Your choice. Pick any result from the recent election but you cannot use the same issue/result someone else used. What article did you read to base your blog response on? What result or issue did you research? What is the result? What if any was the point of view of the author? What do you think of the result and what impact will it have? Remember to keep your
31 Comments
11/8/2012 09:30:54 am
I recently read an article on Cnn.com that states the significance of the younger generation vote this year. Not only did we grow from 18 to 19% of the electoral vote, we also made a rather big impact to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maine and Maryland, the rejection of constitutional discrimination in Minnesota and the election of a president who supports equal pay, reproductive rights and fair immigration reform. Many people thought that the younger generation had somewhat fallen out of love with Obama because of his changes that had little impact but it ended up completely opposite. The youth vote became larger and still was adamant about having hope and faith in the President for another 4 years. More than any other generation, the younger one is more forgiving, thats why Obama earned that vote.
Reply
Jessy Davidson
11/8/2012 10:19:25 am
As a resident in Angwin, Measure U was of great concern to me. While I may disagree with some of the things PUC has done, or is currently doing, Measure U would not solve the current deforestation problem, which was what seemed to be the Yes supporters primary delusion. PUC is resource rich and cash poor; on the brink of becoming broke. Because of this, they have been cutting down trees all over Howell Mountain and selling the wood as well as the land--to grape growers. Most of Howell Mountain is now vineyard as a result--go ahead, check Google maps. Had Measure U passed, Angwin would have set itself up for more deforestation, and more vineyards. After all, the vineyard owners had been the ones advocating U. I researched an article pursuing a No on U. The author argued that the measure would raise taxes, which would occur were PUC to take this to court. I failed to find one supporting the measure aside the actual Angwin initiative. I am relieved that the measure failed; 60% to 30%. Despite not paying property tax myself, and not wanting to see Angwin become an urban area, it is not just to take away the rights of PUC to do what it will with its property. I think that the outcome of this will benefit the entire community, and people will just have to suck it up if PUC wants to build more housing.
Reply
Estefani Ramirez
11/9/2012 05:30:23 am
I read an article from New York Times that was called " G.M.O.’s: Let’s Label ’Em" by Mark Bittman. In this article it talked about prop 37. I find this to be interesting because if prop 37 would have passed we would have known what is in the food we buy. This has brought some controversy, because some people feel that they have the right to know what is in their food as consumers. In the article I read it said " we win the right to know what's in the food we eat and a right to know how it's produced" I agree with this in some way because we do have the right to know what is in are food and where it came from but yet if we did know I think that a lot of people would buy fewer of the products in the stores, because prices for food would have gone higher due to the labeling regulations.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez
11/9/2012 05:32:25 am
I read an article from the New York Times, “More Women, but Not Nearly Enough.” The author talks about the power of women who are in Congress and that may be more attentive to single mothers, children, and Americans who have poor health or other disadvantages. Women are more socialized then man so they will focus more on women to get some more assistance. We have had women work in Congress, yet we haven’t seen the effects that women can make in decisions. We haven’t had a chance to see the impact of female executives in our society. The result of having more women power will impact in some areas. They’re decisions wouldn’t be very different from the men. Some decisions can affect our society in a positive way, such as giving more care to the people who need it.
Reply
11/9/2012 07:03:07 am
In the New york times, “More Women, but Not Nearly Enough.” The author talks about the power of women who are in Congress and that may be more attentive to single mothers, children, and Americans who have poor health or other disadvantages. Women are more socialized then man so they will focus more on women to get some more assistance. Some decisions can affect our society in a positive way, such as giving more care to the people who need it.We haven’t had a chance to see the impact of female executives in our society.
Reply
Brenda Vargas
11/9/2012 02:22:34 pm
The article I read on MercuryNews.com talks about how California has now passed Proposition 36, and how it will now revise its vigorous three strikes law. It will now prohibit judges from making any further life sentences for third strikers of minor offenses. This of course has implanted high hopes for families with members who are currently facing life in prison for minor offenses, and that they may have shorter sentences. Although, the question is how long will it take for resentencing, or whether they'll even qualify for a resentence . Location is another key factor. For more conservative, rural areas, such as The Central Valley, resentencing may move more slower, where as much more liberal places, such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area, might move along much faster. Some counties may even take six months, up to a year before they are ready to begin resentencing. Families are eager to see their family member yet again, but they are not completely free yet, however, with this spark of hope, it has given many family's the strength to pull through their difficult time.
