit about you! And the Ol’ Dirty Emerald has called y’all mole people before. Off the record.

Fuck Justice. Just Fuck It

To readers, I say unto you– vote DOWN the possibility of giving students the ability to choose the funding for I-Fee programs. Denying students this ability isn’t elitist or anti-democratic, it’s just (cringe, wince) standing by the ASUO’s entire purpose.

To the ASUO Senate and respective finance committees, I say unto you the same thing. If students have this ability, your fundamental justification for existence (budgeting, allocating the I-Fee throughout the whole goddamn school year) will be undermined immeasurably. So think about it. C’mon, do you really want any of your authority undermined immeasurably, any of your ego deflated indefinately?

Lastly, long live The ASUO Constitution Court: Ineffectual Mole People 4 Lyfe. Keep up the good work guys. What would we ever do without you?

First of all, fuck you Sophie Luthin. Not only are you bringing disgrace to all Sophie’s everywhere, you are doing stupid bullshit that I now have to blog about and wasting time that should be devoted to studying the implications of psychology within the legal system.

Sophie “da Sneak” Luthin is the campaign manager for Ben Bowden and Lamar Wise, and she has been accused two fuck-ups. One is starting the campaign before midnight on April 2nd. The second is the manner of this pre-campaigning, where in students were lead to believe that if they were signing a petition in support of more football tickets for students (Go Ducks!) but in reality it was a contact info gathering scheme for Bowman and Wise’s campaign. Fucking stupid. Jena Langham, who filed the grievance, is asking for Sophie’s removal from the campaign.

All the details are below, and since Cedar ignored it, it’s going to Con Court and won’t be dealt with ’til after Spring Break. Cool.

1. Name of person against whom the complaint is filed.

Sophie Luthin (hereinafter “Sophie”) – Campaign Manager for Ben Bowman and
Lamar Wise

2. The questions presented for review.
Whether Sophie and her slate have started campaigning before 12:01 a.m. on April 2,
2012

3. The rule violated
Election Rule 5.6: no campaigning may begin until 12:01 a.m. on April 2, 2012

Campaigning is defined in Election Rule 1.14: the distribution of information or materials
which may cause awareness, advocacy, promotion or opposition towards a specific
candidate, campaign, campaign committee, or ballot measure in a public space and with
the intention of soliciting a vote. This includes but is not limited to websites, social
media networks, brochures, pamphlets, posters, fliers, apparel, print media, and word of
mouth.

4. A brief statement of facts giving rise to the complaint.

General Facts

1. Sophie is the campaign manager for Ben Bowman’s presidential campaign. Proof:
ASUO Candidate registration list

2. Sophie was behind of the effort to gather information cards. Proof: Sophie’s name is
on the receipt, demonstrating the photocopies of these cards were made in Sophie’s
name for Sophie’s campaign. This is the last photo of the last page.

3. The information cards (second-to-last picture) are used to collect people’s contact
information. Proof: First picture on the last page.

4. People are led to believe that they are signing a petition in favor of more football
tickets, when in reality they are giving Sophie’s campaign their contact information so
Sophie’s campaign can cold call them during elections asking for their vote.

Proof: When asked, solicitors of the cards have mentioned Ben Bowman and
members of his campaign as points of contact. They have said things like “Ben
Bowman is a part of our group,” “if you want more information I can give you
Ben’s email,” “you should talk to Andrew Lubash for more information,” and “if
you give us pizza, we will work for your campaign too.”

Andrew Lubash is also a campaign manager for Ben Bowman’s presidential campaign.
Proof: ASUO Candidate registration list

5. The information cards are not involved with any other ASUO entity and are not an
ASUO-endorsed campaign. Proof: Testimonies in Appendix 1. Furthermore, Sophie’s
position within the ASUO is Environmental Advocate, so she cannot claim that getting
photocopies for such a campaign is part of her job description. Proof: ASUO Executive
page

5. The Remedy Requested

Petitioner requests the Elections Board remove Sophie from her position as

Campaign Manager for Ben Bowman’s campaign, effective immediately. Sophie

has undermined the fairness of elections by starting early, similar to a runner

getting a head start in a race. The remedy should be the same in this situation:

disqualification.

