Olivia Robertson and Jenni Valle are co-coordinators of HSU’s A.W.A.R.E. (Always Working for Animal Rights and Equality) club. “I’m not going to deal with anyone being arrested this weekend,” Robertson says at the Thursday meeting. She passes around an ACLU flyer titled “Rights of Demonstrators.”  This is a planning meeting for the protest of Piccadilly Circus the group will hold over the weekend.

In a press release, the circus hypes the “Elephant Extravaganza,” in which “an elephant stands on one foot.” “I think there are much higher forms of entertainment,” Robertson says, “I’d rather watch Animal Planet.”

She stresses that A.W.A.R.E. is an animal rights group, not an animal welfare group. Mary Sue Savage, former coordinator of the club, explains that animal welfare advocacy is about improving the situations in which animals are kept, whereas animal rights advocacy is about preventing animals from being put in those situations in the first place. “Dismantling structures that enslave animals,” Savage says.

Using animals as entertainment is one of those structures, according to Savage. “Animals do not belong in circuses or to be used for entertainment purposes.”

On Sunday, Savage and Robertson stand outside the entrance to Redwood Fairgrounds, about an hour before the first show starts. Savage holds a sign that says “Circuses Are No Fun For Animals.“ Robertson’s has a picture of a chained up elephant and reads, “Minutes of Entertainment… A Lifetime of Misery.” They pass out flyers to people going into the circus listing “four reasons why you should make this your last animal circus.”

“How do you know it’s not fun, did you talk to them?” A man asks Savage as he walks past. An elderly woman refuses a flyer, saying, ”I don’t want to read that. It might ruin my fun.” Another woman takes a flyer as she walks in, not seeming to notice the signs. “Wait, animal cruelty, no,” she says once she glances at the paper. She gives it back.

“Yeah, that’s true,” a man points at the signs as he exits the fairgrounds before show time, “they’re a rip-off, too.” Someone driving by honks and gives the protestors two thumbs up.

At around 1:20 p.m., the last of the latecomers enter the fairgrounds and things get quiet. The protestors set their signs down and lean against the wall at the entrance gate.

On Saturday, Robertson was able to get inside the fairgrounds as the circus was getting set up. “The elephants are in these trailers. They’re packed in there.” She says the animals had little ventilation.

The Florida-based Piccadilly Circus abruptly removed one elephant, “Nosey,” from its tour in April of this year. Nosey, a female African elephant, had been touring with the circus since 2010, according to the Animals Rights Foundation of Florida (ARFF), a Florida-based non-profit organization. Nosey’s owner is Hugo Liebel of the Liebling Circus, also known as the Florida State Family Circus.

The USDA has repeatedly cited Liebel in violation of the Animal Welfare Act, with regards to Nosey’s health. In an inspection that took place on Feb. 23, 2011, the veterinarian noted that Nosey continued to suffer from a chronic skin condition, despite treatments being prescribed in previous inspections. Also, her feet were in poor condition.

Another elephant has now replaced Nosey in the Piccadilly Circus, according to ARFF. “Animals used for circuses are beaten, whipped, et cetera, and it’s not OK,” says Savage.

After the show is over, people stream out of the fairgrounds gates as more people stream in for the 3:30 show.

“Thanks for making it a crappy show,” one woman shouts at Robertson and Savage as she leads her children out of the gate. Some people give a sarcastic “thank you” as they leave, while others give a sincere “thank you.”

A little girl walks out, clutching one of the protestors’ flyers in her hand. “They treat the elephants like poo!”

“I thought the elephants looked like they were having a ton of fun,” someone says on their way out. “Well, you’re terribly misinformed,” Robertson shoots back.

At the Thursday meeting she emphasized that they’re going to treat everyone with respect. “They’re not bad people; they’re just unenlightened.”

A.W.A.R.E. meets every other Thursday at 5:30 p.m. in Karshner Lounge, and can be reached on Facebook at facebook.com/hsuaware.

The Occupy protests began on Wall Street in New York City on Sept. 17 and have spread to 834 American cities at the time of this writing, according to occupytogether.org, the centralized website for protests nationwide. Some argue that discontent in the U.S. is inspired by the recent revolutions and uprisings in many Middle Eastern and North African countries. “Actually, this started in Egypt,” says Caitlin Knox, a participant in the Occupy Humboldt protests. “This started with the revolution in Egypt. It’s not just nationwide, it’s global.”

