Duck Season

1) Something i'm involved with... Make sure you contribute to the Watermark!

Why some people really are no fun, emphasis added:

Last year the journal was at the heart of a controversy concerning flyers they had posted seeking submissions. A '50s style pinup girl, in ruffled underwear and bent at the waist, peeked out at viewers from between her legs, with the message "Sometimes exposure is a good thing." Although the co-editors said it was meant to be humorous and they did not consider it explicitly sexual, some members of the Women's Center found the image offensive and raised questions as to whether the picture was appropriate for display at a public university. Unknown pranksters responded by printing counter-flyers similar to The Watermark's but using pornographic pictures involving two men. This year their flyers are still funny, but avoid the risqué. Now Mr. T's face plasters the walls pitying the fool who doesn't submit to The Watermark.

2) Other obnoxious right wing ideologues featured on the Op-Ed page...

Business Student to Socialists - "What Exactly is the Alternative?"

If you weren't on the UMass campus Thursday you missed the following scene. On the second floor of McCormick Hall the Socialists had set up a table for people to congregate around while they passed out copies of some Workers Justice newspaper or some such nonsense. Attached to their table was a large red construction paper sign, upon which written in big letters was their slogan "Tax The Rich!" with a subtitle advertisement "The Socialist Alternative".

I really wish I had gotten a picture.

3) More MassPIRG. On the heels of last weeks Editorial Against Censorship ace reporter and fellow blogger Gin Dumcius reports that the UMass Boston Student Senate has approved $1,141.12 in funding for 10 MassPIRG students to attend a conference in Hartford Conneticut. The meat of the problem:

Senate President Tuan Pham, in his first ever veto, had charged the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MassPIRG) Club with "double-dipping." Since MassPIRG "presently recieves money from students through a waivable fee system," there was no need for the senate to approve the $1141.12 the club needed to go to a conference in Hartford Connecticut, he said.

Pham said that the conference, part of a national student campaign against hunger and homelessness, was a good cause, but he had a "very serious" problem with the way the senate was funding it, adding that he wanted substantial financial commitment from MassPIRG. He admitted he would be satisfied if only 50% of the money were approved, which would cover only the conference registration cost, and not the costs for hotel and transportation.

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO PAY FOR HALF!?!? I could justify a 50/50 split...

Question for Gin: Doesn't this violate a UMB Student Senate policy? I thought the Student Senate resolved to not fund trips for clubs out of state?

I can't recall whether this was a result of a certain Chess Club attempting to use school money to fund its trip to a CT Casino even though they were going to attend a Chess tournament, or if it was fall out from the Casa Latino using school money to fund a Ski trip for its members last year... but I do seem to recall that this was a source of controversy in the past.

UPDATE: Gin replied through e-mail. He says that the travel policy I spoke of was related to the national threat level at the time, and that this policy never prevented travel inside New England. Additionally he adds that "I forgot to mention that all who were going on the trip were supposed to pay $20, whether they were MassPIRG members or not. Pham disagreed with this, because he believed that if PIRG was one of the sponsors of the conference, the money was going back to them anyway. MassPIRG stated that all of the money was going towards the conference."

4) Here's a story about that Patriotism conference that I attended. Lisa Rivera, my former professor, is quoted often at the end of the article. While I don't recall the specific quote listed in the last paragraph of the article, it does summarize the panel discussion very well.

No, my "Michael Moore is a liar" spiel wasn't referred to.