Wambu-Baker & Associates
611 Pennsylvania Ave Se, Washington, DC 20003-4303 (Map)
Phone: (202) 546-2227
SIC:Management Consulting Services
Line of Business:Management Consulting Services
C'mon, msm. Get those ace investigative reporters off their behinds and get to work.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Let's Play, "Name That Voter"
"Let's See. It says Cleveland is 50 miles due north. The resident registration office should be about here. Then the polling station should be about....here. Let's move."
How Dare They Ask Real Questions-For a Change
Vice King Joe
"Who dares ask me tough questions? Take care of em' boys."
Last Thursday, Joe (the Jerk) Biden was interviewed by WFTV Orlando reporter Barbara West via satellite. It must have been the shock of Biden's life. Here he was, the Democratic nominee for Vice President dealing with a news reporter and expecting the usual softball questions that Democrats always get from the media. After all, hardball questions are for the Republicans, right?
Instead, Ms West hit Biden with a series of hardball questions-you know, the kind of questions candidates for president or vice-president should get. She asked him if Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around" didn't equal Karl Marx's line about, "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".
"Is this a joke?” Biden asked. “Is that a real question?” West replied that it was.
Later in his answer:"...that's a ridiculous comparison with all due respect."
Later, Ms West asked Biden if Obama wanted to make the United States a socialist country “like Sweden,” and whether Biden’s “tested” remarks about Obama meant that Obama’s leadership would result in the United States losing it’s status as the world’s lone superpower.
“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” replied Joe.
Needless to say, Joe was not amused. He went on to complain about the questions to a public rally. As for the Obama campaign, they are also indignent. They have cut off West's employer from any further interviews.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
Well, the questions couldn't have been that bad. If you watch the interview, Biden's forehead never even wrinkled once (that's because it can't).
This is what happens when a maverick news reporter gets out of line and asks a tough question to a Democrat instead of a Republican. All Hell breaks loose. Remember when ABC reporters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis dared to ask tough questions of Obama during a debate? They were cricified by their peers in the mainstream media. How dare they? How dare Barbara West?
Amazing how thin-skinned Joe Biden is. If you have seen him on one of his committees grilling a witness from a Republican administration, you know he is a high and mighty guy. He is arrogant, to say the least.
That's why it is nice to see him taken down a notch or two.
Ted Stevens Conviction
"Heigh ho, heigh-it's off to jail I go."
Soon-to-be former Senator Ted Stevens
I have a one-word reaction to the conviction of US Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK):
Good.
I have a one-word reaction to Republican fears of losing another Senate seat (Alaska) to the Democrats next week:
Tough.
Now that the jury has spoken and convicted Stevens, his departure from the Senate cannot come too soon. If he happens to be re-elected next week, then he should be promptly expelled.
Stevens is emblematic of what went wrong in the Republican Party after they achieved power in the 1990s through the Contract with America. They were supposed to change Washington, eliminate the pork, stop misusing the public's money and fight for smaller government and conservative principles.
Instead, they fell in love with the system and were corrupted by the high life. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, they proceeded to do exactly what the Democrats do. They engaged in pork barrel politics, schmoozed with lobbyists and let themselves become corrupted. And today, Ted Stevens stands convicted of corruption. Personally, I hope he goes to prison-even though he is 84 years old. Let Stevens be the example for other politicians who use their public trust to enrich themselves at the public's expense.
If the polls are correct, the Republicans will be punished for their misdeeds in the election next week. Frankly they deserve it.
Unfortunately, America doesn't deserve what will happen when the Democrats find themselves with unbridled power.
Who is This Woman? Clue 3
To the mainstream news media: I suggest you call your British colleagues at the UK Daily Mail and ask for help in identifying the previously-mentioned woman.
Here is their phone number:
44-20-79386000
* No, it has nothing to do with Poland or Polish people.
A Bizarre Endorsement for Obama
New University editorial staff meeting
"So that's it...proven leadership experience, judge of character- we're endorsing Obama. Now, let's have (another) drink."
I suppose I should cut more slack for our college newspaper at UC-Irvine (New University) for some of the nonsense they publish. New University is presently completely to the left, which is not unusual for a campus newspaper. True, these are kids-or young adults-however you want to term it. I assume they are also products of the journalism schools that teach them that their job is to right wrongs, correct injustices and expose conservative wrongs. Yet, I can't resist the temptation to point out a few loony statements that appeared today in New University's endorsement of Barack Obama for President.
I won't go into detail and try to pick apart every statement. If they like Obama, that's fine. However, there are a few sentences in that editorial that are absolutely laughable. I have put them in caps.
First, there is this:
"To restore America's image, this country needs someone capable of bringing PROVEN LEADERSHIP to the position (capitals mine), someone who can take control of the conflict in the Middle East, someone who has a consistent stance on civil liberties and human rights, someone who can take care of the little guy, someone WHO IS A GOOD JUDGE OF CHARACTER (caps mine) and someone who evokes confidence.
OBAMA HAS DEMONSTRATED ALL THESE QUALITIES AND MORE."
Exactly what proven leadership is New University talking about?
Judge of character? What about Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorhn, Khalid Rashidi, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks and Michael Pfleger?
"Beyond civil liberties and human rights, OBAMA ALSO WANTS AMERICANS TO HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS (Caps mine)."
In whose pockets, the ones who earn it or someone else?
"IN CONTRAST, SARAH PALIN IS DANGEROUSLY INEXPERIENCED."
In contrast to Obama??
Now I repeat, this was an editorial-thus an opinion. Of course, a technique of writing an opinion essay is to use facts to support one's opinions. In this case, the New University used outright laughing out loud whoppers to make their points.
And I almost overlooked this quote that appeared under the Opinion page title:
"'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the paltter of sh-- with bits of broken glass in it?' To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."-David Sedaris. (The word I cut out was not cut out in the newspaper. This is not the first time New University has printed 4-letter words. It leads me to wonder-are there any adults in charge in the New University? What are they teaching these young aspiring writers?
This is the next generation of the New York Times, LA Times et al.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Who is This Woman? Clue # 2
In connection to my previous post, in my desire to help out the old mainstream news media, here is my next clue (above).
Who is This Woman?
I wonder if the mainstream news media knows the answer to the above question. Why don't we ask them?
Or must I send them clues again?
Are There More Pauls in America Than Peters?
"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"
Karl Marx (actually borrowed from Louis Blanc)
Modern-day translation: From Peter to Paul
As the final days draw down on the election, many McCain supporters are becoming more and more disheartened. The polls may not look good, but they are still confusing. I guess it all depends on which poll you accept. At any rate, many are predicting that Obama will, indeed, be our next president. If that be the case, I just hope it doesn't turn on fraudulent votes being cranked out by people like ACORN.
Fortunately, since Joe the Plumber drew a statement out of Obama that he did, indeed want to spread the wealth around (redistribute it, if you will), there has been increased discussion about what Obama's tax plans will mean to most working Americans. Obama insists that 95% of Americans will get a tax break. I don't buy that for a split-second. With all the liberal programs he envisions, he can't give 95% of the people a tax cut and make it up with the top 5%.
That also raises the question of what will happen to small businesses. Again, you can't convince me that they aren't in for tax increase as well.
But if we acknowledge that Obama is going to institute a tax policy that "spreads the wealth around", are there still enough people in this country willing to vote for him and accept the consequences? That is the million-dollar question. If the people realize that Obama is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, could that turn the election to McCain? God, one would hope so.
Yet, will common sense prevail? Just how are the demographics in this country now? Could it be that a majority of voters view themselves as would-be beneficiaries of Obama's largess? One of my favorite talk show hosts, Larry Elder (in Los Angeles), recently said that if you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have a lot of Pauls supporting you. That statement makes perfect sense.
So, (with all due respect to the other issues) is that what this election may come down to? Are we reaching the point that the Pauls will outnumber the Peters and put a socialist (yes, I said socialist) in the White House to take care of their lives from day to day (using someone else's money, of course)?
And what do you consider yourself to be-a Peter or a Paul?
Zionist Organization of America on UC-Irvine and UC-Santa Cruz
I am posting the below article regarding the Zionist Organization of America's concern about anti-Semitic activity on the UC-Irvine and UC Santa Cruz campuses. There is also a link below to see the letter that ZOA sent to UC President Yudof.
This article, with a link to the letter appeared on rabbiyonah (blog) and the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism blog in September 2008. The ZOA letter also refers to the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism.
ZOA CALLS ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT TO RECTIFY ANTI-SEMITISM PROBLEMS AT UC CAMPUSES
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, see below webpage:
http://octask.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/1008zoaletterucpresidentyudof8Aug08.pdf
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)
With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”
The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.
The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.
The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.
Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)
The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”
Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.
In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”
Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.
The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”
The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”
The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.
“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)
With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”
The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.
The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.
The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.
Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)
The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”
Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.
In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”
Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.
The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”
The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”
The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.
“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”
With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”
The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.
The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.
The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.
Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)
The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”
Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.
In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”
Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.
The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”
The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”
The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.
“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”
Fousesquawk comment: As one who has taught part-time at UCI for 10 years and has become personally involved in the on-going controversy there for the past 2 years, I am in full agreement with what appears above, at least insofar as it pertains to UCI. I am hoping that President Yudof will personally intervene.
This article, with a link to the letter appeared on rabbiyonah (blog) and the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism blog in September 2008. The ZOA letter also refers to the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism.
ZOA CALLS ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT TO RECTIFY ANTI-SEMITISM PROBLEMS AT UC CAMPUSES
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, see below webpage:
http://octask.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/1008zoaletterucpresidentyudof8Aug08.pdf
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)
With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”
The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.
The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.
The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.
Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)
The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”
Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.
In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”
Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.
The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”
The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”
The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.
“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)
With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”
The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.
The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.
The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.
Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)
The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”
Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.
In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”
Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.
The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”
The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”
The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.
“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”
With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”
The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.
The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.
The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.
Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)
The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”
Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.
In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”
Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.
The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”
The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”
The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.
“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”
Fousesquawk comment: As one who has taught part-time at UCI for 10 years and has become personally involved in the on-going controversy there for the past 2 years, I am in full agreement with what appears above, at least insofar as it pertains to UCI. I am hoping that President Yudof will personally intervene.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
"That's Why Teachers, Firefighters, Police and Organ-Grinders All Support..."
"Youse gotta vote for Proposition X-for the children"
Is the above guy a cop, firefighter, teacher-or just a union thug?
Here in California, in addition to the madness of the presidential election, we are treated to our local and state elections as well as a plethora of ballot measures, most of which have been put up by our local governments to pass more bond measures.
It's enough to drive you crazy. Talk about insulting the intelligence of the voters...well, on second thought.
Most of California's ballot measures are requests for the voters to authorize new taxes to pay for...saving the state. If you take the ads seriously, you would conclude your choice is between destroying the state and ...destroying the state. You wouldn't believe the arguments we are subjected to; eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, saving the environment, protecting our children-all if we pass one more bond measure or increase one more tax.
Then there are those "endorsements". How many times have you heard that police, firefighters and teachers ALL support this or that? Am I exaggerating? Check this one out.
There is some guy named Mark Ridley Thomas who is running for LA County Supervisor. Anyway, his ad starts off by talking about the people who work 24-7 to serve and protect us-our teachers, firefighters and police. Guess what-they "ALL support Mark Ridley Thomas for LA County Supervisor".
As we used to say in high school,every last swingin' you know what.
Translation: Their unions are endorsing Mark Ridley Thomas.
Then there is CAIR attorney, Todd Gallinger, who is running for Irvine City Council and has put this up on his campaign website:
OC FIREFIGHTERS ENDORSE TODD GALLINGER
"We are very honored and pleased to announce that Todd's candidacy for Irvine City Council has been endorsed by the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association - local 3631. These are the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep us all safe, and now they are in our corner!"
At least he mentioned the union-that is really in his corner.
But it gets worse.
Proposition 8 is a ballot measure that would make it law in California that marriage is between a man and a woman. A similar measure was passed by voters a few years back only to be overturned by the State Supreme Court. So here we go again. Now whether you agree on the gay marriage issue or not, it should give you pause that the California Teachers Union has spent one million dollars of its members dues to fight Proposition 8. Are they saying that every teacher in California is against proposition 8? Clearly, they can't because there are a lot of teachers in the state who not only support proposition 8, but have spoken out bitterly against their dues being used for political purposes that have nothing to do with education (except the debate about whether gay marriage would be promoted in the classroom)and which do not reflect their personal beliefs. Of course, none of that matters to the all-powerful Teachers Union in California. They are a liberal advocacy group very much into political issues.
All of this, of course, should serve as a monument to the fecklessness of government, whether it be at the local, state, or national level. We, as a people, should be doing everything in our power to limit government's reach into our lives and our wallets. In California that battle has been lost. Hopefully, the rest of the nation is not following close behind.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Democrat Speaks to the News Media
This news editorial was sent to me via e-mail from a friend. It was written by a Democrat, and I can't resist posting it because I agree with it totally, and I could never have said it better.
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
"I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city."
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
"I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city."
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