Reply
Maria Vizcaino
11/10/2012 01:24:05 pm
The article "Prop. 34 Defeat a Civil Liberties Loss" is an article that informs the public of what choice they have made on prop 34. Prop 34 is a measure that concerns the death penalty. A yes vote kept the penalty and a no vote would have repealed the death penalty for a life sentence. The Californian voters voted yes a 52.8% margin. The author's point of view was that the people have made the wrong choice. That a vote no would have redirected $130 million before for the death penalty but was going to go to solving rape and murder cases. I agree with the author the people should have voted no so that the criminals would not get the easy way out by dying and would suffer in jail and have to work for victims' families the rest of there lives. The life sentence would be non-negotiable so there would be less money spent on lawyers and court-cases. The impact is that tax-payers will still have their money sent to kill people which is morally wrong even though it is a criminal.
Reply
Maria Vizcaino
11/10/2012 01:25:11 pm
PS. Remember to keep your what?
Reply
Jeanette Vasquez
11/10/2012 01:39:37 pm
The article I read in Los Angeles Times on proposition 37 of California, sadly did not pass, because only 46.9% of citizens voted yes on it while 53.1% voted no. This proposition proposed the labeling of genetically manipulated food which we have been consuming. In the article it stated that the "yes" campaign will not back down on the failure of passing the proposition. They will keep fighting by imposing stronger and stricter policies for all food and agricultural companies for labeling there foods. The "no" campaign gangnstyle stated that having proposition 37 is a waste of money and time, because instead of wasting that money on food labeling they could be using it for something much more useful.
Reply
Elaine Verbera
11/12/2012 03:37:29 am
Many voters focused on the results of Ohio, a state absolutely necessary to win in the elections for a presidential candidate. In the 2012 Presidential Election, many broadcasting networks declared President Barack Obama as the winner of the elections after Ohio was locked in with the majority of Ohio’s votes supporting Obama. Since this is such a crucial state, many newspapers, websites, and television shows heavily scrutinize how Ohio collects the ballots. In Eric Sherman’s CBS News article, “Ohio Faces Controversy Over Voting Machines,” Robert Fitrakis, a college professor, voting rights activist, and representative of the Green Party, claims that, since the machines haven’t been tested, they could have caused error in the results or even allow others to interfere with the results. The Federal courts had dismissed the case earlier this month, refusing to interrupt the ongoing elections. Fitrakis claims that the Ohio officials say the machines were supposed to be “experimental,” a claim further adding tension to the judges, where the court case could hinge on whether It was truly experimental when used for official use.
Reply
Taylor
11/13/2012 05:03:13 am
I chose the article from huffingtonpost.com about the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Colorado and Washington. The law suggests that if you are over the age of 21, you may obtain a certain amount of the herbal drug. The article focuses on the issue that colleges and the NCAA aren't going to change their drug policies. Campus's in Washington and Colorado such as Washington State University say they itend to prevent this issue on their campuses, as they want to stay drug-free. Governor of Colorado John Hickenlooper reminds us all there is still a federal law against the use of marijuana for recreational use.
Reply
Yecenia Sanchez
11/13/2012 11:43:07 am
The article I read was “Let’s Find a Way to Safe Ground Now: Our Worst Fiscal Cliff Fears” by Tim Skillern on yahoo news. My article was about the fiscal cliff everyone seems to be talking about. In the article it described what some potential outcomes might be, and what some Americans had to say about the matter. The fiscal cliff will raise taxes and many people will be left without jobs, and healthcare. Threesia Goff of Louisville says that, “President Obama signed a payroll tax holiday, giving the employment, self-employed, and small businesses with less than 50 employees a 2% increase in their net earnings. If a settlement can’t be reached to avoid this, my family will see our yearly tax deductions of at least $1,500 disappear.” So, one of the most common beliefs about this is that most people paying taxes in the USA are extremely worried about this outcome. If measures aren’t taken to try and fix this we could potentially see a downfall in our economy, which will hurt everyone. Another outcome that many people are worried about is that this might make it harder for one to apply for a loan. Laurie Jo Miller of San Francisco states, “Two out of four college grads in my family need a job to pay back college loans..most worrisome to me is the possibility of the nation falling back into recession and unemployment escalating due to a fall in the gross domestic product. ” If this is true, this will affect my peers and I because most of us are planning on attending a college after grad. This article did a good job in highlighting many issues and worries people have about the future outcome of this topic, and how important it is for our congress to do something about it.
