THE CHARIOT

Machete
Contributing Writer

movie review:
Ryan Lee

Chari t
T H E

Delivering Gunns Culture and Politics

OCTOBER 2010

VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1

of the movie Machete, the title character, played by Danny Trejo, slices several bad guys heads off, shoots several more and carries a nude woman through a gunfight. Needless to say, this is not a subtle movie. People dont just get shot; their heads explode in bursts of red goo. Everything is insanely over the topand thats the best part. Robert Rodriguez, director of cult classics such as El Mariachi and Sin City, as well as Spy Kids, goes back to his roots with this shoot-em-up to a script he wrote in 1993. Ethan Manquis, a collaborator of Rodriguez, codirects the film. Machete uses the faux-exploitation feel from the Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double feature Grindhouse. It is from this movie that the original fake trailer for Machete originated. Machete tells the story of Machete, a former Mexican federal police officer turned day laborer, who is set up by a businessman (Jeff Fahey) for an assassination attempt of a Texas senator (Robert De Niro) who is tough on immigration. Along the way, he gets tangled up with villains (Don Johnson and Steven Seagal), an immigrations agent (Jessica Alba) and an immigrant leader (Michelle Rodriguez). The movie makes no effort to be a serious work of drama. In one scene, Machete uses a mans intestines as a rope to swing from floor to floor in a building through two windows. Its ridiculous cartoon-like mayhem, but ridiculous cartoon-like mayhem in its most enjoyable form. It is one of those movies for which you have to take out your brain in order to enjoy. If you do, its a fun time. When faceless goons show up outside Machetes window, who cares why? All that matters is watching them get sliced up like deli meat.
n the opening scene

in this issue: Election season 2010

Opinions on Whitman and Brown, 67 Where the candidates stand, page 8 A rundown of the propositions, page 9

as well as

The oil moratorium, 1011 The Ground Zero controversy, page 5

12

OCT. 2010

THE CHARIOT

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

Dear Readers,
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Andrew Liu Sarah-Jean Zubair SENIOR EDITOR Max Lipscomb COPY EDITOR Roxanne Rahnama LAYOUT & GRAPHICS Celine Nguyen Susan Nitta PUBLICITY Alice Ku CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Drew Bent Chlo Blanchard Naor Deleanu Tara Golshan Anish Johri Christine Kyauk Ryan Lee Jeff Ma Sonal Prasad Rupali Raju Hina Sakazaki Yoyo Tsai Linda Wang Kevin Zhang

The Chariot would like to thank the following sponsors and patrons: FOUNDATION/GROUP SPONSORS Adobe Systems Daughters of the American Revolution Palo Alto Lions Club PATRONS ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj Patricia Bruegger Steven Guggenheim Christina Jang, GlobalEduCamp Shirley Zeng and Yajun Liu SPONSORS ($50-99) Mark and Rhonda Breier CONTRIBUTORS ($21-50) None.

We are excited to present you the first issue of The Chariot! As first quarter comes to close and your schedules begin to fill, we encourage you to take a step back for a moment and look at the larger picture not only of your own lives, but also of the broader political and cultural issues that have come to the fore in the past two months. In September, Pastor Terry Jones ignited world controversy and violence when he proposed Burn a Quran Day; on October 6, the Supreme Court heard the WestboroBaptist Church defend its right to demonstrate against gays at a marines funeral; and two days later Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to promote free speech and multiparty elections. These are just three examples of the power of spoken and written opinion to change society, for better or worse. Awareness of the issues and open communication are the first steps to positively wielding this influence of opinion, and we hope that The Chariot will provide you the stimulating ideas and welcoming forum to encourage your involvement. The relevant topics we have included in this issue include the upcoming California governors race and the Islamophobia debate highlighted by the Ground Zero mosque. We hope you will flip to an article you find interesting, share it with a friend, and see how you rethink your perspective. If you are interested in making your opinion heard or exploring your interests in journalism, we encourage you to join our staff as a writer, cartoonist, or layout & graphics personnel. We are especially looking for non-seniors who would lead The Chariot in future years and diversify the staff and readership of our publication. We also welcome the submission of comments, article ideas, and guest opinions. The Chariot remains the only independent, free Gunn publication without advertisements that is completely run by students. We depend on your donations as well as those from community organizations to continue our publication; any contributions would be appreciated. More information can be found on www.gunnchariot.com. We hope to publish 6 issues this year (about once every six weeks) and expand our reach into more diverse classes on campus. Please help us by spreading the word! Sincerely, Andrew Liu & Sarah-Jean Zubair editors-in-chief
ABOUT US The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn and make people aware of issues that matter. We ask that you respect all opinions which are reflected in our publication, and write letters to the editors if you wish to voice your opinion. The views expressed do not reflect that of The Chariot, but rather those of the individual writers. The Chariot was originally founded in 2004 as The Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wurman (06), Channing Hancock (06), and Sarah McDermott (05). Visit our website, www.gunnchariot.com if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to join can be sent to gunnchariot@gmail.com. If youd like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Marc Igler Re: The Gunn Chariot 780 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with The Chariot on the memo.