“We’re just here to take a stand, and say we’re tired of the corruption in our government. We’re tired of money controlling our government; we’re tired of corporate greed,” Knox says.

The protest site at the quad is a conglomeration of pop-up canopies, plastered with signs that say things such as, “We are the 99 percent, and so are you.” “The 99 percent” is a common theme among all the Occupy protests, a reference to the inequity of wealth distribution in the U.S., which seems to protestors to be disproportionately skewed in favor of the top one percent.

The national movement has garnered plenty of criticism, most commonly that the protestors have released no demands, and do not appear to have any defined goals, or even unified complaints. “Ideas are still developing, and its hard to get a clear goal and message when you have so many people so angry about so many things,” Knox says in response to these criticisms. “Every revolution has stages, and this is still in its infancy.”

Roy Buchanon, another Occupy Humboldt protestor, cites different reasons for the perceived ambiguity behind the movement. He paraphrases from one of the original protesters on Wall Street, “If you think of it as anything, think of it as a big discussion, created by the people, about the things that need to be addressed that the media and the government won’t talk about.”

The discussion, while perhaps lacking specifics, seems to center on anger at government corruption, corporations, and the inability of average people, the 99 percent, to be heard by the government.

Knox states her goals for the movement, “We can get corporations out of our government by removing lobbyists, and then I want to see more power put in the hands of the states.”

Buchanon seems to have completely different reasons for participating. “People coming together and connecting and breaking down the divisions that make people think they’re separated,” he says.

The occupation of the HSU campus began on Saturday at 3:00 p.m., and continued despite the downpour on Tuesday night. Protesters take turns spending the night at the protest site, maintaining a presence of at least six people 24 hours a day, according to Buchanon. Wooden pallets were donated by a local business, and serve to keep those spending the night off the ground and out of the water. Other local businesses, as well as individuals, regularly donate food, water, clothing, and even hot chocolate to the protestors.

The movement has no leader. Organizational meetings are held twice daily, and each time a mediator is chosen to moderate discussion.  “Any decision or idea that is decided upon by the group has to be total one hundred percent consensus, agreed upon by everyone involved, or else the discussion continues,” explains Buchanon.

“I think that there is a broad overall goal that connects every one individual, and that is creating a new way of living and relating and working together that works for the highest good of everyone,” Buchanon says. In that goal, the protest may already be succeeding.

Salary of the US President…$400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents…$180,000. Salary of House/Senate…$174,000. Salary of Speaker of House…$223,500….Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders…$193,400…..Average US Salary…$33,000 to $77,000.HELLO! I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree repost!!!!

I rolled my eyes, but continued about my business on the interwebz. By the time I clicked back to Facebook, that indignant little message pretty much filled the page, so many people had reposted it. OK. Now I’m a little annoyed. Let’s examine this shall we?

First of all, why do our congressional leaders and presidents get paid so much? There are many reasons, one of which is to try to discourage them from taking “donations” from special interests. You could argue that this doesn’t seem to work very well. Granted, but could you imagine how much more desperate candidates would be for campaign contributions if they were in danger of actually needing money?

It’s also important to remember that we have to compete for our leaders with the private sector. Why would someone with the skills necessary to be president work for $77,000 when they could earn almost 43 times more working as the CEO of a major corporation? Compared to the average salary of CEOs, which was $3.3mil in 2008*, $400,000 is an abysmal salary for a comparable job. If you want to argue about it, the job of President of the United States is actually more demanding than a CEO’s, and so should actually pay more, not 8 times less. We want to attract exemplary people to these positions of power, which is why we need to offer compensation that can at least be compared to that of other institutions competing for the same individuals.

Next, a little bit of perspective. Added together, the salaries of members of congress and the president is $85,635,500. Nice, right? I’d like a slice of that. But let’s compare that to the budget of the United States, which is $1.049 trillion dollars. Just so we’re clear, that looks like this: $1,049,000,000,000. The pay of the most powerful people in our government begins to look like a drop in the ocean. But exactly how big of drop in the ocean? According to my calculations** this makes up 0.816% of the budget. Or, you could consider the fact that there were 156.3 million taxpayers in the United States in 2008, according to CNN. That works out to $1.82 per taxpayer per year.

