While his classmates were in lecture on Tuesday, Jesse Cheng was in Sacramento fighting for their right to be in class.

He came back with a promise from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto any budget that did not include funding for higher education.

While Schwarzenegger met with the top administrators from the state’s public higher education systems, about 250 students, board members and regents lobbied lawmakers alongside Cheng, the student regent designate and third-year Asian American studies student at U. California-Irvine.

“I think we educated a number of legislators on topics they didn’t know before,” Cheng said. “We got a lot of good feedback.”

Representatives from U. California schools, California State Universities and community colleges visited all 120 legislative offices throughout the Intersegmental Advocacy Day, according to Lynn Tierney, vice president of communications for the UC Office of the President. The event fell on the 50th anniversary of the Master Plan for Higher Education, which outlines policies for the state’s higher education systems.

“One of the advantages to intersegmental lobbying is that if your system doesn’t have something to offer to the legislators, another system does. If they didn’t go to a UC, they went to a community college,” said Sarah Bana, executive vice president of Associated Students of UC Irvine and a fourth-year quantitative economics student.

Student advocates stressed that investing in higher education aids the state in the long run. Studies have shown that for every dollar invested in the UC and CSU systems, the state gets back $5.67 and $4.41, respectively.

“We’re a multiplication factor. We’re a great investment for the state,” Cheng said.

The governor’s proposal would restore about $1.7 billion to California’s public higher education systems, alleviating part of the burden of the 32 percent student fee increase passed in November. But student advocates see this promise as a short-term reimbursement rather than a long-term increase.

“This government funding that we’re getting is not the money that we need to succeed, it’s what we need to stay afloat,” Cheng said.

Similarly, Steve Dixon, president of the California State Student Association, said the governor’s promises were a “bittersweet victory,” and that he would like to see a full restoration of the cuts made in the last 10 years.

Student advocates also fought to save the Competitive Cal Grant, said Christopher Santos, chairman of the Undergraduate Committee of the University of California Student Association and a third-year psychobiology student at UCLA. The governor currently plans to suspend the competitive grant and de-couple need-based grants from fee increases.

UCSA is supporting Assembly Bill 2447, which would institutionalize Cal Grants so they cannot be eliminated and increase financial aid according to the rate of inflation. Cal Grants are a big resource for community colleges, and many UCLA transfer students either benefitted from it or are still benefitting from it, Santos said.

With the budget up for revision in May, all three higher education systems have filed significant budget requests for their specific goals and collectively for the re-institution and full funding of Cal Grants, said Tierney.

“We’re in a very tough economic time, and the way we’re gonna get out … is by maximizing the number of people who are trained and educated,” she said.

The state will face a shortage of one million college-educated workers in 2025, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. These next 10 or 15 years are crucial for training the next generation of skilled workers, Tierney said.

But Tierney also stressed self-motivation in tackling the budget problems these institutions face.

“We have to do more ourselves, we have to be more efficient, and we have to search out ways that we can streamline operations or delivery so that we can still maintain access and opportunity,” she said. “The legislature has a finite amount of money and very, very significant demands on that money, and that’s only going to continue.”

Similarly, Steve Montiel, spokesman for the UC Office of the President, said Schwarzenegger’s statement was a definite step forward but that higher education is still looking for more.

“There is still a lot of advocacy needed to show how important education is and for there to be adequate funding,” Montiel said.

Although Tuesday’s efforts made progress, advocates are still pushing for more tangible results. Students are aiming for another intersegmental lobbying day within each district, Bana said.

“There are some underlying topics that are still going to affect students in one way or another, and that’s why we’re still fighting,” Santos said. “This conversation that they had (on Tuesday) really shows the influence that students have through the protests in September and November and all the advocacy that we’ve done this year.”

Last week Facebook, the social media platform, took two major steps in its apparent quest for Internet domination. At its F8 developer conference last week Facebook introduced the universal “like” button as well as OpenGraph technology that leaves you seemingly always logged into the Facebook world. Exactly what this means for the future of the Internet has yet to be deciphered, but a battle seems to be brewing over privacy rights and internet browsing.

In addition to changing the tag line on the incredible popular fan pages from “become a fan” to “like” Facebook is also debuting a “like” button for the Internet. For websites and blogs where the button is implemented, users of the Facebook platform will be able to “like” or “recommend” a page to their friends.

The button on Web pages counts how many users have liked the page in addition to how many of your friends have “liked” that page.

Facebook’s “share” was the old technology that would do this, but this new button is a more streamlined method of sharing the articles you think your friends would like. This innovation is not unlike something the Internet has seen before. Much like the real-time stream introduced in March of last year which was an idea taken from Twitter, the “like” technology is an idea taken from Digg and other social news aggregate websites.

It’s hard to say whether it was Digg’s failure at launching a real-time stream that will be its eventual downfall to the social media giant, a launch that was supposed to happen six months ago, or whether Facebook would have marched onto its soil regardless of what Digg had or hadn’t launched. Digg for the moment has the upper hand as there is no easy way to see the totality of what your friends have “liked” through the new button. Likebutton.me is a third party website that takes advantage of your social stream to aggregate this content but is in no means anything official.

To “like” some content on a Webpage, you must be logged into Facebook. Once you are logged in though, your Facebook information is available to any website that asks for it, thanks to Facebook’s second new innovation, Open Graph technology.

In what has been billed as “instant personalization,” this new feature allows websites like Pandora to customize the music they play to you based on the music you have listed in your music interests. The new technology launched with three partners, Pandora, Yelp and Docs.com by Microsoft.