methods used for containing the oil spill are similar to those of 40 years ago. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, the rig ended up dumping millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, and initially the most promising emergency plan to halt the spill seemed to involve jamming garbage into the well until the oil stopped flowing, although engineers did improve the stoppage technique after several tries. The oil companies must come up with better responses if they are to be allowed to keep drilling in deeper and more dangerous waters. While it is too late to reverse the damage that has already been done, it is now the time to reevaluate deepwater drilling as a part of the oil economy. The United States needs to temporarily stop deepwater operations, find out what went wrong, improve safety, and figure out how to reduce the impacts of future spills. The moratorium should remain in place until there is more confidence in the safety of potentially devastating operations. Otherwise, the cost of another spill could overwhelm an already ravaged environment.

Turtle habitats that will potentially be affected by the oil spill, from the NOAA. Among the species of turtle in this area is the Kemps Ridley turtle, which breeds only along the coasts of Texas and Mexico.

Delaying our recovery

Contributing Writer

Drew Bent

The Chariot would also like to thank Advisor mArc igler for his support.

AmericAn public reActed in anger after an oil rig explosion in April killed 11 workers and spewed 206 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. The resulting environmental damage is historymaking and may remain for years to come. In addition to the financial crisis within BP that was caused by this spill, Deepwater Horizon has indirectly affected the entire offshore drilling industry. In July, the United States Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, suspended deepwater offshore drilling for certain new drill rigs. This moratorium, which will last until November 30, affects 33 different drilling sites in the Gulf and is supposed to give investigators time to fully understand the impact of the spill.
he

As if the damage from the oil spill itself has not caused enough trouble for the drilling industry, the moratorium poses a huge threat to our economy and is delaying its recovery. In July, it was estimated that halting these oil rigs could cost over 10,000 jobs and $2.8 billion in lost economic activity. At a time when the United States unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, we must keep jobs available whenever possible. Many jobs were directly lost due to the oil spill itself, which suggests that the United States should renew its focus on creating employment opportunities in the drilling sector. BP has helped in part by hiring workers in its restoration efforts, but the moratorium is hindering these and other attempts to add more jobs to the economy. It further deepens our economic problems by making us more dependent on foreign oil. A report earlier this year found that the United States is spending around one billion dollars each day on foreign oil. Instead of spending this money on domestic oil or alternative energy sources, we are handing money to foreign countries and thus further increasing our foreign energy dependence. According to the Louisiana MidContinent Oil and Gas Association, the moratorium prevents the production of

80,000 barrels of domestic oil daily from the aforementioned 33 drill sites. The decrease in domestic oil production is being compensated by foreign oil imports, but this increase in imports is exactly what the United States should avoid. Foreign oil is often more desirable because of its low costs, but it removes money from our economy and ends up financing many unstable governments. It has been reported that four million barrels a day were imported from dangerous and unstable countries in 2008, a number which has since risen. The moratorium is only fueling Americas dependence on foreign oil and limiting the amount of oil produced domestically each day. If moratoriums like this are imposed on domestic oil drilling without giving proper consideration to economic impacts, then we will face negative consequences. The nationwide moratorium is one of the many historic events that have occurred as a result of BPs oil spill. United States citizens are beginning to realize that a pause in domestic drilling during a crisis like this may detract from economic recovery. Given the circumstances, a moratorium after such a national crisis is counterproductive and should be revisited.

