For Our Two Readers Who Care About The Undergraduate Council

Veterans will remember that two years ago, the 2006 UC presidential campaign turned Dem Apples into a giant swirling hellstorm of crapfire; and last year, I successfully smothered all UC debate with one endless unreadable post. But for 2008, I'd like to point Dem Apples' readers in a new direction: a number of us with nothing better to do (including the great polymath Dylan Matthews, Legion's brilliant Garrett and Mel, and outgoing UC overlords Sundquist & Sarafa) have founded UNIVERSAL WASTE, a blog in the spirit of the late Team Zebra, which will provide you with more UC and campus-politics coverage than you could ever possibly want to read. And we mean that sincerely.

(Start, if you want, with Matt Sundquist's preliminary looks at Andrea Flores' and Ben Schwartz's strengths and weaknesses. They are long but worth your time.)

In summary: GO READ UNIVERSAL WASTE RIGHT NOW kthxbye.

Hello UC Race, Goodbye Sanity

Can you hear it? Off in the distance? That faint "tap-tap-tap" sound coming from Mather and Currier Houses? Listen carefully late at night, children, and maybe you'll pick it out: that's the sound of several dozen Harvard students masturbating furiously. Or, as we call it in public, the UC election!

I've been putting off writing this blogpost for a while. As you may remember, last year's UC race turned Dem Apples into a flaming pile of crap for like two weeks on end, and I hesitate to go there again; but something inside me just wants to contribute. (I'm assuming that "something" is my desperate need for attention, which everyone involved in Harvard politics surely understands.) So, with a helpful reminder that the stakes here are so low we can't possibly do any real damage to anything, let's take a look at the candidates:

MATT SUNDQUIST & RANDALL SARAFA. Everything that has been said about these guys has been said. Sundquist is a genuinely nice and caring guy who will work his heart out for the student body, etc etc etc, and Randall Sarafa is... well, he's there. Sundquist and Sarafa also have the whole establishment (including the Dems, and the Crimson as of this morning) as well as a dedicated campaign team behind them, who are working very hard to dispel the notion that Sundquist is OBVIOUSLY GOING TO WIN; this widely-held idea poses a problem for the Sundquist ticket, since voter turnout would suffer considerably if everyone thought they were OBVIOUSLY GOING TO WIN. (I myself am certainly not trying to spread the scurrilous rumor that Sundquist is OBVIOUSLY GOING TO WIN. No sir.) Still, if they can accomplish that task, Sundquist and Whats-His-Name, Li'l Sundquist, will run an effective and intelligent UC with all the quality that we expect from blah blah blah blah blah.

ROY WILLEY & NICK SNOW. Immediately disqualified because they used "Baba O'Riley" by the Who in their campaign video. I'm serious. I cannot vote for these guys for the same reason I do not watch CSI or any of its spinoff programs: because what our media has done to The Who is just inexcusable. They have taken one of the giants of classic rock, a band that deserves to be considered on the same level as Zeppelin and the Stones, and reduced them to a goddamn commercial cliche. Come on! That hair-raising yell at the end of Won't Get Fooled Again -- that's supposed to be a amazing cathartic release after seven minutes of Pete Townshend noodling on the synthesizer, and instead CSI: Miami turned it into a slogan on the same level as the "Oh yeah!" from the execrable Entourage theme. You know what? Let's move on.

FRANCES MARTEL & LEO ZIMMERMANN. Frances has a long history of writing hilariously whacked-out shit about Communists for RedIvy (I wish you guys would post more! We need material!), and both she and her reluctant anti-running-mate Leo have a demonstrable record of being awesome. As evidence I submit these two recent quotes -- Frances, on GOP-Open tonight:

The only thing I'm "reeling in disappointment" about is that humanity has to deal with your existence, and that because you go to this school there's a chance your tripe will be propagated to the masses. Oh, and I've never "casually lobbed" an insult at you that didn't come from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Lacaria.

And Leo in their Crimson profile:

When Zimmermann is asked if he would be excited if he won, his face reveals no emotion.

“In a sense,” he responds, staring down at his plate.

When urged to elaborate, he adds: “I’d be neurologically stimulated in the sense that it would make a response.”

This is clearly the kind of leadership our student body needs. Thus, I wholeheartedly endorse the Martel-Zimmermann ticket, and I urge you not to vote for them -- because these people are way, way too cool to send into the hellhole that is our UC. Frances and Leo must be saved from themselves. (And I'm pretty sure their campaign is just a well-choregraphed joke anyway, though you never know around here.) So friends, I aks you to follow my lead, and DON'T VOTE FOR THE MARTEL-ZIMMERMANN NON-JUGGERNAUT -- if we can win over enough hearts and minds in the next four days, maybe after all these years we'll finally be able to accomplish nothing on this campus!

