It's amazing how long people can hold grudges for what are often erroneous misunderstandings. Take, for instance, Deenihan's quiz where he says that he is not on speaking terms with Wally because"Wally protested the Darrin Bell cartoon". If KD had ever talked to Wally or Justin about it, he would know that they were at the protest mediating in order to keep the post-9/11 situation from blowing up. Of course, KD would rather jump to conclusions based on his own bias...

Well, it appears that I am disliked by the extreme right and the extreme left. I must be doing something right.

Some other bloggers need to make up their minds.

If we are dealing in pure legal theory, then no, the Daily Cal doesn't owe anything to the student body and vise versa. Of course, if people didn't read the Daily Cal, then advertisers wouldn't pay for ads and it would go out of business. In economic terms, students don't really get the Daily Cal for free...they pay for it in the opportunity cost and the ad views that they provide for the newspaper. They also pay for it in the below market rent that is afforded them by the ASUC. This results in the ASUC losing the opportunity to give that space to student groups who are not independent and who are exactly the groups the ASUC is supposed to be serving in the first place. Of course, going by this legal theory, there is absolutely no reason at all for the ASUC to give this space to the Daily Cal and deny office space to groups it actually sponsors.

But of course, in an open society the press does have a duty to the public especially when, as in this case, it is directly subsidized by public monies. Democracy cannot function without a free and independent press. It's a little bit of a different situation on a campus where the Daily Cal is a virtual monopoly. If I want to read a real world newspaper, I can choose from the New York Times, the WSJ, the LA Times, etc. If I want to read about Cal news, I pretty much have to read the Daily Cal. That's fine if the public chooses to create a monopoly by only reading one newspaper. That isn't the case here. The Daily Cal doesn't charge for its product because it knows that most people wouldn't pay to read it and instead makes up for that revenue with a massive rent subsidy provided by the ASUC. It's ability to survive is contingent on government subsidy, not unlike the US steel and textile industry (massive tariffs). Now we're treading a little bit closer to dangerous ground - that newspaper now owes something tangible to the student body. That's the danger of accepting public subsidies...you become directly accountable to the public through their elected representatives. It also opens you up to having those subsidies cut when the public through their elected representatives think that their subsidy is not in the best interest of the public.

You can't argue that the Daily Cal owes nothing to the student body and that the student body should subsidize them at the same time. Government money almost always comes with strings attached - as it should.

In this case, the ASUC must weigh the continued subsidy of the Daily Cal against their ability to provide for student groups they sponsor. Since the Daily Cal is itself independent of the ASUC, the only argument that can be made on the Daily Cal's behalf is that it is a quality paper that benefits the student body more than the student groups who would be able to use that whole floor for office space. So, the quality of the publication goes to the heart of the matter. For those who believe that it has descended into a tabloid quality paper who uses its public subsidy for petty personal vendettas, you can see why they might want to end those subsidies.

This argument also overstates the impact of kicking the Daily Cal out of Eshleman. It may indeed survive as a truly independent publication, in which case it is a win-win situation.

Just to clear up some apparent confusion...Prez Wally never supported the Senate bill to raise the Daily Cal's rent.

As a side note: Wouldn't it make the Daily Cal more independent if it were out of Eshleman? As it is, it relies on artificially low rent set by the ASUC for its current office space. That doesn't sound independent to me.

The Store Operations Board has begun the final steps in making the 6th floor available for student groups. All the other blogs have this story completely wrong. First, this has nothing to do with the Daily Cal printing offensive cartoons. The Daily Cal of course will milk this angle for all it is worth, but, in reality, including that sort of language was a stupid move on the part of a couple senators was withdrawn in committee. Second, Wally did not wait for the Daily Cal to cease publication to begin the proceedings. In fact, the ASUC auxillary served the Daily Cal with a preliminary eviction notice last semester, though it was not reported in any publication that I have seen. Even so, this is not something that Wally will even deal with while he is on the SOB. Lease negotiations have always occured over the summer, there is nothing stealthy about it.

