Opinion

Political Activity Leaves Much to be Desired

Election year 2000 will undoubtedly go down in the history books as one of the most complicated and controversial elections in U.S. history. For many students here at UCSD, this unforgettable election year has been their very first, and quite possibly, the most memorable they will ever have. All of this considered, it is sad to say that for other students at UCSD, voting and knowing who leads their country is as unimportant and petty as their 8 a.m. classes. From what I have observed before and after the days of the Tuesday vote, political awareness and spirit here on campus are lacking in every possible way. While there are those who present a strong passion and interest in the elections and the candidates, there is also a majority who view them to be a waste of their time, and are completely ignorant when it comes to the candidates’ names and the positions they are running for. It is evident that times have changed since the 1960s, when political protests, rallies and strikes were a common activity on college campuses, and when the voice of students counted as much as anything else in politics. Today we are living in the new millennium, and attending one of the most prominent schools in the country. The students, as a way of showing political spirit and support, did not even hold one large political rally or campaign. Sure, there were a few crumpled-up and slanted campaign signs stating “”Bush-Cheney”” or “”Gore-Lieberman”” hung on posts, but this is a university full of young, educated students and future leaders of our country. Hanging signs on posts is not going to get any ideas across to anyone. So where are the hardcore activists who stand up on stage and preach their political views? Where are the spirited groups that give out stickers and American flags and tell passersby to vote for the person who they passionately believe to be right for our country? Unfortunately, those people do not exist here on this campus and, if they do, something is stopping them from showing their motivation and determination to stand up. The problem of voting on campus also contributes to the lack of political involvement and awareness. There were those who did vote and proved their commitment by waiting in the 15-minute voting line at Muir college on Tuesday, but the numbers that revealed their dedication did not even seem to include half of the school. While some had the excuse that they were not registered in the San Diego precinct, others did not even know that voting booths were on campus. The lack of political support among people between the ages of 18 to 23 has given political leaders the idea that young people do not care and, even worse, will not vote. For this reason, these leaders do not listen and mostly disregard the ideas and problems of young people in that age group. This past election was the first of the millennium, not to mention the first election that many UCSD students had the opportunity to participate in. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a bore on campus. Standing in line for 15 minutes, I noticed that people talked about anything but whom they were going to vote for or what they wanted out of their future leaders. One student even claimed that he thought it would be funny to just close his eyes and randomly punch holes into the voting ballot. What this campus needs, along with many other college campuses, is political awareness and excitement coming from students who are willing to volunteer at different campaigns, spread their views around the school, and make their vote count in every possible way. Whether political spirit is strong on campus is not the central part of the problem. The main problem lies in what students need to do in order to show their commitment to their country. We cannot go back in time to when hippies and activists controlled most of the politics on campus, but we can make a difference through simple political rallies and gatherings that would get our central views across and make politics just a little more fascinating. If the majority of young people continue to disregard who leads their country, future leaders will simply oppose all of their requests and views. In other words, without speaking up and showing their support, students will be left in the dust. In this day and age, everybody needs to vote and participate, and as the cliche so vividly proved this election year goes, each vote does make a difference. ...

