Several students have asked Aditya and me for a response to a "rant" that ASCMC President Brad Walters has up on his Facebook profile.
From the outgoing ASCMC president, Brad Walters CMC '08.
My Current Rant:
Topic: The Claremont Conservative
To the people who read and comment:
Stop reading that ridiculous blog. It's as bad as rubberneckers turning to look at horrific accidents on the side of the road. I know it's gruesome and fascinating, and I know you want to be a hero and save the misguided, inexperienced authors...er...drivers. But by looking, you're going to cause an accident yourself (i.e. you're perpetuating the problem by adding to their hit count).
Don't you have better things to be doing with your time? Perhaps if you go off and do those things, the authors of the blog will realize they also have better things to be doing with their time. And better things will be done all around.
Brad Walters CMC '08 and ASCMC President wrote that on his Facebook notes. He proposes a boycott of our blog, lest we become too big with your web traffic. Naturally, we thank him for his coverage.
Unfortunately, it appears that Walters hasn't learned the lesson Dean Wood taught him and his merry band of White Partiers: Controversy sells.
Nevertheless, we at the Claremont Conservative have to reply when our good name is sullied. Whenever someone proposes a boycott, they are trying to exercise power over another. They implicitly believe that what they have to offer is better than what we offer.
This kind of thinking is something we know well at Claremont McKenna. From "environmental crusaders" who tell you how much to eat of the service you paid for to now ASCMC presidents who tell you what to do in your free time, Claremont McKenna is a long way from the freedom its founders espoused and defended.
We've created a culture on campus that thinks it knows better than you do how to spend your money and your time.
That Mr. Walters tries to compare us to the cliche of an automobile destruction underscores the lack of a serious criticism of this blog. We, of course, welcome such criticisms, provided they are based on reason.
Just how does a blog that entertains truthful and honest dialogue with the students constitute anything approaching comparable to the horror that is a car crash?
He'll find that the only train wreck on campus is how ASCMC allocates funds. Maybe he'll recognize that the only thing that's "ridiculous" on this campus is how ASCMC's been managed as of late.
At the beginning of Brad's watch, retained earnings accounted for 1/5 of the 07-08 Budget Expenses. ($59,130.00! $230,000 collected from student fees, Total: $289,130 .)
But we understand, we're sure ASCMC spent ALL of that money. We're sure to have no retained earning this year, right? And the student fees won't rise from $210 to $235, right?
Hey, Brad, here's a "better thing" you could be doing: Give us our money back. (Or encourage Erik Hansell, the new president, not to charge us so much this year.)
Exit question: What's better than blogging anyways?
--Charles Johnson
Subscribe in a reader
10 comments:
Charles, get over yourself. brad was not calling for a "boycott" of your blog. His rant, addressed to his close freinds, a group you will never belong to, concerns their habit of complaining/ mocking your blog, but then continuing to read it. Brad, sensible as always, is right to point out that this is pretty dumb. Will it stop us from reading, probobly not. Although your hit job on him might.
There were retained earnings from years when Brad wasn't president, and somehow you want to imply that he's responsible, when he's the one who caught the error? If you're going to write about ASCMC, try to learn something about it first.
Why was Dan "Loose Cannon" O'Toole's post taken down? I thought it was both thoughtful and substantive.
Hear that Charles, Jules says you don't get to sit with the cool kids at lunch. So ha!
(And yes, I took down my post. It was petty and mean-spirited.)
Yes, Dan, but it'll live forever on our RSS feeds.
I already mentioned that my real response to this post is over at Stagafling, but I wanted to clear up a few left-over points:
In all fairness to my good friend Jules, I have invited Charles over for a drink in the past, and was rebuffed. That offer still stands (for Dan too), although I have no problem if that drink is of the non-alcoholic variety. Or if it's over lunch. I don't know about a cool kids table, as we're all off the meal plan and subsist on stuff we can cook in our wok. Maybe that's what the cool kids are doing these days.
And I agree with the first anonymous post. Brad actually is the one who discovered the problem, and fought hard against the rest of the Exec Board when they tried to invest some of the money (why do those student fees get to be singled out to grow some sort of investment fund? Which classes get to benefit from that money?). If I remember correctly, he mostly lost that battle, but it was one of the few he did lose, and it wasn't for lack of effort.
As I've written before, ASCMC budgets in advance and then reimburses later. This naturally leads to some clubs for whatever reason not making full use of the funds budgeted for them and thus: retained earnings! Now, usually these are a lot smaller than what you mentioned, but ASCMC's response is to budget less money for these clubs the following year. Something I wrote about at the end of last year.
Even Charles might be pleased to hear that this was the only year during the four I've been here that ASCMC raised enough money (through all those t-shirts, hoodies, and steins everyone has) such that they did not spend a dime of student fees on alcohol. It should be expected of ASCMC, as it's illegal to do otherwise, but Brad's administration was the first to have financials that could actually pass a ruthless audit. Hopefully Erik will follow his lead.
Anyway, if you're curious, the reason the student fees were raised is so that ASCMC could provide increased security to our students at these parties. I know you disagree with funding the parties to begin with, but there it is. And though ASCMC officers encouraged them to do so, the decision to raise student fees was made by the trustees of this college. Many of your heroes were in attendance.
Kudos to Dan for taking down his post. Many of us are relieved to see that there is a line for him, and that he knows when he's crossed it.
Anyway, I will continue to read and comment. No need to fear a boycott. Brad can take my life, but he'll never take my freedom...er...something like that.
Jules,
We've already learned that you like to control the facebook friends people have, so I don't know what leg you have to stand on. Perhaps you'd like to examine it to me?
I'm glad that Brad's post was mocking, but I wish that had been more clear in the post itself. Given that he's the President of our school, I expect better of him than to run at the mouth, and so I'm glad that he decided to take the rant down.
------------------------------
Anonymous 1,
As for the retained earnings,
As far as I understand it, Brad inherited those retained earnings. He could have made the decision or fought for, reducing the student fees for everyone on campus. As far as I could tell, he made no such arguments.
-------------------------------
On "Loose Cannon" Dan,
I believe even Dan has limits, though I'm not quite sure what they are. I do applaud his willingness to risk his name making statements -- something you were too cowardly to do.
--------------------------------
Patrick,
Got root beer or coca-cola?
As for the rest of your post, thanks for clearing some of that up. What exactly did the ASCMC want to invest the money in?
Take Econ 86. Retained Earning aren't expenses.
Quite right you are, anonymous. We were using that figure to give people a sense of the total budget and how the earnings relate to it.
Brad couldn't possibly have said it better.
Are you guys aware of how miserable and loony you come off or do you live day by day thinking you're actually sane? About 95% of the content I've seen on this blog is hate-filled venomous attacks on anyone who disagrees with your radical views; or in other words, anyone who isn't quite as insane as you are. The blog is probably the most painful thing I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
Oh, and don't bother replying; I won't be venturing back in here.
Post a Comment