Fair Play/Yellow Card: Now Biweekly!

There's been a lot of good, solid, fucking up by the Estates General this week, so here are the midweek's bookings.

Fair Play:

1. The BOV-denied green fee action. Well done.

Yellow Card:

1. The Flat Hat-for the hit piece on John Foubert. The founder of One-in-Four was attacked in a very poorly written front-page-below-the-fold article on Tuesday that did not address the supposed reason for writing it. The piece was written in a backhanded attempt to discredit Foubert and secure support for the SA's mixed gender sexual assault prevention program.


2. The SA-spent your money on the Lips female sexuality magazine. Now, I don't suppose I could get funding for W*nker, the single male bachelor's sexuality magazine. Not that I would try or anything; I'm just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the thing. Your absurdly high student fees at work.
   

Sent Off: Second Bookable Offence

1. The Flat Hat-the Friday issue was unmitigated shit. Whether it was the unusually asinine Confusion Corner column, the pejorative use of the term "conservative" in their staff editorial, or the self-congratulatory "pat on the back" to readers of Mr. Pieprenbring's column, this Friday's issue earned a vote of no confidence from your haughty correspondent. In punishment for your week of FAIL, humanity fines you Z$100 (<$.01).

Straight Red

1. The "Sadler Celebration": My God, ten people sitting in a circle handling themselves would be less of a circle-jerk than the five minutes of that I sat through. Had Sadler been the center of attention, had the emcee not spent his time massaging the egos of the student organizations, had Sadler given a rally-the-troops, my-god-this-is-a-great-place-thanks-for-the-memories speech (which he might have, later, after all 150 spectators not participating left in disgust), there might have been the dignity I expected. Had the "parade of banners" consisted of the banner-carriers escorting Sadler on his ceremonial walk around campus, it may have had dignity. But it didn't. Madame President Hopkins, since you are the captain of the SA's ship, humanity holds you responsible for the EPIC FAIL in the amount of Z$200 (<$.01).

"NO!" on March 20

Been a long time.

Today marks the beginning of my Quixotic campaign to defeat the "green fee" that will be imposed by referendum March 20. The issue that motivates my advocacy is not "global warming denial" or "hating the planet" but rather a love of freedom and skepticism of bureaucracy. The fee would create a new environmental office and a "green endowment" in addition to retrofitting academic buildings and residence halls with energy monitoring tools. I do not believe that a school as deeply in financial uncertainty as ours needs a new bureaucracy. I do not believe that any endowment, green or otherwise, should be funded by mandatory student fees. This is only the beginning of my criticism; more will follow in the coming days.

I will now criticize the arguments the proponents expound in presenting their tax as inoffensive:

1. The fee is 1% of the mandatory student fee: This statistic is true. However, there is no guarantee that the fee, once created, will not increase. It seems from the proponents' own website that, at least in the beginning, there will be some unfunded proposals. This seems to suggest that there will be a revenue shortfall: in the present financial situation of the College, this suggests that the fee will only grow. The proposal is counting on the "green endowment" covering the shortfall. This counts on a critical uncertainty; namely, that governments will, in a time of economic recession and possible stagflation, continue to subsidize environmentalist projects to the degree they do at present. This seems unlikely, as calls for immediate relief would drown out calls for "sustainability." These subsidies are the lifeblood of the environmental firms in which the endowment would presumably invest: if they cease, the firms will cease, and the cover of the shortfall will cease.
2. There is massive support: Also true. However, there is currently no one willing to stand in dissent, for "Who hates the planet?" There is only one side of the debate that has spoken, and that side has defined terms, so it makes sense that a vast majority would support such fees. However, tyranny of the majority is tyranny all the same. Add in the 800-pound gorilla of SEAC, and, well, maybe it's garden-variety tyranny after all. Unfortunately, some organizations that might stand up to such clear earmarking and (student) government waste seem to be content to stand silent.

Again, this is not to say that if the SA or the administration belives that recycling or energy efficiency (on campus) can be improved by their action that they should do nothing. Both of these are noble goals, but nothing is free. In addition to nothing being free, things tend to cost more when implemented than when estimated. I would much rather see the administration doing its job than the students compelled to surrender their wallets at a referendum. Let the people in charge set the fees, not the students.

Oh, and if the referendum does fail, I will demand a recount (apologies to the late William F. Buckley).