Members at a local church in Northridge said they’re not worried about potential violence at their congregation.

Despite the string of church shootings since 2003, and an even more staggering increase of them within the past year, employees at the Northridge United Methodist Church don’t feel they are at risk.

“I don’t think we’re concerned about security here,” said Pastor Stan Ferguson. “But, there are probably some churches in some areas that if I was there, I’d think, ‘Well how are we going to do this security thing?’”

And he’s right.

Many churches across the country have considered options to better prepare themselves for potential violence at their places of worship.

On June 15 2009, 15 churches from around the Southland area attended an inter-faith intruder response course in Garden Grove, the same city that is home to the well-known Crystal Cathedral. Earlier this year, Steve Smick walked into the cathedral, knelt down in front of a cross and shot himself in the head, police reports said. He had handed his suicide note to a greeter when he first walked in.

This is the second tragedy at the church. In 2004, the long-time conductor shot and killed himself after an argument with another church employee and a nine-hour standoff with police.

According to the Web site for the course, www.intruderresponse.com/training-church.html, these seminars take place all over the country and are meant to help congregations, “start up [their] church’s security ministry.”

But, Katherine Stanfill, director of Christian education for the Northridge United Methodist Church, says she isn’t afraid at their congregation.

Neither is Joan Coston, the church’s facilities director and office manager.
She shook her head. “I’m not afraid here on Sunday,” she said.

“I haven’t even thought about it,” said Ferguson.

Their confidence is comforting, but it doesn’t mean that churches in the Northridge area are necessarily immune to violence.

Driving down any road in Northridge, one will notice a plethora of churches. Right after turning on to Balboa Boulevard, there are three churches, all different denominations, within a few hundred feet of each other.

In other words, there are lots of opportunities for violent episodes.

Stanfill isn’t fearful at her church, but she said other churches do attract more controversy. She mentioned a Santa Monica church where she used to work.

“We had tons of homeless people coming in and they all wanted something,” she said. “They were very needy. And sometimes the pastor just wouldn’t come out to talk to them, which I don’t know if I agree with or not.”

She said many times members of churches exalt the clergy, such as pastors, to an almost God-like level, forgetting that they are human too.

“In some churches, the pastor is like a rock star,” she said.

This kind of idolization of church leaders, along with their fallible human qualities, can lead to disappointment in church members who rely too much on the clergy for support.

“People know they have access to somebody who will listen to them or care about them, and where normally the rest of society closes the door,” she said. “When they’re let down and they see kind of that human side [of pastors] when they make mistakes, it’s painful for people because they put all their trust in them.”

Ferguson thinks many of these violent episodes in churches reflect unhealthy frustration.

“As far as all these cases, I’m only aware of a couple of reasons why these people have committed violence,” he said. “And each time it’s an inappropriate response to something that’s going on in their lives.”

This is true for the most part. Many of these shootings happen as a result of somebody down on his or her luck. From the breakdown of a family to economic hardships, the circumstances vary.

The incident involving a man who shot and killed two people in a Tennessee church last July during a children’s performance of the play “Annie,” was unemployed.

But, a note that police found after the shooting indicated another reason as well. The man claimed he hated the church’s liberal policies, which included accepting gay people.

These politically charged motivations have been seen in another shooting just this past May in Wichita, Kan.

A high profile late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller, was shot and killed during a Sunday service at his church in which he was an usher.

“Killing this abortion doctor in a place of worship really magnifies the feeling of resentment and the feeling of moral indignity,” said Rick Talbott, a professor of religious studies at CSUN and an expert on Christianity and Mediterranean religions. “I don’t think people need to consciously run that through their minds. They already intuitively know a church would be the ideal place to act out this violence.”

He said people realize carrying out violence in a church, or any place of religious worship, accentuates whatever message they want to convey.

“Religious places tend to be very provocative centers for violence in the world,” he said. “By attacking the holy place, or the symbolic place, you’re making a statement: either a religious statement that this is wrong, or also at the same time, a political statement.”

Whatever the motives behind these occurrences, the acknowledgement among many churches that security measures should be taken is evident in these inter-faith intruder response courses and through alternative methods.

Some churches already practice preventative violence.

“There are significant numbers of large churches in America that actually employ off-duty sheriffs or police officers who are licensed to carry a weapon to patrol the grounds,” said Talbott.

Of course, not all churches are open to this idea.

“Some churches, again because of their theological bent, would never agree to have an armed person on the premises, even to protect innocent members,” he said. “They would say, ‘Listen, we’ll just trust God, but we’re not going to resort to killing somebody in the name of God, even to protect ourselves.’”