OCT. 2010

OCT. 2010

11

THE CHARIOT

THE OIL MORATORIUM

Preventing another deepwater drilling disaster
Contributing Writer

BLURBS ON CURRENT AFFAIRS

Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, still in jail
that he has won the award. President Obama made the right call by asking China to release Liu Xiaobo.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

Naor Deleanu

deepwAter horizon disaster, the Obama administration issued a moratorium on deep water drilling. While the government did not entirely suspend oil production in the Gulf of Mexico or in deepwater wells, the policy halts new deepwater drilling in 33 exploratory wells off the Gulf coast and stops the construction of new wells off the coasts of Alaska and Washington. The moratorium has provoked a typical environmentalist versus Big Oil debate. On one hand, the environmental destruction from the oil spill is incredible, and it will take years for the Gulf to fully recover. On the other hand, BP will have to pay at least $20 billion in compensation for the
ollowing the

spill, and the total economic impact will be much greater. Despite criticism to the contrary, the moratorium must remain in place in order to prevent equally devastating disasters in the future. The arguments against the moratorium stem from the potential economic impact due to revenue and job losses. However, the 33 affected wells make up less than one percent of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. While the temporary loss of approximately 10,000 jobs is a serious issue, it is currently not as problematic as the impact of the spill. Although it is estimated that 80,000 barrels of oil a day are not being recovered because of the moratorium, no current oil production is being stopped this loss is only an estimate of future impacts. Even if the moratorium does cost this much oil, 80,000 barrels is under one percent of domestic oil production. In this context, the impact of a temporary halting of new deepwater operations is negligible. It will not destroy the economy, bankrupt the oil companies or kill the domestic oil industry. It is only a shortterm stoppage of risky operations while

A map of fisheries in the Gulf which have been forced to close in the wake of the oil spill (via the National Marines Fishing Service, or NOAA).

the causes of the Deepwater Horizon spill are being determined. The moratorium also allows for the safety of deepwater oil rigs to be ascertained before drilling is resumed. Deepwater Horizon clearly had a number of safety concerns, and BP cut corners in order to get the oil rig into operation as quickly as possible. It is unacceptable for a company to drill over a mile under water when it lacks a real plan for dealing with an explosion. We cannot tolerate spotty inspections or poorly hired crews in a situation with so much potential for environmental damage. The oil industry defends itself by pointing to a lack of disasters in the past. However, although deepwater drilling is not new, it has expanded immensely in the last couple of decades. The number of wells in water 5,000 feet or deeper has gone from three in 1992 to 36 in 2008. Due to the continual depletion of shallow water oil reserves and increasing oil consumption, more rigs will be built in even deeper waters as long as oil is a primary energy source. Expansion in this manner makes it even more important to ensure the safety of such operations. We still do not know the full story behind what caused the blowout preventer to fail, and until we do, we should proceed with caution. There is reason to doubt the oil companies supposedly safe practices. The actual consequences of BPs drilling policies far exceeded the supposed worst-case scenarios as depicted by the BP itself. BPs initial spill estimates were well under the true amount of oil spewed, and there is still suspicion that BP is low-balling these estimates in order to pay less compensation (although Congress has recently created committees to investigate this issue). Some people want to target BP specifically. In reality, though, no oil company is prepared for a disaster like this. The contingency plans for all of the companies are poorly conceived and outdated. Many of the