Reply
Marina Spadarotto
11/13/2012 12:58:24 pm
This years proposition 35 in California focused on the different kinds of punishments upon sex traffickers/sex offenders. The issue addressed imprisonment sentences increasing, along with how they will be regulated after conviction. This proposition also demands for the money that is fined from offenders goes to rehabilitation, not just to the state. The proposition passed with an overwhelmingly high percentage of 81%. In my opinion, I think a "Yes" vote on this is the right choice. Recently I read over the LA Times article called California Proposition 35, on human trafficking, passes, per AP. The article doesnt take a strong stance to either side but does make the "Yes" vote seem like it is beneficial to creating a defense to this ongoing issue. I believe this issue will start to slow down in California after some cases have been ruled and prison sentances and fines are given. I believe that yes, some of the point that the measure took seemed misguiding and could possibly hurt the victim. But I also believe that in a civil court, an innocent victim will not be held accountable for any false accusations. Since the prices are high now, judges and juries will look deeper into the cases, creating a lower rate of false convictions.
Reply
Randall McKay
11/15/2012 11:29:42 am
I read the Napa Valley Registers article "Measure C leads" written by Jesse Duarte and David Stoneberg. The article as stated in the title is about measure C, a $30 million bond measure benefiting the St. Helena Unified School District. The bond measure needed 55% to pass, which it did get. The article was un-biased, there was no side apparent when i read it, it was very informative rather than opinionated. The result of measure C will be seen all across the St. Helena Unified School District, from the pool to be under construction by next summer at the high school, to Improvements in play structures at the Elementary school.
Reply
Skylar Nelson
11/15/2012 11:33:27 am
In the article, “Prop. 30 In California Doesn't Solve All School Finance Issues, Santa Cruz Board Told” the author Shanna McCord discusses the impact of the passage of prop 30 on the public schools around California. Prop 30 saved school districts around the country 6 billion dollars in tax cuts, which helps save many schools about to drown. McCord’s point of view was extremely evident throughout the article because the reader could tell without any effort that she was in favor of prop 30 passing. Many people could say that her opinion is biased, I believe that she sticks to the facts and doesn’t stray from the topic at hand. Although this proposition helped the schools in need, it definitely isn’t the whole solution. For public schools to start to do well again, the economy must improve from its sluggish fragile state.
Reply
Steffanie Lopez
11/15/2012 02:15:37 pm
I read an article from LA Times about Prop. 33. Prop 33, if it were to pass was supposedly supposed to provide discounts for drivers who have had previous auto insurance, but another result from Prop 33 would allow insurance companies to raise prices of insurance to those who are previously uninsured. The Prop did not pass, and the author believed that it was a good choice because the raising of rates from those previously uninsured is unfair because they could be uninsured for several reasons, some being from not driving previously or moving to a different country and moving back to the United States. I agree and think that Prop 33 was a poor proposition and would be unfair to those who are previously uninsured because, while some could have just been unsafe drivers, others could have had several legitimate reasons as to why they weren't insured.
Reply
Jenna Ramos
11/15/2012 03:44:57 pm
Proposition 30 was a tax increase initiative that was on the ballot in this past election passed. A major supporter of this proposition was Jerry Brown who believed that increasing taxes will benefit the state of California as far as k-12 schools, community colleges, and ensure funding for public transport. In short, this initiative would increase personal income tax on those who make $250,000/yr for the next seven years as well as increase sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5%. The tax increase would bring in an estimated $6 billion annually over the next few years. On the ballot it emphasized that in no way would it cut funding for public schools, which is probably why it passed. It is very apparent that this proposition was created with the intention of aiding UC schools as well as community colleges who have been hit hard during the recession. Gardner seems to take a very optimistic stance on the ability of this initiative to improve our state budget and assist in school expenses. The impact this proposition will have on the state of California can only reap benefits. By preserving school funds and not cutting them we can guarantee that Californian's are getting an education that not only are they entitled to but will serve them as they enter the work field. A path made possible by attending college, an option that is becoming much more realistic for some who are financially challenged based on the passing of this proposition.
Reply
Jenna
11/15/2012 03:46:50 pm
"With Proposition 30 Approved, California's Public Colleges Now Look to Rebuild" - Lee Gardner, SF Chronicle
Reply
Ariadna
11/15/2012 05:05:29 pm
I read an article from Los Angeles Times " Mungers Proposition 38 fails, according to AP" written by Damian Dovarganes, it discusses a rejection on proposition 38. This proposition was created by Molly Munger, her ideas on how to raise money for schools competed with Jerry Brown's who created proposition 30, which did passed. 7,457,890 voters opted to not vote for proposition 38. I believe this was a good oportunity to make a transformative investment in education for children. It would of improved our schools to esure a skilled workforce that is needed to create jobs for a better tomorrow.