I understand the frustration of watching congresspeople on the news driving luxury cars and wearing designer suits, and seeing the president fly in Air Force One from place to place so he can talk about how he relates to the struggles of the lower class. But cutting congressional and presidential pay will not come close to making a difference in the budget, and as satisfying as it might be to want to pull them off their high horses (and Lincoln Towncars), getting angry that someone else has more than you will not solve this country’s problems.

*This figure is salary and bonuses alone, and does not include stock gains, which actually makes up the majority of how much a CEO brings home.

**which, I will be the first to admit, could be totally wrong. I haven’t had a math class in like four semesters. If I’m wrong, let me know, please.

However, if you’re dying to hear from me, you can go to my Tumblr page and click on “Ask” and ask me a question and if it is a good question I will try to answer it.

Also, I tweet disproportionately to the number of people who care about what I have to say, so you can check my Twitter if you want to hear me ramble somewhat more concisely.

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive… that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]” (Inaugural). Barack Obama repeated this George Washington quote during his inaugural address in January of 2009, and it summarizes, not only the war that gave the United States its independence, but also the sentiment proliferated by Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  In 2008, America was struggling with an economic crisis, two wars in the Middle East, and eight years under President Bush. Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, was young, articulate, energetic, and appeared as a breath of fresh air in the hearts and television sets of Americans nationwide. Obama’s charisma and connection with the people landed him in the Whitehouse.

Along the campaign trail, however, Obama promised the American people drastic reform and specific policy changes. This includes promises of health care reform, financial regulation reform, significant investment into renewable energy sources, immigration reform, and much more. Progress has been made on many of these issues. But for many more issues, advancement is frozen. This fact angers many voters, who do not understand why they are not getting the drastic reforms they were promised. What they cannot see, however, is all the logistics and politics that must go on before a policy can be implemented.  There are several promises that Obama made while campaigning that have not been turned into policy. There are many reasons for this.

Obama seemingly hit the ground running when he ordered the close of the Guantanamo Bay detention center on his second day in office. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is the home of a prison the United States uses to detain enemy combatants and terror suspects. It has long been a source of controversy, surfacing allegations of prisoner abuse and torture, and has raised questions about whether the United States has the right to detain inmates without trial (Childs). While he was running for office, Obama released his plan to combat terrorism, in which he pledged to close Guantanamo Bay (“Obama’s Plan”, 5).  When he ordered its closure, Obama acknowledged that it would probably be a long, complex battle. But it is doubtful that he could have foreseen the amount of resistance that would occur to his plan.

Almost as soon as he issued the order, grievances poured in from Republicans and Democrats alike. They argue that there is no satisfactory way to deal with the current detainees in Guantanamo Bay, and for this reason, tried to prevent its closure. In May of 2009, the Senate denied Obama the $80 million he requested to close the detention center (Herszenhorn). In October of 2009, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow some inmates at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to U.S. soil for trial (Pleva). Although the bill did not pass in the Senate, this signified a possible willingness to compromise. A prison in Illinois had been identified and Obama’s administration hoped to purchase and renovate the site (Pleva). Detainees currently at Guantanamo Bay could then be transferred to this new facility. Congress, however is still not onboard with this new plan, and in May of 2010 it approved a bill with language “which specifically prohibits the use of funds to purchase or modify an U.S. facility for Gitmo prisoners” (Pleva). This bill will halt the Obama administration’s latest attempt to close the detention center.

Efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay facility have been vehemently blocked at every turn by Congress. While Obama claims that he remains committed to shutting down the detention center, little progress is being made. Meanwhile, media coverage of the issue has stagnated, and the public has moved on. Unless there is a significant shift with regards to Congress’s stand on this issue, it is unlikely that Guantanamo Bay will be closing anytime soon.

While campaigning, Obama came out strongly against the military policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly. The military had used this law to investigate and discharge service members if they are suspected of being gay. In July of 2008 he outlined his complaints with the rule. “There are equity issues involved,” he said, “but there are also effectiveness issues involved” (“Military Times”). He argues that the military needs all the resources it can get, and should not be expelling talented personnel on the grounds of sexual orientation. He promised to work to repeal the law.

