How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
So in the front page article in the Record-Bee dated Saturday, May 3, Frank Rivero and his campaign manager Wanda Harris state that some unknown person is stealing their campaign signs. Not too unusual, it happens.
But then they state that that unknown person is improving their signs by putting on new stakes and then replacing them in illegal locations.
Really?
Jeannie Markham lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Jeannie Markham
On April 22, the United States Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that a Michigan state constitutional law banning the use of race-based preference in public universities violated the Equal Protection Clause. Basically, this 6-2 decision allows and somewhat encourages laws banning affirmative action.
Eight states, including California, currently ban the inclusion of race and/or ethnicity in public university admissions considerations.
Conversely, the California State Assembly is currently examining a state Constitutional amendment removing the ban on affirmative action that voters put in place in 1996 with Proposition 209. The initiative has already passed through the state Senate.
I am a junior at Clear Lake High School in Lakeport and the college admissions process for me is about arrive.
I have strived to make my school grades, extra curriculars, and everything else look as good as possible in the eyes of admissions officers in the hopes of achieving the American dream of higher education.
Should those who do not make nearly the same effort still gain similar consideration just because they are of a traditionally under-represented ethnic background?
Maybe this is rarely the case. Maybe this happens all the time. It is hard for one who lies outside the college admissions process to judge this, considering higher education admissions are both holistic and somewhat secretive.
Yes, it is conclusive that socioeconomically disadvantaged or minority students are often not very strong candidates for selective colleges because of their cultural background, home environment, or societal pressure. But should this be accounted for fully in the university admissions process?
No, this is a problem deeply rooted in American society and should be attacked much earlier. Programs need to be implemented to ensure all students have the best possible environment to thrive academically and socially – regardless or economic or racial background.
Maybe some statistics can further enlighten the situation.
Before the ban on affirmative action, the percentage of Hispanic freshman at UC Berkeley, the country’s arguably most selective public university, was at 23 percent in 1991. The “enrollment gap,” which is the difference between that percentage and the percentage of Hispanic college-aged Californians at 36 percent, was only 13 points. As for African-Americans, they made up 7 percent of the freshman class, which resulted in an enrollment gap of only 2 points.
In 2011, years after the ban was instated, only 11 percent and 2 percent of freshman were Hispanic and African-American, respectively. The enrollment gap had risen to 38 points and 7 points.
These are staggering numbers any way one looks at it. From one perspective, they show how disadvantaged these racial groups are in colleges and universities – and in education in general. In yet another, they show how much affirmative action had an effect in meeting certain quotas for admissions.
Perhaps, the most important conclusion from these numbers is the fact that race had a huge impact on the college admissions process – something that should not be true. Graduation rates have also risen slightly – showing those admitted these days are probably better qualified.
It is certain we should stop trying to make up for racial inequality at the university admissions level. It is grossly problematic to make up for mistakes in the past. Let’s start from primary education and close the gap there. That way, admissions rates and graduation rates will go up. Affirmative action should not be the equalizer for education in America.
Christopher Vincent is a junior at Clear Lake High School in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Christopher Vincent
I am a liberal Democrat and activist who strongly believes in my party’s platform and commitment to civil rights and individual liberty. As such, I cannot possibly support the bad policy evidenced in the language of Measure N.
Criminalizing people who are abiding by California state law is bad policy.
Criminalizing more people with a lack of ability to enforce is bad policy.
Criminalizing people’s activities in their own homes is extremely bad policy.
Authorizing county law enforcement to enter private homes at their discretion to inspect for plants is detestable policy to any civil libertarian.
The California State Democratic Party’s adopted 2014 platform includes language supporting the legalization, taxation and regulation of marijuana (not medical – just a straight up end to the prohibition).
The party’s platform is adopted every two years. It reflects the values and input of Democratic activists and legislators up and down our state.
We Democratic activists go to great lengths to debate and compromise in order to come up with statements of policy that are workable and just. It is a reflection of values and policy positions that every Democrat can run on.
Measure N in no way moves us toward that this goal outlined in our platform. It moves us backwards.
It is reactionary and unjust.
We, as Democrats, believe that prohibition is a failed policy. The war on drugs (which right now includes marijuana) has only served to make war on our own citizens. Measure N only adds to the morass.
I cannot support any county policy that makes people criminals for exercising their rights under California law.
I cannot support any policy that sets up people to be criminals without any measure of justice or responsiveness to the community.
I am well aware that some in our community have suffered at the hands of rogue growers who don’t care about their neighbors or the community they live or operate in.
However, making more criminals does not alleviate these people’s suffering. Measure N addresses none of the concerns of my neighbors and friends.
We need responsive inclusive policy in this county to regulate all aspects of the marijuana industry. And we need the funding to enforce it. Measure N provides none of this.
Send our Board of Supervisors back to work, and ask them to come up with a policy here in Lake County that protects all of us.
Vote no on N!
Rebecca Curry lives in Kelseyville, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Rebecca Curry
We all know that Lake County faces some tough problems these days, and so does the state of California, problems made even more challenging by the effects of one of the worst droughts on record.
At a time like this we simply cannot afford ineffectual business as usual in Sacramento: we need strong, fair leaders who relish hard work, have the integrity to speak the truth and stand up to the enticements of special interests, and possess the foresight to look beyond the conflicting pressures of the moment and focus on sustainable long term solutions that will meet the needs of our children and grandchildren.
That’s why, as a resident of Assembly District 4, I’m so excited to have an opportunity to vote for the next great champion in the state legislature, Joe Krovoza.
Joe’s public service record, effectiveness and commitment are all truly outstanding. He has worked for 17 years at UC Davis developing world-class academic programs in clean transportation and energy efficiency; as mayor of Davis he has spearheaded efforts to protect open space, improve air and water quality, increase energy and water efficiency, and reduce carbon pollution; and as head of the Putah Creek Council he helped to transform the creek's ecology and restore its historic salmon run. Above all, he understands water on a level unmatched by any legislative candidate past or present.
In the Assembly, Joe will stand up for California's environmental and agricultural treasures and will aggressively combat climate change and polluters.
This is why he has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, and why the California League of Conservation Voters, environmental leaders, and prominent ranchers throughout the district are also rallying behind him.
Assembly District 4 needs Joe, and so does California: please join me in voting for him on June 3.
Victoria Brandon is conservation chair for the Sierra Club Lake Group. She lives in Lower Lake, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Victoria Brandon