He said it depends on the congregation and their beliefs.

Back at the Northridge United Methodist Church, Ferguson and Stanfill agree that churches should discuss this issue, but they don’t necessarily think armed police officers are the answer.

They suggest a more proactive approach to helping their members deal with stresses in a healthy way that may cause built-up frustration if neglected.

“I think people don’t look inside themselves. They want to blame somebody else,” said Stanfill. “I think the church can be an outlet for that.”

Ferguson agreed.

“I think the church needs to address, how do we respond to life?” said Ferguson. “How do we live a healthy life? So, this is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Talbott said this attitude may be naïve since some of these acts are not about the individual’s suffering.

“These congregations that say, ‘Oh it hasn’t impacted us yet,’ I think it’s a little irresponsible,” he said. “I think they need to be prepared. How are they going to respond if someone targets them? What measures can they take to protect innocent people, but how far should they go? Should they hire off-duty police officers that would actually take someone’s life?”

Talbott doesn’t mean all churches in the area should go into a frenzy. But, they should realize they are at the heart of a political storm. They’re not just about religious worship anymore in this modern-day, secular climate.

“Coming to terms with this phenomenon, I think it’s very important that we understand religion plays a major role in animating or motivating people for right or for wrong, for good or for bad,” he said. “I think there’s still going to be continued episodes of violence.”

Faculty members sign up to become members of CFA in order to be able to vote. Photo by Jessica Small

Thersea Montaño and Dave Ballard, co-presidents of CFA, address roughly 150 faculty members at the CFA meeting to discuss potential furloughs and layoffs. Photo by Jessica Small

Tensions spilled out from the Noski Auditorium June 25 at a California Faculty Association meeting as CSUN faculty from various departments voiced their opinions about voting for layoffs or furloughs.

CFA board members refused to vote at a meeting on June 23 for either option.

“Because we have not been given details from the chancellor’s office, we do not know if we accept the furlough if that would mean that we would keep people,” said Dave Ballard, co-president of the CFA and a professor of sociology. “This is the biggest issue that CFA has with this proposal. The chancellor does not have a plan, has not shared that with us, and as board director members we voted on Tuesday night we will not hold a vote until the faculty are given the information to make an informed decision.”

Ballard, along with Theresa Montaño, the other acting co-president of the CFA and a professor of Chicana/Chicano studies, moderated the meeting as they answered concerned faculty members’ questions and comments.

Statewide CFA Treasurer and a faculty member at California State University, Long Beach, Peter Kreysa, also attended the meeting to help Montaño and Ballard calm the passionate crowd of academics with facts and figures.

Ballard opened by reading a letter from CSUN’s provost, Harry Hellenbrand, who wasn’t present at the meeting.

“I wish the faculty the Wisdom of Solomon in this vote,” Hellenbrand said via e-mail. “Rest assured that we at CSUN will work together out of this mess. Indeed our plan began two years ago, though this stupidity in California exceeds even my jaundiced view.”

Hellenbrand said voting to send a message to Sacramento or the CSU administration wouldn’t be the right answer because they don’t embrace the issue like the individual campuses do.

“Vote with your conscience,” he said.

As of right now, the faculty must vote for furloughs in order for them to be administered. This would mean roughly a 10 percent cut in every faculty member’s pay, by implementing two mandatory days off a month. The administration still has the power to enforce layoffs if the faculty votes for furloughs.

In other words, layoffs are a possible outcome regardless of how the faculty votes.
If they vote for layoffs, lecturers, who are considered temporary workers even if they have taught at CSUN for 20 years, would be the first to go. A majority of the faculty at CSUN, roughly 60 percent, are lecturers. After lecturers, assistant professors and associate professors would be next.

But, since the chancellor hasn’t released details to CFA about the furlough option yet, it is not definite that layoffs would still be a possibility if the faculty decided on this option.

The first faculty member to speak asked what would happen if the faculty didn’t vote at all and left the decision up to the administration.

“If we don’t have a vote, they can impose layoffs upon us,” said Kreysa.

Montaño added that it is in the faculty’s best interests to vote in order to have a say in their futures.

Some professors voiced their opposition to the furlough option and said it would be just as bad as layoffs.

“If the 10 percent goes through, it will affect students. It will affect students dramatically in every class because faculty will have to find new additional work, employment elsewhere, and we will have to sacrifice something,” said Ronald Fischbach, professor of health sciences. “May it be a reading of a paper or a giving of another exam, or meeting with students. We will meet our obligations as of the contract, but I don’t know anybody on this campus who teaches who doesn’t do way more than what the contract calls for. That will change. And doing more with less is gonna go the opposite direction.”