What this is really about is twofold. First, the Daily Cal pays a ridiculously low rent for the space it occupies. It pays $7,500 a month for about 10,000 (I'm estimating) square feet of prime office space in an area know for very high rents. That works out to less than $1 per square foot. Ask other area business what they pay for rent and you'll find figures that are five to ten times higher. Second, every year, the ASUC turns away many many groups seeking office space and forces those lucky few to share office space with 5 or more other groups. There is always a cost benefit analysis that one has to do in assigning office space. In this case, the question is whether we should give away office space at a deeply discounted rate to a school newspaper that has repeatedly shurked its responsibility to the student body or should we allocate that space to deserving student groups. In 1995, when the Daily Cal moved into Eshleman, the ASUC desperately needed the money, now they don't.

Just a note on Calstuff's interpretation: He says that Wally has lost every battle so far, though he only lists One Campus. I'm begginning to think that Kevin gets all of his news from what he reads in the Daily Cal and from what he hears from his Apple pals because he really has a very limited view of what happens in the ASUC. No suprise that Kevin still doesn't think Wally does a good job representing students - not that one should expect different. I am dissappointed that Kevin hasn't been able to trascend his humble ASUC beginnings and get a firm grasp upon the goings on of the ASUC. Here's a starting point, a lot more things happen outside Eshleman than in it (and that goes double for the Senate where meaningless has taken on a whole new definition).

For ProgCal, who apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word "proposal". From dictionary.com:

\Pro*pos"al\, n. [From Propose.] 1. That which is proposed, or propounded for consideration or acceptance; a scheme or design; terms or conditions proposed; offer; as, to make proposals for a treaty of peace; to offer proposals for erecting a building; to make proposals of marriage. ``To put forth proposals for a book.'' --Macaulay.

A proposal is something that someone has put up for consideration, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not is has or will be implemented. Since the articles he posted talks about the "the proposal" it's a wonder that he still says that "the proposal" never existed. I think ProgCal needs to watch that School House Rock cartoon about how a bill becomes a law...a bill would be a kind of "proposal" whether or not it is enacted into law.

I guess this is a huge hint as to the real identity of ProgCal... his English is very limited. Probable IQ <50.

Prog Cal has a problem with Tony Falcone making appointments to the Academic Senate. Apparently he thinks that it doesn't matter that the students elected Tony to this post in part to appoint members to the Academic Senate. Prog Cal says "Mr. Falcone apparently believes that the Academic Senate appointment process is a good way to pass out the spoils of office. Thank goodness his recommendations were lessened in committee." What he really means is, "Shame on the voters for electing Tony Falcone to be the Academic Vice President. Thank goodness that we have enough seats in the Senate to make sure our people get appointed to those posts. Forget democracy, what about us...you know, the ones who lost the election."

One of the bad things about Student Action dominating every election for the past seven years is that the other parties fight tooth and nail against funding the executive offices. It all comes down the fact that the other parties really don't believe in democracy and think that students are brainwashed fools for electing Student Action candidates year after year (23/28 in the past 7 years not counting SAO).

Senator Olin, after hearing the election results had this to say, ""This is a sad day for the students—except for the 150 students Student Action really serves," said Co-op Senator Michael Olin." He didn't even make the perfunctory statements about "will of the voters" and such. There's a reason for that...he doesn't care about the will of the voters or about the thousands of students who vote for Student Action year after year. And if he can deny those duly elected officers funding...all the better.

Progressive at Cal does a light speed back pedal. After telling me several times that the bell curve for grading was never a proposal and how dumb it was for Michelle Huang to say she would fight a proposal that never existed, he posts an article talking about that very proposal. I've always admitted that the bell curve didn't have much chance of being enacted. Progressive at Cal though has always maintained that the proposal never even existed. Looks like Prog Cal was wrong again.

I do think it is hilarious that Prog Cal quotes the Daily Cal to show that his own point was wrong. It's Jasper Rine by the way, not Jasper Rian. He was winner of the distinguished teaching award in 1997.

For Progressive at Cal: Jasper Rine, chair of the Committee on Teaching from 1999-2001, proposed creating more stringent grading standards including use of a bell curve for grades. Chair Rine pushed the proposal for almost two years without gaining much traction outside of the Committee on Teaching.

Blogtown boy makes good: Congrats to Kevin who was offered a spot as a columnist with the Daily Cal. Hopefully he'll up their respectability. I wonder if he'll think of a catchy title like Sex on Tuesday.

Shame on you Progessive at Cal...more to come.