By Tania Cervantes
The Guardsman

Unlike print, television or radio, the Internet has remained quite open, giving small companies the opportunity to grow and allowing users to have full control over most Web site access. It is the media outlet that allows people to obtain information at any given time, and it makes them ultimate decision-makers.

Network neutrality is important for the preservation of an open and accessible Internet. It is the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. It means that no matter what the content, all Web sites will load at the subscribed rate.

According to the Internet Policy Statement by the Federal Communications Commission, in order to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and access the lawful content of their choice. Consumers are also entitled to competition of network and content providers.

Companies like Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon, which provide internet services, are opponents of network neutrality. They explicitly oppose proposals to regulate the ability to speed up certain Web sites and slow down others.

Without network neutrality, Internet Service Providers could charge content providers for Internet channel usage. If a Web site like Google wanted to ensure that its content loaded at a high speed it would have to pay a fee.

This would mean that relatively new Web sites might find it challenging to compete with those already established, and such a practice would fail to meet the FCC Internet policy of entitled content competition.

Non-profit organizations may find it difficult to pay for bandwidth, as prospective donators might look elsewhere if they knew a portion of their money was being used to fund the download speed of the Web site.

Net neutrality has allowed the internet to become what it is today. For a monthly payment to an ISP, users get access to any Web site with the exception of those that require subscriptions, and all content loads at the same speed. Without network neutrality the internet may turn into something like cable television. ISPs could offer Web site packages, only allowing access to a list of pre-approved sites, while the other billions of Web sites are either included in special bundles for an extra fee or just ignored.

Students would be affected as their research and studying would be severely impacted if the internet were no longer easily accessible.

Overall, the educational value of the Internet would drop as educational Web sites may not have the funding to pay ISPs for larger bandwidth and many are not backed by big corporations. In turn, such Web sites may even charge subscription fees that students may not be able to afford thus restricting access from home and forcing them to study in libraries.

Opponents of network neutrality argue Web site discrimination will actually benefit the customer by providing higher quality content. In reality, Web sites given more bandwidth would not be chosen because of better content but rather because they paid more money. Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the Internet, and it is because of it that innovation has flourished and information is now widely spread and easily accessible.

The Internet is a primary source of information for people all around the world. For the internet to remain open and accessible, network neutrality must be defended.

The Guardsman Staff

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Jan. 21 to allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to develop their own political campaign materials. The decision in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, does not influence laws that prohibit direct contributions to federal election campaigns.

But if a rich and powerful organization willingly becomes the public relations arm of a candidacy, that distinction may very well disappear, as Supreme Court Judge John Stevens claimed in his dissenting opinion.

The court’s conservative wing hailed the decision as a victory defending First Amendment rights for corporations. Celebrated American author and journalist Ambrose Bierce defined the corporation as “an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.”

Since the ruling, there has been an outpouring of heated debate on the case. President Barack Obama voiced his disapproval of the ruling during his State of the Union address on Jan. 27.

“Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the flood gates for special interests,” he said. Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito could be seen shaking his head in disagreement.

At a time when national elections are more often decided by clever advertising than substantive debate, allowing organizations with near-limitless funds to peddle influence shifts what little power remained in the voter’s hands to corporate boards and labor unions.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute in the United States. Light-handed restrictions are necessary to protect all of the other rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. People must constantly weigh their love of liberty against the rights of others and the good of the whole. As an informed public, U.S. citizens are very capable of balancing these individual responsibilities, but corporations and unions are not.

Both types of organizations have goals very different from that of the people, and neither, as Bierce so eloquently stated over 100 years ago, burdens itself with loyalty to this country or its citizens.

So far, the sky is not falling, but the ruling brings an issue to the forefront that should always be on the minds of U.S. citizens: Are we a republic that holds the principles of democracy above the cold whims of our economic system, or are we absolute capitalists with little regard for individual freedom?

