I wrote a column early on in my career here at the greatest publication since the Book of Mormon in which I stated my preference, all things being equal, for monarchy over democracy. Now, I was excoriated for this and have since written on other matters. Today, I do not propose to apologize or recant my statements. While I favor a republic, as established by this country’s founders over all sorts of government – except for that whole rather nasty notion of owning other men – my dislike of modern government, the type of democracy in which the only two real choices we are given every four years are little more than two sides of the same coin, should be evident from my columns.
Still, thank God we are blessed to live under enlightened rule at this University. I speak not of the moustached one, our noble Chancellor Sean O’Keefe, but of Student Government. In this column, when I speak of SG, I mainly write of the Senate, made up as it is by representatives of all University divisions, from freshmen to graduate students.
In recent months, SG managed to go from a relatively harmless institution to what many, including myself, see as a complete joke. The Senate passed two resolutions, one opposing Iran’s attempts to gain weapons as well as another to voice their opposition to laws banning gay marriage. Now, I don’t wish for Iran to gain weapons of mass destruction – though I am suspicious that this is simply another attempt by Bush and his crew to draw us into another war – and support the right of homosexuals to enter into marriage in the eyes of the state. As a columnist, one paid to voice his opinion on matters, I can raise my voice on these issues. As a private citizen, I can donate my time, money and efforts to trying to influence Iran’s leaders or the hard-headed folks who passed the gay marriage ban, but, recognizing the futility of it all, I pass by. Would that the Senate had not decided to make idiots out of themselves and stuck to private lobbying.
I can only hope the new crowd, all elected from “The Difference” ticket, will choose to keep such matters to issues that they have some control over i.e. the carpool lot.
My esteemed colleague, Bryan Beyer, has written quite eloquently on this issue. His objections to the lot, that it is half full, was confirmed by former SG Vice President Patrick Downs, though Downs did point out that the parking office had issued 315 tickets for the 202 space lot and issued, get this, 2,400 parking tickets to violators. While I have nothing against those who choose to carpool, I think it’s a good way to make friends and save money on gas – I can walk from my apartment and only drive when late for class – but I don’t see any purpose in penalizing those students who get here early, yet are denied a space because of some high-minded ideal.
While SG does not control parking lots or, for that matter, anything else of any remote importance on campus, here would be a chance for senators to act on what I would gather to be the will of their constituents and press for the abolition of the lot and its return to its old function.
In my last column on SG, I, perhaps too harshly, criticized them as an elite club. This is not entirely true. SG has a diversity to it; they have students of many races, political leanings, fraternal ties and sexual preferences. But, when it boils down to it, they seem to be becoming more and more a system in which one large ticket jumps out into the lead, buries the opposition and wins heavily. This matches modern politics, and if the senators could hold their seats in perpetuity, they probably could. Why the Odinet/Heaton ticket chose to buy billboards when they faced only token opposition is beyond me. I suppose they had to wipe out the equivalents of the Greens and Libertarians in suitable fashion.
With one party controlling the Senate, I fear future boondoggles such as the purchase of an elaborate voting system may exist in our future. As next semester is going to be my last, I will not be around to see who replaces Chris Odinet as president and will likely not be in Baton Rouge to view the election.
I believe a good deal of the people who work in SG do care about their University and fellow students. Honestly, though, they really give little to excite anything in students except their indifference. This could be the reason why apathy has won hands down in every election I can remember. Will anything ever change?
I sincerely doubt that students would care if SG were abolished, and, well, who can blame them? I don’t.
 
Ryan is a history senior. Contact him
at [email protected]