The contradictions of worship show an IDF soldier with machine guns and a Muslim young lady worshipper at one of Islam’s holiest sites the Dome of the Rock seen in the background. Joseph Glatzer / Contributing reporter

I just spent three weeks in Israel, the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. Many of my preconceived notions were challenged and discarded. I learned about people’s daily lives by staying with both Israeli and Palestinian families.

I left the Holy Land with more hope for peace than I ever had before.

One of the people I met was a young Israeli Navy veteran who agreed with a settlement freeze, and cited settlements as a main obstacle to peace.

In Jerusalem’s Old City I met an Israeli Army veteran at a Christian Palestinian owned restaurant and bar. He said he wasn’t a bad person and that he and his friends didn’t do any of the bad things mentioned in the Goldstone Report. I told him I believe him and that I know Israeli soldiers aren’t bad people. It’s the commanders who are responsible for giving unjust orders.

I continued, “I rode on an Israeli bus to Jerusalem. I met good decent people, none of whom deserved to die.” I added that I cried when I watched “Schindler’s List,” just like I’ve cried watching documentaries about Palestinians. He must’ve never heard an American with a keffiyah sympathize with Jewish suffering.

Letting his guard down, he remarked that he wouldn’t join the Army again if he could go back, “It’s not because I don’t support Israel. I just don’t want to risk my life for the people running this country that don’t represent me and my friends.”

He conceded the Separation Wall had to fall and the Occupation was unjust. I remarked, “I’m amazed how much more reasonable and open-minded the Palestinians and Israelis like you I’ve met on this trip are, compared to the people I know at my school.”

He explained, “It’s because we have to live here with each other and deal with the consequences, the people in the US don’t.” An hour of heartfelt conversation and a few beers later, we exchanged Facebooks and made a pact to only talk about peace from now on.

I was also able to march with hundreds of Israelis to Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem in support of Palestinian families living in tents outside the homes they were kicked out of by settlers.

The 120 “settlements” in the West Bank are Israeli cities built on Palestinian land captured in the Six Day War of 1967. They are home to 480,000 settlers.

Having had the chance to drive through the East Jerusalem settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev, I saw the inequality firsthand. Anees, a Palestinian resident of the East Jerusalem city of Beit Hanina, told me he’s required to pay taxes to Israel.

But, the money pays for manicured lawns and public pools in the settlement next door while his neighborhood’s roads crumble and garbage goes uncollected. I think “no taxation without representation” is a concept Americans understand well.

These settlements are illegal under international law: the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory is a violation of Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Palestinian life is disrupted on a daily basis by the 227 checkpoints and 541 other obstructions to freedom of movement in the West Bank.

In trying to leave Ramallah for Jerusalem, I got stuck in the Qalandia checkpoint for two and a half hours. Palestinians in Ramallah aren’t allowed to enter Jerusalem without rarely granted written permission from Israel.

Inside the checkpoint’s cage, I met Osama Jamil M. Al-Bast, a Director General in the President’s office of the Palestinian Authority. He showed me his one day permission slip

for Jerusalem to attend an official meeting with European Union diplomats. I was next to him when the call that he missed the meeting came in.

He told me that once you’re in the second cage of the checkpoint you can’t go back. So, he had to wait another half hour before he could go through just to turn around again.

Being in a checkpoint was degrading, humiliating, and infuriating. I knew I would get through, but I still felt imprisoned and helpless. Checkpoints cause children to be late for school and students to miss exams.

In 2008 Nahil and Muayad Abu Rideh’s baby died stillborn due to a forty minute delay at a checkpoint. Sixty-six Palestinians have died since 2000 due to Israeli-imposed delays in receiving medical care at checkpoints (B’tselem).

Upon finally making it back to Jerusalem, I took a taxi to the bus station. I was still fuming from my checkpoint ordeal, and the Israeli driver told me, “The checkpoints are there to make the Palestinians leave Palestine. The only one that cares for the people here is God. Only God can make peace.”

These Israeli government policies don’t represent every Jew throughout the world or what’s in the hearts of most Israelis. The people are way ahead of their leaders on this.

Everywhere I went, I found that people want the same things: the ability to earn a decent living, to be treated with respect, and hope of a better future for their children. Peace is possible.