If we are the former, then special cynicism must be applied to advertisements during upcoming elections, because a campaign ad is only as powerful as the number of voters who choose to blindly believe it.

By Dominick Delgadillo
Photos by Lilly Vranova
The Guardsman

Florent Bee, 22 Biology Major
“I would rate him five because so far I haven’t seen anything that would make me give him a better number.”

Michael Knight, 22 Audio Science Major “Probably a seven: His agenda seems very sincere. I do believe he rushed into it. I think that people expected to see results immediately, but the reality is that, for what he’s trying to do, you can’t really get results just like that.”

By Dominick Delgadillo
The Guardsman

When I first heard about Team Coco, I thought, “Hell yeah. Ooh, and let’s get some whipped cream and marshmallows.”

Team Coco is a group of Conan O’Brien fans who supported his fight against NBC’s request to change “The Tonight Show’s” start time from 11:35 p.m. to 12:05 a.m.

“The Tonight Show” has had the same time slot for 47 years. Johnny Carson had that time slot and Jay Leno after him, but O’Brien takes over the show and now NBC wants to cut it by thirty minutes and make it “The Early Tomorrow Morning Show.” The time change may not seem like a sucker punch, but at the very least, it spits in the face of tradition.

O’Brien became host of “The Tonight Show” after Leno, who was supposed to retire, left to host “The Jay Leno Show,” which aired in prime-time.

O’Brien’s show had low ratings, but that is NBC’s fault. “The Jay Leno Show” also had low ratings and was a weak lead-in for the nightly news, which precedes “The Tonight Show.” Lack of proper buzz was also a major factor in O’Brien’s low ratings.

Traditionally, hosts are given one year to build their fan base and raise their inevitably low initial ratings. Jimmy Fallon, Craig Ferguson and even Leno all had low ratings initially.

They all then went on to become staples of late night TV. O’Brien was only given seven months on “The Tonight Show” before NBC decided to bump him.

Leno added insult to injury by opting to take over the show when O’Brien decided to fight the change and quit. Leno, when he first announced his retirement, supported the choice of O’Brien as his successor.

Additionally, upon Leno’s return, NBC decided to keep the 11:35 p.m. start time for The Tonight Show.

Rather than further supporting this man who was clearly wronged, Leno sent O’Brien up river when he chose to take up his former mantle on “The Tonight Show.”

After a month or so of O’Brien fighting for the right to host, and for his own dignity, he gave his final address as host of “The Tonight Show” stating he was upset, but not bitter.

The bitterness truly resides in his fans. When Leno takes over, people should boycott the show. Change the channel when “The Tonight Show” starts. Send letters to NBC and Leno letting them know this is wrong.

Leno needs to retire from television, as he said he would, and take up his true mantle as a dashboard bobble-head that lispingly snickers every so often.

Go Team Coco, and let’s all hope that O’Brien gets a deservedly great place in entertainment.

By William Chamberlin
The Guardsman

The U.S. is wrapping its arms around the island of Haiti, which was devastated Jan. 12 by a 7.0-magnitude earthquake, offering the survivors the humanity that defines this country.

The U.S. has responded compassionately to the victims of the earthquake, which the Haitian government said could kill upward of 200,000 civilians.

The Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations tried to reduce the number of Haitians allowed into the U.S. because of the refugees’ poor education. In contrast, President Obama gives them food and shelter.

There was bad blood regarding George W. Bush’s response time to Hurricane Katrina, but Obama began providing aid to Haiti during the very first days after the earthquake. He announced on Jan. 14 that $100 million would be sent to the troubled country, and on Jan. 16 and 17, 10,000 troops were deployed to ravished Haiti to provide physical assistance. This is in addition to civilian volunteers.

These bold steps have been met with conflicting opinions from opposing political parties. Regardless of what people are disputing, it is evident that the overall message from the U.S. to Haiti is “we are here to help.”

