Trust your opinions, not party lines

I applaud Joey Borson for his piece, “Politics more than
just left vs. right” (Nov. 4). Beyond the assumptions the
labels “liberal” and “conservative” create,
many people don’t take the time to truly investigate issues
and form their own opinions. Instead, they simply follow party
lines, thus reinforcing the stereotypes.

There is also the problem of oversimplifying issues to draw upon
the basic party sentiments of a target audience. This
oversimplification is present in several of the columns and
submissions the Daily Bruin has run on the various
propositions.

Proposition 73 is very specific: The measure would require
minors wishing to terminate a pregnancy to notify their parents.
Parental consent is already supposed to be given before any major
medical procedure is performed on a minor.

But when applied to this sensitive issue, I imagine most people
will just vote along party lines on the general abortion issue and
not look at this in the context of minors making major medical
decisions on their own.

Sascha Cohen said in her submission that she believes this
measure is about controlling sexually active women (“Prop. 73
is about more than fetuses,” Nov. 3). Cohen presumes to know
the true motives of supporters of the proposition and lumps them
together as control freaks wanting to impose their morals on
others. This denies that someone who is adamantly abortion rights
and pro-sexual freedom can also believe that minors are not yet
mature enough to make major medical decisions.

Alec Mouhibian’s column “Voters need to initiate
reform and ignore corrupt ad agendas” (Nov. 3) oversimplifies
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s propositions as eliminating
“stupid teachers, evil unions, gluttonous spending and
undemocratic district lines.” Although his focus was on
misleading TV ads, a deeper analysis of the heart of the issues
would have been appreciated.

Then there’s Robert Samuels’ submission “Prop.
75 would stifle support for students” (Nov. 3), which goes
beyond oversimplification to outright inaccuracy. He claims passing
this proposition would eliminate teacher’s voices, then
clings to the idea that it applies to unions but doesn’t
address corporate special interests.

First, if Proposition 75 passes, it only states that unions need
the approval of their members to make a political contribution, not
that they can no longer participate in lobbying activities or
contribute to beneficial causes. Wouldn’t teachers belonging
to the union vote for approval of a cause that protected teachers
or students?

Also, corporations answer to their shareholders. If a
corporation supports a politician or a cause shareholders
disapprove of, they are free to sell their shares or boycott the
company’s products.

Even so, people who feel strongly about this should propose
another proposition that would limit corporate contributions to
Californian politicians, instead of protecting union leaders’
interests.

I only want to provide the other side of the issues. It’s
not my intent to persuade any particular stance on any of these
issues, but to encourage you to research, from the source, the
implications each of these propositions truly represent ““ and
vote based on your own opinion.

Scarlatis is a fifth-year graduate student in biomedical
engineering.