UCSB Bites - April  9,  2007

Political Bites

Wow, last week was something around UCSB.  On Monday, the Nexus did an April Fool's edition.  Problem was you couldn't tell the difference between that edition and the real thing.  Both were from la-la land.  The piece about Yang seemed like the real deal.  

UCSB Non-Judgmental Bites 

Eight fired Santa Barbara News Press employees have started a website.   Looks like they are off to a good start with some decent content.  Now, the trick will be to provide enough interesting content and not turn the publication into a SBNP gripe site.   Hey, maybe I could write for them, I love to gripe..  

Daily Nexus columnist Mark Batalla provided us with a look at the "the dark side of UCSB."  How proud we are to read about drunk students punching through doors, and coeds passed out drunk with puke in their hair.   Personal note to Mark:  If you are going to write about the sleazy side of UCSB, and use our name, at least have the courtesy to send us the copy so we can publish it.  Dude, you are stealing our thunder!   

UCSB Judgmental Bites

Eric Frimpong's high priced mouth piece continues to do an excellent job in delaying the case.  With the help of UCSB and rapist support groups, Eric should be able to complete his pro career and a PhD before the trial is held.   UCSB is very proud of all its criminal alumni.  

The Santa Barbara area CHP  received a $307,400 grant for an anti-DUI program for UCSB/SBCC/IV.   Gushing over the proposal, Yonie Harris made a fool of herself again. According to a report in the Nexus: "Associate Dean of Students Yonie Harris, who represented UCSB at the conference, said approximately 23,000 people are killed each year in alcohol-related accidents in the U.S., a statistic that is much lower within the campus community."  Say what?  I see, the taxpayers are funding $300 grand to fund an anti-DUI program among those who need it the least.   According to published reports about the proposal, the anti-DUI proposal is not intended to reduce drinkin', it is merely intended  to reduce the number of people who drive drunk.  We are to believe that people who are drunk, and therefore by definition impaired, will make better choices after we explain to them that it is not a good idea to drive when you are shit-faced.  Riiiiight.  

Here is one of my favorite stories from last week:  The pimps of PIKE can' t have a fight night because of "risk management" issues.  What exactly does risk management issues mean?  Does it translate to: "These guys are a bunch of over-aggressive elitist thugs who commit lots of assaults, crimes,  and stuff that would be considered not nice (even on a preschool playground), but we tolerate it most of the time because they do "charity work" or have a few fat cat alumni who give UCSB money.      Of course, PIKE is crying about not being able to do their charitable work.   I am the only person willing to say it out loud?   The whole concept of frats and sororities doing "charity work" is a joke.  The charity stuff  was and is designed to provide a good public patina for what is a rotten and abusive system of elitism.  The truth is that Buffy and Lance usually spend more money on running  around (and on hairdos and makeup -- particularly Lance) playing at doing charity work than is actually contributed to the charity. 

Well, well, well, another UCSB criminal is sent packing  by the long arm of the law.  Of course, that is the only way you get sent packing at UCSB.  The administration never throws anyone out.  Even if the student commits multiple felonies.   But the better question is why someone on probation for the DUI death of another person would be even be admitted to UCSB.   Excuse me, doesn't UCSB have enough problems with its students drinking to a least keep out those who have already been convicted of an alcohol related felony?   Ya know, just as a matter of common sense, and doing what is best of the student involved, why bring him to IV?  Maybe BYU would have been a better choice.   There are a whole set of questions that should be asked about why Brian Ricks was attending UCSB:

1.  What was his  GPA?  Was his previous jail time part of his "life experience" used for admission?  Has the admin included jailbirds as part of the diversity thing?  

2.  Does UCSB have a policy to exclude persons convicted of a felony?  How about people who kill, rape, or assault others, do we exclude them?  

3. What happened to the next student in line for admission to UCSB who couldn't get into UCSB because they admitted Ricks instead?  Will UCSB try to protect Ricks and allow him to graduate?  

Perhaps they will send his homework to the Santa Clara County jail so he can complete his education.  After all, we all know that at UCSB we believe that a person's personal "choices" should not interfere with his "right" to graduate from party-central.  

We were very lucky that Ricks didn't kill a bunch of people during his drunken driving through IV.   Sorry, I left our the word "alleged."   

Respectfully submitted,

Banjo Reams

Editor's comment:  We assume that this column is a late April Fool joke. Surely not even Banjo would actually believe all this stuff.  We, the editorial staff of thedarksideofucsb.com know that the only reason that UCSB protects people like Frimpong and Ricks and allows them to stay in school is because....   Come to think of it, we don't know why they do it.