With any type of horrific tragedy there are those who seem to use the incident to express their views of the government and the faults of the opposing political party. Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing radio personality, violated his listeners and the country by telling the rich to keep their money and that the left is stupid for giving aid to Haiti.

“We’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax,” spewed Limbaugh to a caller to his show on Jan. 13.

Obama has even met with former Presidents Bush and Clinton to set them up as coordinators of the relief efforts for Haiti, the Washington Post reported. During a time when the U.S. economy is at a low, budget cuts are plenty and jobs are scarce, this country is stepping up to help a truly desolate, decimated nation.

All political agendas aside, there is nowhere in San Francisco lacking discussion of the Haitian matter. San Francisco is also prone to earthquakes, so even stronger sympathy emanates from residents’ voices.

Almost unanimously, support and aid is coming from all corners of the country and the spirit of help and generosity is strong.

The unity of the nation was in question because of the economy and ever fluctuating presidential approval, but lending physical aid and supplies to Haiti has revived that unity.

There will be various stages of rebuilding in Haiti, and a U.S. presence with physical and financial support offers that country much-needed assistance. The people of this country have stretched their arms once more, giving hope to the hopeless.

By Tania Cervantes
The Guardsman

While changes in the current health care system are imperative, the proposed health care reform should not limit women’s access to abortion coverage.

In 1973, Roe vs. Wade opened the gate to legalized abortions and created safe conditions for women who otherwise sought dangerous back alley procedures. Today the Stupak Amendment in the House health care legislation may negatively affect women by restricting abortion coverage.

Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Rep. Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania, who back the amendment, derive their stands from the Hyde Amendment that passed in 1973, which stipulates that no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions.

Stupak’s Amendment is a stricter version of the Hyde Amendment because it bans federal funding for abortion. Low-income women under the public-option would not receive this coverage.

It also restricts any insurance company acting on behalf of the Health Insurance Exchange from providing abortion coverage if it serves subsidized clients. The exchange states that anybody who doesn’t like their insurance can revert to their former insurance company.

In such cases, women would either have to purchase and pay a monthly premium for a supplemental abortion coverage or pay in full for the procedure.

Nationwide health centers may charge $350 to $900 for an abortion in the first trimester, according to Planned Parenthood.

If a woman pays a monthly premium for insurance, there is no reason she should have to pay extra for abortion coverage. It is also unrealistic to think a monthly procedure would be necessary.

Under the current health care system federal subsidies cannot pay for an abortion. Health insurance companies, however, may offer such coverage without requiring their clients to make an extra payment. Even those covered by Medicaid can receive an abortion with the use of donations or other private funds.

Supporters of the Stupak Amendment claim their primary interest is to ensure federal funding is not used to pay for abortions, even though the Hyde Amendment already prevents this from happening. The Stupak amendment goes too far by denying insurance companies in the Health Insurance Exchange from offering abortion coverage.

Stupak supporters have extended Hyde’s reach. In doing so,  they severely jeopardize a woman’s access to a service she may need by taking away the care she already receives.
Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California proposed that the new Health Insurance Exchange keep federal funds strictly separate from privately generated funds that might be used to pay for abortion services. Her proposal complies with the Hyde Amendment while not restricting a woman’s access to abortion care.

Capps wrote an editorial outlining her proposal in the Dec. 7, 2009 issue of BusinessWeek, stating that many Catholic hospitals are currently the recipients of federal funds and receive taxpayer dollars to help care for the sick. These hospitals are obligated to divide these government funds which are designated solely to provide health care from their private funds which are to be used only for religious activities. There is no reason why insurance companies differentiate funds in the same way.

Health care reform should not serve as a battleground for the control of women’s reproductive lives.

But recent case highlights biker vulnerability

By Matt Gomez
The Guardsman

Christopher Thompson, a former emergency room physician, was sentenced to five years in prison on Jan. 8 after assaulting two cyclists on Mandeville Canyon Road in Los Angeles.
The verdict, while necessary, is only a small step forward in the protection of bicyclists and does nothing to keep them safe from hostile motorists.

“Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle,” according to California Vehicle Code 21200.

This means, that while riding on any roadway a cyclist is considered to be equal to anybody operating a car. Cyclists have as much a right to be on the road as motorists, and their safety should be a concern to everyone.

Some motorists see cyclists as an obstruction. While a cyclist may just be commuting to work or riding around with friends, their very presence irritates some drivers who feel they don’t belong on the road.

Thompson came across a group of cyclists on his way to work. He claimed, when he asked them to ride in single file so he could pass, they retaliated by flipping him off and swearing. He then narrowly pulled around the group and slammed on his brakes, which caused one of the cyclists to fly through the rear window of Thompson’s car, breaking his nose and front teeth.

A police officer testified Thompson told him he was trying to teach them a lesson.

In a previous confrontation, Thompson had braked hard in front of another group of cyclists, running them off the road.

Thompson’s actions, while extreme, cannot be ignored. He attempted manslaughter and has committed multiple assaults with a deadly weapon — his car.

Many motorists dislike cyclists because they appear to break the laws that motorists must obey. However, cyclists are subject to the same laws as motorists, and a cyclist who is caught running a red light will be ticketed just like a driver.

A cyclist may run a stop sign, while a motorist does a “California stop,” rolling through the stop sign and only braking if they see a cop or an oncoming car.

“More often cyclists are endangered by drivers who are simply too distracted, or otherwise too careless, to even notice the cyclist whose life they have just endangered,” Bob Mionske, attorney and former U.S. Olympic cyclist, wrote in the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 11, 2010.

Cyclists have to be more alert than drivers because a bicycle doesn’t offer the same protection as a car. They don’t have time to be distracted when they are on the road.

A driver who forgets to check their blind spot before turning could easily kill a cyclist. A cyclist who does the same might put a dent in someone’s car but would do more harm to themselves.

In fact, motorists should thank cyclists: If there were less cyclists it would mean more cars on the road. With more cars on the road, there would be more traffic jams and streets would require much more maintenance due to increased use.

Like most people who drive from point “A” to point “B”, cyclists are just trying to get where they have to go, whether that be work or the grocery store. They don’t want to have to worry about being run off the road.

By Matt Gomez
Photos by Robert Romano
The Guardsman

Julie Pfahl, Fashion Major "Lady Gaga's fabulous style and innovation. Great thing is she's actually talented, too."

Frank Gati Broadcasting Major "Obama's election. Well, it's huge. Other than the obvious, a major shift in this country is becoming a multicultural country. It just becomes evident. It's always been moving in that direction."

Emily Waenik, Undeclared Major "The Sept. 11 attacks will always stand out in my memory. It was a major tragedy that forced our country together."

Zimu Wang, Business Major "I got into a university in Japan, and I studied translation between Chinese and Japanese. It helped my communication skills, and gave me the opportunity to come to the U.S. to study more skills related to communication."

Carla Cuevas, Health Interpreter Program Major "I think that having a black president in America gave a different perspective of the U.S. to the citizens themselves. It also gave another perspective to the whole world ... hope."

Jacob Park, Philosophy Major "Barack Obama is our president!"

Sarah Goldstein, Psychology Major "Winning M.V.P. in basketball as a freshman."

Nick Palm's vision: A passenger-vehicle free zone inside the black border. INFOGRAPHIC BY ALEX EMSLIE / THE GUARDSMAN — MAP COURTESY OF GOOGLE

By Nick Palm
Staff Writer

Growing up in San Francisco’s Sunset District, I learned to rely on automobiles as my primary mode of transportation. But since I moved to an undisclosed location on the east end of the city — nice try stalkers — I’ve become quite cozy with public transit.

It makes sense to drive in some parts of the city, but downtown is not one of them.

San Francisco has one of the most thorough, reliable and environmentally sound public-transit systems in the entire country. Throw in BART and Caltrain, and you’ve introduced easy access to San Francisco from almost anywhere in the Bay Area.