Appendix 1

Testimonies in support of the blue cards being directly related to Ben Bowman

From: Maddy Robinson –

A student was approached by the “street teamer” and asked, “Hey do you have a minute?
I want to ask you about an increase in student football tickets.” She responded, “Sure!”
She was handed a form and asked to fill it out in support of an increase of student tickets.
She asked, “So where is this information going to.” He responded, “It will go toward
an increase in student football tickets” She responded, “Yes, but where is that going to
come from.” He hesitated and answered, “Uhhhh, ACFC I think.” She responded, “Oh
so I’m confused, isn’t Ben Bowman the president of ACFC? And didn’t he vote for
a 0% increase for student tickets and a 97% increase in funds for OSPIRG recently.”
The “street teamer” mumbled something in response. The student asked, “Are you
working with Ben and Lamar,” and he responded “Uhhhhh” with a look of shock on his
face and shook his head. The student grabbed one of the handouts and the street teamer
yelled after her, “For the record, I didn’t answer that question.”

Testimonies in support that the cards are not directly related to an ASUO-endorsed
campaign:

From: Ryan McNamara – Vice President of Pit Crew – Senior-

I was walking on campus on Friday, March 9, and two people handing out blue flyers
approached me. When I was stopped I asked what it was for, one stated that it was for
more football tickets. I was hesitant because I do not like giving away my email and
phone number on campus. To try to convince me the other chimed in saying that they
just got Kenjon Barner to sign one.

From: Gabo Allstock –

It was a traditional lazy Saturday consisting of sitting in front of the television
and “vegging” out. Unexpectedly, I hear a knock at my door. I unwillingly get up to
answer it, and look through the peephole to notice two kids whom I do not know. When I
answer the door, they started what was clearly a practiced story asking me if I want more
student football tickets. Before they could get too far into things I cut them off saying “I
already signed one of those yesterday on campus.” They were happy to hear my response
and asked if I had any roommates that would like to sign one too. I told them they were
not home and they reacted very kindly, thanked me, and walked off. I did not really think
anything at all of the interaction and went back to watching whatever reality show I was
previously watching. I later came to find out that they were actually students working
on an ASUO election campaign, and connected the dots that they were canvassing the
neighborhood for signatures. Never did the students tell me who they were working
for, what their cause was, or really anything at all, about what I was signing except the
infamous election tagline “do you want more student football tickets?” I am discouraged

to hear that this ASUO campaign is tricking students into supporting them when the
campaign season has not started yet.

From: Paige Jeffery – (925) 457-4191

While walking through the center of campus on 13th Ave, I have been immediately
approached by individuals asking if I want more football tickets. To any student, this
question would seem intriguing. However, when I asked about the organization they are
a part of or what the real story was, the only answer they had was, “it’s just a petition for
more tickets.” I signed this “petition”, but still, none of my questions were answered.

Students out there drowning in their own little puddle of the almost $1 trillion United States student loan debt might see a little bit of metaphorical sun this year in the form of student loan forgiveness. HR 4170, or the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, will “provide that if a student loan borrower equal to 10% of their discretionary income for a period of ten years, the balance of their federal student loan debt will be forgiven,” according to the bill’s author, Rep. Hansen Clarke. In his speech to the House, Clarke asserted that in addition to assisting students with sometimes crippling financial burdens, this bill will help stimulate the economy by freeing up funds for millions of individuals, which would in turn help the American job market (I believe the technical term is an “economic tripple whammy”). An official press release on the Clarke’s website further filled out details of the bill:

“This bill would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 by giving borrowers the option to enter the 10/10 loan repayment plan. Borrower’s discretionary income will be defined as any annual income exceeding 150 percent of the poverty line for an individual or family. This bill would also allow graduates who enter public service professions, such as teachers and first responders, to have their loans forgiven in five years instead of ten as well as cap interest rates on federal loans at 3.4 percent.”

“It’s time for Congress to stand up for the rights of student loan borrowers,” Clarke claimed on the House floor to conclude his proposal. “It’s time to forgive these student loan debts.”

Let’s all keep our fingers crossed as this bill starts its long and vicious journey through the House. I know I would personally love to stimulate the economy by picking up a few more six-packs than I could otherwise.

A video of Clarke’s speech to the House can be found here.

Breitbart, a conservative commentator, Huffington Post co-founder, Drudge Report contributor, and veritable hurricane of political insight with four websites of his very own, is dead at 43, apparently from a heart attack.

He was known most recently for breaking the Anthony Weiner scandal on his website BigJournalism, and for participating in the conservative gay rights group, GOProud.

A force to be reckoned with, Breitbart will be missed. Here is a quote from his book Righteous Indignation:

“I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and — famously — I enjoy making enemies. Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands — who knows? — of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.”

Andrew Breitbart