In his first year in office, however, progress toward a repeal was stagnant. The biggest problem lies in the fact that Obama does not have the power to change the law himself. The power to legislate lies with Congress, so in order to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Obama will have to get both the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote to end the measure. The issue was brought up in the beginning of this year, when “the nation’s two top defense officials” (Bumiller) called for a repeal of the law. In May of this year, the House of Representatives passed the defense bill for 2010, which was amended to include a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (H.R. 5136). Obama applauded the move (H.R. 5136), but the bill was blocked from coming onto the floor in the Senate.

One of the most vocal proponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is Senator John McCain, from Arizona. He maintains that neither Congress nor the president should alter the law unless military officials advocate a repeal (Shear). McCain has blocked and voted against any attempt to pass a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the Senate. Both McCain and Obama got what they were looking for on November 30, when the Pentagon released a study on potential effects on the military if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were to be repealed. The study found that any negative effects would be minimal (Keyes). In light of these findings, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, urged the Senate to repeal the law as quickly as possible (Keyes).

In light of this these recent developments, it would seem that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has a brief life ahead of it. After two years in the Whitehouse, Obama will have finally completed his campaign pledge to repeal the law, although, he does not have much control over the issue. He has adamantly opposed the rule, and commended anyone who worked towards its repeal, and under his influence, it may be repealed.

Probably the most ambitious and, so far, most successful of Obama’s campaign promises were those dealing with healthcare reform. In 2008, he released his plan for reforming healthcare. Some key provisions of this plan were to force insurance providers to cover individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and to create a public option, a state-run health coverage option that would compete with for-profit insurance programs (Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s).  On March 23, after a long battle in the House and Senate, Obama signed into law the healthcare reform bill. This bill ensured many of Obama’s campaign promises, including coverage for those with pre-existing conditions (Health Care Bill).

Missing from the bill, however, were many things Obama proposed in his healthcare plan released in 2008, most notably the public option. When it was proposed, there was an outcry among many Republicans, who think that a public option is tantamount to a “government takeover” of healthcare (Stolberg). It appears that only liberal Democrats are were favor of a public option, so in order for moderate Democrats and Republicans in congress to vote for a health care bill, inclusion of a public option had to come into question. The version of the health care bill that passed in the House of Representatives included a public option, but the version that passed in the Senate did not (“Side-By-Side”).  The final version of the bill did not mandate a public option. Although the public option was a major talking point for Obama during the campaign, his health care bill would not have passed in Congress if it had been included, so Obama had to do without the initiative.

The midterm elections, in which people voted overwhelmingly against the president’s party, showed that voters are unhappy with the way things are going in their government. In 2008, they voted for Obama’s visions of hope and change, and they are disappointed with the lackluster manifestations of those dreams. People voted for Obama for exciting new policies and issues that they cared about, and they have seen many of those issues forgotten, or get tied up in bureaucratic gridlock. They blame Obama for not delivering them the change they were promised.

But what many people fail to recognize is that Obama has completed many of the tasks he undertook. While it may not be perfect, Obama passed comprehensive health care reform. U.S. combat missions are over in Iraq. He has supported and invested in renewable energy solutions. While it may not be the dramatic change voters were looking for, Obama has signed into law many of the issues he campaigned on. What people also fail to recognize is that Obama is not operating in a vacuum. The president has to work with Congress in order to work out a compromise and implement policy. Congress not only has the power to pass laws, it also controls where the funding goes, so it is crucial that the president not only work with Congress in order to get his agenda signed into law, but also to make sure there is money to implement it. If Obama was expecting to walk into the Whitehouse and revolutionize the way politics is done in the United States, he has since learned that it is not that easy. It is time his supporters learned that, too.

Works Cited

Bumiller, Elisabeth. “Top Defense Officials Seek to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” The New York Times 2 Feb. 2010.

Childs, Nick. “Guantanamo Controversy Rumbles On.” BBC News 18 Oct. 2004.

“Health Care Bill- H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Open Congress. Participatory Politics Foundation.
Hersxenhorn, David. “Funds to Close Guantanamo Denied.” New York Times 20 May 2009.

“H.R. 5136: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.” Open Congress. Participatory Politics Foundation.

Keyes, Charley, et al. “Pentagon: Letting Openly Gay Troops Serve Won’t Hurt Military.” CNN. 30 Nov. 2010.

Obama, Barack. “Military Times Editorial Board Meeting with Sen. Barack Obama.” Interview by Military Times editorial board. Military Times. Gannett Government Media Corporation, 8 July 2008.

