<p>G.G.
Game over.
And it's the day of my midterms too. So that's cool I guess.</p>
<p>date? 10char</p>
<p>I heard Thurs Oct 7</p>
<p>yeah it’s the 7th. thursday.</p>
<p>October 7th, yup.</p>
<p>'cuz, y’know, it worked so tremendously well the last two times.</p>
<p>Rallying for what?</p>
<p>At this point, I think it’s for the sake of rallying.</p>
<p>Ostensibly, though, protesting the budget cuts/layoffs/etc. - same as last year. This is a very stupid approach to trying to enact change and a total waste of time for everyone involved, as it exerts no real pressure on anyone, much less the people behind the things that are being protested. I’m inclined to think that it’s being done again because it makes the organizers feel important, but, as stated, “feeling” is as far as that importance goes.</p>
<p>jon-agreed. they just need to feel like they’re “activists” like the students from the 60’s except they dont really accomplish much besides making noise and wreaking havoc. its ****in me off since im paying like what, $100 a day or some ridiculous amount for classes only to have them be disrupted or canceled.</p>
<p>As bad as you guys think you have it, international fees are worse :(</p>
<p>At least I can sleep in on Thursday :)</p>
<p>@Leftist - Exactly what I’m thinking. I still think they could do more effective things than rallying, but at least in those cases they would actually be coming close to accomplishing something. </p>
<p>@jojo - I don’t think I have it “bad.” I’ve also observed that many of the people I know who get involved in these protests - including one of the girls central to organizing the Wheeler Hall occupation last year - are not actually responsible for paying the tuition. I have a strong suspicion that there’d be a little more effective action going on if they were.</p>
<p>Prop 25, while maybe a popular decision in these parts and in the short term, is horrible for the long terms goals and health of the state. It just lets the morons in Sacramento continue to be unaccountable for their reckless spending and allocation of tax payer dollars. </p>
<p>We should be more concerned with imposing penalties on the legislator for playing these political games with the budget, than with some proposition that will undoubtedly put the state in a tougher economic situation than it’s currently in. </p>
<p>As for the protestors, what morons. </p>
<p>We’re coming out of one the worst economic downturns in the history of this country. The national economy is in the tank and the state economy and jobs situation is even worse off that that. With state unemployment at a reported 13% (and probably really over 20%) it takes some real balls for some of these people, many of whom likely receive CalGrants already to supplement their cost, to go out and protest over a few thousand bucks.</p>
<p>There should be a protest against the protest. …Oh wait, that’s just me going to classes.</p>
<p>i still don’t understand why i’m not allowed to hit them when they pull the fire alarm while i’m in classes.</p>
<p>stupid stupid people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I have heard Republican commentators praise Proposition 25 as it allows Democrats to own the budget instead of this current mess where each ~63% Democratic house has to buy a couple votes in order to pass a bipartisan budget. Due to the excessive gerrymandering of the state we have one of the bluest Democratic caucuses and the absolute reddest Republican caucus, and thus bipartisanship is extremely difficult. We have Dems who are a bit more liberal than the general population and GOPers who are lot more conservative than the general population (I mean we are a blue state after all). Normally in Blue states you have Dems who are bit left of the general and Republicans who are more moderate that Red State Republicans, due to gerrymandering, that doesn’t work in our legislature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prop 25 does that. Each day late the legislature passes the budget they lose their travel expenses and their salary is cut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Owning the budget (the mess) doesn’t make any sense in this state. It’s not as if the Dems screwing the pooch (again) will make them at risk of losing their seats. If it was on a national level, where there’s not nearly a decided advantage for either party, I would agree, but it’s not–the Dems aren’t going to lose their seats or get voted out for mismanaging the budget in California. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It still doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a bad piece of legislation. The US was founded with the protections of the minority in mind, if you want one party rule then move to the UK.</p>
<p>The fact that the US was founded one way doesn’t make that way better. I’m not going to comment on any of the rest of this - largely because I don’t know enough - but “more in line with principles I like” and “better” are two entirely different things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Requiring only a majority to pass a budget is not disrespecting minorities. Denying blacks the right to vote, oppressing the LGBT, etc. are disrespecting minorities. There is nothing un-American about proposition 25. A simple majority is only needed to pass the budget in 47 states; California and two others are the only places where a 2/3rds requirement is needed and the only reason we have a 2/3rds requirement is because Howard Jarvis had the requirement added to his property-tax reform initiative (Prop 13).</p>