Hitting the Books or Hitting the Ball

Ever since I arrived at UCSD last year, I have heard continuous complaints about our school’s lack of a football team or its Division II sports teams. Many people think we should have at least a football team and make our Division II sport teams more competitive so they can become Division I teams. These people often refer to UC Berkeley or UCLA’s football and basketball teams as model teams that UCSD should have or emulate. Melissa Chow/ Guardian I believe otherwise. I like our school’s present focus on academics instead of sports. Notice I am not against having many sports teams, or even trying to make our present sport teams better. However, I am convinced that UCSD needs to keep its academic focus in order to fulfill its role as a university. A university is typically defined as an institution of higher learning. For a university to focus more on sports instead of academics is to be inconsistent with a university’s function. The definition usually does not mention sports. Based on the previous definition, any respectable institution that regards itself as a university should not make sports its primary focus. It is perfectly acceptable for a university to have teams in every conceivable sport. I personally support sports and anything that advances sports to a higher level. However, I believe sports should remain only as extracurricular activities in universities, and nothing more. Melissa Chow/ Guardian Some might say collegiate sports are very important because they help prepare athletes for professional sports. If so, people should create organizations expressly to train and provide assistance for aspiring athletes. Athletes should not look toward universities as stepping stones to professional sports, nor should they make sports their primary reason for going to colleges and universities. My second argument against making UCSD more sports-oriented concerns the students and their contributions to a university’s overall academic standard. I believe a school’s focus on collegiate sports affects that standard adversely. Students influence a university’s academic standard even before they arrive on campus. The caliber of the students that a university attracts and admits indicates that university’s educational quality. Top universities with strong athletic programs often try to attract potential athletes by lowering admission standards and granting athletic scholarships. These preferential admissions lower the overall quality of admitted students and are unfair to other qualified students who are also competing for admission. Athletic scholarships have the same effect. One’s athletic, not academic, abilities determine one’s access to these scholarships. Academic achievements become minor factors, and universities often overlook them as they try to attract able athletes. These admission and scholarship issues occur most often at universities with famous athletic programs, because they are trying to maintain their athletic reputations. The pressure comes from students and others who focus more on sports than academics. Universities like UCSD can prevent their academic standards from sliding further by making academics their top priority and giving athletic scholarships only to athletes with strong academic backgrounds and admitting them according to general academic standards. Athletes continue to influence a university’s academic standard once they arrive on campus. Often, when student-athletes enter college, they become more athletes than they are students. There is strong pressure to do so partly because college sports compete at a higher level than high school sports, and partly because schools that are known for their athletic programs care more about their athletes’ performance than their academics. The long hours athletes in universities across the nation train for competitions reflect this pressure. Sometimes these practices total more than 40 hours a week, which is comparable to what a full-time job requires. Some people might disagree and refer to the NCAA regulations on sport practices. NCAA regulates formal sports practices, but it doesn’t regulate informal, or “”optional”” practices. On the surface, these so-called optional practices sound innocuous. In reality, they are mandatory. Some coaches allow their players to play only if they attend these optional practices. Whether all athletes do train excessively is unknown, but one can be sure that there is pressure to train hard, and that the stronger a university’s athletic department is, the stronger the pressure. All this training eventually turns an extracurricular activity into the student’s primary activity. Reduced study time translates into lower grades, which lower the university’s overall academic standards. Universities that emphasize athletics are also disadvantageous to their students. Their athletic programs are more likely to pressure their athletes to dedicate themselves to the team and the bare minimum to themselves. Often there is no happy medium between the time for the team and time for one’s studies, which eventually forces the student to choose between the two. If the student chooses sports and the team over himself and his studies, then he will make his decisions for the team’s benefit. Universities that focus too much on athletics and pressure their students to do the same jeopardize their students’ futures instead of furthering them. By staying academic instead of turning athletic, UCSD is in step with the definition of a university. It serves both the community and its students adequately by providing them with a precious opportunity to obtain higher education in their fields and valuable job skills in order to meet today’s job market challenges. UCSD’s academic reputation and standard will continue to rise as a result of its dedication to education and research, instead of sports. ...

Intelligence Authorization Act Vetoed by Clinton

Proponents of the Intelligence Authorization Act were sent into an uproar this week after President Clinton vetoed the controversial piece of legislation. After a difficult process of deliberation, Clinton vetoed the act to the chagrin of authorities such as Janet Reno and organizations such as the CIA. However, Clinton’s action champions the right of free speech and the right of the press to keep the public informed. The Intelligence Authorization Act itself seems ordinary. It is fiscal in nature — legislation authorizing the distribution of funds to various governmental intelligence agencies for 2001. Buried within it, though, is an “”anti-leak”” clause, so termed because it makes the leaking of classified information by a government official a felony punishable by three years in prison. Current law criminalizes the leaking of defense-related classified information and other types of highly sensitive information related to national security. The Intelligence Authorization Act’s clause would have created sweeping changes with the potential to impinge free speech. For one, the broad nature of the clause’s language caused confusion among members of Congress, proving that it would be difficult to enforce. Confusion ensued in Congressional debates as to whether the clause would be applicable to members of Congress themselves, and whether those who benefit from the information leaked would be subject to persecution. It is not difficult to see why this aspect of the clause would be a matter of concern to those with a vested interest in protecting free speech. The editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post sent letters to Clinton,urging him to veto the legislation. Critics of the act recognized immediately that it would have been an attack on the roots of democracy to leave the press susceptible to persecution for informing the people. The clause’s broad language also caused legislators to wonder if its wording would allow the Executive Branch free reign to determine what denotes “”classified”” information. Unlike previous provisions, the Intelligence Authorization Act’s clause does not specifically state that matters such as Executive Branch gaffes cannot be classified. If the clause had become law, a president with a pernicious past could have exploited its harsh penalties to his advantage: Imagine what would happen if a president were to classify a major flub, only to prosecute the government official who leaked it to the press. The term “”classified”” would no longer denote a status of secrecy for the protection of the nation — it would come to mean anything that a department or a high-ranking official did not want known publicly. Even those who favored the act’s passage did not jump to conclude that it would result in a tighter seal around matters of sensitivity. Last week Reno was asked at a news conference how the act would assist the prosecution of those who leak classified information, as there are so few cases of such prosecution now. “”I don’t think there is a reluctance to prosecute the person who leaks information,”” Reno replied, “”but finding that person while at the same time honoring the First Amendment interests of the media is a very difficult task.”” Thus Reno did not assert that the clause would result in more prosecutions. Though it may be naive, it is reasonable for an employer to expect that his employee will be faithful and truthful. In most cases this is for the good of the company as a whole. In government, the situation functions differently: Though a breach of trust can harm the nation, it is imbued with the potential to affect the nation positively as well. Experience tells us that leaks to the media, even of “”classified”” information, do more good than harm. The most prominent examples of this are the cases involving the Pentagon Papers and, of course, the Watergate scandal. No one can deny the significance of these two events in shaping the public’s consciousness on issues they should have known about. The government should expect fealty from its employees, but people should also expect the truth from their government. As we cannot generally rely on our government to keep us informed of issues that can affect us greatly, the importance of the media’s ability to do this becomes tantamount. It remains to be seen whether the Intelligence Authorization Act is gone for good. Its critics and its proponents alike are vehement, but its critics may prove to be the stronger side. If so, it can only be hoped that our next president will have the clarity of mind to recognize the legislation for what it is — an attempt to restrict the rights guaranteed to the people and the press. ...