From the calm and measured intelligent discourse of cable news to the hard hitting in-depth stories of the Associated Press, the debate is raging.  Should we send more troops to Afghanistan?

The debate is usually very narrowly defined: “Are there enough troops in Afghanistan to win?” or “If we send more troops is winning possible?” Assuming that the war is “winnable,” does that make it right to wage it?

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.  If Afghanistan invaded the U.S., and Afghan TV debated about whether the war against the American terrorists was winnable, how would we feel about it?

If Pashtun and Tajik pundits callously debated how many more troops it would take to pacify Washington, D.C., would Americans just accept occupation and greet the invaders as liberators?  Or would we fight to defend our homeland?  The Afghan people are no different than us. No one likes being occupied.

Whether most Afghans agree with the Taliban’s ultra-strict version of Islam or not is irrelevant.  When your country is under attack, you join up with whoever can expel the occupiers.  Find this hard to believe?  Don’t forget how we gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted when our country was under attack.

The common justification for the occupation of Afghanistan has been the Sept. 11 attacks.  We had a responsibility to bring the hijackers and those that supported them to justice, to bring peace to the families of the victims.  We haven’t caught bin Laden in eight years. All we’ve done is kill more innocent people.

Do Americans even know who we are fighting in Afghanistan?  When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. sent hundreds of millions of dollars to train and equip the most radical jihadists it could find.  We funded these radicals through Pakistan’s ISI, and one of our star subjects was Osama bin Laden.  All of these fundamentalists, who we armed and trained 30 years ago are now our “enemies.”

Ronald Reagan called them “the freedom fighters of Afghanistan.”  Now, they are “terrorists.” This is the monster we’ve created with our arrogance and ignorance.  Every time the U.S. sticks its nose where it doesn’t belong, it makes the situation worse.

Now we’re arming and training warlords, drug lords, and criminals to fight the fundamentalists.  But who are we going to pay to fight the warlords 20 to 30 years from now?  When does the cycle of violence end?  Do we ever learn our lesson?

The central government of Hamid Karzai, who just stole an election, only controls 20 percent of the country.  So, if this is the status after eight years, the only thing more troops will do is lead to more deaths of US soldiers and Afghan civilians.  This of course leads to more recruits for the Taliban, and the U.S. has to send more troops.  This bloodshed can go on forever if we don’t put a stop to it right now.

Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and the mujahideen bled their empire dry. President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, came up with the idea of funding Afghan rebels to draw the Soviets in to defend their proxy government.

Brzezinski describes the game, “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would … That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…”  Russia spent 10 years there, and it bled their empire dry.

Now it appears that bin Laden is laying the trap for us, and we fell for it: hook, line, and sinker.  Will we be the next empire to die in Afghanistan?

As Jeremy Scahill, author of “Blackwater” and an expert on military affairs, said, “The United States occupation is the single greatest recruitment tool for the insurgency in Afghanistan, including the Taliban.”  Does bombing Afghan wedding parties, killing dozens of civilians instantly and suddenly make Afghans want to sing the Star Spangled Banner?  Of course not.  It justifiably makes them want to kill us.

The truth is this: The fewer troops we have there, the less power and appeal the Taliban will have.  Let’s get the hell out of the Land of the Pashtuns as soon as possible, which would give the Afghan people a real chance to sort out their own affairs, and find their own democratic voice.

The first thing I thought when I heard about Obama’s peace prize is that it must be a fake headline from the Onion. As usual, right-wing Fox News/Rush Limbaugh style criticism of President Obama has been so ridiculous and over the top, that any legitimate substantive criticism is ignored. Right-wing smear merchants like Sean Hannity are now denouncing Obama’s Nobel Prize, because it is apparently further evidence of Obama’s Socialism.

The right wing cries that the Obama-lovers at the Nobel Committee rewarded Obama for waving the white flag of surrender on the “war on terror.” Even more bizarrely, the Democratic Party is invoking the fear tactics of the right wing, “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists … in criticizing the president for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.”