Stem Cell Treatment Finally Underway

On October 8, the first patient was treated with embryonic stem cells in the first such study authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, a milestone in decades of stem cell research. The patient, who is partially paralyzed by spinal cord injury, was injected with millions of stem cells, according to the biotech company Geron Corp. (in Menlo Park, California), which is sponsoring the groundbreaking study. The study is designed to test both the safety and the therapeutic impacts of stem cell treatment. The outcomes of the study may fundamentally halt or accelerate the field of stem cell research. In August, a federal judge ruled that President Obamas permissive funding for the research violated federal law prohibiting the use of taxpayer money in research that involves the destruction of human embryos, demonstrating that the field is still highly controversial and fragile even at this stage. If anything goes awry in Gerons initial trials, many fear that stem cell research will end due to moral backlash.

quickly called for all major lenders to follow suit, citing reports that lenders have been fraudulent in their foreclosure practices and tricked many homeowners into impossible deals in the first place. Proponents of the moratorium argue that lenders and government agencies need to reevaluate the legitimacy of foreclosures before continuing to sell foreclosed properties. But what seems like a good idea is actually a political ploy for the upcoming midterm elections. Reid, who faces a tight reelection race, is only appealing to the frustrations of foreclosed voters without appealing to their sensibilities. According to the Obama administration, few of the current foreclosures are actually fraudulent, although the few egregious cases seem to taint all the rest. One potentially devastating impact of the moratorium is disruption and stagnation of the housing market, which is just beginning to recover. Because foreclosed properties make up 25 percent of homes sold in the U.S., the moratorium could disrupt real estate negotiations and detract from economic recovery. Another consequence may be the wave of lawsuits from homeowners against financial firms that are expected if the moratorium is implemented.

Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on October 8 for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The award recognizes Liu Xiaobos efforts for free speech and multiparty democracy in China; he mediated the students peaceful exit at Tiananmen Square in 1989, helped draft Charter 08 (which was inspired by the U.S. Constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen), and has written over 1,000 articles in favor of human freedom. The Norwegian Nobel Committee also sharply criticized Chinas repression of political rights with this move, saying that freedoms have proved to be distinctly curtailed for Chinas citizens. Despite his efforts, Liu Xiaobo remains in jail serving an 11-year term and remains little known to most Chinese due to government censorship. His wife Liu Xia says that it is unlikely that he himself even knows

Nationwide Freeze on Foreclosures is Unwise

On October 8, Bank of America, the nations largest bank, froze its foreclosure sales in all 50 states. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

The blurbs for this issue were compiled by Andrew Liu, Editor-in-Chief.
OCT. 2010 3

10

OCT. 2010

THE CHARIOT

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

On Barack Obama:
Chlo Blanchard
Contributing Writer

Public misconception has a reason

STATE PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT

reporter: Hina Sakazaki (Contributing Writer); layout: Celine Nguyen (Layout & Graphics)

in January 2009, Barack Obama was seen as Americas savior. Across the nation, citizens cast their votes for this future hero, placing their hopes and dreams in this talented and inspirational candidate. Many believed that Obama was the key to saving our nation from its sorry state of affairs. Upon Obamas inauguration as the 44th President of the United States, the public was bursting with anticipation of national reform and improvement. Perhaps these expectations eventually led to what some view as the inevitable mistrust and disappointment that unfolded after Obama took office. Those who had once considered him a hero now regard him with suspicion due to misconceptions that have spread to all corners of the nation. As soon as Obama assumed his role as President of the United States, it seemed that all tides had turned against him. The economy remained in a state of disarray. Obamas healthcare reform bill had faced a great deal of criticism. Because of his struggles to find solutions to such imperative matters, he quickly deteriorated from his superhuman image to a merely a human in the eyes of many. This change occurred as a result of his slow approach to issues that had existed years before he took office. Furthermore, he has been slow in responding to recent world issues, including the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the economy and the United States involvement in Iraq. Momentous burdens have been thrust upon Obama from the very beginning of his presidency. However, these issues are not the sole causes of public mistrust and concern. Obamas failure to clearly communicate his actions with the general public has resulted in the rising disapproval
p to his inAugurAtion