Others said voting for a furlough is a trap and that the administration is asking the faculty to, “wield the bloody knife ourselves.” This was met with an uproar of applause from the audience.

The option of not voting came up again.

Ballard said he would like the faculty to engage in a discussion in order to shape the agenda of the administration considering they don’t have a specific plan about the furloughs before they decide not to vote at all.

Among the clamor of faculty, the only student to speak at the meeting was Danny Santana, 19, a history and Chicana/Chicano studies major who is also a member of Students for Quality Education, a system-wide student organization aimed at making student voices heard during the budget quagmire.

He asked for the professors’ support by opening their classrooms to the students organizing an action at the chancellor’s office on July 21 in Long Beach.

As the meeting progressed, faculty members began funneling their frustrations toward CFA members, especially Montaño and Ballard.

Montaño criticized some of the angered faculty members for not being present at previous meetings about the budget.

Others made the point that the administration is using the vote as a divide and conquer strategy in which the two undesirable choices leave faculty fighting with each other.

Fischbach, who has been at CSUN for 40 years, said the CSU campuses should consider raising the standards for incoming students. He said he blames the mismanaged leadership of the union, which is supposed to protect him, for the hard decisions that lie ahead for faculty.

“This campus and all assistant campuses have been allowed to operate in a fairyland. A fairyland meaning that every year they waste thousands and thousands of dollars on students that never graduate. Not a small percentage, but a huge percentage.”

One faculty member received the most positive response when he attempted to unite the faculty members as they quarreled and pointed fingers.

“The idea of a union is that we suffer together until we get what is right,” he said.

Professor of Pan African studies, Johnie Scott, compared the meeting to the ending of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

As the irritation in the room rose and chatter bounced off the walls in every direction, Santana stood up again with a new message for the faculty members. He said he has been involved with many student organizations besides Students For Quality Education, and that they have been taking action in the wake of the budget cut proposals.

“This whole semester we have been holding demonstrations, rallies, teach-ins, forums about the budget crisis issue and the effect on students and faculty. We have reached out to professors and we’ve barely gotten any responses,” he said.
Santana said it is important for the faculty members to hold themselves accountable as well as their leaders because only the communications, Chicana/Chicano studies, Pan African studies, American-Indian studies and education departments had responded to their requests for support.

“We need your advice. We’re in this together,” Santana said.

Kreysa approached Santana and put his arm around his shoulder. He seconded Santana’s reaction to ambivalent faculty members and condemned their neglect of students who have been proactive during the budget crisis.

“They are here coordinating student action on these campuses on your behalf. For you. They’re here to rally the students when it comes to faculty rights and for faculty issues. This student is correct. You should be advocating for these students as well. You should be inviting them into your classes to speak out,” Kreysa said.
Chair of Chicana/Chicano studies, David Rodriguez, reminded everyone about the severe economic crisis the entire country is facing.

“We can blame everybody. We can blame ourselves, our leadership, our union. We can blame everything. But, let’s start blaming our economic system too,” he said. “I would like to see at some point we start blaming our economic system as well and send that message out as educators and critical thinkers.”

Mike Rivas, an assistant professor of secondary education, thought overall the meeting was productive.

“The meeting kind of turned a little bit. It started off being a question and answer and I think that’s not really what the faculty wanted,” he said. “What they wanted was to voice their opinions. They wanted to voice their concerns, their perspectives. And I think that’s what eventually happened. I thought that was very significant for us.”

At the close of the meeting, Ballard reiterated to the faculty that the main message he received from them was not voting for either option would send a very powerful message to the chancellor. He said he would relay that sentiment to all the statewide officers as soon as possible.

All students and faculty can follow the events of the meeting on Twitter.

Her trembling voice rippled through the air, wrenching the hearts of millions listening, as she explained the gruesome events she had witnessed at Baharestan square, Iran.

The protestor’s voice aired on CNN as she said, “I was going towards Baharestan with my friend. This was everyone, not just supporters of one candidate or another. All of my friends, they were going to Baharestan to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom.

“The black-clad police stopped everyone…We went on until Ferdosi then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs came out of [undecipherable] mosque and they started beating everyone. They tried to beat everyone on [undecipherable] bridge and throwing them off of the bridge, and everyone also on the sidewalks. They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood and her husband, he fainted.