Obama, Barack, and Joe Biden. BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH
CARE COSTS AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL.             2008.

Obama, Barack Hussein. “Inaugural Address.” 20 Jan. 2009. whitehouse.gov.

“Obama’s Plan to Defeat Terrorism Worldwide.” Barack Obama: The War We Need to Win. Obama for America, 2008. 5-6.

Pleva, Lukas, Angie Drobnic Holan, and Catharine Richert. “Close the Gauntanamo Bay Detention Center- Obama promise No. 177.” The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises. PolitiFact, 16 Sept. 2010.

Shear, Michael D. “McCain Appears to Shift on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” The Washington Post 3 Feb. 2010.

“Side-By-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals.” Chart. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010. PDF file.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May be Dropped.” New York Times 17 Aug. 2009.

The call for dinner comes from the kitchen, and Will Hamann looks up, peering out from his shaggy dark blond hair. Although it is early in the season, the lower half of his face is sunburned into a pattern universally recognizable among avid skiers as a “goggle-tan.” He earned his tan by hitting the slopes six days during his weeklong Thanksgiving break.

Like many 17-year-olds, Hamann splits his time between school, his friends, and his hobbies, which, for him, involve skiing and building robots in his school Robotics Club.

Like many high school seniors, his sights are set on next year, when he’ll be going to college. His mother has led him around the western United States on a parade of campus tours and presented him with mountains of applications and scholarship essays.

Unfortunately for Hamann and millions of California students like him, an education in California is getting increasingly expensive. California continues to face economic woes, leaving state colleges like Humboldt State University scrambling for funding.  “The newly passed state budget,” writes HSU President Rollin Richmond, “has left the next governor and legislature a deficit of billions of dollars.”

At the end of last year, Richmond announced a fee increase for students, saying “I regret having to increase the cost of attending Humboldt State University for our students.”

Although things look bleak, they are an improvement on previous years’ deficit. The school no longer faces furloughs, and the California State University system is enjoying an increase in funding for the first time since 2007.

Richmond warns against celebrating too soon, however, saying, “California’s economy is still struggling, with only limited signs that a modest recovery is underway.” “And next year,” he states “it is very unlikely that we will receive significant federal assistance as we have over the last two years.”

This uncertainty may factor in for those students currently deciding where they will go to college. “I don’t really want to go to any schools in California,” says Hamann, although he adds, “it’s not their academic credentials that I doubt.” “Schools in California seem to be more expensive,” and, “they also seem to be in worse condition.” Hamann has toured six different colleges stretched across California, Nevada, Utah, and Montana. His first choice is Montana State University.

For Hamann, and many high school seniors, picking out a college can be, not only overwhelming, but a little frightening. Hamann says that he “worries deeply” about paying for college, and is counting on getting financial aid to be able to go to school. Without that financial help, he won’t be able to go to college, and his dreams of becoming an engineer will drift out of reach.

“Cost plays an enormous role in my decision,” he says.

Getting ready to head off to college is an emotionally complicated process. Hamann has “mixed feelings” about leaving his home and friends and starting a new life in college. Like many high school seniors, he is standing on the precipice, getting ready to take the leap into the unknown, but still holding on to his small hometown for support and strength.

He says he is “excited about sleeping in a different bed every night, excited for late night homework sessions and not having to worry about waking my parents when I go to bed.”  This will sound familiar to a lot of us who left for college, although for Hamann’s generation, the sadness, excitement and fear of striding toward adulthood is marred by financial concerns.

“It is important that we remain cautious,” says Richmond.

But for Hamann and the kids like him, now is the time to abandon caution and explore the uncertain. “I am emotionally torn between the life of a child and the life of an adult,” he says. Aren’t we all.

Kyle and I had some badass costumes planned, but they kinda fell through, so we went like this:

It was pretty awesome.

The day started with a trip to CVS to get shower curtains, then we watched Power Rangers while putting our costumes together.

The J had a Halloween celebration, which included a haunted house, candy, condoms, and a DJ. It was a good time.

We got ice cream and went back to Kyle’s and watched A Nightmare Before Christmas and ate ice cream and candy and cheese popcorn. I ate too much candy; I kinda felt like my teeth were going to crumble out of my mouth. I guess that’s a lot of the point of Halloween, isn’t it?