PROPO SITION

19

what it is: Legalizes marijuana under state but not federal law. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. why it matters: People 21 or older will be allowed to possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. Commercial Marijuana sales will be under local government rule. Prop. 19 could potentially save money from putting marijuana users in jail and increase control by taxation. Opponents say it will let drivers smoke marijuana until they step behind the wheel, endangering public safety. This is the most controversial proposition this fall, and it has the potential to change our life beyond high school completely. what it is: Redistricting of congressional districts. why it matters: Districts will be decided by a Citizens Redistricting Commission, rather than a legislature, to avoid gerrymandering (drawing boundaries to gain an unfair political advantage). The commission will be composed of 14 members: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 unaffiliated with either party. what it is: Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services. why it matters: The states power to use or redirect state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would be significantly restricted if passed. Proponents claim it will stop state politicians from taking local government funds and to protect local services. Opponents argue that this proposition could take billions of dollars from public schools and other institutions, while protecting and subsidizing local developers with no direct voter oversight. what it is: Suspends implementation of an air pollution control law (AB32) that requires major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment drops to 5.5% or less for a full year. why it matters: Proponents believe that AB32 is ineffective, and Prop. 23 could save jobs and prevent energy tax increases. Opponents claim itll lead to Californian dependence on costly oil, wreck the states alternative energy companies, and stop the alternative energy sector from creating new jobs. what it is: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability. why it matters: If passed, business tax provisions will be restored that make it impossible for businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years, share tax credits with affiliated corporations and use sales-based income calculations (to close tax law loopholes for wealthy, multi-state corporations).

PROPO SITION

20 22 23 24

PROPO SITION

Photo taken during Obamas 2008 presidential campaign.

rates. The unrest due to the passage of Affordable Health Care for America Act was a result of public misunderstanding of the legislations impact. To this day, most of the general public still does not fully understand Obamas bill. On the other hand, the Republican Party has been much more successful in defining the terms of the bill, and due to the ignorance of the American people, public response has been skewed. As a result, many have reformulated their views of Obama. While he began his career as a common hero, he has since become a distant figure of power. The lack of transparency towards the general public has made it so that the people are unable to properly realize the true value and significance of Obamas actions.

Public appreciation will only follow after a certain degree of transparency is reached. At that point, Obamas intentions and actions will cease to elude the general public. In fact, he will once again rise to the status of our national hero. Although it is true that certain beliefs about the current president are nothing more than misconceptions that arise from a lack of awareness, these erroneous beliefs stem from Obamas inability to make his intentions clear. Thus, it is up to Obama to address and correct these misconceptions. Once the public fully understands his actions, there will be no dispute as to whether Obama is a capable and honest leader, sincerely intent on making the United States a better place.

PROPO SITION

PROPO SITION

OCT. 2010

OCT. 2010

THE CHARIOT

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

2010 ELECTIONS
QUICK FACTS alma mater past jobs PLATFORM economic policy cutting regulation education
Eliminate the $800 fee for new businesses and state tax on capital gains provide a $10,000 credit for home

Zero tolerance on Ground Zero

Contributing Writer

THE CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR

reporter: Andrew Liu (Editor-in-Chief ); layout: Susan Nitta (Layout & Graphics)

Christine Kyauk

MEG WHITMAN
Princeton, Harvard Business School Former president & CEO ofEbay

JERRY BROWN
UC Berkeley, Yale Law School Attorney and politician

Build 12,000 megawatts of electricity generation and 8,000 megawatts of renewables and transmission lines use existing funds to create jobs in transportation, construction of education facilities, water infrastructure, clean energy Coordinate California Energy Commission and Independent System Operator to end delays in renewable energy projects Closely align transfer courses between CSU & UC so students avoid redundancy replace current funding process with pupil-weighted formula based on needs of the students in the district work with teacher training institutions to recruit more teachers from top third of high school graduates Supports national healthcare plan Opposes Prop 8; refused to defend it when it was challenged in court