Sure, it’s no secret that Muni has encountered some “minor issues” over the last year, and 2009 is not over yet. I’m sure we can squeeze in one more train derailment or senior citizen fist fight by the end of December. ‘Tis the season! Seriously though, give them a break. They’re doing a good job.

Despite our stellar public transportation system, car traffic in San Francisco remains a major issue. There’s a movement afoot to relieve congestion on Market Street, but it won’t stop anyone from driving downtown.

The San Francisco Planning Department has proposed an initiative to revive a traditionally congested Market Street and make it more friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. Since Sept. 29, cars driving eastbound on Market Street have been diverted to alternate routes to reach the Embarcadero.

This is a good start, but the fix is more aesthetic than practical. If anything, it will force more traffic to South of Market thoroughfares like Mission and Folsom streets — just what the city needs during rush hour.

Downtown San Francisco, the most congested part of the city, should be closed to passenger vehicles completely.

I would like to see a border from Van Ness Avenue and 11th Street on the west, Harrison Street on the south, the Embarcadero on the east and California Street on the north.

Originally planned in the 19th century, that area was not designed for such a high volume of vehicle traffic. Allowing only mass-transit vehicles, delivery trucks and area residents to drive within the boundaries would alleviate a huge amount of the congestion.

New parking garages could be built along the boundaries at access points where people could easily walk or take public transit to their destinations.

Some streets within those borders are among the most crime-ridden in town, especially the Tenderloin. Current parking garages could be turned into youth centers and rehab facilities. The drug epidemic has gone on long enough, and this could end the traditional neglect towards the neighborhood.

Sure, my ideas seem far-fetched. And they are, considering the über-bureaucratic Board of Supervisors’ attempt to run the show.

It takes small steps to help out the greater cause, so next time you head downtown ask yourself, “Could I take the bus instead?” So please, don’t be lazy – you’re hurting the environment just as much as you’re hurting yourself.

COURTESY OF MCT CAMPUS

By Matthew Gomez
Staff Writer

Sarah Palin’s new memoir “Going Rogue: An American Life” is a best-seller. In its first week available, Palin’s book even outsold President Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope.”

Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate under John McCain, resigned from her position as governor of Alaska back in July. She conveniently did this a month after signing her book deal, a move that left her with no political power.

When she was first announced as the vice-presidential candidate, Palin was relatively unknown outside Alaska, but she quickly made a spotlight for herself. And its bulb still hasn’t burned out.

When McCain first introduced her, Palin said she was just another “hockey mom” who never planned to get involved in public affairs. After coaching a basketball team, she became involved with the PTA, was elected to the city council, was elected mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and eventually became governor of the state.

In a Time Magazine interview back in August, Palin said in her childhood family dinner-table conversations revolved around current events, government and the nation as a whole. From that point on she had “an interest in how our government, how things worked.”

Once she stepped down as governor that should have been the end of Palin in the media, but she only did so to have her book ghost-written by Lynn Vincent and to clear up her schedule so she could go on tour. She abandoned the Americans she claimed to care about, so she could promote herself as someone who cares about those same Americans.

Palin said of Sean Parnell, the new governor, he will have “the same agenda as mine, minus the distractions.”

Palin ranks high up there with celebrities whose 15 minutes have long passed. When Katie Couric asked Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, she couldn’t answer and dodged the question three times. “Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years,” she said.

Sean Hannity of Fox News asked Palin how she would answer those questions differently if given the chance.

“I did a horrible job with that, and let my annoyance just show so brightly,” Palin said. She finally said she reads Newsmax, The Frontiersman and The Wall Street Journal, then felt she needed to add everything online. “I absorb the news via many, many sources,” she said.

I understand the liberal media has an aggressive agenda set out to destroy everything right with America, but what annoyance can come from being asked such a simple question?

Which is why I pose another: Why does Sarah Palin still matter?