Transportation Department Lacks Humor

Apparently, the UCSD transportation department has lost its sense of humor. Last week, it informed Debbie Evans, a shuttle driver, that she is no longer allowed to act like a pirate on her shuttle. Since the beginning of the school year, when she started her shuttle-driving career, Evans has worn a red bandanna, an eye patch (not over any eyes, of course), and occasionally a fake hook or parrot while on the job. She had greeted passengers with an occasional “”Ahoy, matey!”” or “”Arrrggg!”” mixed in with the standard “”Hello.”” In doing this, Evans livened up the atmosphere on the Regents East shuttle, amusing some, if not all of the passengers. Even the ones who didn’t find her funny didn’t complain about it; Evans was not reprimanded because of any customer complaints. Her superior’s decision to ban the pirate act came after other shuttle drivers complained that it was “”unprofessional.”” While I respect the right of Shuttle Operations to set standards for its employees and to enforce them, in this case it has made a poor decision. There are no rules prohibiting shuttle drivers from attempting to entertain their passengers. In her act, Evans did not put anyone in danger, nor did she do anything to make her passengers doubt her ability as a driver. Her actions may have been, as the other drivers say, “”unprofessional,”” but I don’t think that the word is very well-applied to the profession of shuttle driving. If it were truly a professional situation requiring a professional demeanor, shuttle drivers would likely be prohibited from playing their own music, talking to friends while they drive, and waving at each other all the time. If this were an issue of safety, I would be the first to support the transportation department. Last year, a driver on the shuttle out to East Parking bothered me not because of his appearance or his greetings but because of his total lack of safe driving skills. There were more than a few times on that shuttle where I expected it to tip over going around a curve. I don’t know about you, but I’ll take a talkative pirate over a threat to my safety any day. Perhaps the transportation department should worry less about the acting skills of its employees and more about their ability to drive. This is much less a case of safety or of professionalism than it is a case of wanting to preserve the status quo. Evans’ co-workers and superiors, faced with an expression of individualism they hadn’t seen before, decided to reject it as different instead of judging it at face value. From what I have been told by Evans and by the Transportation Office, this issue is still unresolved. Evans retains her desire to brighten up the mood on the shuttle with her rendition of “”Yo ho, yo ho,”” and her superiors are still stopping her from doing so. I personally am saddened by this because I’m tired of being bored on the shuttle. UCSD is not the most exciting school in the world, and we should be doing all that we can to support a little bit of diversity and individuality. If you share my sentiments and would like to see the reappearance of Pirate Debbie on the shuttle system, please call Shuttle Operations at (858) 534-6282 to voice your opinions. You do have a say on your campus. ...

Props & Flops

Thumbs up to no more political advertisments bombarding us when we want to watch television in peace. Thumbs down to nonvoters. Your vote could have changed the course of the nation. ...