90-day moratorium on most new state regulations to assess economic impact; one year moratorium on specific AB32 regulations (the global warming bill) Send money to school districts to be used by local administrators as they see fit bonuses to high-achieving teachers; a system that grades public schools AF and posts these grades online; invest $1bn in UCs and CSUs

healthcare same-sex marriage

8 OCT. 2010

Block national healthcare plan because it deepens the states deficit Supports Prop. 8 and civil unions & gay marriages that took place before Prop. 8 was passed

ground zero, it seems as if the wound is still open and the horrors of September 11, 2001, are relived everyday. It is a space of sensitivity and emotion, and the idea of a mosque corrupts the sacredness of the area, especially with its close proximity to the crash site. Or so believe the many people who think these myths are true. The picture I have painted above is in Map from the McClatchy Washington Bureau. fact a myth - that a mosque will be built on Ground Zero. However, the mosque on Ground Zero is in fact a community center located two blocks away. Even if the site were on Ground Zero, Muslims would have the same right to build their center on available property as any other group of Americans. As the First Amendment of the Constitution states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The First Amendments guarantee of freedom of religion allows Muslims to practice their religion anywhere, even on Ground Zero. Yet the arguments still come forth, stating that although Muslims do have the right to build their community center near Ground Zero, it just is not ethical or intelligent given the current political climate. Critics claim that the act is heartless and provocative, but their attacks are the result of the destructive acts of an extreme minority led by Osama Bin Laden. And with that opinion of a small group of people, skeptics pin the same wrongdoings to over a billion Muslims worldwide. The fact that Americans must face is that being a Muslim is not synonymous with being a terrorist. Muslims should not receive blame for the actions of radical outliers. It is likely that many Muslims died on the day the Twin Towers were attacked, and it is also likely that Muslims want a place to pray and remember those lost loved ones.
t

To discriminate against an entire group of people because of certain extremists is just wrong. Others argue that the mosque suggests the Muslim extremists domination of the West. However, the name of the mosque, Cordoba, is a reference to the 11th century city in Spain, which was a Moorish city renowned for its tolerance and progressiveness. It is this legacy of knowledge and freedom from the 11th century that the builders of the mosque want to emulate. The builders are only attempting to close the gap which is filled with misunderstanding between non-Muslims and Muslims.

The myths surrounding the debate mask their true intentions. What is not fabricated is the fact that the towers are gone and left in their place is an empty lot. The open gash of this lot can be healed by rebuilding with a powerful symbol that demonstrates American unity to the world. This community center would represent the freedom and acceptance that are the building blocks of American beliefs, and help non-Muslims bridge differences with Muslims by understanding the Islamic faith. Refusing the community center would be not only a rebuke of our constitution, but also a denial of American principles of tolerance.

OCT. 2010

THE CHARIOT

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

ELECTIONS 2010 CALIFORNIAS NEW GOVERNOR

Foresight 2010: Meg Whitman for governor
Contributing Writer

Jeff Ma

governAtors term expires, Californians are looking for a new leader. And since I do not have the foresight to see into various alternate futures to determine which of the candidates will be the most successful governor, I can only use the most reliable source at my disposal: history. Meg Whitmans business experience makes her, in my mind, the most suitable governor for California. After graduating from both Princeton and Harvard business schools, Whitman quickly rose to various executive positions in some of Americas best-known companies, including Disney and Hasbro, before joining eBay. In the next decade, Whitman developed eBay from a start-up with thirty employees and $4.7 million in revenue to a company with over 15,000 employees worldwide and over $8 billion in revenue. For her achievements within the business world, Whitman was recognized year after year by renowned publications such as Time, Fortune and Business Week. Furthermore, although she has never held public office, Whitman served as the Financial Co-Chairman for Mitt Romney and National Co-Chairman for John McCain, where she worked on policy issues and fundraising. History also has much to say about Whitmans opponent. Jerry Brown served as governor of California from 1975 to 1982. Known as a fiscal conservative, Brown managed to create a staggering $5 billion surplus. Unfortunately, instead of using the surplus to finance much needed property tax cuts, he let the money collect
s the

Above: Meg Whitman, and right: Jerry Brown, both on the campaign trail. Photos from the Sacramento Bee.