Reply
Sergio Nava
11/16/2012 01:52:16 am
In the CNN article "marijuana legalization passes in Colorado, Washington" Aaron Smith discusses the recently passed law for recreational use of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Although the law is already approved, Smith believes that the battle is bearly begining due to the fact that that the the state law contradicts the national law. The Drug Enforcement Administration's have not changed their position on their view of marijuana, regardless of the fact that two states passed a law approving the legalization of the substance. They consider it an illegal substance, and claim that using it or selling it is still considered a crime. As well as Aaron Smith i believe the fight is just starting. Many law suits with the federal government will occur. The federal goverment will proboboly reduce the amount of money the states receive until they change their laws. Unless more states also legalize marijuana, i think Colorado and Washington are gunna have to change the law back to how it was, or at least modify it in some way that the federal goverment some what agrees with it.
Reply
Paige Preston
11/16/2012 03:28:58 am
The addition of four states with laws passed in the recent election in support of same-sex marriage laws is an indication that nationally public opinion has changed on the issue. The New York Times article, “Advocates of Gay-Marriage Extend Their Campaign,” by Erik Eckholm discusses the impact of this change of view in a few states, and how it could cause change to permeate across the nation. Four years ago when the vote to change same-sex marriage laws in Maine came to a vote, it didn’t pass, yet this time around it did. It was the author’s view that this is due to a general acceptance growing for members of the gay community, and that those who campaign in support have found an effective argument. The opposition no longer has any moves to counter this new argument. Now that the mood of the nation is changing and a few states have already passed laws, it would be surprising if many other states didn’t follow suit. In addition, many Republican leaders are also now realizing that change is coming and are pushing to abandon their strict interpretation of marriage.
Reply
Maro RIvera
11/16/2012 08:23:52 am
Since I had to cover the topic of prop 39 in class i decided i would look up an article on prop 39, the article is call "As U.S. hesitates California pour billions into green energy". The articles mainly just speaks about how California is taking the initiative by passing this proposition and how 60%of California voted yes on this bill. the issues about the prop were on how the money would be spent with the left over money from their sponsors. They are putting the money "up for grabs". Another issue is what type of clean energy projects are they going to invest in. apparently the "amount of money that is going to be spent is going to open the door for companies of all sorts to get in there,". It seems that prop 39 is going to become a huge benefit for California and I believe that was the authors purpose to show the pros of prop 39. In conclusion the effect that prop 39 will have seems to be very beneficial at least in my opinion.
Reply
Alex Radinger
11/16/2012 10:28:33 am
In the article “About Prop. 36: A more sensible ‘3 strikes’ law” from the San Francisco Chronicle, the adoption of the new three strikes law and how it will change our society is discussed. This election year the three strikes law from 1994 was overturned. The policy adopted in California in 1994 was put in place to stop horrific criminals from getting released from prison, yet it somehow backfired and led to many unjustified imprisonments and a waste of tax dollars. In fact, 40% of inmates serving life in prison due to this law did not even have a violent third offense. Many Democrats and Republicans supported this proposition, which is part of the reason it passed. Proposition 36 does not keep offenders from going to jail on their third strike, but it does make sure that the offense is violent or serious. Some believe that criminals who have had three strikes deserve to be in jail for the rest of their life, yet they take up room and money even when their third crime was petty. I believe the author of this article is biased and favors the newly adopted three strikes law. The passing of this proposition will free up space in prison for people that may have not have committed multiple crimes, but have committed more serious crimes, such as murder and rape. Keeping people in jail for life for petty crimes simply because they have past offenses does not make sense and just wastes the taxpayers money. This new three strikes law contains fewer flaws and will benefit our state in multiple ways.
Reply
Madeline Oliver
11/16/2012 11:16:41 am
The article I read was, "Prop 32 Donors Also Support These Causes: Offshore Drilling, Gay Conversion Therapy & School Vouchers" by Matthew Fleischer of Frying Pan News. Just from the title one can infer that this is a somewhat biased article, however the investigative journalist does present a valid argument, revealing the ulterior motives of Prop 32, or at least, of those who support it. Fleischer focuses on the personal backgrounds of major funders of the California Proposition such as major billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Charles Munger Jr, as well as anti-marriage equality crusaders, Howard Ahmanson and Larry T. Smith. The writer's purpose in making these connections is to warn of the overlooked danger that ideas such as this would pose on society. The measure would have taken away unions' ability to partake in the political process, and hence, "eliminate organized labor as the most significant obstacle to imposing a corporate and fundamentalist religious agenda on an otherwise stalwart progressive state". This may be a radical interpretation of the proposition and it's backers, but personally, if I, as a voter, had been exposed to this article before filling out the ballot I would have a much clearer stance on the issue. For instance, the Koch Brothers,owners of a major paper-making factory, held a strong stance against the California’s Green Chemistry Initiative, a 2008 law protecting California citizens from exposure to toxic industrial chemicals.They also donated $1 million dollars in 2010 to Proposition 23, which would overturn AB 32 and insure the company's access to Canadian tar sands, an environmental catastrophe. The list goes on of all the hideous causes the Prop 32 donors have supported such as; lowering the minimum wage requirement, gay conversion therapy, and the xenophobic Minutemen.While the brief descriptions provided with the ballot are helpful and informative, this article definitely sheds light on the importance of knowing who is behind these measures before voting.
