As anyone who has had any contact with the outside world should know, today is Super Tuesday. I am watching the returns come in with my roommates.

On campus today, Obama stuff and people were everywhere. There was chalking on the sidewalks, people with stickers and tables set up. I would have snapped a picture of people holding signs at Telegraph and Bancroft, but my camera keeps saying lens error 12, 14, or 22.

Beetle offers some more on campus reporting.

Last night was the affirmative action debate. BAMN, By any means necessary, brought their national spokesperson Shanta Driver while the Berkeley College Republicans brought Star Parker.

I think almost everyone walked into the room with a solid position on affirmative action. Most people went to cheer on their own side. During the evening, the talk moved away from the policy of affirmative action and its merits.

When Ms. Parker said, capitalism leads to wealth and redistribution leads to poverty, Ms. Driver laughed. Then I remembered the connections between BAMN and the communist group the Revolutionary Workers’ League. Check out this and its many links.

Ms. Driver put words into Ms. Parker’s mouth, claiming she thought black people were biologically inferior. Ms. Parker was called a “self-hating minority,” which later prompted a question from the audience (toward Ms. Driver) “How can I be a self-loving minority?”

During the question period, BAMN’s hearings on hostile climate toward minority students were brought up as evidence that racism still exists in a large way on the Berkeley campus. To me this was laughable. I went to one of their hearings on hostile climate. Two people I knew gave testimony about the discrimination they received. They were called “the puppet of the white man” and an “Aunt Jemima.” However, BAMN turned their cameras off, struck their testimony from the record, and laughed at them when they learned they were politically conservative.

Some of the people for affirmative action are willing to use children to advance their cause. During the question and answer period, a little kid got up to ask a question. The question he asked was not one he came up with himself, it had been written down for him to ask. The kid even had to ask the person next to him what one of the words was.

Does anyone have a favorite quote or point to share?

Tonight was the education debate between the Cal Berkeley Democrats and the Berkeley College Republicans. It was moderated by the Informal Debate Society. The Cal Dems were represented by Ayesha and John, while BCR was represented by Kyle and Derek. Both sides had a freshman debate for them.

BCR’s plan was for the state to give each student a $5,500 voucher. This would allow many students to attend private schools of their parent’s choice. The Dems said privatization was bad and more money should be spend on public schools.

Both sides agreed No Child Left Behind had some bad aspects and standardized tests would only be useful if they tested the right things.

In the context of technology in the classroom, the Dems said doing math on slate boards like they did hundreds of years ago will not help a person with jobs today.

I commend the debaters for their participation. I think BCR came off looking better, but I can be biased.

I actually missed it, and I missed most of the second showing, so I won’t have too much to say until I watch it online. But if any of y’all have anything interesting to say, consider the comment section an open thread.

By the way, I like Alan Colmes a lot, but he asked what has to be the single least well thought out question I’ve ever heard asked in a post-debate interview. Talking to Sen. McCain, regarding Iraq, he asked the following question (emphasis mine, slightly paraphrased):

“You know, one big argument people have is that if we leave Iraq, they’ll just follow us over here. They said that during Vietnam, too, and of course that didn’t happen. I mean, what are they going to do? What, are they going to hop on planes and fly over here?“

I’d like to include some of my own recommendations…

For the execs: CalServe.

Senate:

1.Dan Galeon (#130)
Check out his facebook group for more information.

Then…Squelch all the way down.

And I agree with Chris on the fees - NO!

If you want to say anything about the voting process or comment about stuff like magic chalk now is your chance.

I would like to remind you:

President: Van Nguyen
EVP: Taylor Allbright
EAVP: Dwight Asuncion
AAVP: Caro Jauregui

Senate:
1) Chad Kunert #95
2) Christian Osmena #73
3) All SQUELCH!candidates in ballot order. This will allow the votes to go directly to the serious ones even when the ballot is reversed.

Fees:
NO on all fees.

If you want something to listen to while you are lounging around, check out Alex Marlow’s new podcast. He interviews Kyle Tibbitts about his internship in the White House during the last election. They also speculate about something that is getting closer all the time, 2008 Presidential race.

I try to avoid speculation about nominations this early, but few people share my restraint. Who do you support and like in either side for President in ’08?

I am putting up these two pictures because they have facebook profiles here and here.

The election is just a few days away. To round out our series of Open Forums on the propositions, we invite you to discuss the dueling 78 and 79. There’s still a chance to jump into the heated debate on Prop 73 as well as on the Governor’s initiatives. And if you really want to talk about Prop 80, then you can use this post. I guess…

A short intro from the IGS:

Propositions 78 & 79: Prescription Drug Discounts:

With the the costs of prescription drugs rising, Californians now face shrinking coverage, higher co-pays and difficulty in obtaining the medication they need. Current California law requires pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at reduced prices for residents enrolled in the federal Medicare program. However, the pressure to introduce new pharmacy assistance programs has intensified in recent years. The urgency of the prescription drug issue has led to two measures on the November 8, 2005 Special Election ballot. Both initiatives would reduce prices for prescription drug users. One, supported by the pharmaceutical industry, would allow discounted drugs for those in financial need but would allow companies to drop their prices voluntarily. The other, supported by health and consumer groups, would mandate an agreement between the California Department of Health Services and drug companies which would keep drug prices lower for low and middle income prescription drug consumers.

Yes on 78? Yes on 79? Or no on both?

I’m guessing that these four propositions (74-77) aren’t going to generate as much debate here as Prop 73 currently is doing… But these propositions are the reason that we’re having a special election in the first place, so here’s the post where you can say whatever you want about one or all of them.

Quick summaries of each from the IGS:

Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure

Proposition 75: Use of Union Dues for Political Purposes

Proposition 76: The California Live Within Our Means Act

Proposition 77: Redistricting

Support the Governator’s Reform Package? Against them all? Some, but not others? Go.

Every couple of days between now and the election, we’ll have an Open Forum post on each of the propositions. I imagine that not everyone shares the same opinion on each one or it’s going to be a very boring election. So in the spirit of constructive debate, here’s the first one.

Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies has a through guide to the propositions, with links to both sides of each issue. I’ll be excerpting from the guide as a starting point.

Proposition 73: Parental Notification of Abortion

This initiative would require doctors to notify a minor’s parent or legal guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion. Parental consent is not required, only a 48-hour waiting period. The minor can apply for a waiver from a judge, and a physician may perform an abortion without notification in a medical emergency. The initiative also requires that physicians report abortions, and that the State compile statistics.

Proponents of the initiative claim that their main concern is the safety of girls, not eliminating abortion. They argue that minors need help to make important health decisions. They claim that the 48-hour waiting period ensures that parents have a realistic opportunity to consult with their daughter and explore her options before she makes an irrevocable decision.

Opponents argue that parental notification laws do nothing to keep teens safe or promote family communication. They hold that the real outcome of these laws is delayed medical care for the most vulnerable teens, putting them at risk for health complications.

Looking out for teen safety or anti-abortion trojan horse? Go.

At tonight’s Berkeley College Republicans meeting, the topic for debate was whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Interesting arguments were given by both sides, though no consensus was reached. It seemed like people still had more questions or things to say when time ran out, so I’m going to open this post up for continued debate on the issue. Knock yourselves out.

For starters, this Wikipedia article contains arguments both for and against drug prohibition in general.

Should marijuana be legalized? Go.