dust in vaults. Frustrated, citizens passed Proposition 13 in 1978, which amended the California Constitution so that the property tax on real estate could not rise more than 2% in any given year. Homeowners then had a disincentive to sell, so from 1978 to 2000, tenure rates in homes have risen by 10% while tenure in rentals have risen 19%. This destroyed funding for local governments, as revenue was dramatically limited due to capped property taxes. With Californias present unemployment rate of 12.8%, the two candidates have agreed that one of Californias most important issues is jobs. The Jobs for Californias Future section on jerrybrown. org reads: Most new jobs should and will be created in the private sector, but government can play an important role in establishing a favorable climate for job cre-

ation. I completely agree. Unfortunately, Brown does not give a plan; instead, he opts to focus solely on the creation of clean energy jobs. Whitman, on the other hand, has a plan: to decrease or eliminate various taxes, such as the Factory Tax and the Capital Gains Tax, so that companies will find a greater incentive to start in California. Along with eliminating the Small Business Startup Tax, these policies will make it not only easier but also favorable to start a small business in California, thus creating jobs. Robert Penn Warren once commented, The past is always a rebuke to the present. I hope history has persuaded you that Whitman is the most suitable governor for California. As citizens of the Bear Republic, were all in this together for a New California.

Really, now, who loves Meg?

Max Lipscomb
Senior Editor

even though i worked for the Meg Whitman for Governor 2010 campaign over the summer, I cannot logically or emotionally lend her my support in the gubernatorial race. To begin with, Meg Whitman is a business person, not a politician, which she loves to tout as a reason for being more capable than Jerry Brown. In reality, this puts her at a significant disadvantage. Maintaining that creating jobs at eBay taught her how to create jobs as the future governor of California is equivalent to claiming that getting straight As in elementary school will transfer over to college. She might

dont.

know how to work the corporate world, but the goals and methodology are completely different in a public policy environment. Additionally, Whitmans experience as a business executive has given her the impression that as governor of California she will be able to do as she pleases, completely bypassing the legislature using executive order, as she has threatened to do multiple times. When crafting her master plan to fix California, she apparently missed the point that shed have to work with the legislature in order to achieve her goals. In fact, during nearly every campaign rally, she has said that she wants to shake up Sacramento with a string of massive corporate tax cuts and then, well, more tax cuts. The first page of her spending reduction section even has a piece on preventing tax hikes. Its too bad for her then that Californias Democratic legislature clearly dislikes being disturbed

at all. If Schwarzeneggers stint in Sacramento has taught us anything, it is that a veto-ready governor with a legislature controlled by the opposite party leads to legislative deadlock. Whitmans campaign methods have added political controversy. She has tried to skew her immigration position and appeal to different demographics by purchasing billboards in both English and Spanish. The original idea was to play to the Spanish-speaking population, but the result was angry conservative constituents who thought shed gone soft on immigration. While Whitman has run a fairly successful campaign, rising steadily while Brown flat lines, she has done so sheer with money and lots of it. Having been the beneficiary of more than a few free campaign dinners complete with grilled chicken, potato salad, coleslaw and various other dishes, I can say that her spending is far from conservative. I would expect that kind of spending to continue once she gets into office, considering that her response to almost every challenge she has encountered has been to spend her way out of it. The problem here is that spending got California into a hole, and spending more isnt going to help. Regardless of policy, the main reason Jerry Brown will do more for California than Whitman is his political affiliation and ideology. Electing Meg Whitman is a recipe for legislative quagmire and an unstable business environment. Californias next governor will have to cooperate with the legislature in a productive manner, not necessarily to revolutionize California, but to keep us afloat and make necessary budget reforms. Whitman has consistently deemed herself a consensus builder, and Im sure she was one at eBay. Unfortunately, consensus on issues such as immigration cannot be built overnight, especially by someone who claims to be tough on illegal immigration while employing an illegal immigrant housekeeper at the same time. The New California Whitman plans on creating will not be one of invigorated business or conservative ideals. Rather, it will be a stagnant legislative environment that propagates financial uncertainty.
OCT. 2010 7

OCT. 2010