...So that's where I stand. But to turn to a more serious and analytical perspective: this race is consistent with a number of things I've observed about the Harvard student body and its (often perverse) social structures. These patterns have shown up in both this race and last year's; I was too intelligent new to pay much attention to the 2005 race that gave us Haddock-Riley, but I wouldn't be surprised if that one was much the same. Here's what I think (over the jump):

Read more »

Petersen Wins!!!!!

You heard it here first, folks!!!!!

More:
Dems press release (PDF)
Crimson coverage
Team Zebra coverage

An Official Message

Hey all,

As Garrett Dash Nelson the blogger, I'm all about wild accusations and ruckus politics. But as Garrett Dash Nelson the Communications Director, I need to just clear something up for readers of this blog. This is an official 'read me first' post.

Read more »

It's over!!!

Thank goodness the UC race is over. Now we can get back to the important matters at hand...like Sen. Chris Dodd's impending visit to Harvard. And Judge Richard Posner's impending visit to Second Life (tonight from 9-11pm EST).

(Hat tip: Lessig's Blog)

If this is how they run a campaign, how will they run the UC?

Out of 400 points (which is equivalent to the $400 budget every campaign has), the Petersen-Sundquist campaign has made 305 points/dollars worth of violations. If you incur 400 points, you are disqualified. That is 120 more violations than the next most violations by a campaign. And it stands in stark contrast to their main rival, the Hadfield-Goldenberg campaign, which has violated only 25 point/dollars. This also means that Petersen-Sundquist have to turn in $31.68 worth of campaign materials (in order to stay under $400), which is equivalent to having to turn in about 300 posters or 600 of their door dropped fliers.

The Crimson has the full story.

Read more »

Election Commission Update, Part III

All campaigns should look at this e-mail just because it would be really sad for someone to be disqualified for something silly like e-mail violations.

Read more »

The Amazing Disappearing GOP

I just saw this campaign flyer on Facebook:

There's a certain elephant not in the room here.

What happened?

Is the campaign ashamed of its affiliation with HRC? I can't imagine they accidentally left out an endorsement.

I call on the campaign (and HRC, for that matter) to answer why they are downplaying the Republicans' endorsement. No offense to the Stem Cell Society, but I think HRC's endorsement is a little more important here ...

Why I give a shit about this anyways

I also want to take the chance before I take a dip and end it¹ to come out with something unequivocally positive about this UC imbroglio. The true reason why I give a shit about this is because I honestly, genuinely believe that Matt Sundquist is the exact example of people we need at the head of this campus and that he is, all around, one of the most valuable assets the UC has. Let John Nance Garner say that the Vice President's role "isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss." I maintain that having Sundquist as our Vice President would be an enormous boon to our campus mentioned far too little in this campaign season.

Yes, this post is going to have a lot of ass-kissery. But in contrast to the rampant ass-kickery that's been going on, it can only be a good thing.

Read more »

For the most substantive debate yet--

I've already voted in the UC election and I've officially stopped caring -- but for those of you who haven't, Team Zebra is having an online debate starting RIGHT NOW. Every presidential candidate has RSVP'd; so assuming nobody spontaneously combusted or, I don't know, forgot about it, there should be some fun over there.

Check it out. I won't be reading it, I have ten pages to write about Samuel Taylor Coleridge that are already a day late -- and if anybody knows anything about the Romantic form of the ode, please email me -- but I expect it to be more fun than all the other UC crap we have to pay attention to.

"’Tis midnight, but small thoughts have I of sleep: Full seldom may my friend such vigils keep!"

Update, 1:30 AM: it's over. I watched it anyway and now I'm going to fail my poetry class. The ridiculous transcript is here. Key Quote:

Brian Gillis: what if there was a party in my pants?

Contrary to rumor, Harvard Dems actually NOT fire-headed hate-monsters

A lot of controversy has stemmed up over the past day or so related to the UC race. I want to clear up a few things.

- The Harvard Dems strongly support Ryan Petersen and Matt Sundquist for the UC race. Our MALs voted this, and the board stands behind that decision.
- None of us (so far as I know) want to be inflammatory against any of the other candidates, the Crimson, the UC election in general, Josh Patashnik's mom, or America Itself. Promise. We take no sick pleasure in pissing people off.
- Today's press release was designed entirely to support our candidate and to get the word out. We have a precedent of re-releasing our endorsement during campaign week to keep it relevant, and we do want to encourage our members to participate in the important process of voting in the UC race. It was NOT designed as a fuck-you to any other candidate, the Crimson, the UC election in general, Josh Patashnik's mom, or America Itself.
- What happens on this blog is reflective of a small subset of vocal people who care deeply about this race. For everyone's sake, let's keep some perspective.
- Nobody's going to love you less in the Dems if you support a different candidate. This is small fry compared to the real elections that are important to us.
- In the end, we as an organization sincerely hope Petersen-Sundquist win. Some may disagree with us, and some may not like that we're behind that ticket. But it is what it is, and trying to demonize us for it isn't going to make anyone happy.