Reply
Jennifer Martin
11/16/2012 12:23:17 pm
In a recent article, "Prop. 31: Budget overhaul defeat," it explains how California voters defeated a measure that would have established a two-year budget cycle for the state and made a host of other changes to state and local budgeting, including giving the governor unilateral power to cut spending during fiscal crises. With the loss of this proposition, 60 to 40%, California will manage the state budget the same. The authors overview from the article covered what proposition 31 would have done to the state if it passed. The loss of proposition 31 benefits California by lessening new problems in the states debt. It will remain California's economy managed how it currently has been and will require less limits on laws to be passed for taxes and bills to become laws.
Reply
Alex Perez
11/16/2012 03:05:30 pm
In the article "Proposition 40: CA GOP Deserted Referendum," Cassidy Bartolomei gives the background information on Prop 40, and why it was even on the ballot on the first place. The previous agreement was that state senate districts would be determined by a group of fourteen people: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four from smaller parties. This seemed fair enough, but the Republicans believed that this process was favoring the Democrats. They ended up spending millions of dollars to run a campaign against the redistricting, only to realize that their efforts were somewhat pointless. Giving up, they admitted that they were wrong and urged voters to vote yes on this prop. Basically, a yes vote would keep the districting the same. A no vote would have made it so that the redistricting would be redone again, costing California around $500,000. Julie Vandermost, Republican activist, stated: “As the Official Sponsor of Proposition 40, our intention was to make sure its qualification for the ballot would stop the current Senate District lines from being implemented in 2012. The Supreme Court reviewed the process and intervened to keep district lines in place. With the court’s action, this measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote.” Even after this statement was released, 28% of votes for Prop 40 were for the con side. This just shows the ignorance of voters in California, as 28% of them didn't even read a short statement telling them not to vote no on this prop. The outcome of this is that nothing will happen, and the districts for Senate will remain the same.
Reply
Cheyenne Rose
11/18/2012 02:07:53 pm
Late
Reply
Alexander Pierce
11/19/2012 02:51:37 pm
Goof
Reply
Kirsten Sherman
11/20/2012 01:54:43 am
I read an article on nbclosangeles.com discussing prop 36 - Three Strikes Law. Under the "Three Strikes" law, someone who commits two felonies defined as serious can be sent to prison for 25 years by committing a third felony of any type – even some forms of shoplifting. Prop. 36 sought to modify that policy, the toughest of its kind in the nation. Proposition 36 easily passed 53-percent to 47-percent, according to the Secretary of State. I can't say the authors, Samantha Tata and Jason Kandel, had a point of view... more or less they just talk about the passing of prop 36. Because this law is passed, the judge will have more leeway on deciding the fate of felons. If a criminal's third offense is having weed present in their vehicle without a license, the judge has the choice to not sentance them for life. Yet if the third offense is say beating someone with a baseball bat, their future isn't looking too bright. Passing the 36th ammendment was a good choice made by the American Voters. No longer can juveline records of drug possesion or theft be considered a "third strike." The third strike must be composed of "violent or serious felonies" to be conidered your last strike. Keep your track records clean! Carry your drug license if you are keeping drugs, and don't beat people incessantly with foreign objects.
Reply
Kirsten
11/20/2012 01:56:27 am
I understand that this is really really late... by like 10 days.
Reply
Jonathan Wignall
12/6/2012 01:37:49 pm
I read and article on mercury news about the democratic party winning a supermajority in both the California legislature chambers. I think the author of the article thought the outcome would be short lived due to upcoming vacancies in 2013 elections. The super majority is a landmark situation in California's history. It gives the democratic party the ability to make great changes and sway politics into an even more democratic strong hold. But the issue of having a super majority is theres no way for a balance of power to take place. Democracy is based on balancing the powers and compromising. In the early stages of our nation a president's cabinet was made up of a equal amount of the opposite parties, to insure that no one party would have to much control. The defeated candidate would then become the vice president, ensuring stability. But now with the fight for absolute control, Americans lose sight of the point of our founders system. No matter what party is in control, democratic or republican, each has the ability to become corrupt if given to much power.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |