The new law SB 1440, signed recently by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is indeed something to be concerned about.

It dawns on me that the true impact of what was passed a few weeks ago will force community colleges to “raise the bar.” This rising pressure by institutes and universities will do one of two things: Force most, if not all, community college students to take their learning seriously if they are to continue on with their education, or discourage a great deal of them due to the rising competition. Minority students may indeed feel that their aspirations to be first generation students may be daunted by an unforeseen obstacle of pressure and contest.

Personally, I know of countless friends and acquaintances who, due to financial hardship, decided to trudge the path of community college. If this law is not properly administered, then countless individuals may come to be discouraged and settle for menial trades rather than aspire for more.

On the editorial, “Program offers affordable alternatives,” published on Oct. 12, I believe professors should state what books they will use. While the bookstore’s attempts to lower the financial burden on students are laudable, the books listed as required are still a questionable buy. Even though students can ask the professor if the book is a necessity for whatever course they’re taking, to list a book as required that, in reality, is not misleads students and causes losses of hundreds of dollars on books never read. And even for those students who wait until the first class to find out whether or not a book will be used, wouldn’t it be more efficient to be able to trust book listings instead of having to ask the professors instead? What’s the problem here – that professors list books that they don’t use, or that this state of distrust has been accepted as the norm?

“Legalization” seems to be the word on everybody’s minds these days. Celebrities from Willie Nelson to Lindsay Lohan are taking Proposition 19’s place on the ballots to be a symbolic victory for the green coast. Even the Dude abides, lest we forget Jeff Bridges’ endorsement of the campaign.

As a liberal Californian, I must admit the word has been on my mind as well, and for a while Prop. 19 seemed like a viable avenue. That was until I started asking myself, “How much weed could I actually get?”

Under Prop. 19, just one ounce. Prop. 19 would effectively legalize possession of up to 28 grams, a quantity that is now only a simple civil infraction anyway. With Senate Bill 1449, signed just three weeks ago, possession of one ounce or less won’t get you arrested, won’t take you to court, and won’t stay on your record. So thanks Richard Lee, but are you really improving things much?

The full legal right to possess one ounce of marijuana would seem like a baby step in the right direction, if not for the new marijuana-related felonies the bill also introduces. Under Prop. 19, smoking in front of a person under the age of 21 – an easy mistake in college – could get you arrested. Pass a joint to that person and you can get hit with six months in prison as well. If that person is under 18, take seven years. It’s a good thing I don’t smoke with freshmen.

But why should our government continue to criminalize weed? What is even more disturbing is that Prop. 19 would allow them to do so under the guise of “legalization.” Prop. 19 may legalize possession in small quantities, but it would illegalize casual aspects of stonerdom with severe consequences. One small step for stoner voter, one massive leap backwards for stonerkind.

In addition to defining new felonies around marijuana, Prop. 19 would restrict the free market trade of cannabis by imposing a maximum five-foot by five-foot growing area for private growers, likely a plot to drive up the costs. “Five by five is not enough,” Dennis Peron argues in a YouTube statement supporting The California Cannabis Initiative, a proposed bill that did not make this year’s ballots. He adds, “We need the Central Valley.”

Peron is the co-author of The Compassionate Use Act (Prop 215), the 1996 law that legalized cannabis for medical purposes in California. “[Prop 215] was very loosely worded,” he explains in his YouTube statement. “It was loosely worded for a reason. I wrote it [so] that there is no age limit, because kids get cancer. I wrote it [so] that there is no minimum amount of plants, because you may want to grow it one year and not another year … and stash it … There were no restrictions on where to grow it.”

Conversely, Prop. 19 would limit the amount and location of growth, and subsequently establish criminal charges for violations on each front. On the one hand, these regulations might sound like a step toward marijuana legitimization; on the other hand, any “legitimacy” Prop. 19 offers depends upon more criminalization around the marijuana trade, with some enormous penalties; it’s a good thing I only have two hands, otherwise I could go on forever about marijuana criminalization’s blatant restrictions on our civil liberties. But the bottom line is that rather than eliminate any weed-related crimes, Prop. 19 would actually create more crimes around the trade, and only send more good guys to prison. Increased criminal enforcement would be costly, and even when you factor in the cannabis tax revenue, we’re barely breaking even.

Legalization is a must, and lobbyists and economists are eager to exploit this need. But as responsible voters it is our job to read the fine print and make sure we know the strings attached. We must ask ourselves if Prop. 19 provides real legalization.

Prop. 19 would spare us the minor infraction charge we might otherwise accrue with up to one ounce of cannabis. But is this tiny benefit worth the myriad restrictions on how we may grow and consume? Importantly, is it worth the establishment of more marijuana-related felonies? Prop. 19 would undoubtedly turn more cannabis users into criminals. Let’s not fall for this one.

Maybe Californians are too caught up in the symbolism of the word “legalization” to see how excessive judicial involvement in marijuana actually undermines the cause. But think about the impact of these restrictions on the 420 movement, and do what you can to keep police out of marijuana laws. Support initiatives that would provide relief and not further penalize proponents of ganja. But vote NO on Prop 19.

Nov. 1 marks the deadline for students, faculty and staff to change their Kerberos passwords. After that they will be forced to switch from their current eight-character password to a passphrase with a minimum 12 characters.

According to the UC Davis Information Educational Technology (IET) website, the change is in accordance with new federal minimum passphrase strength requirements. This change was made to prevent hackers from accessing students’ online files.

While a four-character increase doesn’t seem like much, it is still an inconvenience.

The previous password system was complicated enough. It required the eight-character password to include one capital letter, two numbers and one non-alphabetical/numerical symbol.

With this complexity, it was already difficult for hackers to access student accounts. Now IET recommends “I Love My Dog,” “Aggie for Life!” and “FALL Quarter 2010” as possible passphrases.

While these models have their intricacies such as closing punctuation and capitalized letters, they are nowhere near the difficulty of the prior password system.

It would be easier for a hacker to guess “FALL Quarter 2010” if it is, in fact, currently fall quarter 2010.

While the change comes with good intent, it is nonetheless one more inconvenience students have to deal with in their daily lives.

Last week, Davis College Democrats (DCD) featured prominently in The Aggie – from voter registration to Davis City Council engagement. I actually have been approached several times on campus by DCD, Students for Barack Obama and CalPIRG associates about registering to vote or voting for particular propositions, especially recently. This last-minute drive by the Democrats to get an apathetic base to go out and vote in the next couple days is frantic, to say the least. Two things, though: There is no national message and “lackluster” comes to mind as a description of their ground game.

The popular and powerful Democrats are hitting the campaign trail hard, from the first lady Michelle Obama to good ol’ President Clinton. Desperation is in the air. Obama and the Democrats are sitting anything but pretty this campaign cycle. There is no “fired up,” “ready to go,” “rock the vote” crowd, ready to storm the polls chanting the “Yes, we can!” mantra. Unlike the Republicans, who have Tea Party-loaded pistons and a sluggish economy firing them all the way to the polls, Democrats have the baggage of a high unemployment rate and a string of reforms unsold and/or unpopular to the American people, and indeed tons of explaining to do.

Students, and young people particularly, sent Obama to the White House with the audacity of hope for change. They wanted an end to the expensive Napoleonic war posture that characterizes our foreign policy. They wanted the closing of Guantanamo prisons, to restore our “do good” image on the globe, action in the form of serious legislation on energy and the environment, among other things. Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 was the answer to all the problems that the young and anxious Americans had on their minds. His “change” message resonated, big time!

However, on entering the White House, the reality of governance proved quite unlike spewing forth campaign rhetoric. The meltdown of the economy and joblessness greeted him at the Oval Office. The first order of business was a continuation of the bailout policy, or Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), that George W. Bush had started. Next, there was the healthcare legislation on which the president expended much of his political goodwill, as Republicans stonewalled it and did a darn good job of making it largely unpopular among Americans. The White House did not do the best job of selling it to the American people, either.

The Pelosi-led Congress was bogged down, done in, trying to find a non-existent middle ground, resulting in a diluted healthcare bill that no Republican voted for. Meanwhile, the narrative on the right has been rudimentary and resonating: “These tax-and-spend liberals are gunning for your money to grow government and bloat the national debt.” The Tea Party was born and suckling from the fear and anger on Main Street. Months went by, and neither Congress nor the White House was clear on the sales pitch for any of their legislation.

The Left is not happy that Obama did not go all the way in some of his promised legislation such as healthcare, hence the apathy. On their part, young people are feeling uncertainty and real-time joblessness. They don’t see a bright future in the current climate. The masterful communicator they fell for in 2008 can’t even sell his own policies and inspire hope in them. Now they get to keep their parents’ health insurance till they are 26. They don’t have to deal with greedy banks for their student loans. But who really cares? There is no conscious and enduring effort to keep the youth on board the “change” train. The middle-aged and middle-class are the deciders of next Tuesday’s elections. They have a stake in the trend of things, from foreclosures to entitlement spending. Whether they read Dick Morris’ “Take America Back” or Arianna Huffington’s “Third World America,” it is clear that they want to see a change in how Washington works. There is worry about the national debt. They may even want to see us cut 19 percent of our budget like the Brits, and rein in on entitlement spending – if that does not include their own Social Security benefits coming up soon. It’s tough, readers. It’s so tough our Congressman Mike Thompson bought TV ads this time.

In the typical procrastination, 11th hour fashion, the President and Democrats, like our own DCD here on campus, are trying to summon some momentum. There is no clear message out there to rally around in this anti-establishment and anti-incumbent political climate, typical of mid terms. Thanks to FOX, there is no ACORN to gather minority votes. I see Obama trying to reconnect with the young people who literally put him in the White House again. About time!

FAYIA SELLU can be reached at fmsellu@ucdavis.edu.