Editorials

Vincent Gragnani, Editor in ChiefBill Burger & Alison Norris Managing EditorsJeffrey White, Copy EditorTom Vu, Opinion EditorLauren I. Coartney, News EditorRobert Fulton, Sports EditorDavid Pilz, Photo Editor Voter information guides are meant to be informative, not misleading. Last week, the UCSD College Democrats distributed a voter guide on campus, listing their endorsements for various positions and propositions. We at the Guardian, however, find the guide grossly misleading. The front of the guide says, “”UCSD Student Voter Guide, Election Day, November 7th 2000″” and includes an official UCSD logo. The logo, which abstractly resembles Geisel Library, is generally used side-by-side with the name UCSD. We feel that it was misused, leading students to believe that the guide was prepared by the university or the A.S. Council. The back of the guide includes endorsements, listing and endorsing the Democratic candidates for president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, state senator and state assembly. It also made recommendations on the eight propositions. “”Paid for by UCSD College Democrats”” is printed at the very bottom of the endorsements, as well as a Web address for the College Democrats. The Guardian feels that the College Democrats should not mislead students. “”UCSD Student Voter Guide”” is extremely vague, and the name does not even offer students a hint that the guide was paid for by a partisan student group. The front of the voter guide should have been appropriately labeled, making it clear that the guide was put out by the UCSD College Democrats, and not made or paid for by the university. Others apparently felt the same way. On election day, members of the UCSD College Democrats passed out their voting recommendations, this time with the name of the organization handwritten on the top of the front of the guide. We appreciate their straightforwardness in making the correction, but feel they should not have tried to get away with the original flyer in the first place. The United States Student Association, on the other hand, distributed a more appropriate student voter guide, one that the College Democrats should have emulated. The name of the organization is printed on every page of the guide, including the front. It did not mislead, nor misrepresent anyone. The Guardian applauds USSA for making an effort to inform students in an honest way. ...

Dead Heat Election Unneccesary in Light of Gore's Advantages

At 9:10 p.m. Tuesday, George W. Bush and Al Gore were tied in Electoral Votes, at 242 each. Bush had won Arkansas and its six votes while Gore won Washington with it’s 11 votes. As Brian Williams from NBC so eloquently put it: “”They don’t get any deader than this dead heat.”” Even though the presidential election has yet to be decided, this article will look at some interesting aspects of the race and some trends that it revealed. In the next couple of days, everyone, from the media to political analysts to the loser of this election, will be asking him- or herself: Why is this election so close? It is even tighter than the 1960 elections between Nixon and Kennedy, to which this election is continuously juxtaposed. Everyone had predicted a close election but did it really need to be this close? The answer is: No. This was not an election that had to be forced down to the wire as it currently is. Not to take any credit away from Bush if he is declared the winner, but this is an election that Gore should have won, hands down. This nation is only now coming out of the economic boom that the Clinton-Gore administration overlooked. True, they had little to do with moving the nation into the New Economy, but, as proved by voter preferences throughout numerous elections, this matters little. As long as the people live in prosperous economic times, they vote, in their minds, to keep the good times rolling. Being vice president, Gore automatically inherited this from Bill Clinton. Second, the United States is at peace. Obviously there are still terrorist nations, but America is not involved in a war while entering this election. When Nixon won the presidency in 1968, the nation was torn by the Vietnam War. Gore and Bush, and thankfully America, are not faced with this situation. As a result, there is no excuse for the election to be as close as it is. If Bush is declared the winner, it is because Gore gave him that opportunity. What about the Nader effect? It is obvious to anyone that looks that the popular votes in the close states that Nader changed the outcome. If even one-half of the votes in Florida that went to Nader went to Gore, the state would have tipped to Gore’s favor. As Lawrence O’Donnell, a commentator, said, “”If George Bush wins Florida, the first phone call he needs to make is to Ralph Nader to thank him.”” However, this goes back to the earlier argument: Gore had the opportunity to pull ahead but did not take advantage of it. He had the money and he knew far enough ahead the trouble that Nader presented. Because he did not act, someone else will determine his political future. What does this presidential election show about the national trends? Considering how the senatorial races are developing, with the possibility of having a 50-50 split, it means the nation is decidedly moderate. Though Republicans still, surprisingly, hold the House, it is with a much slimmer majority. Americans have converged to the center. Consider the past few presidential and midterm elections. The last time we had a unified government was in 1992. Since then, Americans have divided the government between the two parties. With each election, the number of seats that the majority Republicans held has slowly shrunk. Now, the difference in the House is less than a dozen and there is a possibility that the Senate will be evenly split down the middle, leaving the deciding vote to the vice president, whomever that may be. This would be the first time since 1882 that something like this happened. As unified as this nation may seem in her politics, one look at the electoral map shows how differently one American views the candidates than the other. Down the middle of the nation: Bush Red. On the coasts: Gore Blue. While Americans may be moderate, each American’s view of what, and who, is moderate varies greatly. Some consider Gore and his New Democrats as centrists. Others view Bush and his compassionate conservatism to be the middle. This presidential election indicates the cultural and regional differences of the nation. “”Starbuck’s vs. Dunkin’ Donuts,”” as CNBC commentator Chris Matthews calls it. What will this mean for America? The next president can win the elections without winning the popular vote, something that has happened only three times in the history of the United States. Will the Electoral College be scrapped? Will a dead man be elected to the Senate? Only time will tell. Until then, sit tight; we’re in store for a wild ride. ...

House of Representatives: tied

The views expressed in this section represent a majority vote of the editorial board. The editorial board consists of Vincent Gragnani, Editor in Chief; Bill Burger and Alison Norris, Managing Editors; Jeffey White, Copy Editor; Tom Vu, Opinion Editor; Lauren I. Coartney, News Editor and Robert Fulton, Sports Editor. The endorsements are not necessarily those of the UC Board of Regents, the ASUCSD, nor the entire Guardian staff. California State Assemblywoman Susan Davis is the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray in the race for the 49th Congressional District, which surrounds the UCSD campus. The contest between these candidates is being closely watched by both parties, as Bilbray’s last Democratic challenger, Christine Kehoe, lost by a narrow margin in 1998, earning 46.6 percent to Bilbray’s 48.8 percent. The 49th’s swing-district status is further confirmed by the fact that it encompasses voters with a wide array of political ideologies — its borders encompass everywhere from traditionally conservative areas such as La Jolla and Coronado to traditionally liberal cities like Pacific Beach and Imperial Beach. This year, our diverse district deserves the change it so clearly indicated it was ready for in the Kehoe-Bilbray election of 1998. Davis’ refreshing, informed and well-balanced opinions on the main issues prove that she would serve as an outstanding representative of this multifarious district. It is Davis’ legislative record in the state Assembly that proves her unwavering dedication to improvements in education. She has authored legislation to decrease eighth grade class sizes to 20 students and to raise minimum standards for retaining teachers. Furthermore, she was named 1999 Legislator of the Year by the League of Middle Schools and has twice been honored as Legislator of the Year by the California School Boards Association. On health care, Davis again has an intensely attractive record. For example, she authored a bill — which then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed into law — that allows women to access obstetric/gynecological care without first having to attain approval from gatekeepers. Her bill was the only piece of health care legislation that Wilson signed into law while in office. In addition, Davis’ bills have supported patients’ rights to privacy and the right to obtaining a second opinion. Equally important in this election is Davis’ consistent support for abortion rights. Davis’ stance on crime also shines. For example, she supports programs such as the Community Oriented Policing program, which is designed to help put more police officers on the nation’s streets. She also participated in securing funding for after-school programs that target juvenile violence. Additionally, Davis supports hate crimes legislation. Regarding environmental concerns, which some tout as an issue on which Bilbray cannot go wrong, Davis is a serious candidate, unbiased by special interests. She received a 100 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters and was named a “”Friend of the Environment”” by the Sierra Club. By and far, Davis has proven her ability to lead the changing, growing populations of the 49th Congressional District while serving in the state assembly. For her outstanding and impressive record on education, health care, and other key issues, the Guardian endorses Davis and encourages voters to pay close attention to her exciting campaign in the closing days of the race for the 49th. ...