They were beating people like hell. It was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so they would die. They were cursing and saying very bad words to everyone. This was exactly a massacre… I don’t know how to describe it,” she continued.

“You need to help us.  You need to help the people of Iran who want freedom,” she added.

The young woman is not alone in her plea for assistance and support to bring democracy and freedom to Iran.

President Obama has been cautiously playing the role of a bystander since the June 12 election and uprising in Iran.  Although most understand his standpoint and dilemma in regards to U.S. and Iran foreign policy relations, many are not certain if the United States fully comprehends the position of Iranians behind the uprising.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution, followed by the Iran-Iraq war, caused the Persian Diaspora, leaving Iran with a small percentage of the elite as the majority of its population included the less privileged and the lower class.

Iran’s cream of the crop fled the country and most turned to the United States and Europe.  By 1996, there were 1,560,000 Iranians in the United States (Farsi Net “The Persian Diaspora”).

It is the same small percentage of the elite population that has taken the streets of Iran today demanding democracy and freedom as they are being harassed, attacked, killed, and as of today, ordered to be executed by the hands of the lower class, under educated, religiously phonetic, Revolutionary Guards and Basij militiamen.

Certain Iranian-Americans expect United States to step in, and assist the courageous Iranians at home to reach their dream of democracy as they see it nearly impossible for them to do it without military support.

“Iranians abroad presented their hard work, knowledge, culture, history, morals, and values in return for safety, security, freedom, and equality.  It is their brothers and sisters who are dying in the streets of Iran fighting for the same democracy the rest us take for granted,” said an Iranian-American demonstrator marching the streets of Los Angeles.

As the United States position is respected and understood by many Iranian-Americans, and even appreciated by most, some still feel the need for assistance from outside sources.

“Till death do us part” has taken on a new meaning in America as this promise of eternal unity has lost its external significance in our society.

Today I ask, “Who is dying?”  The person who ravaged the faith and reliance of his family toward himself, and lost the trust of a nation by conducting a punishable act of disloyalty, or is it the one whose heart, dignity, and pride got taken away?  Either way, the pain is great and there is no happy ending to this great tragedy of death.

The nation is witnessing yet another public official entangled in a sex scandal.   South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford held a news conference to announce his extramarital affair and apologize to everyone he hurt, including the other woman on Wednesday, June 24.

“I’ve been unfaithful to my wife, and I developed a relationship with what started as a dear, dear friend from Argentina,” Sanford told reporters at a press conference.

The 49-year-old governor, who was once a congressman voting for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, has fallen off his high morality wagon.

Sanford has resigned as chair of the Republican Governors Association and his plan to run for president in 2012 looks dim.   Despite certain legislators’ preference, Sanford plans to serve the remaining 18 months of his term, reported the Associated Press.

Jenny Sanford has told CBS News that her husband “has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.”

How degraded and empty she must feel, I thought listening to Sanford’s speech that rattled every sense of disgust within my soul as he explained he had spent the last five days “crying in Argentina.”  I wonder if Jenny Sanford had ever interpreted “Till death do us part,” as her heart dying in front of a nation.

We observe the leaders of our nation repeatedly abuse the statement, “Till death do us part,” and bring shame to their families and loved ones.  Men, who we depend on to keep their words and promises to a nation, cannot keep their loyalty to even one individual.

Jenny Sanford, Silda Spitzer, Hillary Clinton, and our beloved Jacqueline Kennedy are amongst millions of women who stood mutely by their husbands during their times of disgrace.  Aware that their relationship will never be the same after such betrayal and the trust will never become solid between the two partners.

Nonetheless, some women choose to seize their marriages rather than to discard a lifetime of continuous compromise and struggle which has become the solid foundation of their families.  It is simply the grace and poise such women possess that enables them to accomplish such a task.

During this time, many blame the moral values and beliefs of different political parties and organizations for the lies and discriminations they face.  However, today in our society, the concept of a long-term successful marriage has become more unusual than the promise of “Till death do us part” to more than one individual.  It has become a norm for American children to have two separate homes and additional parents to their biological ones.

“Till death do us part” has turned into a fantasy rather than reality.  Our only hope is for the new generation to bring back the high morals and values pertaining to marriage to their future families.  Until then, “Till death do us part” will remain a comforting cliché that keeps the promise of true love blooming in all our hearts.

The Oviatt Library, located in the center of campus, is a perfect place to study and research all subjects. Photo by Venessa Munoz

The library houses four floors of books and study rooms. There is always a place to study, with varying noise levels, and librarians to help students find exactly what it is they are looking for. Photo by Venessa Munoz

It is right smack in the middle of campus and its large pillars and multiple floors gives those walking by a sense of curiosity and awe.

“When I first saw the building it reminded me of the White House and it just looked important,” said incoming freshman Arie Thompson.

The Oviatt Library is a place all students should be familiar with and not intimidated by either. Throughout your academic career, if there is one thing that most students will have to do at some point, it is research.

The library has over 1,600 seats for in house studying and during the fall and spring semesters, the building is open 90 hours a week and provides access to electronic information 24 hours a day.

The main home page has everything students need and more. This allows students easy access to sources they are looking for with just one click. Students can search the library database from A-Z or search the catalog and find articles and research data. Students can also click on the link titled ‘Ask a Librarian’ and this will allow students to email questions or talk on the phone to librarians during library hours from home to help troubleshoot whatever problems or questions they have. And, if it is late and students are stuck they can chat live with a librarian online 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

In order to best take advantage of the library students “should get to know the basics and never hesitate to ask questions,” said Librarian Jennie Quiñones-Skinner. For new students and freshman it is important for them to know their student ID and password and have their school ID with them because this allows students to check out books.

If students need to get away from distractions and want a quiet place to study, read or do work, there are individual study rooms as well as group study rooms which come in handy when students are involved in group projects and assignments.

The library has also added a lounge area on the first floor by the reference desk which was proposed by students said Library Assessment Coordinator Katherine Dabbour. Therefore, students are not just confined to quiet places in the library but have a place to hang out and talk with friends too. And, for those who lug around their laptops, the lounge has laptop friendly chairs and tables for your conveneience.

In the beginning of the semester, there are instructional technology people who set up a booth in the lobby of the library that help students with SOLAR and their portal as well as helping them with internet connection on their laptops, said Dabbour. And, a booth will be set up by the library during the first week of school giving students and librarians a chance to introduce themselves and allows students the opportunity to ask questions.

As First-Year Experience Librarian, Susanna Eng-Ziskin has worked with many first year students and her goal is to help students make their initial year as successful as possible. Eng-Ziskin explains that it is important for freshmen to have a good experience their first year because the transition from high school to college can be a little scary to some. Eng-Ziskin wants to make sure that students do a good job their first year so they stay beyond the first year and succeed towards graduation because “a lot has to do with how well they do their first year.”

The library offers online databases that go beyond Google because professors want their students to find scholarly and credible sources for their papers and projects. Eng-Ziskin says it is important for students to ask for help and use the library because there are databases out there that charge for articles that students can get for free and can ease that burden with the help of a librarian and the Oviatt Library.

The library also has many computers with Internet available for students as well as the opportunity to rent out a laptop. There is also a media/music department for students to check out movies and CDs for educational purposes.

The library strives in making their website more intuitive and are presently undergoing some changes to make it as easy to access as possible and ‘As a student, as long as you learn how to search one database, you can search them all, said Eng-Ziskin.

There are library sessions that are offered in conjunction with certain classes offered at CSUN such as University 100 for incoming freshmen, which teach students how to use the library catalog and databases.

And, though the building is large, there is no need to feel intimated because now students can get a tour from home by visiting the following site: library.csun.edu/fye/tour

Some of the key things to keep in mind about the library is don’t be afraid and ask questions said Eng-Ziskin who suggests students come into the library once or twice before they actually need to because when the time comes, it will be less intimidating and students will feel less stressed.

All the librarians are friendly and helpful and nobody should hesitate to ask questions because as Dabbour said, “There are no dumb questions” and “If you don’t ask for help, you’re never going to get it,” said Eng-Ziskin because as librarians “We are working for students.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran has challenged its constitution in the course of handling Iranians disputing the 2009 presidential election.

Hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken the streets of Iran demanding a rerun of the June 12 allegedly fraudulent presidential election.  With the intention of holding peaceful demonstrations, the protesters have forbidden themselves from carrying weapons of any sort.

Threatened by the massive outpouring of presidential challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi’s supporters, demonstrators have been attacked, arrested and killed by government authorities such as the Revolutionary Guard which is directly under the control of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the Basij, a voluntary paramilitary force of estimated millions who take orders from the Revolutionary Guard.

Nonetheless, article 27 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s constitution, clearly states “Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.” (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html)

As mentioned above, arms have not been carried by the protesters, and I have not crossed any versus in the holy book of Quran indicating people’s dispute of a presidential election as being “detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.”

It is the goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran to address all its sources to “the participation of the entire people in determining their political, economic, social, and cultural destiny,” as per article 3.8 of the Iranian constitution.  (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html)

However, the Iranian population faced a bloody massacre by the current government of Iran as they requested their constitutional right of determining their political destiny.

In addition, article 3.2 of the Iranian constitution states that “the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of directing all its resources to raising the level of public awareness in all areas, through the proper use of the press, mass media, and other means.”  (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html)

Yet, The Paris-based media watchdog group Reporters without Borders reported that Iranian authorities have arrested 23 Iranian journalists and bloggers since post-election protests. It asserts reporters as a “priority target” for Iran’s government. “Among those arrested was the head of the Association of Iranian Journalists,” the group said, as per Associated Press.

Iranian authorities have also interfered with the internet by blocking Web sites such as Facebook and Twitter.  Text messaging has been inoperative since during the election, and cell phone service in Tehran is frequently down, reported Associated Press.

Perhaps the Islamic government does not consider the Internet or a new technology, such as text messaging, as a valid source of “raising the level of public awareness.”

The most ambiguous is that the constitution of the Iranian government begins with the statement that the Islamic Republic is “endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur’anic justice,” as stated in article one.  (http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html)

The people of Iran, however, have been denied their “sovereignty of truth” for the past three decades, and I cannot imagine the ruthless murders of innocent people such as Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old woman who will forever be the icon of a government that restrains the truth and the will of its people through violence and murder, be categorized as Quranic justice.

As a Muslim, I will not allow any individual or government degrade Islam to that level of lunacy and injustice.

“America’s position in the world is one of moral leadership.  And that’s what America is all about.  And frankly, it’s not only about what takes place in the streets of Tehran but it’s also about what takes place in America’s conscience. . . . The fact is that America has been and will be the beacon of hope and freedom.”

John McCain, advocating President Obama take a tougher stand on Iran, Face the Nation, June 21st

Really, Senator?

There has been a lot of talk in the media and on the streets of Los Angeles lately about the plight of the protestors and the human rights situation in Iran.  Rightfully so, but they are not the only people in the Middle East suffering.

We love to criticize the “tyrants of Iran” and their awful treatment of their people, but our own human rights record and that of our greatest ally is highly questionable.  Israel has had a difficult time portraying themselves as a beacon of freedom and democracy without repressing an unsanitized version of their history.

Exhibit A: UN resolution 63/178 , The Right to Development.  It appallingly calls to recognize: “Poverty is an affront to human dignity,” and shockingly the resolution shows deep concern that, “The majority of indigenous peoples in the world live in conditions of poverty, and recognizing the critical need to address the negative impact of poverty and inequity on indigenous peoples by ensuring their full and effective inclusion in development and poverty eradication programmes”.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2000, 21.9% of children in the US live in poverty. This is by far the highest child poverty rate in the developed world.  Evil Socialist France has 7.5%.  I agree with the Republican Party.  We don’t need any of those wimpy French solutions to our problems.  Our free market capitalist system is the key to our prosperity.  And besides, child poverty is a quintessential Traditional American Value.

According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2007; 10.5% of White Americans were living in poverty.  According to the 2000 Census (data for “American Indians” are not shown separately from Asians and Pacific Islanders in the 2007 report) 25.1% of native Americans were living in poverty.  Perhaps our opposition to addressing “the negative impact of poverty and inequity on indigenous peoples” stems from our inability to recognize the plight of our own indigenous native tribal peoples in America.

But, then again, under our system, everyone has an equal chance of success, so the “Indians” should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get their acts together.  Personal responsibility is the American Way.  America’s genocidal campaign against them was SO long ago.  Why can’t they just get over it already?  Plus, they have their own casinos now.

Wisely, the US voted against this radical proposal by the UN.  Sadly only a few other countries joined America in its brave battle against the spectre of sinister Socialist forces seeking to redistribute Good White American money to the ungrateful natives.

The final vote was 182 in favor, 4 against, and 2 abstentions.  Among those countries voting in favor were: North Korea, Iran, Russia, Sudan, and Syria.  The only courageous Defenders of Democracy that stood with the US were: the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Ukraine.

Israel abstained, undoubtedly due to their own “problems” with their indigenous populations.  Indeed the Israelis have a lot in common with us.  They’ve had to deal with their own indigenous crybabies, the Palestinians, since 1948.

The Haganah’s “Plan Dalet” took effect in early April 1948, with the subsequent creation of the State of Israel on May 14th.  The Haganah was a Jewish paramilitary group which was the precursor to the Israeli Defense Forces.  Its members included future Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon.