The only problem here is that the dominant narrative is the exact opposite of the truth. I judge politicians by what they do, not from inspiring speeches and campaign promises. I don’t just figure they have good intentions, and take their word for it. Liberal defenders of his prize cry “he’s only been in office nine months” or that “he has the Republicans to deal with, he will be labeled as a sissy and he won’t get re-elected if he ends the wars.”

Now, surely one cannot expect Obama to dismantle all of our imperial army’s foreign entanglements in just nine months. By the same token, one can also not expect an occupier in chief, in office for only nine months, to earn a peace prize of any sort.

There’s no denying he inherited the two wars. However, he also escalated and expanded the occupation of Afghanistan by 21,000 troops earlier this year. He’s currently in deliberations about exactly how much to escalate the occupation by. This is not to even mention his nonstop deadly predator drone attacks in Pakistan, which have killed hundreds of civilians. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, repeatedly ruled out any possibility of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. The only question he’s examining is just how much he’s going to escalate the death and destruction.

Whatever motivation you attach to a warmonger is irrelevant. The Nobel Prize shouldn’t be for anyone who is actively bombing and killing people. Is this really a radical concept?

Although the corporate media seems to have forgotten, Iraq is still under U.S. occupation. Obama has a plan which will leave 40,000-50,000 “residual forces” after the Status of Forces Agreement is fully implemented.

We’re still playing divide and rule in Iraq, while top U.S. military officials widely admit we never really plan on leaving. This is not a policy of peace; it’s George Bush with better speeches.

Obama obviously has no problem continuing the U.S.’s “special relationship with Israel,” even if it includes staying silent during war crimes. Thus, he bit his tongue while Israel unleashed Operation Cast Lead, a sustained bombing campaign against the people of Gaza, last December and January. Hundreds of civilians were killed, including 300-400 children. This is verified by all credible sources including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Israeli human rights group B’tselem, and the United Nations Human Rights Council (the Goldstone Report). How can a president, who supported with his silence the deaths of hundreds of children, possibly deserve a Peace Prize?

It seems the U.S. and Europe feel pride knowing America has a president who speaks better than George Bush, but I assure you the victims of Obama and the U.S.’s violence don’t see him as a man of peace. In the countries currently under U.S. occupation, this is surely how the majority of the population feels.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, truth be told, has a better claim to the award than Obama. His speeches aren’t as good, but Iran doesn’t occupy anyone. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic is responsible for the deaths of a hell of a lot fewer people than Obama. To the man with the least blood on his hands goes the peace prize!

Obama’s foot is the one snugly within the boot of American imperialism (which is currently on the necks of three Muslim countries). I’ve heard that perhaps this prize could inspire Obama to stop his military violence. Maybe we should give AA sobriety chips in advance to alcoholics, as long as we feel they have good intentions of course. So, don’t be so negative and cynical! It could encourage them to stop drinking, it’s worth a try! Maybe the class troublemaker deserves a gold star for “best behaved student,” and maybe, just maybe, Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

The flags of Israel and Palestine with photos of an armed Israeli soldier and an angry youth. Photo Illustration by Kurt Strazdins / MCT

The “two-state solution” seems like a fair way to solve the problem in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestine. The Israel Lobby (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas all back it so what could be the problem?

Israel gets their state and Palestinians get Palestine. Problem solved, right? Unfortunately, a fair “solution” for a Palestinian state has never and will never be offered by Israel. There is only one fair solution at this late stage with Israelis and Palestinians more intertwined than ever. Separation is not an option. The only answer is full human rights for all Israelis and Palestinians in one secular and democratic state.

The first “two-state solution” was United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. Under the diplomatic cover of the UN, White Western Europe and the US decided to carve up indigenous Arab land, which wasn’t theirs to give away. Israel has benefited from being a colonial settler state from the get go.

Fifty-five percent of Palestine was “given” to the Jewish State even though Jews owned only 8 percent of the land at the time. The “Arab State” would get 42 percent even though they owned 92 percent of the land. Jerusalem was to be shared 50/50, as an international city.

Contrary to popular lies, it wasn’t an empty land. Palestine was a historic civilization; here villages are hundreds if not thousands of years old. Many Palestinian towns were in the process of modernizing. Villages were shared by Christians and Muslims, schools added foreign language courses for children, and sophisticated plumbing and irrigation systems were newly added. Tragically, this beautiful civilization was destroyed. Palestine would soon be lost forever.

The injustice of “partitioning” away over half their land was apparent to the Palestinians; they summarily turned down the offer. Can you blame them? Who would willingly give up more than half of their country? David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, organized a secret group called The Consultancy, whose Plan Dalet was the blueprint for Ethnic Cleansing. The founder of the State of Israel foreshadowed what was to come, “We must expel Arabs and take their places.”

This “expelling of Arabs” was the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and is remembered as the Nakba (Arabic meaning catastrophe or disaster). In all, approximately 800,000 Palestinians were forced from their country by psychological torture, brute military force, random terrorist attacks, biological warfare, and ultimately wanton civilian massacres such as the one seen in Deir Yassin. In what could be seen as the perfect metaphor, the Palestinian village of Khayriyya (Arabic for “The Blessing of the Land) was demolished and in its place, the garbage dump for Tel Aviv was built. Approximately 13 towns and 419 villages were ethnically cleansed so Jewish Zionists could “take their places.”

In response to the refugee crisis, the UN passed Resolution 194 in December 1948. It guaranteed the right of all the refugees of Palestine to return to their homes at the earliest possible date. This “right of return,” for the approximately 800,000 refugees and their descendents is sacred, absolute, and non-negotiable.

The second attempt at a “two-state solution” was in 1949. The UN’s Palestine Conciliation Commission made the unconditional return of all refugees, along with a 50/50 split of Palestine, the conditions for peace. According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, everyone accepted this as a fair solution, “The US, the UN, the Arab world, the Palestinians, and Israel’s foreign minister.” So who prevented peace? Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion and King Abdullah of Jordan had other plans to divide Palestine between them.

In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining 22 percent of Palestine they didn’t cleanse the first time around (The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip). Forty-two years later this now amounts to the longest military occupation in modern human history. Israel almost immediately started building colonies on this occupied land. Currently, there are almost 500,000 Israeli settlers living in illegal colonies in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Every last one of these settlements is a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states an occupying power cannot transfer its population into an occupied territory.

The occupation continues, and the Palestinians are barely clinging to life. You may hear a lot of talk on the news about Obama’s demand for an Israeli “settlement freeze.” But this plea for Israel to put an end to the colonization of Palestine is nothing new.

Israel’s participation in 2003’s Road Map for Peace required Israel to “dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001” and to “freeze all settlement activity.” Since the occupation began in 1967, and President Lyndon Johnson called settlements “an obstacle to peace,” every US administration has subsequently denounced settlements.

If Israel knows the US offers only empty threats, why would they stop their takeover of Palestine? Are Jim Crow-style, Jewish-only villages and roads, and hundreds of humiliating checkpoints the way to peace?

Isn’t a “two-state solution” nothing more than segregation all over again? It seems like it’s a terribly racist thing to say, “These people can’t possibly live together; they have to be separated (equally).” The two-state solution is nothing more than “separate but equal” on a grand scale.

“Supporters of Israel” advocate a racially and religiously pure state for them and them alone. I hear talk of establishment of a Palestinian state, and a “democratic Jewish state.” Could America be a democracy for an African-American minority if we were officially a “White Christian Nation”? Of course not. So, why is segregation glorified in the Holy Land?

Stay tuned for Part two: Israel and Palestine already live in one state. Let’s make it official (and fair).

The fake controversy of the week: The president giving a speech to children telling them to work hard and stay in school.  Next week the Republicans protest Flintstones Vitamins as a subversive influence on our children.

The real issue here is race.  White racists don’t want a black man talking to their children.  Such racists still haven’t accepted a black man as their president.

Think about the signs at the town hall riots and tea bag marches: “I want my country back!” and “Where’s the birth certificate?”  Let’s take a look back at some of the smears thrown his way.  The first caricature of Obama was that of a strange, foreign, and possibly gay man who eats arugula from Whole Foods, sucks at bowling, and just isn’t “black enough.”

The next was of a militant, black nationalist, terrorist.  The tape of Reverend Jeremiah Wright shouting, “God Damn America” ran nonstop on cable news.  Sarah Palin said he “pals around with terrorists.”