More to the point, a few political science professors, the county D.A., some city council members running for reelection, and others, sat at the front and talked about the statewide propositions. I found it vastly interesting, and it helped me decide how I’m going to vote. So, this is what I’ve decided. Sowhat about you? Made any decisions yet? Disagree with me? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Prop 19- the weed one: Yes.

It comes down to the fact that California shouldn’t let fear of the federal government guide its decisions. Yeah, it couldn’t really be any more vague, and its going to cause tons of problems, but I think its important that we start this national conversation.

Prop 20- Redistricting by Commission: Yes.

As of this morning, house seats in 21 of California’s 53 districts were 100% guaranteed to go a certain way. 100%! What’s the point of even having an election?

Prop 21-State Parks: Yes.

I like state parks. Also, come on, it’s 18 dollars!

Prop 22-robbing locals to pay real debts: No.

Do I want my town to have better sidewalks? Yes

Do I give a damn about the sidewalks if the state can’t afford to give me financial aid? No

Prop 23- Dirty Energy Prop: No.

Prop 24- Business taxes: Yes.

These tax laws were only passed because legislators had to make some shady deals in order to get the budget passed. Big businesses should definitely be paying more taxes, not less.

Prop 25- State Budget: Yes.

It seems commonsensical to me. I’d rather have a shotty budget than no budget.

Prop 26- Taxes and Fees: No.

I think we should be making it easier to raise taxes, not harder to raise fees. I guess that’s just the commie-hippie-liberal-douche bag in me.

Prop 27- Redistricting by Legislature: No.

Districts ought to allow voter’s voices to be heard. The legislature fails at that.

The title shot flashes on the screen in a crowded theater. The audience explodes with applause. This is not your typical movie screening, and this is not your typical audience. The people that filled the Arcata Theatre Lounge on Sunday evening were Browncoats, diehard fans of the science fiction television show Firefly, and subsequent movie Serenity.

Joss Whedon, creator of TV shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dollhouse, premiered Firefly on Fox Network in 2002. The show is set 500 years in the future, and follows the renegade crew of small spaceship, who can probably best be described as space pirates, on their adventures around the galaxy, or “’verse,” as they call it in Whedon’s world. Whedon tells The Oregonian, “I’d say it’s a space adventure that involves the lowliest people in the most mundane of circumstances getting caught up in something giant and epic—without lasers, aliens, or force-fields to protect them.”

Unfortunately, after experimenting with the show’s timeslot and airing some of the episodes out of order, Fox stated that the show wasn’t getting enough views and had Whedon end production of Firefly. Only 11 episodes were ever aired.

“And then the fans started rallying to our case,” said Firefly executive producer, Christopher Buchanan, “people on the internet went wild trying to have the show resurrected”. The Browncoats wrote the network, and wrote other networks, asking them to pick the show up. They purchased ads in newspapers and on TV, trying to gain support for the show. They held viewing parties, trying to get the show more views, more fans, and more media attention. Buchanan said, “Our fans, when I say they were ready to march on the network, I’m not exaggerating.”

The outcry got the attention of Universal Studios, and in 2004, Serenity, the motion picture follow-up to Firefly, went into production. “It’s pretty extraordinary when you consider that this never happens,” said one of the show’s stars, Gina Torres, “we’re the Cinderella of movie-making, of TV shows.”

That fact, that cancelled TV shows simply do not get made into movies, is part of what drew Browncoats, as if guided by an occult hand, to the theater on Sunday evening. Five years after the Serenity premiere, fans around the world still gather periodically for parties, conventions, and screenings of the movie.

Music from the show is playing as the audience streams into the theater. Most of those entering unabashedly sing out loud. The more timid hum along, but it appears that almost everyone knows the songs.

There is a trivia contest before the movie starts, and the master of ceremonies, Craig, stands at the front of the stage reading questions and giving out prizes. Among the prizes is a box set of the only season of Firefly, “which, I’m sure you already have your own,” Craig says, “but, you know, the holidays are coming up…” The audience giggles.

When the lights go down and it’s time for the movie to start, a deafening silence falls over the captive audience. The crowd reacts to each scene as if it is their first time watching, and at the same time like they know each shot by heart. They laugh uproariously, cry openly, and watch, mesmerized as the story unfolds.