United States Senate Tom Campbell

The views expressed in this section represent a majority vote of the editorial board. The editorial board consists of Vincent Gragnani, Editor in Chief; Bill Burger and Alison Norris, Managing Editors; Jeffey White, Copy Editor; Tom Vu, Opinion Editor; Lauren I. Coartney, News Editor and Robert Fulton, Sports Editor. The endorsements are not necessarily those of the UC Board of Regents, the ASUCSD, nor the entire Guardian staff. The Guardian endorses Rep. Tom Campbell for the U.S. Senate. Completing his term in the House as a representative of California’s traditionally moderate Silicon Valley, Campbell is a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican who is not afraid to buck the party line. Campbell, like his opponent Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is a committed advocate for women. He completed his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, writing on how women earn less than men in the federal government, and he served on the White House Task Force on Women. Campbell advocates abortion rights. He firmly supports the Roe v. Wade decision and opposes its reversal in the Supreme Court or by means of a constitutional amendment. Campbell also has always been a supporter of clean air and water. He voted to protect the Land and Water Conservation Fund, opposes oil exploration and drilling off California’s coast, and was ranked No. 1 in Congress by Green Scissors for cutting the budget in ways that helped the environment. He supports research of cleaner burning fuels and less dependence on crude oil. Campbell is for local control of education and for giving vouchers to the 10 percent of California’s students in the worst-performing schools to attend nondiscriminating private schools. He is also in favor of the expansion of California’s charter school system. In contrast with Feinstein, Campbell has taken great care in spending taxpayers’ money. In the most recent ratings by the Citizens Against Government Waste, Campbell was awarded the status “”Taxpayer Hero,”” its highest category. The same organization rated Feinstein as “”Taxpayer Hostile,”” its lowest category. The National Taxpayers’ Union rated Campbell the member of Congress least willing to spend taxpayers’ money in 1992, 1997 and 1999. Last year, Feinstein was No. 2 in the Senate in willingness to spend money. Campbell supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandating that the federal government maintain a balanced budget. During her 1992 Senate campaign, Feinstein promised she would vote for a balanced-budget amendment — and did, when Democrats controlled the Senate and the amendment had no chance of passage. When Republicans took over in 1995, Feinstein switched her vote on the amendment, claiming it needed language to “”protect Social Security,”” even though the version for which she had previously voted had no such language. Campbell opposes partisanship and has voted for a balanced-budget amendment every time it has come up in Congress, no matter which party happened to be in control. Campbell wants drastic reform of the bloated, unfair and loophole-laden income tax system. He recommends immediately cutting the capital gains tax in half. By nature, the capital gains tax discourages the selling of assets that have appreciated in value such as homes, real estate and stock. Historically, every capital gains tax cut has resulted in increased economic activity that has more than paid for the cost of the tax cut itself. Campbell voted to repeal the unfair marriage penalty and death tax. He supports permanent research and development tax credits that allow companies to write off a certain amount of their research and development expenditures. This gives American companies incentive to continue to develop new technologies that will keep the United States at the forefront of innovation, keeping our economy rolling in the future. The Guardian feels that Campbell is the kind of thoughtful, no-nonsense representation California deserves in the Senate. Although Feinstein has long been an admirable fighter for women, her wildly exorbitant spending tendencies and partisan behavior, and Campbell’s own commitment to women, make Campbell, in the opinion of the Guardian, the correct choice. ...

LOCAL ELECTIONS

The views expressed in this section represent a majority vote of the editorial board. The editorial board consists of Vincent Gragnani, Editor in Chief; Bill Burger and Alison Norris, Managing Editors; Jeffey White, Copy Editor; Tom Vu, Opinion Editor; Lauren I. Coartney, News Editor and Robert Fulton, Sports Editor. The endorsements are not necessarily those of the UC Board of Regents, the ASUCSD, nor the entire Guardian staff. San Diego Mayor: Dick Murphy The Guardian endorses Judge Dick Murphy for San Diego mayor. His environmental record, plans for traffic management and overall vision for San Diego makes him the most qualified candidate. He has laid out a specific traffic plan combining wider freeways with an expanded mass transit system. Murphy’s opponent, County Supervisor Ron Roberts, has ideas similar to Murphy’s. However, he is a career politician, and we feel San Diego needs someone with a clear vision for San Diego that extends beyond the next election. California State Senate: Dede Alpert The Guardian believes State Sen. Dede Alpert, a proponent of education and transportation solutions while in the State Senate, deserves to be re-elected. As senator, Alpert has helped to develop a new Master Plan of Education framework. She also fought for lower electricity rates in San Diego over the summer. We believe that her opponent, Judge Larry Stirling, does not have the wide-ranging vision for our city and state that Alpert has. We therefore endorse Dede Alpert for the 39th district of the State Senate. California State Assembly: Christine Kehoe The Guardian endorses City Councilwoman Christine Kehoe for State Assembly. Kehoe has a strong educational and environmental record, and supports a variety of solutions to our traffic problems, including increased mass transit. Kehoe is also a strong proponent of gun control. Kehoe’s opponent, Michele Nash-Hoff, has very specific plans, but the Guardian feels the issues Kehoe addresses are more crucial to San Diegans, and endorse Kehoe for the 76th district of the State Assembly. ...