Shockingly, the right wing found a way to denigrate and dehumanize Muslim and Arab-Americans.  It turned out Obama had a… (gasp!) Palestinian-American friend, Rashid Khalidi.  He’s the HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said”Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University”Columbia University.  In other words: a terrorist.  Hide the children honey, we’re about to get suicide bombed!

Thus began the “secret Muslim” phase.  Apparently this smear stuck, as there are still plenty of comments about Obama being an “Indonesian Muslim socialist” to go around.  Finally, I’m sure we’re all clear on the “Obama is a socialist” storyline.

Conversely, “Liberals” and Democrats deify Obama and think of him as a savior with secret plans we’re just too ignorant to understand.  He’s a good guy who wants to do the right thing.  When the U.S. military bombs and kills in three Muslim countries (at last count), it’s not because Obama’s pro-war.

The War Supplemental bills aren’t to fund three wars, they’re to bring the troops home.  He’s “secretly” for peace.  Plus, he’s only been in office 6 months.  Would you just be patient and stop ruining the fun!?

The excuses for this behavior are propagated by an elite public relations team.  It’s an army of Obama “Yes We Did!” T-shirt wearing, fair-skinned, cigarette-smoking, Starbucks soy latte drinking groupies.  There are other Obama apologists; this species just happens to be the most common and uniquely deluded of the bunch.

To these deluded souls, change happens from the heroic crusader at the top (who bravely commands the American Empire), not from a grassroots social movement from the bottom up.  It’s also better not to criticize President Change, even when he does the exact same things we criticized Bush for doing.

Obama has a “D” next to his name.  When the U.S. military bombs the hell out of a wedding party in Afghanistan, the grieving parents are grateful their children could die for savior Obama’s “war of necessity.”

During the Bush years, such parents would have been furious, desperate and joined the Taliban to exact revenge.  But, bombs filled with Obama’s special brand of hope and change kill children ever so softly and charismatically.

I don’t know if the bizarre fantasies of the right or the left are more far-fetched.  When will an accurate assessment of the man come into play?  He’s a centrist.  He does his job as an American president.  He corrects the excesses of the previous administration.  He gives just enough hope to just enough interest groups to maintain the legitimacy of the American system of government and keep the masses from rising up in revolution.

He’s made lovely speeches that made me feel butterflies in my tummy, but his policies (when separated from his pretty speeches) are basically the same.  Name one that’s different.  Not a speech, not a “plan”, but something he’s actually done.

Criticizing “your guy” is OK, in fact it’s a positive thing.  Criticizing something in the process of making it improve is what healthy adults do.  Needing to preserve your delusional crush / fantasy about Obama by making ridiculous excuses for his behavior is just childish.

“You Lie” was based on Obama reassuring the public that his plan wouldn’t help those who are “here illegally.”  This congressman was saying Obama was lying and the plan would cover “illegals.”  Liberals like to say, “health care is a human right, not a privilege.”  Either Obama thinks “illegals” aren’t human beings; or health care isn’t actually a human right; but a privilege to be earned.

I really don’t give a damn about the “sanctity” of “the office.”  I hope there are more “You Lie” outbursts, because he was right.  Obama is a liar, and hope and change are crappy marketing slogans.

Illustration of a mom and dad filling a giant piggy bank with bags of money while their young daughter plays and university towers stand in the background. Photo Illustration by John Roberge

If you think school cuts in a tough economy are inevitable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  People need to educate themselves on the reality of the California budget, not just trust what Chancellor Reed or President Koester write in press releases.

There’s a major problem which drains money from the budget every year.  It’s welfare.  Yes, welfare in California is a major problem.  We have a bunch of lazy, good for nothing welfare recipients, doing nothing but sitting on their butts and collecting money off the rest of our hard work.  These welfare leaches keep living their irresponsible lifestyle, because they know the government is going to take care of them no matter how badly they do.

You might think I’m referring to a poster child for welfare campaigns, but I’m not.  I’m talking about the richest among us.  I’m talking about a different kind of welfare.  It’s called Corporate Welfare or Pork Barrel Spending.

According to the California Labor Federation (representing manufacturing, health care, and retail workers), California gives away 50 BILLION DOLLARS to individuals and wealthy corporations.  Money talks right?