A man sitting to side sips his beer and whispers the words to almost every line. When a major character dies, a girl in the front puts her arm around her friend next to her, and they grieve together silently.

The credits roll, the lights start to come up, and the crowd gives a standing ovation. The noise of their applause and screaming reverberates around the room.

“We are extremely grateful for the fans, because they’re exactly what keep us flying,” says Morena Baccarin, one of the stars of the show, in an interview with SciFi Network. Seven years after the show was cancelled, the audience streams out of the theater, and it seems they are flying still.

Enjoy.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Prop 23

One can hardly turn on the news anymore without seeing clips of oil gushing into the ocean and covering adorable sea creatures. Humankind’s need for energy is slowly destroying this planet, and energy companies are standing by collecting the profits. Or, this is the case everywhere except California, whose landmark anti-pollution bill, AB32, stands as a defender of the environment, holding big energy companies responsible for their environmental impact. This November, however, California’s environment is on the line with Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32.  In order to get this proposition to pass, Texas oil companies are packaging Prop 23 in a deceitful manner, as the “California Jobs Initiative.” No matter what Big Oil says to the contrary, all Prop 23 would do is lead to further degradation of the environment, and for this reason, California voters should vote against Prop 23 this November.

In 2006, California passed a momentous environmental protection bill, AB32, also called the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The regulations in this bill echoed around the nation and the world as an example of progressive environmental protections. The primary goal is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a twenty-five percent reduction over a 30-year period (Sullivan 20).  A cap on major sources of pollution will begin in 2012 (Going 2). Also included in the bill is a mandate for energy companies and other large polluters to report their emissions annually (Sullivan 20). These regulations are a huge step in reducing global-warming, and preserving the environment.

The incentives created under AB32 have led to a plethora of new renewable energy projects being created. This includes the Mojave Desert Abengoa solar plant, a 250-megawatt project that will bring in eighty permanent jobs and will go into construction at the end of this year (Hsu). As well as the Alta Wind Energy Center, a 1550-megawatt project that will be completed in 2011 (Alta), and the Sacramento BioRefinery, that will displace the need for 76,460 barrels of oil each year (Clean).  All of these exciting new, economy stimulating, environmentally friendly, job-creating clean-tech companies chose to start these projects in California because of AB32. Not only did these regulations inspire many clean energy projects, they inspired other states to pass environmental regulations.

Unfortunately, California residents may never experience the full benefits of AB32, because this year, the year that many key provisions of the bill go into effect, a campaign has been launched to suspend this measure.  Ninety percent of the funding for this proposition, Prop 23, is coming from two Texas oil companies, Valero and Tesoro. These companies are afraid that having to take responsibility for their environmental impact may have an effect on their profit margin, so they have launched a deceptive ad campaign designed to mislead California voters in these hard economic times. Their arguments for Prop 23 are disingenuous and thoroughly false. Simply put, these companies do not care about California’s environment, economy, or citizens, and are willing to put all of those in harms way in order to make more money.

Proponents of Prop 23 make the claim that “Proposition 23 would not repeal or weaken any air quality, public health, or environmental laws” (Yes on 23) This is a blatant contradiction to the actual ballot language, which states that Prop 23 “suspends air pollution control laws” (California 106).  Not only would it repeal AB32, it would prevent the state from implementing any GHG controls, subsidizing renewable energy, or requiring companies to report their pollution levels (California 106). These restrictions would remain in effect until the unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for a full year.  In the past forty years, unemployment has only been this drastically low three times (Going 5). So not only does Prop 23, contradictory to proponents’ claims, suspend the environmental protection laws for what would in all likelihood be decades, it would make the government powerless to fight global warming in any way until that time.

Proponents also argue that the continued implementation of AB32 will result in higher electricity rates. In reality, what will actually cause higher energy rates is if Californians remain dependant on an energy source that is increasing in demand, but decreasing in supply—oil. The supply of oil is also exclusively controlled by an elite group of corporations who set the price, and collect the profits. Oil, and the energy it provides, is only getting more expensive. A study by David Roland-Holst of U.C. Berkeley found that without the current GHG policies, by 2020 private electricity costs would be up to $100 higher than they are currently for California residents.  That is why it is so vital to keep AB32 in place, to incentivize investment into renewable energy sources and keep energy rates low and competitive. So, while proponents of Prop 23 assert that passing the initiative will save California residents from soaring electricity rates, actually, a defeat of the Prop 23 will save Californians up to 33% on electricity (Roland-Holst 4).