New press release up

New press release is up!

“While we understand the Crimson editorial board’s decision to endorse their own staff for the UC's leadership, we feel certain that this will make two concurrent years in which the Crimson has endorsed the losing candidate,” said Jillian K. Swencionis ’08, the Dems’ Political Director.

“If ‘ineffectual prodding’ brought us a refund of the student group gift tax, the Lamont Café, freedom to express gender identity without fear of discrimination, Lamont 24/5, and more, then more ‘prodding’ is what students need to get the results they want from the administration,” she added.

That Press Release Came From The Dems?!?

The recent Dems press release on the UC election was uncharacteristic of Dems' press releases. Including quotes by Dems members and making highly inflammatory accusations (such as "Fox Club-supported Hadfield-Goldenberg") is out of character for an organization like the Dems.

While we reaffirmed our endorsement of Haddock-Riley last year through a press release, it was nothing like this one.

First, the sole purpose of last year's press release was to publicize the scandal involving the Voith-Gadgil ticket (publicizing information being the purpose of a press release, afterall). There is no scandal this year, though, thus there is no need to alert our membership to anything. This year's press release contains no new information and therefore, doesn't seem to me to be a press release really (or at least it was not a necessary press release).

Second, not only does this press release not serve the purpose of a press release, it sounds more like a blog post. In fact, it was posted on the blog, with excerpts, by the same person who wrote the press release (my friend, Garrett Nelson, our Communications Director). Furthermore, the vitriol I alluded to earlier and the shameless ad hominem assaults against Tom and Adam just make me feel a little upset that the Harvard Democrats, an organization I love and have poured most of my time here at Harvard into, would feel the need to come out with an official announcement using this kind of language and personal attacks.

I know we endorsed them but do we need to be their attack dogs too?

Vote Petersen-Sundquist, because it's the UC, not a business

Kyle makes a reference to his knowledge of all six tickets. I cannot claim that, I do not know Amadi, but I do know the rest, which made my involvement in this year's race tough personally. However, Petersen-Sundquist is where I have landed and I feel very secure in that placement. Yes, the tickets have good ideas. None of the serious tickets don't deserve to win. However, as shown by the gift tax break that was won just last night, UC advocacy has a place here at Harvard.

The UC was founded because "student participation in College governance needs to be better coordinated and more directed." We've made a lot of progress in student advocacy since the UC was founded back in 1982, and there is no reason to take a step back and farm out student advocacy to student groups. Hadfield proposed an advocacy toolkit at our Progressive Town Hall, allowing student groups to lobby effectively on their own. This is not what we want, nor what we need. The focused advocacy through the UC allows for a consistent relationship to be built up, allowing trust to form, and thereby giving legitimacy to our UC advocates. Petersen-Sundquist has that experience.

Hadfield has been touting his crimsonreading website as a reason why people should vote for him. Just because you are an enterprising businessman doesn't mean that you are a good UC president. No denying its a great service for the Harvard community, but it is irrelevant to the UC. Having a snappy website doesn't mean that administrators know you and respect you. Experience does, and that is what Petersen-Sundquist has.

But in the words of the immortal Levar Burton, "you don't take my word for it": www.ItsAboutStudents.com

Calendar Reform? Not according to Dean Knowles!

I’ve obtained a copy of an e-mail sent by a student (name withheld) to Dean Knowles.

***

12/2/2006 3:02 PM, [Student] wrote:

Dean Knowles,

It's hard as a freshman to figure out all of the UC Presidential Election stuff. Everybody keeps making great promises, but I'm trying to sift through what is actually realistic.

One candidate keeps promising to change the calendar this year. He says that since you and President Bok have interim status and support calendar reform, these changes will happen. He thinks that you are more likely to challenge the Faculty Council because you don't have to deal with them much longer. Is this true?

Thank you for helping me sort out this important issue.

[Student]


***

In response, Dean Knowles had this to say. He must not be a fan of spell-check because he misspelled “calendar.”

****

Dear [Student] :

Every politician makes promises ("No new taxes!", "Better schools!", "More for the Poor!") that aren't, as we know, either realistic, or always kept.

In the list of priorities that President Bok and I share for this year, are important things like Gen Ed, planning for Allston, and coordinate planning for science, that we very much want to press forward.

And you should know that when the calender question last came before the full Faculty (a couple of years ago), it was agreed that this issue should not be discussed until after the curricular review had been completed. The Faculty believed - reasonably, I think - that the curriculum should drive the calendar, rather than the converse.

Good luck with your voting decision!

JK

***

So how does this explain Ryan Petersen’s persistent plan to put forth calendar reform? And during the Presidential Debate he name-dropped Dean Knowles name. Seemingly he should have known this was not a priority for “JK.”

As it shows on his website, Petersen-Sundquist is banking heavily on calendar reform.

Explanations?