The whole situation is developing into as big as a privacy disaster as the launch of Google Buzz which launched in February, maybe bigger. Senators and representatives across the country have spoken out about Web privacy. Facebook is blurring the lines between what is public data and private data on the Web.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has written to the Federal Trade Commission, asking them to “examine the privacy disclosures of social-networking sites to insure they are not misleading or fail to fully disclose the extent to which they share information.” The heart of Schumer’s argument is that at the moment Facebook requires users to opt out of the new feature, not opt in.

There are two sides to this. The seemingly good side, that turns vanilla websites into ones that are personalized for you and with ads that are targeted to you. And the bad side, the underbelly that works in the background, which tracks your behavior on the Web and shares your information with websites.

Both developments are putting Facebook at the center of what you do on the Web. The company, who during one week in march had more traffic than current number one (Google) in the United States, is looking to extend its virtual network to cover the entirety of what you do on the Web as well as what you do offline.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., along with several other legislators introduced a bill Thursday that would increase the amount of disclosure required from corporations regarding spending in federal elections.

The bill, called the Disclose Act, is a response to a January decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The decision allows unlimited spending by labor unions and corporations in federal campaigns.

The controversial 5-4 decision reversed nearly 100 years of regulation regarding federal campaign financing.

Feingold characterized the outcome of the case as a “tragic error.” Also opposing the court’s decision was Andrea Kaminski, executive director for the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, who called the decision “absolutely devastating.”

The new legislation was introduced by Feingold and Sens. Al Franken, D-Minn.; Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; and Charles E. Schumer, D-NY. It would require unions and companies that make campaign donations endorse their ads and disclose the names of the groups making donations.

The law would also prohibit government contractors, companies that have received government assistance and foreign-controlled corporations from making contributions.

The legislators hope to get the bill passed by July 4, so it will be law by the time midterm elections roll around.

“While no bill can reverse the Court’s mistake, we need to make sure that the public can follow the money and see exactly who is behind the onslaught of political advertising that the decision has unleashed,” Feingold said in a statement.

Also coming out in favor of the bill was President Barack Obama, who expressed concern corporations would play a bigger role in deciding the outcome of elections than U.S. citizens.

Though many have expressed their support for the legislation, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blasted the bill, saying it simultaneously goes against business interests and civil liberties.

“What’s most in need of disclosure is the real purpose behind this bill — it’s nothing more than a brazen attempt to tilt the playing field in favor of the incumbent party in this fall’s elections, silence constitutionally protected speech and abridge First Amendment rights,” U.S. Chamber President and CEO Thomas Donohue said in a statement.

U.S. Chamber Council Partner Theodore Olson thinks the legislation is an attempt to limit the free speech of companies.

Though he supports the bill, Common Cause In Wisconsin Executive Director Jay Heck said he believes with all of the private interests that influence the political process, this bill may have a hard time getting through Congress. There is really only one way to solve the problems the Supreme Court Decision will cause, he said.

“The bill does a number of things that are necessary, but the best way to solve this problem would be to overturn the court’s decision and put back the restrictions,” Heck said.

Switch on the radio and listen to any pop station. What does nearly every song have in common? The use – and sometimes abuse – of voice correction software, most notably associated with T-Pain.

Voice correction tools were first introduced many years ago, but the dawn of the digital age and certain plug-ins have made it more precise, easier to use and cheaper, therefore making it more widespread.

Two of the most well-known producers of this software include Auto-Tune and Melodyne.

After musicians record in the studio, sound engineers have the ability to see the areas that were sung off-pitch and simply enter the desired correction to fix the mistake.
In recent years, the use of voice correction tools has exploded in the pop music industry, sparking a heated debate.

On the one hand, the software saves hours of time for musicians and sound engineers. Back in the “old days” many takes would be necessary in order to get the perfect sound.

If part of a song were sung off-pitch, singers would simply have to continue singing the part on different takes until they nailed it.

This could not only be very time consuming, but also took up a lot of space on analog tapes. In turn, this cost recording studios more money as well.

However, voice correction software has also had some negative effects on the music industry. As a result of mistakes being easily corrected, a wider margin of error is allowed, meaning singers do not necessarily have to be talented in order to sound that good.

Not only does that open up the music industry for performers who are more entrepreneurs than musicians, it can also make for disappointing concerts and ultimately, a more competitive industry.

With correction software as a safety net, “musicians” can actually be creative and attractive entrepreneurs who understand business.

Theoretically, studios could take any good-looking person with some creativity and business skills and make them a pop star (take Ke$ha for example). It seems a strange paradox that singing is no longer a skill requirement for having a successful career as a singer.

Correction software does its job very well by making people sound more talented than they actually are. In Ke$ha’s case, Saturday Night Live exposed her actual “singing skills.”

But this can be even more disappointing if people spend money on concert tickets to see an artist perform, only to disappointedly realize their money was wasted on an artist who became successful because of voice correction software.

Because talent is no longer a necessary skill, virtually anyone can record a song with the potential to become a chart-topper.

With the expansion of potential “musicians,” the music industry has become increasingly competitive.

The pressure mounts for songs to one-up each other in the catchiness and danceability components, causing pop songs to become increasingly blast-able and “in your face.”

Now that songs can be churned out quickly and singers can be made to sound perfect, success is becoming increasingly more difficult.

Ultimately, voice correction software is here and has made its impact. It has become deeply ingrained in the culture, but should it be used in the copious amounts that it currently is?

Though the software can be beneficial in some ways, it has changed the industry and has begun a slow shift away from truly talented musicians.

In time, consumers will likely begin to realize which musicians are mere entertainers – made great by the invention of voice correction software – and which musicians harbor genuine talent.

True talent must make a comeback sooner, rather than later.

- Sarah Creedican is an Oregon State U. freshman.