By yaman on Mar 12, 2008 | Reply

Well, that’s the Karl Rove version of the bill.

Actually, the bill does not support tree-sitting. To the contrary, it supports finding an end to the protest that is amenable to the concerns of the University, the student body, as well as the protester involved.

If UCPD had not immediately descended upon the tree with officers stationed there 24 hours a day, it is likely that the protester would have left by now. Continued police action and a super-dramatic police line around the tree only serve to encourage such actions because protesters are almost guaranteed a spotlight.

The truth is, the protester is not obstructing anybody’s way or putting anybody in danger. The choice to make a crime scene out of the protest is purely the police’s, and it is not a necessary one at that.

Because this decision is artificial at best, and based in abstractions that appear to be blinding you to the pragmatic solution here, neither the University nor the protester have anything to lose by bringing this protest to an end. Since the University has already shown its incompetence in handling this situation, it is up to students to try their hand at ending the crisis.

Rather than correct each of your distortions, I would encourage people to read the bill for themselves by viewing the Agenda Packet for Week 8 by clicking here. I will say this however: while you may view the audience with the ASUC as a reward, the reality is that this clause encourages students to utilize the ASUC as a viable institution through which they can channel their calls for reform of the University. There, the protester will have an opportunity to make his case to student leaders–something which his current actions do not have the potential of doing.

Finally, your post is so seething with hatred that it brings to question what exactly your prejudices are against this senator. The fact that you have opted to make a smear campaign out of this bill–directed to only one of the Senators who supports it–comes at the cost of finding a solution to the problem.

The solution in this bill is the most reasonable option at this point for anybody who is interested in actually moving past this episode. Within one day, Senators Shams, Du’ong, Jackson, Kuo, and Winston have agreed to become co-sponsors because they recognize this fact. I think students would actually support this bill because unlike anything anybody else, including yourself, has suggested, it actually provides a way out and forward.

By Jerry on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

I think there is a problem with priorities at the ASUC. If our senate is so concerned about tree sitting and since Sen. Winston is vying to become president of the ASUC this election, we really need to think about who we are electing. Is it right that our elected officials spend all their time talking about meaningless issues, such as the tree sitters, or the ASUC support of Israel earlier this year? Our student government needs to be more concerned about listening to the issues that truly affect students and not create a stunt to draw attention to meaningless issues that don’t affect any student’s daily lives.

By yaman on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

You are wrong Jerry. Bringing an end to this protest is in the interests of students–last night, somebody mentioned the noise that police actions as well as student gatherings around the tree was making disturbed nearby classes. Police have also prevented themselves from tackling safety issues by occupying themselves with this protest. If this bill can facilitate an end to the protest that keeps in mind the welfare of everybody in mind, then I think that is definitely a meaningful issue that affects student’s daily lives.

By D on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

Yaman,

You and the ASUC can support Fresh if you want. But know you are doing so against the will of students like me.

You think the police are violating the “UN Declaration on Human Rights.” That’s absurd. By the same logic someone who holds people hostage at gunpoint and is refused food and water by police is being denied his human rights.

There is a fundamental difference between those who support the tree sitter and those who think this is ridiculous. Your statement makes that clear:

“The choice to make a crime scene out of the protest is purely the police’s.”

You’re wrong. The tree sitter created the crime scene by YOU GUESSED IT committing multiple crimes. The police have the authority to go after criminals. Have they made many mistakes in doing so? Sure. Are they stupid? Yes. Does that mean this whole debacle is their fault? Of course not. Fresh is responsible. And it can end if he comes down.

I just want to note what Beetle says about the bill:

“It’s basically a big list of “give him whatever the hell he wants, including a Special Order in the Senate” statements.”

By jerry on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

Yaman, you wrote that the bill could potentially bring an end to the tree protest but what exactly will it do to pass a resolution in support of Fresh. It doesn’t make any sense to actually have this resolution, but rather, the ASUC should propose a resolution that would find a solution to the protest quickly.
One thing I do agree with you about is that it truly is a public disturbance and that is why the ASUC should take action now, and not talk about nonsense. A resolution to support the tree-sitter is nonsense in any way you look at it. It won’t solve the problem. It is only going to intensify it.

By john on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

Actually the police have to fence off the area and turn it into what you call “a crime scene” because if they didn’t then the protestor could be physically harmed. by now, if there were no fence, violent altercations would have probably taken place between anti-treesitters and the man in the tree. Considering most of the students do not support the treesitters, the police must try to get the man out of the tree while at the same time protecting him, just like at the oak grove.

By yaman on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

It was good to read a few of your thoughts on this bill, and I have many responses, but I am going to withhold them because Fresh communicated to me this morning that he feels that the way some people are reacting to the bill is distracting attention away from the issues he is standing for, to himself. He gave the impression he would like it to be withdrawn and would rather see another bill that addressed the issues. Given that this bill was written in order to protect him from abuse and harassment, and that there is no point in going forward with it without his full support, I now believe the best thing to do is to withdraw the bill (unless Fresh changes his mind). Sorry folks. I still stand by, however, everything in the bill, and yes, I do believe withholding food, water, and medical attention from somebody who is effectively a prisoner is inhumane. However, I made a mistake in writing that phrase–I don’t believe that right is located in the UNDHR, but in a different international agreement.

By asdf on Mar 13, 2008 | Reply

but the thing is- Fresh isn’t a prisoner. he can come down at any time and get what jail time he *deserves* for trespassing and being a public nuisance.

the students are getting tired and annoyed with mike/Fresh. his little negative 1 star hotel takes up a popular place to gather/talk to other students on campus, the chanting disrupts nearby classes, he’s wasting money, we’re tired of being harassed by flyering oak-affiliated people, the crossed out BP graffiti makes us angry (did you see the one at Memorial Pool? MEMORIAL POOL!?! They fuckin’ marked it up in spray paint!!!), and there’s nothing left for Fresh to say that’s significant to his cause other than a stubborn I’m-not-getting-out-of-this-tree-until-people-listen-to-me-even-though-they-already-are thing.

no wonder a good 512 students joined a facebook group, created not even 4 days ago, tired of tree-sit protests.

people are getting angry at his unreasonable stay at the beloved tree. he was given a reasonable offer to come down, but decided to be a hypocrite and waste university money.

fresh has choices, he’s not entirely innocent. i’d say he’s more at guilt for the situation than the police. he IS trespassing on campus property and damaging property too (tree branches).

Thanks to fresh and tree-sit people, I’ve noticed recently that a lot of large trees with limbs close to the ground are having these limbs sawed off- my guess is to prevent future chances of these giant trees being inhabited by amateur climbers. thanks a lot fresh, and people who do tree-sits like you, for forcing the university to make the campus trees look a lot more ugly.

By Vaner on Apr 16, 2008 | Reply

It is absurd how Roxanne Winston can win. Like as what was said in today’s Daily Californian, her ideas do not fit with the concerns of the student body at UC Berkeley.

This campus is completely out of touch of what all students care about and Calserve will continue to push their huge message of change. The only change I see is the wrong type of change that will be implemented by Roxanne Winston.
Thanks all UC Berkeley students who voted for her. Now we get a year of a leader who represents the minority on campus at the expense of all students!

By Brian on May 31, 2008 | Reply

ASUC is the largest waste of time, energy, and most importantly, money. Please disband yourself, ASUC. You haven’t done anything for students in decades, except for those few resume-building future politicians who think of nothing but themselves.

CalServe, Student Action, etc. etc., you are all the same. Worthless.