On Nov. 5, Trish Regan, the anchor for CNBC’s ‘The Call,’ reported that some Wall Street firms had received significant doses of H1N1 vaccines.
Goldman Sachs reportedly received 200 doses, and Citigroup received 1,200 doses.

“I’m six weeks away from delivering twins, and I couldn’t get the H1N1 vaccine from my obstetrician or the hospital where I plan to deliver,” said Regan. “Eventually, I did get the vaccine, but it was not through conventional means.”

On  Nov. 1, Army Maj. James Crabtree, a spokesman for the Guantanamo jail facility, said that doses of H1N1 vaccine should be arriving this month for guards first and then inmates.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that the group at highest risk for H1N1 flu is pregnant women. Some pregnant women have died in childbirth from H1N1. There is something askew with our priorities if stock brokers and terrorists get the H1N1 vaccine before a pregnant mother with twins.

President Obama declared H1N1 flu a “national emergency” on Oct. 24. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, chief medical editor for NBC News, said that we think of a “national emergency” like Hurricane Katrina. The sound of “national emergency” tends to make the outbreak sound more urgent than it is. She said that actually, the “national emergency” was declared so that emergency rooms all over the country could diagnose and treat H1N1 flu beyond the local hospital campuses.

There is so much confusion between seasonal flu and H1N1 flu. Seasonal flu symptoms are fever, cough, sore throat, headache, body aches, chills and fatigue. H1N1 flu has the same symptoms but are more severe.

Seasonal flu affects infants and children and people over 65. People between 20 and 60 years of age are the most affected group, with the highest risk being pregnant women.

The seasonal flu vaccine was available in early October, while H1N1 flu vaccine became available in early November. People over 65 may not need the H1N1 vaccine, but it’s available. They may need the seasonal flu vaccine, but it is less available.

Both seasonal flu and H1N1 flu vaccines seem to be coming in spurts, a little here and a lot there. The Wall Street Journal reported  Nov. 8, “The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urged health officials around the country to ensure swine flu is getting to high risk groups, after criticism erupted over distribution to some Wall Street firms…but criticism of the move showed how much tension has emerged as thousands of children and others considered at high risk of complications have waited hours in line to be inoculated.”

“There will be more than enough doses of the H1N1 in the United States…there will be plenty of vaccine for everyone who wants it,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Sept. 24. We are now into November, scrambling for priority in vaccine distribution.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was on a trip to Europe and the Middle East when she spoke  Nov. 8, from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. She was more concerned about the possible backlash against Muslims in the U.S. because of the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas than she was of the inequitable distribution of H1N1 flu vaccine, which she never even mentioned.

This is a good run through. So far, the H1N1 epidemic is not out of control, but the distribution of vaccine is close to being out of control with its unfair distribution.
It causes one to wonder how we would handle a “national disaster” if this is the way we handle a “national emergency.”

There are approximately 308 million people in the U.S. How we care for them and offer them help in a time of crisis is very important. Our mechanism for distributing help to 308 million people needs to be as well-oiled as it can be, and I don’t mean by fossil fuel.

Whether we are distributing medicine or food, we have to be more organized. We have to be more efficient. We saw glimpses of our modern organization in the last election with the utilization of the Internet.

We need to be as well-organized in our distribution as we are in our communication. At this time in our history, whether terrorists are imprisoned here or not, we have to be able to dispense goods and services equitably to all of our people in a short amount of time.

Meg Whitman is the best candidate for governor in California. Whitman believes in better education, cutting spending by reducing the number of government workers, no more tax raises and promises to cut taxes for small business owners so they can expand.

Whitman is smart (having graduated from Princeton and Harvard), driven, tough and has an excellent record of making things happen. She led eBay from 1998 to 2008, and according to Whitman’s Web site, she helped the company grow from 30 employees and a little more than $4 million in revenue to more than 15,000 employees and nearly $8 billion in revenue, with a network of 12 million users in California alone. Under Whitman’s leadership, eBay expanded globally and developed a culture and infrastructure that turned the company into an unparalleled business success story.

Whitman has the experience, the dedication and the drive to save California from furthering itself into higher deficit. We need someone who will not crawl into a little ball or give in to Sacramento, but instead stand up for Californians wants and needs. Gov. Schwarzenegger broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes. With this kind of economy, Schwarzenegger still has the heart to raise taxes. Californians are losing their jobs and homes left and right. Has he lost his mind?

Whitman, on the other hand, has signed a taxpayer protection pledge promising not to raise taxes. According to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, “By signing the Pledge, Whitman makes clear that if elected she will stand up for taxpayers and not the tenured bureaucrats, coercive utopians, and union bosses that currently run Sacramento. In a state with one of the highest tax burdens in the country, a dismal business tax climate, rampant overspending, and a government that is so costly that Californians had to work 235 days this year, well over half the year, just to pay for it, higher taxes should be a non-starter for all elected officials and candidates. In signing the Pledge, Whitman has made clear that she recognizes this.”

I am so tired of empty promises, higher taxes, higher registration fees and underfunded education.  I am sure many students like myself are tired and frustrated with the state cutting back on education spending. Don’t they understand we are the future of America? Students are piled into overcrowded classrooms. Tuition and parking continue to rise every year, and students are being turned down left and right because there isn’t enough adequate space for them.

According to Whitman’s Web site, she plans to set up a grading system for our schools that go from A to F, so parents can easily go online and determine how well their children’s schools are performing. This in turn, gives parents the ability to move their children out of failing schools and into better ones. She also plans to reward outstanding teachers, including those in the key areas of math and science. I believe this creates more drive and competition to perform better in schools. After all, what’s the point of success when you’re not getting rewarded and most importantly a raise?

California has increased spending, but things around here haven’t been better. I drive around every day and still notice the same big potholes on the freeways and roads that were around since last year. The freeways have little to no landscaping and there is always so much garbage in the emergency lanes. I’ve seen mattresses, basketballs, a baby stroller, and couches since the beginning of this year.

Whitman states on her Web site, “California politicians need a new attitude when it comes to government spending. The cost of California government has grown an amazing 80 percent over the past ten years, but is government serving the people 80 percent better? Are California’s schools and roads 80 percent better than they were a decade ago? For 30 years in business, I was held accountable to meet the bottom line.”

Whitman is in tune with the future and needs of California. We need better roads, schools and government.

With her strength and toughness, she can save California.

Vote for Meg Whitman for governor of California in 2010.

Marijuana legalization is an issue that has been present in California politics for years. Just now, however, it is coming to a head, as the possibility of its full legalization looms before us in 2010.

Until recently, those politicians who outwardly supported marijuana legalization have been ignored or even discounted as “potheads” who then faded into obscurity. Three hundred thousand signatures have been gathered in the last month alone, however, which means that the legislation could easily be on the November 2010 ballot for all of California’s voters to decide on.

Though still illegal federally, medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, and President Obama recently declared federal raids on legal state cannabis dispensaries unlawful. On the heels of this declaration and the increasing acceptance of marijuana use by the general California public, there is now developing legislation that could fully legalize cannabis in California. Some reports state that this legalization could mean selling it at liquor stores to those 21 and over, but there is nothing definite as of yet.

When used medically, marijuana boasts a number of significant benefits, such as giving cancer patients a renewed appetite, curing insomnia, reducing anxiety, and relieving chronic pain. Having recognized these benefits, 56 percent of those who voted on Proposition 215 (which eventually legalized medical marijuana) opted to decriminalize the drug.

Following the limited legalization of cannabis, it cannot be denied that California’s relatively lax stand on the drug was taken advantage of. We all know one or two or 10 people who have medical marijuana cards who aren’t actually in medical need of it, and some of us know people who have entered or even worked in a clinic without proper authorization. This could indicate to some that fully legalizing marijuana would be disadvantageous, spurning a lazy and dissociated population.

It is beneficial, however, to recognize the facts in the situation before forming an opinion.