How does this happen?  Well, these well-connected folks have the money to hire what’s called lobbyists.  These lobbyists are paid to go up to Sacramento to meet with the Governor, State Senators and Assemblymen.  Their job is to get our “elected representatives” to give preferential treatment to their powerful clients, in exchange for providing money to the politician for their next reelection campaign.

So, in an otherwise ordinary bill, a Senator writes in a loophole saying something like that rich individual or business is exempt from paying taxes that year.  This legal form of bribery and routine corruption costs the state billions that would otherwise pay for things like schools.

One such loophole is the ability for enormous multinational corporations to hide their profits in offshore tax havens in places like the Cayman Islands.  The budget shortfall of the entire CSU system for 2009-10 is $584 million.  The tax shelter loophole alone costs the state $700 million, so repealing even part of that would allow ZERO cuts to classes and ZERO furlough days for our hard working teachers.

What are our priorities in this state? Should all of my professors on the first day of class have to explain to us why we’re just going to be learning less this semester?  I asked one professor if we’re responsible to cover the material we miss, on the days she’s furloughed, on our own.

“No.  We’re not allowed to makeup anything from furlough days.  We will probably just cut entire sections.”

“So, we’re just going to be learning less?”

“Yes.”

“That’s depressing.”

The idea that forced unpaid absences for teachers is necessary, in the tenth richest economy in the world, in the richest country in the world, is a lie and a disgrace.

It’s not as if funding schools is some sort of far left bleeding heart charity cause, it’s critically important to California’s economy.  According to the CSU website, CSUN generates a total impact of $903 million for the regional economy.

But, if we keep destroying CSUN through budget cuts and furloughs, this isn’t going to be the case for long.  Do we really wonder why our society keeps getting dumber and dumber?

It’s no mystery why America is falling behind the rest of the world in Math, Science, and Reading scores.  It’s because we care more about the profits of Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart than about making sure our young people have a chance at a decent job and a decent life.

Closing these tax loopholes is not “raising taxes on the rich” and it’s not “socialism”.  If we enforce what the laws are supposed to be, and do away with these “get out of paying taxes” permission slips for the wealthiest among us (that need them the least), a budget cut at CSUN would be a thing of the past.

In fact, if we closed these loopholes, we could probably make college free or close to it.  Education is a human right, not just for those who can afford it.  Wow…what a concept.  There’s another perfectly adequate solution on the table, which of course the Governor is against.

Assembly Bill 656 would levy a 9.9% severance tax on oil and gas companies extracting oil and natural gas from California, and its territorial waters.  Currently, California is the only oil-producing state without such a tax on oil companies.  Alaska’s tax stands at 25%.  Texas maintains an endowment for its higher education system with an oil severance tax, thus the schools are not subjected to annual fear of cuts.  It would raise $270 million for the CSU system.

The lie that the state would lose jobs if such a tax were enacted is easily countered with the fact that the oil is here whether they like it or not.  So, if they want our resources, they have to pay to get them.

Apparently, protecting oil company profits is a more worthy endeavor than protecting the jobs of teachers, and educating the community.

Get used to using the following words: corruption, liar, rip off, betrayal.  The time for polite discourse is over.

California State University Chancellor Charles B. Reed, left, and AT&T California President Ken McNeely speak to Valley High School students outside the CSU’s Road to College bus at Valley High School in Sacramento, Calif. Wednesday morning, Sept. 10. Photo by Steve McKay

Everyone is upset at CSUN over the recent difficulty getting classes, delayed graduations, fee hikes and teacher furloughs.  Unfortunately, not enough of us are asking WHY this is happening.

Some of our trusted servants running the CSU system, the ones supposed to be looking out for us, would rather line their own pockets at our expense.  One such example is CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed, who is morphing before our eyes into Chancellor Bernie Madoff.

The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans was held at the Orange Grove Bistro last Wednesday.  According to Yazmin Cruz’s Daily Sundial article, this initiative started at CSUN in 1990.  Our Latino students have subsequently had higher than expected graduation rates.

Many of the Latino students  were from Students for Quality Education (SQE).  Over a dozen of them held signs saying things like “Stop Raising My Tuition”.  Executive Director of the program Juan Sepulveda, and CSUN President Jolene Koester were both there to take the heat.  But, Chancellor Reed couldn’t make it.
This was a golden opportunity for him to lobby a representative of the Obama White House for emergency funds for our schools.  I wonder what he was doing that was more important than showing up to support these outstanding students.  He was probably too busy kickin’ it in his jammies watching Family Guy.

Reed didn’t comment for Cruz’s article.  I think it’s logical to assume he didn’t want to deal with SQE’s anger he’s reaped by the tuition hikes and enrollment cuts he has sown.  What a slap in the face.

Chancellor Reed has no problem enjoying his $424,548 a year salary which you and I pay for, yet he can’t seem to handle some struggling students protesting education cuts which endanger their futures.  This kind of two-faced hypocrisy is nothing new for the Chancellor, however.

According to Jim Doyle’s July 6th San Francisco Chronicle article, in 2006 Reed really broke the bank.  Our faithful public servant gave golden parachutes of “millions of dollars in extra compensation to campus presidents and other top executives as they left their posts.”  AIG style taxpayer funded executive bonuses, nice!

Chancellor Madoff is trying to turn the CSU into a Ponzi Scheme, simply to enrich his fellow executives in the system.  If anyone deserves a bonus, it’s our hard working professors and janitorial staff right here at Cal State Northridge.

Nicole Wilcox’s September 24, 2007 Sundial piece, describes Reed’s George W. Bush style jack move in approving more executive salary increases for the CSU Presidents.  This time they were for an average of 11.8%.  He then put on his sad face and announced a 10% student fee hike for 2008-09.

In November of 2008 Reed tried to make it into the pages of the Wall Street Journal by tossing around taxpayer money to the CSU Vice Presidents.  Merrill Balassone’s Modesto Bee article details the pay raises of “up to 19 percent” for nine vice presidents at four campuses.

Then, came one of the most startling examples of how out of touch Chancellor Madoff is with the reality of the pain and struggle the students go through.  Also in 2008, he approved the appointments of 11 new Vice Presidents…with starting salaries of up to $225,000 a year.  Simultaneously, he announced an admissions cut of 10,000 students for 2009-10.  Maybe it’s time for an executive hiring/bonus freeze?  I’m starting to wonder if Charles B. Reed is the Chancellor of the CSU or the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Doyle’s article also describes how Chancellor Reed’s office retains high price lobbyists hired in Halliburton style no bid contracts.  The total cost has been $2 million in taxpayer funds over his 10 years in office.  The CSU already retains a $1.1 million “in-house lobbying unit” he’s supposed to be using.  What’s going on here?
What was he paying Capitol Advocacy LLC and Sloat Higgins Jensen & Associates to lobby for, besides funding for financial aid?  Ask Trent Hager.

He’s the chief of staff for Assemblyman Anthony Portantino of La Canada Flintridge.  Hager told the Chronicle the CSU “paid the lobbying firms in 2007 to derail his boss’ bill aimed at full disclosure of CSU salaries”.  “They got it sidetracked and killed,” he said.

That’s like making someone pay in advance for the bullet that’s going to kill them… that’s just bad taste.

Correction:

Well, here’s another stupid AP article:

http://tinyurl.com/ng8sez

Interrogation probe steams those on right and left

Without reading past the title, the basic assumption here is that the prosecution of torture is a Right vs. Left issue.  In other words, the vindictive Left Wing wants to exact REVENGE! on Bush and his cronies, and the Right Wing has the far more valid “opinion” which is “When you investigate American torture, you’re siding with the terrorists!”

“Agency interrogators once threatened to kill a Sept. 11 suspect’s children and suggested another would be forced to watch his mother be sexually assaulted.”

Absolutely lovely.  I love how they include the part “Sept. 11 suspect” as if to dull the impact of the horrendous shit we did.  After all this time with Guantanamo Bay, our very own torture chamber staying open, how can anyone take anything the government says about “terrorists” seriously?

We were lied to about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Iran is still allowing International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in its nuclear energy sites yet we’re told they are going to “bomb Israel”, and the lies just go on and on.