The plan (which was executed brilliantly), under “Assignment of Duties” calls for “destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously” and “in the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state. The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system…”

Imagine the nerve of the Palestinians.  They spent generations in the land G-d promised to his chosen people for their Jewish State.

Human progress waits for no one.  Palestine had no official flag or international recognition, so finders keepers losers weepers.  Clearly, Israel is the Only Democracy in the Middle East, and they survived against the odds.

In the process they had to destroy 530 Palestinian villages and get rid of (according to the UN Concilation Commission’s estimate in 1950) 711,000 of the “obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path” as the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann put it.

Those 711,000 refugees who arrogantly demand the right to return to their homes are just Arabs.  Predominately Muslims who don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  In other words: not really human beings in the same way we are.

Apparently surviving a Holocaust justifies a Nakba.

Our “special relationship” with Israel is based on shared “values”.  After all, we both know what a hassle ethnic cleansing can be.

The “Twitter Revolution” in Iran has captured the hearts of many Americans, and rightfully so. With the charismatic appearances of “the Persian Obama”, Mir Hossein Mousavi, it should come as no surprise. Realistically, the President of Iran has very little power; the Ayatollah has final say on all decisions including maintaining control of the military. The President’s biggest influence is felt in domestic affairs. This is what is possibly up for grabs in this latest power struggle. The idea of freer elections, fewer moral police patrolling the streets confiscating women’s eyeliner, and a more open media climate, are some of the promises of change being made by Mousavi. These are popular and attractive ideas to the youth of the country in particular.  According to Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, one of the most reliable Iranian economists in the US, Iranians age 15-29 make up 35% of Iran’s 70 million citizens. However, they account for 70% of the unemployed. These are frustrated, yet proud Persians who were not alive during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, but who nonetheless want a revolution of democracy to call their own.

Fighting in the streets, risking your life to take on a corrupt ruling elite. This is what Iranian college students and a large part of the citizens fight for. What do Americans riot for? Basketball. Yes, basketball. We feel proud that the Lakers won the championship. In fact, we’re so proud we’re going to take to the streets, break some windows, and drink some beers. Because after all, the Lakers won, so we won too. I had a friend tell me after the game, “Hey Joseph, we won!, the Lakers won!” This is in a nutshell the idiocy of America. We college students take to the streets to celebrate a basketball game, but not when our summer classes get cut, or when tuition goes up by $200 a semester. Celebrating an alleged rapist like Kobe Bryant (at the least a cheating pig) lead our basketball team to victory is somehow very important and worth getting off our lazy butts for.

What did we do when the Supreme Court of the United States installed George W. Bush into the White House? We sat on our fat lazy butts. At least in other countries when elections are stolen the people give a crap and risk their lives to protect their vote. It’s almost like Americans have been made into brainwashed zombies by the constant barrage of inane celebrity “news”, reality TV culture, and the faux nationalism offered by big bucks professional sports.

I can’t say with certainty what happened in Iran’s election. No one but Ayatollah Khamenei really knows. What I do know however, is that there is evidence of serious irregularities and possible fraud from the circumstantial evidence I’ve seen. For example, a widely trumpeted poll by Project for a Terror Free Tomorrow from mid-May, predicted Ahmadinejad winning a 2-1 victory over Mousavi. But, as Juan Cole, professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor pointed out, it was only 34% to 14%. 27% were undecided and 22% refused to answer or were otherwise unaccounted for. Also, 60% of the undecideds were voters who preferred political reform, aka people who would likely support the “reformist” candidate, Mousavi. Ahmadinejad would’ve had to get all of the undecideds in order to reach his supposed total of 63%. This is highly unlikely.

I’ve also seen some pessimistic dismissals of the Iranian peoples’ democratic yearning, by misrepresenting that poll’s numbers in this typical fashion, “Ahmadinejad was winning 2-1 in a recent poll before the election, it wasn’t stolen.” Frankly, it doesn’t matter if there’s little difference between a President Ahmadinejad and a President Mousavi and it doesn’t matter if the US warmongers are co-opting this movement for their own military aims. What matters is that the Iranian people want change. The people are saying they really want their freedom, and they want their votes to count for something. They want better rights for women, they want more than four pre-screened “sufficiently Islamic” candidates to choose from, and they want a president who doesn’t embarrass the country with his holocaust denial conferences. Let’s respect the will of the people. If we criticize the elections or the president or the Ayatollah, let’s do it with respect for the sovereignty of Iran, and let’s immediately call out anyone who uses this struggle for their own selfish interests.

