Tag Archives: California
Weatherproof: Just like the Democratic Party.
After eating too much chocolate and staring dolefully at my bedroom ceiling for the last few days, I have finally dragged myself to the computer to write this post. None of us — especially those of us who invested countless hours into campaigning — want to acknowledge the Republicans’ sweep on Tuesday. While a GOP majority in the House doesn’t bode well for substantive policy over the next two years, it’s critical for us, as progressives, to recognize some of the positive things that came out of November 2, 2010.
Legalizing weed got more votes than Meg Whitman: Yes, you read that right. While Proposition 19 — the legalization of marijuana — failed to pass in California, the measure still received 321,439 more votes than GOP gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman. The corporate candidate shattered campaign spending records with a cool $160 million, including $141.5 million of her own funds. (That could pay my college tuition a couple times over, you know.) And despite her general election flip-flopping and heavy investment in wooing Latino voters, her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown cruised to victory with support of 64 percent of Hispanic voters.
People still have to be born in Colorado: In Colorado, Amendment 62 would have “would have outlawed abortion at every stage of gestation, would have outlawed all forms of hormonal contraception, and would have made it difficult if not impossible for pregnant women to receive medical treatment if there was any chance of harming the pregnancy.” Such legislation, which values the survival of a fertilized egg over a living woman’s, is part of the supposed “personhood” movement. It’s genuinely crazypants legislation, so as a whole-hearted pro-choice advocate, I am relieved that the Amendment failed (for the second time around!) by 72 percent to 28 percent, at last count.
But don’t worry, they’re going to try a third time in 2012.
Democrats did win — some tough races too: We don’t have to go very far to find one competitive race that Democrats won — just look at MI-09, where Gary Peters beat Rocky Ralksjdfa;ksdf-something despite the Republican party throwing thousands of dollars in negative everything. In Colorado, Democrat John Hickenlooper won the governorship over Palin-backed Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo and Republican Dan Maes. Moreover, Michael Bennet won the Colorado Senate seat over Republican Ken Buck — man who said he should be elected over his primary opponent because he “doesn’t wear heels.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed to a victory over Sharron Angle. Pat Quinn in Illinois won the governor’s race over Bill Brady, despite series of polls leading to the election indicating otherwise.
Proposition 23 fails resoundingly in California: Delivering a decisive victory to environmental activists and the state’s clean energy economy, Prop 23 failed by an overwhelming 61 percent to 39 percent. Prop 23 — naturally filed by the oil industry — would suspend provisions of California’s greenhouse gas law until until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. (As the current rate is 12.4%, the wording seemed to trick voters and many worried that it would freeze California’s regulations cutting carbon emissions indefinitely.)
It’s hard to look for the good in the post-election drudgery, but it is nonetheless important for us to keep our heads up. There’s a lot of good happening in lots of places, and 2012 is just around the corner.
Sounds like someone’s seeing Pink elephants!
“I think every speech should begin with a shot of tequila.”
- Carly Fiorina, Senate candidate from the state of California
Well, that finally provides and explanation for her advertisements:
I came across an interesting article a couple of weeks ago, which has some interesting implications for us here at the University of Michigan.
The article, is about the University of California public school system which wants to be able to set different tuition levels at each school within the UC system, staying within a range of 25% of what it is set at now.
The first thing I got from this was how damned cheap it is. For an instate student, tuition is only $6,571, while an in-state student here at U of M pays either 11 or 12 thousand dollars.
The second thing I thought was that this was an eminently sensible idea. It is instituted here in Michigan as tuition at UM-Flint is only 7500 dollars a year. This is because there is a difference in quality between the Ann Arbor Campus and the Flint campus. Denying that difference and the vastly increased demand for the Ann Arbor campus, is engaging in an act of fantasy. Economics would say that entrance into the top schools, like Ann Arbor and Cal-Berkley and UCLA, is a scarce resource and ought to be rationed through the controlling mechanism of price. This doesn’t really work, as education is different from most other goods in that it is necessary for getting ahead in today’s economy and thus benefits all. This is why we have our system of public education in the first place. Thus, I think that the compromise sought by the UC chancellors makes sense. Every public school in Michigan is available for between 6 and 12 thousand dollars a year in tuition, an affordable portion for the quality of education received and economic opportunity gained. Instituting something similar in California, a state that is bordering on the brink of bankruptcy, seems to make sense.