This is my favorite part:

“President Barack Obama has said interrogators would not face charges if they followed legal guidelines.”

The President is offering universal, categorical amnesty to war criminals as long as they were “just following orders”.  Isn’t this is the Nuremberg Defense the Nazis used which was deemed inadequate as a defense, and specifically included in the Nuremberg Principles, which the US signed onto?

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Nuremberg Principle IV

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Supremacy Clause, US Constitution

In other words: any treaty the US signs (as we did the Nuremberg Principles) automatically becomes part of the US Constitution, therefore following what we signed onto is not only the right thing to do, not doing so is unconstitutional and criminal.

And one of the few Senators who actually believes in following the law:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said the Justice Department inquiry doesn’t go far enough.

“The abuses that were officially sanctioned amounted to torture and those at the very top who authorized, ordered or sought to provide legal cover for them should be held accountable,” Feingold said in a statement issued late Monday.”

Yes, the Republicans have the right idea…this isn’t something I find myself saying very often, but here goes…

I just read an editorial from Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize Winning Economist, Writer for the New York Times) about the health care debates going on in the country:

There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion…That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls…congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.

So, aging liberal hippies think it’s OK to burn draft cards to protest the Vietnam War…but when it comes to health care policy we need to emulate old Norman Rockwell paintings?

These protesters are being told they’re “un-american” and wrong. Actually, in the land of the stupid and home of the ignorant, these types of stunts are the only things that work.

In the country with the stupidest politics in all the land, it’s important to find simple tactics which appeal to the doped up on cable news, brainwashed masses.

Maybe the crowds are managed and organized by front groups for corporate interests (http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/2009/08/07/the-decay-of-the-healthcare-debate-astroturfing-and-manchurian-provocateurs/), but it’s irrelevant.

Certainly, the Republican Party manipulating populist anger for corporate gains is nothing new, but it’s irrelevant if they’re wrong.

Their tactics work.  Republicans have suffered stunning defeat after landslide loss the past 3 years, yet somehow they have complete control over the agenda.

Liberals or even worse “Democrats”  never hold their elected officials accountable.  When politicians don’t do what liberals want them to do, they make excuses for them. They live in an alternate reality where Obama has a master plan, and if you just trust him and love him unconditionally, we’ll all be ok in the end.

A most egregious recent example is from this month’s Rolling Stone magazine with Michael Moore. He has developed an almost pathological capacity to find a way to justify every Obama betrayal. He says, “Obama fakes right, and goes left”.

Sorry Mike, I loved Sicko and all, but where is this “left turn”? So far, I haven’t seen it.

The Democrats control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and they have the support of the country on most of their issues they ran on.  So, let’s all be grown ups and face it. 

Obama is not a liberal. If he was he would have kept his promises to: overturn don’t ask don’t tell in the military, vote against immunity for the Telecoms that spied on us illegally, brought transparency and real accountability and reform to the banks and the bailout process, and closed Guantanamo Bay.

This is why I have more respect for Republicans.  At least they have principles.  The Republicans know what they stand for.  They are against government, and they are for the rich, period.

Even if the Republicans are stupid and wrong, at least they are consistently stupid and wrong according to their stupid, wrong principles.

Liberals, at least most “Obama supporters” don’t have actual principles.  They have a cult of personality.

Instead of coming to terms with the fact that they believed the Obama hype, and got shit on by the Democrats as usual; they would rather wear an Obama T Shirt that says “Yes We Did” because Obama makes them feel gooey in their private spots.

The bottom line is we can learn a lot from their example.  Grassroots action is what it takes to make change.  This is why liberals and Democrats lose.  It’s because we think we can just speak logically, and we will convince people of our position.  Republicans don’t care about convincing anyone.  They care about getting the job done.

So, what are we waiting for? Why aren’t we harassing congressmen who oppose health reform? Why aren’t we making death threats to Blue Dog Democrats?

If that’s what it takes to save thousands if not millions of lives, then so be it!

If liberals or Democrats fought like this maybe we would get some of our policies through.

Why aren’t we burning and/or hanging effigies of Obama to get him to do what we want him to do!?

So, here’s an idea. Let’s get angry, organized, and active.

Lighter fluid for the first effigy is on me.