Proponents also argue that Prop 23 will “save over a million jobs” (Yes on 23).  They got this figure from a study conducted by Sanjay Varshney and Dennis Tootelian of C.S.U. Sacramento, who calculated that due to the potential expenses of AB32, small businesses would hire 1,102,782 fewer people (Varshney 47). However, this report was reviewed by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, and was found to be inaccurate. They state that, “our review of this study indicates that it contains a number of serious shortcomings that render its estimates of the annual economic costs of state regulations essentially useless” (Taylor). These estimations are what led Varshney and Tootelian to calculate the numbers about unemployment caused by AB32, and so “as a result of these shortcomings, we believe that their principle findings are unreliable” (Taylor). The main argument from supporters of Prop 23, that it will save jobs, is based entirely off of erroneous information.

In actuality, rejecting Prop 23 will save jobs and decrease unemployment. In California, there are more than 500,000 jobs in the clean energy or technology field (Levy 2). AB32 helped to incentivize the creation of these jobs, and there are more clean tech-companies starting up and starting projects in California all the time, because of AB32.  There is significant evidence that proves that without the GHG emissions laws in place, these jobs would either move out-of state or simply cease to exist (Roland-Holst 4). California stands to lose half a million jobs if Prop 23 passes.

Proponents argue that California businesses cannot recover from the economic recession with these strict regulations. However, AB32 has incentivized creating clean energy businesses, and has led to the 12,000 clean tech companies that exist in California today (Going 2).  Since AB32 was enacted in 2006, private investors have poured $9 billion into California’s economy, in the development of clean energy sources (Going 1). If Prop 23 passes, these investors would find more inviting incentives elsewhere, and may move out of state. The confirmation of Prop 23 would put the clean technology industry, the bright spot in California’s economy, one of the few industries that is actually recovering, in serious jeopardy.

While the economy is a concern for the average citizen, in the long run, the health of the environment will play a larger role in the health of the people. Four years ago, the normally at odds California government came together and signed into law a bill that would fuel the economy, the environment, and the health of the citizens. Now this bill is under attack from Big Oil, who sees technological and environmental progress as business competition. All their “facts” about Prop 23 are false, and their claims are manipulative. In selling it as the “California Jobs Initiative” the backers have shown how they are willing to take advantage of Californians who are afraid during these times of economic uncertainty. That is why the voters need to send a message to Big Oil; the people will not be deceived by unreliable statistics about unemployment, nor will they be terrorized by empty threats of economic collapse. The people of California need to make a stand for the environment, for the economy, for themselves, and vote no on Prop 23.

Works Cited

Alta Wind Energy Center. Terra-Gen, 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

California. California Secretary of State. “Proposition 23.” Text of Proposed
Laws. 2010. 106. PDF file.

Clean World Partners. Clean World Partners LLC, 2009.
Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

Going Backwards. Washington D.C.: Clean Economy Network, 2010. PDF file.

Hsu, Tiffany. “Mojave Desert’s Abengoa Solar Plant Gains Approval.” Los Angeles
Times 8 Sept. 2010.

Levy, Loree, and Kevin Callori. State Survey Identifies Over 300,000 Jobs in
California With Major Emphasis on Green Practices. Sacramento: Employment
Development Department, 21 Apr. 2010.

Roland-Holst, David. Energy Prices and Califonria’s Economic Security. University of             California Berkeley, 2009. 0910071. PDF file.

Sullivan, Patrick. “Getting Ready to Count Carbon.” Pollution Engineering41.3 (2009): 20-3.             OmniFile Full Text Mega. Web. 4 Oct. 2010.

Taylor, Mac. Letter to Kevin De Leon. 9 Mar. 2010. Sacramento: Legislative
Analyst’s Office, 2010.

Varshney, Sanjay B., and Dennis H. Tootelian. Cost of AB32 on California Small

Businesses–Summary Report of Findings. Sacramento: Varshney & Associates,

2009. PDF file.

Yes on 23. Yes on 23, California Jobs Initiative, a Coalition of Taxpayers,
Employers, Food Producers, Energy, Transportation and Forestry Companies,
with major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 29
Sept. 2010.