Did we say earlier that this weekend’s slate of college football games was going to be boring? Oops, looks like we were wrong.
After “No. 10 Clemson was downed by Va Tech”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/recaps/2006/10/26/34876_recap.html on Thursday, the Cal football team got another blessing when “No. 3 USC fell to Oregon State”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/10/28/usc.oregonstate.ap/index.html – yes the same Oregon State team that the Bears thumped 41-13 – today in a barn-burner.
With two squads there were ranked higher than the Bears losing this weekend, Cal should move back into the top 10 without even having to come near the football field today.
The Bears jump could have even been higher if “Texas Tech didn’t choke away the game to Mack-I’m-a-little-whiner-Brown’s Texas team”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/recaps/2006/10/28/34099_recap.html, if “Ole Miss just could have put Auburn away”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/recaps/2006/10/28/34903_recap.html and if “the Old Ball Coach didn’t choke against the Vols”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/recaps/2006/10/28/34932_recap.html.
But nonetheless, the Bears and their fans should be happy with the mighty Trojans’ collapse.
People will say that Cal needed ’SC to be undefeated when its plays them in a couple of weeks, but we disagree. With Ohio State, Michigan and West Virginia all looking unstoppable, the national title game, with each passing week, looks like it’s getting further and further away from Oski’s grasps. Unless two of those three teams lose, playing on January 8 looks impossible.
So, whether or not the Bears play the No. 2 Trojans or No. 200 USC on Nov. 18 won’t matter if Cal handles its business.
For the Bears the task is simple, win-out and they’ll smell roses. And after today, it looks like winning in the Coliseum will be a little easier than many may have expected.
We just wanted to point out how unfortunate it is that there’s a group on Facebook called “Women of Leisure.” To put it delicately, the phrase “women of leisure” refers to prostitutes, and not women who enjoy taking it easy and being relaxed. Since joining a group is basically another way of labeling oneself, members of the group should consider themselves forewarned.
YouTube now has college groups so videos can stay local. Daily Clog found this Cal Dragon Boat Haka video among the 20 available from a current total of 201 users. Could this be the end for student start-up “Berkeley Tube”:http://berkeleytube.com/?
“Join UC Berkeley on YouTube”:http://www.youtube.com/groups_school_layout?group_id=M0XM_fMEBQc
“Site to Tailor Online Video to Campuses”:http://dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=21272 [Daily Cal]
No Cal football this weekend – the Bears are hopefully getting the day off, relaxing and catching up on homework. Okay, maybe they’re not catching up on work, but maybe they get the day to rest some of those sore bodies.
And this weekend in college football resembles much like last weekend before all those great games went down to the wire – “boring”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/scoreboards/divia/today/. Only one match between ranked teams with Oklahoma traveling to Mizzou. The Pac-10 is also a yes-you-don’t-have-to-watch-weekend with only seven members in action and one of them – Oregon – playing Portland State.
So, while we want to drill a nail into our heads after watching this looks-to-be-mind-numbing day of college football, get off your asses and do something. Leave the couch-potato-ing to us and just be happy that “No. 10 Clemson lost Thursday night”:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/recaps/2006/10/26/34876_recap.html.
*We’ll also have a full recap of all of the day’s action that pertains to Bears football sometime today so you don’t have to waste a day watching this horrible football.*
Cal Dems President Suzanne Ruecker squared off with BCR President Josiah Prendergast on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company”. Ruecker couldn’t, uh, seem to get, uh, more than three, uh, words out of her, um, mouth. It’s hard to argue with that but Prendergast’s on camera flip-flop proved that he has what it takes to be a politician.
More: “Cal Dem’s Press Release”:http://www.caldems.com/docs/release-cnbc.pdf
“Patriot Blog’s two, and only two, cents”:http://www.calpatriot.org/blog/2006/10/26/bcr-v-cal-dems-on-cnbc/
Say what you will about Aleksey Vayner– that he’s a stereotypical Yalie, that he’s a stereotypical i-banking wannabe, that he’s a stereotypical 23-year old megalomaniac– there is NOTHING stereotypical about achieving the impossible. Shit like this makes us glad we go to school on the West Coast.
Below: Aleksey tells Inside Edition how his mom cries all the time. Uhhh, yeah, we’d be crying too if Aleksey Vayner were our son.
In case you’ve missed out on the fun, start at the bottom and keep reading up for your monthly quota of douchebag!
Former mic man Kate Troecher is over the moon about the GoogTube deal. She’s so over the moon, in fact, that she made a special analysis piece on her blog “Kate on Sports”:http://www.kateonsports.com.
While just about anyone can put themselves on the Internet unfortunately, not everyone can do it with an iBook marquee or Kate’s Cal pride. Her striking insight on Google (“Withdrawn from what the Internet was all about these days”) and commentary (everything is “amazing” or “great”) convinced us, however, to sell-off our prospective URLs kateonbusiness.com, kateonM&As.com, and kateonnotsports.com. Bubble 2.0 is a bitch.
Vishal Gupta, the executive vice president, has been “quoted as saying”:http://dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=21848 that “There should be some kind of provision that does not give the Judicial Council full legislative and judiciary authority. When they are in violation of (the constitution), it puts the association at a huge legal and financial risk.”
There isn’t really any doubt that something is wrong with the Judicial Council, but the implication of this quote seems to be that the council has too much power, and the solution is to take some away, a suggestion the Clog has heard before. This seems to us to head down the wrong track.
The problem with the Judicial Council is not quantity of power but quality. The council has only two ways to enforce election laws: symbolic censures or disqualitifications.
What this means is that every single case that comes before the Judicial Council is all or nothing. Either the candidates receive censures, and nobody cares, or they get disqualified, and (if they win the elections) everyone screams, rightfully, about a subversion of democracy, and it inevitably gets reversed.
In the end, it means that election laws are simply not enforced. The worst thing that happens is that someone violates the election laws, spends lots of money on a lawyer, and eventually gets the ruling reversed.
They still get into office, and often the ASUC reimburses them (at least if they actually win the suits they’ve filed). So we get the exact same outcome except with a lot more drama and a lot more money being taken from the student government.
This summer, the head of the largest party on campus went before the Judicial Council and actually told them that chalk only lasts for one day.
Anyone who has been in Berkeley for even a week knows this is absurd, and someone who works on campaigns regularly should surely have known it was false. His dishonesty showed either a serious (for lack of a better term) brain fart, or an incredible disrespect for the Judicial Council.
But in the end the verdict that actually leveled a punishment for the perjury was reversed—because that punishment was the completely undemocratic disqualification of the winning candidates.
The only tangible change was that the Student Action executives now have a legal bill to pay. Regardless of how you feel about Student Action’s conduct throughout this debacle, it’s impossible to argue that forcing those four people to pay $22,000 is the “just” or “right” way to resolve the initial infraction, the perjury. It’s not regulated, it’s not regular, it’s not objective procedural justice, which is one of the most important qualities of a democracy at any level.
What’s the solution? Our suggestion is to simply allow the council to punish infractions meaningfully, but with less extreme measures.
Are fines so bad? If we’re worried about forcing individuals to pay fines they can’t afford, we can create a sliding scale; candidates could pay a certain fraction of the amount they spent on their campaigns, for example.
Fines may not be attractive, but maybe, just maybe, if there was an actual reason for people to avoid breaking election law, they wouldn’t break it so often. It’s objective and it’s meaningful. And we wouldn’t have to go through this drama every single year.