There are 3 categories of such freaks: the Obama t-shirt wearing, Starbucks slurping, “liberal” douche bags who don’t know the first thing about Iran; the warmonging maniacs of the Right Wing who want to use this as a pretext for selling the idea of military action in Iran; and finally the cynical leftists who seek to rain on the Persian Protestors’ Parade just because CNN is covering the story heavily, so it just can’t be for real. The bottom line is if you really want to support the protestors, the best thing you can do is let them decide for themselves what the future of their country will be.

Courtesy of The California Student Aid Commission

As I flip through the business section of the newspaper, I constantly come across headlines of corporations asking for government bailout, banks asking for government bailout and most recently, the state of California asking for bailout. It makes me wonder, will financial aid now be asking for bailout or get completely phased out?

I raised my concerns to Gregorio Alcantar, counselor in the Financial Aid and Scholarship office at CSUN.

The good news is the federal government will not eliminate financial aid. In fact, the government is being more flexible at lending more money to students.

I also expressed a common issue my friends and I have discussed. Several of my friends who don’t qualify for grants tell me: “I didn’t qualify for financial aid,” or “It’s so unfair, according to financial aid, my parent’s make too much money and now I don’t qualify for financial aid even though they don’t pay for my college.”

But, Alcantar proved me otherwise.

Alcantar said, many students define financial aid as free money meaning grants or work study, “but the true definition of financial aid is the availability of all resources, including self help aid, such as loans. So when students say they didn’t receive financial aid and I see they qualify for loans, then I correct them and tell them they did.”

All available resources, such as paying for school supplies with a credit card or if Uncle Sancho gives the student a couple dollars a weekly to buy a book or if a student works at a part time job to pay for college expenses, is all considered aid.

However, the federal government’s philosophy as it pertains to financial aid is it’s the parent’s responsibility to pay for their children’s college. Therefore, when the forms ask for the parent’s income, it asks the question because it’s trying to see what is the parent’s ability to be able to help pay for college.

The financial aid forms don’t ask if parents can or will pay for college, “it just basically says that there is a possibility that they could,” he said.

Once the Financial Aid office at CSUN reviews the application, as long as the student is eligible to receive financial aid, then he/she can at least receive a loan that could be enough to exclusively cover CSUN’s tuition.

There are four types of loans made available through financial aid.

Through the Federal Stafford Loans a student can get the Subsidized Stafford loan were the federal government pays for the interest rate while the student is in college.

Then there is the Unsubsidized Stafford Loan where the student is responsible for paying the interest rate that accrues while in college. In this case, the student can opt for paying the accrued interest rate after resuming their studies.

The two other loans are the Federal Perkins Loan which is made available to students with exceptional financial need. The loan is fixed at a 5 percent interest rate.

And the Federal Plus Loans are federal loans made available to the parents to help pay for their child’s college.

For those like international students, who don’t qualify for any Financial aid can apply for alternative loans.

Alternative loans are not from the federal government, these are loans one can only acquire through banks and their criteria can be a lot stricter. The credit score and income of the applicant is looked at a lot more closely.
Personal Banker with Citibank, Sara Yohanna, said students from CSUN can apply for a personal loan ranging from 10 to 26 percent, risk based pricing. This loan is considered a fix rate product once the student sings. The interest rate always stays at a fixed rate regardless of how the market is doing.
The other option is a line of credit known as Ready Credit. A line of credit is fund available to the student. However, they only pay interest on what they utilize and the remainder of the line will still be available for their use as needed. A line of credit is a variable rate product, meaning the interest rate will fluctuate with the market place.     “After a need base conversation with a personal banker, the individual students situation would be assured and the appropriate product would be recommended,” Yohanna said.
Given that, through financial aid I didn’t qualified for grants, I resorted to applying for federal loans. Before formally applying for a loan I was required to attend a loan entrance workshop.
To me, it was my first biggest financial decision I was going to make, jet, like many students, I was clueless on loans.
But the loan entrance workshop demystified loans. It was there, where I learned the ins and outs of loans.
As a college student, I can understand why many of friends who don’t qualify for grants refuse to take out loans. They don’t out of fear and lack of familiarity. Instead, some work a minimum wage job to pay their way through college.
I did that too, but in the end it is much better to take out a federal loan, which is guaranteed to not exceed an eight percent interest rate, then it would be to pay it back in payments after college with a salary that is not minimum wage.

For more information look at: