The homepage of the University of California declares:

“The 10 campuses of the University of California open their doors to all who work hard and dream big. Through its teaching, research and public service, UC drives California’s economy and leads the world in new directions.”

This is clearly dishonest. On the contrary, the UC Board of Regents’ decision to increase student fees 32% or $2500 by next fall proves that the University of California is closing doors and driving California’s economy further into the ground by punishing those students who are the only hope for California’s future and recovery.

President of the UC System Mark Yudof argued, according to Inside Higher Ed:

“We’re being forced to impose a user tax on our students and their families. This is a tax necessary because our political leaders have failed to adequately fund public higher education.”

To be clear, no one is forcing Mr. Yudof or the UC Board of Regents to impose a tax on students. He is not the victim – the students are.  It is easy, and perhaps deserving, to blame someone else for the deficit – in this case California politicians – but the fact is that a serious discussion between the Board and the UC student body would reveal innovative ideas on how to cut spending without shifting the burden to students.

How can the Board recover from its $1.2 billion deficit? Ask the students.

Every Student Should Demand Transparency and Uncover Wasteful Spending

Since it is now student money that will be involuntarily subsidizing the state of California and the UC Regents’ inability to fund its own budget, every student across the 10 UC campuses should ruthlessly and enthusiastically demand full transparency on how their money is being spent, and identify every dollar of wasteful spending that occurs throughout the University of California system.

After voting to financially punish students, the Regents owe nothing less than to disclose their budget to the entire UC student body. In fact, it should be published in every UC campus newspaper.

Students should demand that the Board make their budget and spending plan available online TODAY.

The 2,000 students who gathered on the campus of UCLA this week, and the thousands more who gathered on campuses around the state, have the opportunity now to become cheerful watchdogs over the UC system and  identify and report every instance of wasteful spending they discover.

Notify the school paper.

Email the Chancellor.

Email UC President Mark Yudof (president@ucop.edu)

Contact the UC Board of Regents.

True Leaders

Students of the University of California have the opportunity to become the leaders that the UC Board of Regents failed to be.

By taking the initiative to demand transparency and uncover and eliminate wasteful spending, students can send the University of California back on track to fulfilling its mission statement of opening its doors to all who work hard and dream big.

—

Michelle Selesky graduated from UCLA in 2007, where she earned a B.A. in Political Science and served as team captain of the UCLA Women’s Gymnastics team. She holds a Masters Degree in Political Management from the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University. Michelle currently works and resides in Washington, D.C.

—

Video of riots at UCLA

Still, wouldn’t it be a fresh concept to just skip with the formalities and allow Skinny O to grant some sort of useless but dangerous position of power to the woman who single handedly fed him the female vote? The female vote where domesticated despair, pill popping and carbon emission guilt are concerned. Yes America, we can blame Oprah for the enslavement of our children. Just as we can righteously blame her for cheese in a can.

So today as you glance with future expectation at your neighbors refrigerator box (and not his refrigerator), as you try to explain what socialism is to your 4 year old, and as you clog your arteries and desecrate your crackers with some concoction known as ‘Whiz’, riddle me this: ‘What kind of world would this be without the public weight fluctuation of the biggest talker that never said anything?’

First supporters of the mandate will turn the question back on the questioner, asking them that if they believe that healthcare reform is unconstitutional, do they also believe that Medicare is as well. The implication, if the questioner remains consistent in his logic, is that they must want the elderly and infirm to be thrown off of these programs and into destitution. This attitude was perfectly illustrated by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia who asked of a petitioner, “I take by your question that you would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid?” While this might be an acceptable tactic if employed by a college debate club, it seems to be somewhat tacky when an elected official meets a legitimate query into the extent of their power by casting dispersions upon the constituent who had the audacity to ask about it.

Next, Democrats will avoid the constitution altogether by justifying mandates with other federal programs. They will point to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and note that these programs are not specifically mentioned by the constitution. While this is true, none of these programs contain anything close to the Gordian knot of bureaucracy, regulation, and mandates that the healthcare reform bill does. Besides this, pointing to previous programs that the government has enacted, many of which are now bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, does not appear to be a winning tactic.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska took evasion to a new level, claiming that he couldn’t answer the question because he’s “not a constitutional scholar”.

Senator Daniel Akaka gave one of the few honest answers when confronted with the question, admitting fully that he wasn’t aware of the Constitution giving any such authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Those legislators who have attempted to take on the question have usually failed to do so convincingly. Aside from the time tested general welfare clause argument, which at this point might as well read the blank check clause, legislators have offered a myriad of weak and sometimes even bizarre answers.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island explained that the constitutionality of mandates was settled because it was similar to forcing individuals to sign up for the draft. Of course, he hedged his statement by saying that he needed to look into the “specific sections” of the Constitution.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont justified mandates by claiming that speed limits on highways were not explicitly called for in the Constitution either.

Senator Rolland Burris offered what is likely the most creative answer to the constitutional question. When asked, Mr. Burris cited the section of the Constitution which authorized congress “to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” Of course the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing. Scrambling to control the damage, his staff insisted that Mr. Burris really meant to cite the preamble to the Constitution. This spin is just as bad as the original error, as it has been established that the preamble to the constitution is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government.

Perhaps the most egregious evasion of the question came from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. When confronted with the question, Mrs. Pelosi responded, “Are you serious?” as if the question of constitutionality itself so absurd that it should be met with little more than disbelief and dismissal.

The reason for Democrats insistence on evading this important question is simple; they can’t adequately answer it. The power for the Federal Government to mandate that individuals purchase any good or service simply does not appear in the US Constitution. If passed through the Senate you can rest assured that this bill will be challenged. Only by the Supreme Court reading new powers into our founding document will the healthcare reform bill be allowed to stand.

The question of constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill that just passed through the house is a serious one, as some of its provisions hand the federal government power that it has never before had. The systematic dismissal and evasion of these questions by its defenders shows either disdain for the constitution or ignorance of it. While conservative protesters rallied to the steps of the capital just days before the bill was passed through the house, those protest might actually end at the steps of the Supreme Court.

—

Nick Rizzuto is the Political Editor of Parcbench.com and the producer of The Wilkow Majority on SIRIUS XM Radio. Thanks to CNS News for some great reporting on this issue.

While sampling through this album, a friend nearby complained “I have a sore throat just listening.” I knew then that I had come across the ultimate “White Elephant” or “Pirate” gift for Christmas 2009: Bob Dylan’s “Christmas in the Heart.” Or as I like to think of it “Put The Kids Safely To Bed ‘Cause Grandpa’s Hittin’ The Egg-Nog!”

I’ve heard of stores starting to put Christmas items on the shelves when it’s still only Halloween… but what’s with this putting out a Halloween CD during the Christmas season? Has there ever been any genre of music that Bob Dylan doesn’t hack up and spit out at some point? When you’ve been sucking on nicotine for as many years as Dylan apparently has, eventually you run of material I guess.

With “Christmas In The Heart,” Bob Dylan transforms himself back into Robert Zimmerman from Minnesota and scratches out some old holiday tunes. He is obviously interested in capturing the classic American experience on disc, and happy to remind us that these songs are part of the American musical heritage.

His goal is admirable, but his product is not. He is “Christmas Past” stuck in the present, and yes, Virginia, it’s pretty scary. He sounds like that irredeemable relative who stumbles violently in at 2am on Christmas morning, but wasn’t at Christmas Mass, if you know what I mean. There’s a forced cheeriness that is downright frightening.

If Bob Dylan is your thing, then you’re going to like it no matter how dreadful it is, and you might actually find enjoyment in a song or two. So Merry Christmas! No one can really ruin a song as simple as “Here Comes Santa Claus,” unless the higher notes are important to you. Dylan was smart enough to fill the album with massive background singing and instrumentation to conceal how raspy his vocals are. I can’t say anything about his tone or pitch, since he doesn’t really sing notes. He coughs out sandpaper sounds instead, so much so that this album might cut into the sales of that barking dogs Christmas album.

It‘s not clear whether Dylan means this all as some sort of a joke, or if he seriously wanted to put out a classic Christmas album. There is an entire generation of fanatics that worried about Dylan’s intentions. They played identity politics with record albums and cared far too much about what the singer did, and felt betrayed many times by his head-scratching choices.

But in this case, who cares? Bad music is just bad music. Let’s put it this way – after reviewing these songs, in order to stop the pain, I rushed to YouTube to listen to a Tom Waits performance. Ah, sweet relief!

Maybe this is an album you can put on at the office party if you want to guarantee that everyone will go home as early as possible. Bob Dylan? Christmas? Has there ever been anything as wrong? Which reminds me…

The Top 10 Worst Christmas Songs Ever Recorded:

10 – “Wonderful Christmastime” by Paul McCartney
9 – “Santa Baby” by Madonna
8 – “Please, Daddy (Don’t Get Drunk This Christmas)” by John Denver
7 – “Jingle Bells” by Barbra Streisand
6 – “The Little Drummer Boy” by Jessica and Ashlee Simpson
5 – “The Christmas Shoes” by NewSong
4 – “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer” by Elmo and Patsy
3 – “Feliz Navidad” by anyone
2 – “Happy Christmas (War Is Over)” by John Lennon
1 – “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” by Band Aid

That day, Mr. Beale starts his broadcast, like all the others before, only this time, he tells his audience that he was fired and declares he is going to kill himself on live TV. Talk about a reality news program!

After his announcement, Beale’s ratings start to surge. On a broadcast days later, thoroughly fed up with the state of the nation, politics and the economy, he speaks that famous line “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Sensing an opportunity, producer Diana Christensen, played by Faye Dunaway, is able to remove Beale from the news division and create an entertainment show around Beale, the “Mad Prophet of the Airwaves”. The show is totally mainstream, ala Wayne’s World.

With his newfound ratings based on his daily rants, Mr. Beale then sets his sights on a Saudi company called Communications Corporation of America, which desires to merge with UBS. Beale passionately urges his viewers to contact the White House to demand the merger be stopped.

Howard Beale had finally crossed the line.

In a classic scene in an empty boardroom, Beale sits across the desk from chairman Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) where he gets schooled on mergers. Jensen bellows “…you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone!” As not to be a spoiler, Beale gets the message, and the show is never the same.

33 years later, has life imitated art?

On Wednesday night. Lou Dobbs came out and abruptly ‘retired’ after a 29 year run at CNN. He said he needed to step away to be more effective (was he watching Sarah Palin’s resignation this past July?).

Was it because of his position of #5 in the ratings? Was it because of his immigration stance? The shooting at his suburban home? His position on the Birther movement?

Maybe, Dobbs finally had enough.

He said he had a meeting with Jonathan Klein, president of CNN, and Klein agreed to release Dobbs from his contract immediately.  Did Dobbs become too much of a liability to CNN?

You be the judge.

Klein stated that “Lou has now decided to carry the banner of advocacy journalism elsewhere.” For those of us who watch and analyze the media every day, the translation was ‘Lou was not towing the company line’.

One thing is for certain: unlike the demise of Dan Rather, Dobbs didn’t insist that phony documents were indeed true. He was a journalist who decided to follow a story until it reached a legitimate end.

And unlike the demise of Howard Beale, Lou Dobbs Tonight was not aired before a live studio audience.

—

-

New Jersey boy Michael Fidanza is the host of The Armchair Energist Show on RFC Radio and can be heard at 11am-noon ET. His website is www.ArmchairEnergist.com

This is not difficult math. Unfortunately, leaders in California suffer from an inability to come to terms with the current reality of their worsening budget and unemployment crisis, and worse, what it takes to recover.

What it doesn’t take is wasteful spending on an inefficient prison system.

What it doesn’t take is the continued laziness and incompetence of California politicians to stop illegal immigrants from costing the state over $10 billion each year.

And what it doesn’t take is an appointed, 26-member UC Board of Regents to raise fees by $2500 on students who, out of everyone in the state, are not to blame for the California budget catastrophe.

Yesterday, 14 people were arrested as an estimated 500 students gathered on the campus of UCLA to protest the two-step hike in student fees. The LA Times reports that the University of California’s Board of Regents “reluctantly” approved a $585 increase for the remainder of the current academic year, and then a second increase next fall to bring the total to $2,514 more than students paid this year. This comes after a 9% increase in student fees that was already approved by the Board in May of this year. An increase that was supposed to be a last resort.

The truth is it makes no difference that the UC Regents were reluctant to financially crush their students. They still voted for the increase, and the consequences are the same.

Students who have a slim chance of finding a job in a state with 12% unemployment once they have a degree, are now in danger of not being able to even afford that degree.

This is a symptom of a larger governing problem in which our so-called leaders are unable to think past step one.

Perhaps an increase in student fees will, as the UC Regents argue, help them to avoid reductions in course offerings, hiring faculty, providing student services, and extending furlough programs that would reduce pay for UC employees.

But beyond that, what they fail to realize is that there will come a point when students and their families reach their breaking point and decide to leave the UC system. These students, now without a degree, will then decide to leave California and its 12% unemployment rate to find a job in another state.

Forcing the state’s brightest and most innovative students out of our universities and out of the state is not an effective strategy for sending California back on the path to being the most successful, entrepreneurial and prosperous state in the nation. Unfortunately, this was not a factor for the 10 UC Regents who voted for the 32% student fee increase. What was a factor was making sure that tenured professors and unionized UC employees didn’t see a 3-4% decrease in pay.

Off-loading the mistakes made by ineffective and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats onto students is no way to invest in California’s future.

Students, alumni, professors, and employees at UCLA, and all Californians across the state should – must- continue to protest.

GO BRUINS.

—

Michelle Selesky graduated from UCLA in 2007, where she earned a B.A. in Political Science and served as team captain of the UCLA Women’s Gymnastics team. She holds a Masters Degree in Political Management from the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University. Michelle currently works and resides in Washington, D.C.

—

Video of riots at UCLA

—

Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn.

It’s dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term “Death Panels” — and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform.

Is anyone else a little disturbed at the fact that this minion of The President of the United States characterizes a book tour as “dangerous”? Or is it the book that they find so offensive?