Already earning California about $14 billion a year, it has been estimated that legalizing marijuana could generate anywhere between $1.5 and $4 billion (from taxing the drug) in revenue for California, a boost that we most undeniably need.

Additionally, our country as a whole spends $68 billion a year on its prisoners, one-third of which are imprisoned for nonviolent drug crimes. About half of these criminals are marijuana offenders, which means one-sixth of our country’s prisoners are in jail for marijuana-related charges. Legalizing the drug would mean spending $11.3 billion less a year on prisons (that’s your tax money).

Monetary gain is not the only advantage to marijuana being legalized, however. It is important to understand the medical benefits of the drug, even if it is already lawful when used with a prescription. Marijuana, unlike most other legal drugs, is not physically addictive. It can be argued that it is psychologically addictive, of course, just as substances like food are addictive. There is a difference, though, between food and marijuana. When used incorrectly, food is much worse for a person’s health than cannabis is.

The abuse of food intake is directly linked to more than half of the top 10 leading causes of death in our country—the same cannot be said of marijuana. The total death toll of those users and abusers of cannabis: zero. Contrary to popular belief, evidence shows that smoking marijuana does not actually lead to health problems like cancer and heart disease. Of course it is not harmless, as prolonged usage (more than 15 years at more than one marijuana cigarette a day) can possibly increase risks of damage, although it is not entirely clear of what exactly that damage could be.

Among its other legal drug counterparts, marijuana is by far the least physically harmful. Cigarettes, alcohol, prescription painkillers, and even sleep aids are all highly addictive, and all can lead to death. Even Tylenol is so damaging that Vicodin and Percocet are being considered to be illegalized because of the Tylenol, not the opiates, in them. So I must ask, why is there such opposition to a drug whose primary use is to alleviate symptoms of the ill, when many other legal drugs only contribute to or even cause those symptoms?

It is a social standard. Because marijuana has been socially unacceptable in our country for so long, many are not ready to accept its legalization. We must attempt to overcome these social blocks, however, so we can see the substantially beneficial properties of marijuana.

To combat those who argue that our country will be walking zombies in the wake of marijuana legalization, I say this: If a person has not already chosen to partake in smoking marijuana, it is highly unlikely that they will do so simply because they cannot be arrested for it. In California especially, the legal system is already quite flexible on marijuana use. If found with small amounts of the drug, one will almost never be arrested unless another, more serious, crime is also committed.

It is not a difficult drug to locate—those who will choose to smoke legally, already do so illegally. Legalizing the drug would only serve to increase California’s income, downsize crime, and benefit the mood of already recreational and medical users.

In an unprecedented move, it was announced recently that the Obama administration would cut the salaries of 25 top executives of the seven largest banking firms in the country. For a presidential administration to propose wage control on a major company is a slippery slope toward government control.

It’s an insult to the free market system. Wage control should not be government-driven, but market-driven. If the company loses money, then the wages should be cut naturally, because there isn’t enough money in the company to sustain the large salaries, but for the government to tell a company what they can pay or not pay frankly is none of the their business.

I know these are unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures. Last year was the worst financial year since the Great Depression, and the federal government took the unprecedented steps of bailing out the seven largest banking systems with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $700 billion.

With so much money riding on the line, it is prudent for the executive branch to keep a sharp eye on the seven companies in question, and it could be done with transparency by embarrassing the seven companies by revealing to the public their exorbitant salaries and bonuses. The government has done this, but to tell them how to run their businesses is just a little too much government interference.

When we allow our government to trample on our freedom for our protection and security, then we are giving up part of our freedom that may never be returned. When we allow our government to tell us how much to pay our employees, no matter how exorbitantly the employees may be charging, then we are giving them a part of our freedom to run our own companies.

In March 2009, the Obama administration, as part of its bailout of the auto industry, ushered CEO Rich Wagoner of General Motors (GM) out of the building and replaced him with board member Fritz Henderson. Talk about regime change.

What business is it of the federal government to tell a company who their top executive should be? Again, these were unprecedented times, which called for unprecedented measures, but how much government interference is too much? When we allow the government to tell us who the CEO of our company should be, then we are giving up our freedom to choose or elect our executives.

In 2002, George W. Bush decided that Palestine needed regime change and said that Yassar Arafat was an obstacle to negotiations and that new leadership was crucial for the creation of a provisional state in Palestine. Again, what business was this of his? Arafat was an obstacle to negotiations and an obstacle to peace, but we had no business telling the Palestinian people who they should elect or not elect as their leader.

When Bush decided that Iraq needed regime change and Saddam Hussein was hunted and brought to trial, what business was it of ours? Hussein was a ruthless leader who had his own people killed and was in total control of his government, but what business was it of ours to go into a foreign country and kick out their leader?

After the disaster of Sept. 11, the Patriot Act was enacted by the U.S. government to protect us from terrorists who take advantage of our electronics, such as telephones, the Internet or any other form of electronics that could be used and abused by terrorists. We gave up some of our rights to privacy so that the government could seek out terrorists.

With the writ of habeas corpus, an American citizen cannot be detained unless they are brought before a judge and proof is shown that this citizen is a threat to society. Proof must be shown within a timely manner, or the detainee must be released. That is our protection under the law, and that is law of the Geneva Convention. Since the members of Al-Qaeda were not citizens of any particular country, George W. Bush’s friend and personal attorney, Alberto Gonzalez interpreted the law to mean that since the detainees had no formal country, they also had no rights either.

Some were kept in Guantanamo prison for eight years with no hearing, no proof and no freedom. What a good example we are setting for the rest of the world for American law and American human rights.
With the recent organizational changes of General Motors and the current pay cuts of banking firms, we are now seeing the government gain more control. With the Patriot Act, we are seeing our freedom of privacy being given up to the government for our protection against terrorists.

When we allow our government to protect us from financial insecurity or protect us from foreign terrorists, we are giving up our personal freedoms which may not be returned in the future. It’s time to take responsibility for ourselves, to check our financial institutions for their integrity, to run our businesses wisely and well, so that government intervention is not needed to set us on the right track.

Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote for the Senate Finance Committee’s bill on health care. Could she be the hope for bipartisanship, and for the party of no?

With its constant obstructionist votes, the Republican Party has become known as the party of no, rejecting every issue which President Obama has raised. In his quest for bi-partisanship he has been met with nothing but opposition from the Republican Party.  Suddenly, there is a breath of fresh air, Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who voted yes for the Max Baucu $829 billion health care bill. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

“I think that if we can work continuously together looking at the issues having an honest discussion about the issues and what works, what doesn’t work, that’s what it’s going to take,” said Snowe when asked about bipartisanship by Charlie Gibson in a recent interview.

Orphaned at nine years old and widowed at 26, Olympia Snowe has a certain sensitivity to life’s problems that most senators and/or most Republicans don’t possess. Although widowed in 1973, she remarried in 1989 to then Governor John McKiernan of Maine. The youngest Republican woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, she was the first woman to have served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. In her 35 years as an elected official, she has never lost an election. She supports legalized abortion and gay rights, but also supports the death penalty and gun control following the Columbine High School shooting in 1999.

The Republican Party has been so resistant to change.  No matter what Obama brings up, they are opposed to it. He ran on reforming the health care system, but the Republican Party wants no part of his health care reform. In his first day in office, Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay prison by year’s end. Republicans have done nothing but complain about where the prisoners are going to go, and certainly not in Republican neighborhoods.

The economy is showing signs of turning around, but Republicans focus on the high unemployment rate and the sluggish housing market.

The war in Iraq is winding down, but Republicans charge that we haven’t done enough nation building.

Obama has improved relations with Russia, helping to pressure Iran into an open international inspection of secret nuclear facilities. Republicans complained that we were negotiating with terrorists.

After polling 24 countries, the Pew Research Center, showed the improved image of the U.S. in most parts of the world, reflecting a new global confidence in Barack Obama.  The Republicans only pointed to not wanting any part of Europe or it’s socialized medicine.

Even with Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Republicans criticized that it was too much too soon.

It’s time for there to be a voice of reason from the Republican Party, a voice like Olympia Snowe.

Although Snowe is considered liberal on social issues, she is more conservative on defense and fiscal issues. An advocate of stem cell research and pro-choice, she is a hawk on foreign affairs, supporting Clinton’s involvement in Kosovo and Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but she opposed the Bush tax cuts of 2003.

She has been a strong supporter of the Obama administration, particularly the TARP funds and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She has also pledged to work in bipartisan manner on the issues of health care reform and energy.

With Sarah Palin becoming such a disappointing candidate, it is time for the Republican Party to look for more of a stable female candidate, one that is more in touch with the rest of the country. Having served in the Senate for three terms, Olympia Snowe has more Senate experience than Hillary Clinton. Snowe has fundraising ability too, raising $2.1 million seven months before her election to the Senate in 2006.

It’s time for the Republican Party to choose a leader that is more in touch with the rest of the country, someone who is willing to reach across the aisle and not “just say no” to new ideas.  Since the work force is 50 percent women, it’s time to choose someone who represents 50 percent of the work force.

Snowe is a traditional conservative when it comes to assisting the growth of small business, but liberal on social issues like funding for child care and student loans. She’s a well-rounded person, not chained to the Republican Party line, but independent enough to vote her own conscience.

It’s time for the Republican Party to choose Olympia Snowe as the leader of their party.

Dear Bullfighters,

American society is a mass of adult babies who want the future to spoon-feed them, coddle them, rock them to sleep, and pay their bills. It is time to wake up, children, take out the pacifier, climb out of the crib, rip off the diaper, fling its fecal contents right into the unblinking eye of this blatant façade of a properly functioning educational system, and give it pinkeye.

Soon, in The Game of Life, along the highway during the college years, will have a square that says, “Get robbed blind by well-dressed academic thieves.” After landing in that square, everyone is still in debt at the end of the game. Just like at the end of the highway in that tedious game, when a CSUN student is graduating, where they get to toss their cap off in glee, they will have to stop and ask themselves: After this game, has anything in life actually changed? Maybe CSUN graduates should keep their caps for those cold days standing in line with the 1,000 other applicants applying for one job.

Alternatively, if the degree does not get a CSUN graduate enough pocket money to make it by in the future, remember, there is always something within everyone that the government gladly pays to collect and use: blood plasma.

Jokes aside, the students have power in leadership, expression, and unity, but something about the current grim reality is making CSUN hesitant to act. The feeling is in the air, but the distraction is so much more enticing to remain comfortably numb from the events happening around and to this school.

This epidemic probably far surpasses this campus into a generational and societal outbreak. Apathy is not a cure. In fact, indifference is a far worse punishment for everyone’s future than violent, aggressive reaction or simple civil disobedience.

The solution is for students to become the leaders of their respective schools, organize awareness groups, and plan peaceful demonstrations. Sit-ins are great because protesting can be combined with homework. No one says anybody has to actively do anything besides sit in the dean’s office and get him or her to notice. Plan shifts, make T-shirts and posters, and bring sleeping bags … it could be a long night for the most adamant students. Faculty may even join the efforts.

Is CSUN a civil, obedient, law-abiding student body? Does anyone else feel like the students are on a factory line treadmill slowly moving toward the final educational furnace known as graduation? If it seems that certain freedoms are being denied within the bureaucracy of the school, it’s true. Many who turn to the university for new avenues of success are being blocked. If finding a major has been too difficult, consider a liberal studies degree, because there is no fast track to graduation if a student is undeclared.

New students know that achieving a manageable timetable to experience the full collegiate experience and graduate in comfort is, or will be, a lofty mirage. Super-seniors, now in their scholastic golden years, are not receiving a senior discount at the Sierra Center buffet, let alone finding graduation easy. This university should put the cliché, “it’s my way or the highway,” as the first sentence of their mission statement because that is, literally, CSUN’s encompassing reality.

Viva La Matador,
Quint “Effing” Flint
Disclaimer:  Quint Flint is an actual student at CSUN, who wishes to remain anonymous.  Look to your left, right and behind you.  Anyone can be Quint Flint.

On Friday morning the news was announced that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I felt no anger, excitement or pride. Well, at least not at first. I found myself in a complete state of confusion. The fact that Obama won this amazing international honor was a shock.

The condemning and questioning ensued across media outlets and from pundits. I needed to find some answers myself.

As the President of the United States, Obama finds himself in the middle of some very heated relations and compromising situations.

He aggressively advocates for a nuclear weapons free world and meets with some of the world’s most feared leaders who harbor and test nuclear weapons.

Between Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Venezuela … well to name a few, he has engaged with the leaders of these countries to establish a safe and peaceful relationship with the world. It is far from peaceful, but progress is definitely a word that is no longer alien when discussing the relations with Iran and North Korea. His personal visitations were certainly alien to former President George W. Bush.

America’s image in Europe has been substantially raised since Obama’s inauguration. Relations with Europe in the last decade have been par at best. These are our closest allies in time of need. Obama has worked hard to remind them that we are brothers and have each other’s backs.

Obama believes that he has the confidence to make great change with his personal relations. His personal relations and visitations can transcend the rifts of the past and create a bond that eventually creates trust. It sounds dangerous and hopeless, but Obama’s willingness and risks he takes when visiting the leaders of our “so-called” enemies can be the solvent to miscommunication and reparation.

The Nobel committee chooses a recipient based on the advocacy and efforts to create a strong fraternity between nations. Obama fits this description well.
In any case the last year has been dismal on many global levels. But, the one thing that we do find as a result of Obama’s reach and push for international diplomacy is that it surpasses other leaders around the world.

Today, there aren’t many leaders promoting and advocating for peace. One should take note that Obama is an exception.

He makes great efforts to be ever-present in the name of the global community and instill trust with our neighbors on this planet.

Be proud as he has made great strides. Although we see no tangible results, his advocacy has been well noted.

If anything, he deserves it for his efforts. And yes, he has only been at work for nine months, but has more than three years to implement them and change the history books.

Obama has joined the likes of Nelson Mandela, Yitzakh Rabin and the Dalai Lama.

One might ask how Obama has found himself in the presence of these great peace laureates. His results pale in comparison, but Barack Obama is a persistent man, and certainly can be a repeat recipient if he continues his peaceful, personal missions.

udrgwtav4f

Israel has no partner for peace because the Palestinian leadership hasn’t prepared their people for peace.  Palestinian society has limited access to ideas and information outside of their society, as they are a totalitarian government that limits free speech and expression.  The vast majority of Palestinians cling to the demand of the full return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper, as well as believing that the fight against Israel is not only to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but also to destroy the entire state of Israel, or support a “one-state solution.”

Most people who understand the history of the conflict between these countries will appreciate why Jewish people and Israelis in particular do not rush to embrace solutions that others wish to impose on them. What the final solution sought to impose on the Jews of Europe during World War II, the “one-state solution” advocated will namely be the destruction of Israel as an independent Jewish state.

Here one must look to the past behavior of those proposing the “solution” to discern where the idea, if implemented, is headed. A good place to start would be to become aware of the hate-filled curriculum Palestinian children are indoctrinated with from their earliest age regarding the Israeli state. In 1993, the Oslo Agreements were introduced in Israeli schools.  To promote understanding of the nation’s efforts to achieve peace, the government introduced peace education. Hearts, flowers and doves decorated books about getting along with Arab neighbors. On the Palestinian end, ninth graders study from official textbooks that assert, “Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and therefore one should beware of them.” Jews are cast as satanic, violent and cunning, as “thieving conquerors” who have stolen Arab land and must be fought and defeated. How can Israel promote peace when death and violence are being taught to children in Palestinian schools?

At its heart, the principle of a pro-Western, independent, successful, vibrant, democratic, non-Islamic country in the region is what has motivated all the attempts to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. The recent notion (only since 1967) of their being an independent “Palestinian state” is one of its offshoots. The Arab countries surrounding Israel (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq—650,000 Jews against 40 million Arabs) attacked her on her birth as a modern state in 1948 seeking her destruction. Their actions created a refugee crisis, which they exacerbated by their refusal to accommodate their displaced fellow Arabs.  Instead, they allowed them to fester in refugee camps on the West Bank and Gaza. It is for these individuals that the fictionalized term “Palestinian people” now applies and for which a “Palestinian state” is being sought.

At the end of the day, a one-state solution is calling for the annihilation of Israel.  Due to terrorism and incitement, a two-state solution is the only tenuous possibility for peace.  Israel longs for peace, but as long as Hamas and Fatah rule as feuding nations, hatred is being taught to children in schools and rockets continue to be launched into Israel, national security will continue to remain at the heart of Israel’s decision-making.

Many have speculated that Afghanistan could become this generation’s Vietnam, but it appears the outcome of the  war in Afghanistan will be much different than the Vietnam War. There are many similarities with Afghanistan and Vietnam, but there are many differences too.

Our war with Afghanistan started soon after Sept. 11, 2001, when it was determined that the hijackers who flew into the twin towers of New York, the Pentagon and into the ground in southwestern Pennsylvania were all members of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist, Islamic, multinational, stateless group bent on destroying America and Americans. The headquarters of Al Qaeda was located in Afghanistan. The Taliban were creating a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The Taliban is a group of Islamic fundamentalists, from Afghanistan, who were protecting Al Qaeda.

The word Taliban means student. It is a religious and political group that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001 when its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces. In 2004, a new Taliban insurgency group rose up in guerilla style to attempt to defeat the current elected administration.

The guerillas of the Taliban are similar to the guerillas of the Viet Cong in Vietnam. They were also an insurgent group of local Vietnamese and warlords.

Vietnam had a history of foreign occupation from the French and then from the United States. Afghanistan has a history of foreign occupation from the British in the middle 1800’s, the Russians in the 1980’s and now the United States from 2001 until the present.

Both governments of Vietnam and Afghanistan are rumored to be corrupt and they don’t have the full support of their people.
In both cases, it is said to be asymmetric warfare when a weaker side can successfully exert leverage on a stronger military power. Power is not everything. When a military power goes into a foreign nation, they don’t know all the nooks and crannies of the area. They may have air power, but they don’t have land power. It is very difficult to fight a ground war in someone else’s house. The locals know all the hiding places that the foreign military doesn’t.

The terrain is an important aspect. The terrain in Vietnam was tropical, with rainy seasons and incredible heat and humidity. Afghanistan is rugged with mountains and unpaved roads and extreme climate changes.

It is hard to win the hearts and the minds of the local people if you look like a previous occupier. In Vietnam, the United States looked just like the French, and to the Vietnamese, they were the same. In Afghanistan, the United States looks just like the British and the Russians, there is little difference to the local people.

So much for the similarities, the differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam are that the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda and the war is against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are our sworn enemies. Al Qaeda attacked over 3,000 innocent Americans on our soil. Vietnam never attacked us, we were just there to keep the Communists out of Southeast Asia. We had no vested interest in Vietnam, except perhaps the oil of Sumatra and the rest of Southeast Asia.

As presidential adviser, James Rubin recently stated on MSNBC, “The whole world is on our side in Afghanistan; the whole world was clearly not on our side in Vietnam.”

On Sunday, Sept. 27, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S commander in Afghanistan stated on “60 Minutes” that he is fed up with the way the United States has been fighting the war for the past eight years. McChrystal assumed his current assignment on June 15, 2009. Since that time, he has said that the situation in Afghanistan is a little worse than he thought it was. He said the violence in the north and the west is greater than he expected.

He sent a new directive to his troops in writing that stated, “We must change the way we think, act and operate.

“If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can’t be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically.”

“The only way to win is to earn the support of the people,” McChrystal explained. “Conventional military operations designed to kill the enemy can never win this war. Destroying homes and accidentally killing civilians in the process only creates more insurgents and alienates the population.”

McChrystal then  stated  that “civilian casualties … are literally how we lose the war or in many ways how we win it.”

Although Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, it only has half as many forces as Iraq. McChrystal told “60 Minutes,” that he plans to double the forces to 400,000.

With McChrystal’s understanding of the people of Afghanistan, I think it is possible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and in turn win the war in Afghanistan.

Where does one begin? How many of these anti-Israel rants does the Sundial intend to print year after year after year,  while your ‘Fact-Checker’ rots away like the crypt-master in Manzanita Hall.  Will anyone awaken the ‘Fact-Checker’ from his nightmarish slumber?  Why must your accidental & abashed readers always do it for you?

Glatzer wants Israel to cease to be a Jewish State, although the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate insisted that it be such.  Glatzer doesn’t seem to be too concerned that all 22 Arab states are not ‘’secular & democratic’, why isn’t he in Egypt (where 20 percent of the population are persecuted Coptic Christians) shouting for this lovely idea? Glatzer knows full well that every minority; Christian, Hindu or Jewish that has ever lived in a Muslim state is considered ‘Dhimmi’; second class citizens.  He wants the Israelis to become Dhimmi, sorry, but they are not so stupid as to put their lives into permanent jeopardy for the likes of Mr. Glatzer.

Glatzer in his creepy ignorance and historically bizarre statistics, might be shocked to learn that the original Mandate for the re-establishment of the ancient Jewish state included what is now Jordan & the West Bank, but the British reneged on their Mandate and kept slicing the Jewish State down until they only received 20 percent of the original promise. It was that miniscule state that was voted on by the United Nations in the ‘partition’ of 1947.  But it should be understood that it was not the U.N. that gave the Israelis their state…it was won on the battlefield…first against the British, and then against a plethora of Arab states that sought to annihilate the Jews.

Glatzer’s idyllic description of ‘Palestine’ seems to come from his own febrile mind, there are no such records of ‘beautiful civilization’ by any visitors to the region.  It was the return of the Jews (who by the way were always a majority in Jerusalem for the last 1,000 years) who transformed the land , and which incidentally brought in hundreds of thousands of Arab immigrants from Syria & Egypt.

All eyewitnesses (including British & Arab) to the migration of the Arab migration during the war of 1947/48 state that the Jews asked them to stay, in fact in Haifa they drove around with blow horns begging them to stay.  It was the Arab military & governments that demanded they clear out so that the killing of the Jews would be easier to accomplish.  Glatzer’s mentioning of ‘Biological Warfare’ clearly reveals that Mr. Glatzer is a malicious liar par excellence.  He believes in the ‘Big Lie’ as taught to all propagandists by Hitler…that the ‘bigger the lie the more believable it becomes’.

Glatzer weeps for the 600,000 Palestinians who migrated, but refuses to mention the 800,000 Jewish refugees kicked out of Arab lands following the Arab defeat.  Those refugees were settled in Israel.  The Arab refugees were purposefully kept in poverty by Arab states (though their upkeep was paid by the U.N. still to this day) to use as a weapon against Israel.  When India & Pakistan were partitioned there were 13 million refugees. At the end of WWII there were 10 million German refugees kicked out of European lands

The West bank by International Law is not ‘Occupied Land’ it is called ‘Disputed Land’ because at no time was it an actual nation, not under the Turks, or the British, or the Jordanians.  Its Final Status is to be determined by negotiation.  All the borders (including Israel’s) are only Armistice Lines…the spot where armies met & stopped.

The hatred against Israel is never based on facts, it is nearly always in the Realm of the Psychological.  Mr. Glatzer doesn’t really know why he hates Israel and will falsify history to your readers.  He is in the grip of a ‘mania’ which manipulates him, he is ‘Projecting’ a brutality onto the Israelis which he knows to actually be true of the Arabs.  I will gladly debate him in any forum to prove this.

Though your paper did not cover it, I did debate Professor Klein at a  Green Party forum last semester.  I would be happy to forward my speech if you would like to print it to contrast with Mr. Glatzer’s propaganda.

-Wayne Cohen