A previous college student in Britain and the son of a top Nigerian banker, Abdulmutallab claims to be tied to al Qaeda and to have received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Abdulmutallab had sewn a part of the explosive device to his underwear, where airport security would surely not check. As the flight began to descend toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab set off the device, which initiated a spark instead of an explosion. Abdulmutallab was treated for burns at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

President Obama was on his Christmas holiday in Hawaii when he was briefed about the attack. In his first public comment after the incident, he said that he directed his national security team to “keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.” Three days after the terror attempt, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility, saying the assault was in retaliation for alleged US attacks on Yemeni soil. In a message written in Arabic, which was published on radical Islamist Web sites three days after the scare, the group claimed that it tested a “new kind of explosives” and hailed the fact that the explosives “passed through security.” Still yet to be determined valid, the message additionally clarified that the bomb failed to explode due to a technical problem.

An analysis of the bombing device showed that it contained PETN, a high explosive also known as pentaerythritol. PETN is frequently used in military explosives and is popular among terrorists because it is small and powerful. The analysis found that the amount of explosive was sufficient to blow a hole in the aircraft.

Abdulmutallab’s father’s warning to US officials about his concerns of his son’s religious beliefs provided no grounds to place Abdulmutallab on the “no-fly list” or to revoke his visa to visit the US. Abdulmutallab was placed on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which includes people with known or suspected ties to a terrorist organization. This list, however, does not prohibit a person from boarding a US-bound airplane.

The last time someone tried to blow up an airplane at Christmas time, the bomb was planted in the suspect’s sneakers. From that day on, all passengers have been required to remove their shoes every time they fly. This solution, however, did not work in the case of Abdulmutallab, as he managed to pass through security with the bomb in his underwear. Airport security focuses very little on people individually, as most of their attention is directed towards what they carry. Focusing attention on individuals, however, leads to a question of racial profiling.

A tense debate about racial profiling, which terrorism experts claim will stop terrorist attacks, developed shortly after the Christmas Day debacle. Many people were left wondering if profiling would have stopped Abdulmutallab from boarding the Northwest flight. Executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and former journalist, Steven Emerson, supports using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process, calling it “smart screening.” On the other hand, former FBI agent and American Civil Liberties adviser Michael German calls this kind of screening “ineffective and unconstitutional.” Saying that “terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities,” German claims that racial profiling could in fact encourage terrorism, as racism is one of the aspects that trigger terrorists. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, supports German’s take on the issue and states racial and religious profiling to be counterproductive and to “lead to a climate of insecurity and fear.”

We have yet to see what kinds of measures airport security is willing to take to work towards a competent method of safety. Until then, we can only hope that our current approach and improved knowledge of terror mechanisms will prevent such an occurrence from happening again.

A previous college student in Britain and the son of a top Nigerian banker, Abdulmutallab claims to be tied to al Qaeda and to have received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Abdulmutallab had sewn a part of the explosive device to his underwear, where airport security would surely not check. As the flight began to descend toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab set off the device, which initiated a spark instead of an explosion. Abdulmutallab was treated for burns at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

President Obama was on his Christmas holiday in Hawaii when he was briefed about the attack. In his first public comment after the incident, he said that he directed his national security team to “keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.” Three days after the terror attempt, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility, saying the assault was in retaliation for alleged US attacks on Yemeni soil. In a message written in Arabic, which was published on radical Islamist Web sites three days after the scare, the group claimed that it tested a “new kind of explosives” and hailed the fact that the explosives “passed through security.” Still yet to be determined valid, the message additionally clarified that the bomb failed to explode due to a technical problem.

An analysis of the bombing device showed that it contained PETN, a high explosive also known as pentaerythritol. PETN is frequently used in military explosives and is popular among terrorists because it is small and powerful. The analysis found that the amount of explosive was sufficient to blow a hole in the aircraft.

Abdulmutallab’s father’s warning to US officials about his concerns of his son’s religious beliefs provided no grounds to place Abdulmutallab on the “no-fly list” or to revoke his visa to visit the US. Abdulmutallab was placed on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which includes people with known or suspected ties to a terrorist organization. This list, however, does not prohibit a person from boarding a US-bound airplane.

The last time someone tried to blow up an airplane at Christmas time, the bomb was planted in the suspect’s sneakers. From that day on, all passengers have been required to remove their shoes every time they fly. This solution, however, did not work in the case of Abdulmutallab, as he managed to pass through security with the bomb in his underwear. Airport security focuses very little on people individually, as most of their attention is directed towards what they carry. Focusing attention on individuals, however, leads to a question of racial profiling.

A tense debate about racial profiling, which terrorism experts claim will stop terrorist attacks, developed shortly after the Christmas Day debacle. Many people were left wondering if profiling would have stopped Abdulmutallab from boarding the Northwest flight. Executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and former journalist, Steven Emerson, supports using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process, calling it “smart screening.” On the other hand, former FBI agent and American Civil Liberties adviser Michael German calls this kind of screening “ineffective and unconstitutional.” Saying that “terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities,” German claims that racial profiling could in fact encourage terrorism, as racism is one of the aspects that trigger terrorists. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, supports German’s take on the issue and states racial and religious profiling to be counterproductive and to “lead to a climate of insecurity and fear.”

We have yet to see what kinds of measures airport security is willing to take to work towards a competent method of safety. Until then, we can only hope that our current approach and improved knowledge of terror mechanisms will prevent such an occurrence from happening again.

According to Nathan Brostrom, UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor for administration, the university gets about 27% of its funds from the state, as opposed to receiving over 50% thirty years ago. While receiving more robust funding sources over the past 30 years, including increases in research funds, student fees, and private philanthropy, Brostrom claims that the university has become somewhat less vulnerable to state cuts. Cal’s non-state sources of funding, however, may not be enough to stop the California budget cuts from affecting academic quality. The new state budget will cut university funding by 10%, including $65.5 million in mid-year cuts and $50 million in cuts for 2009-10.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau claims that he will keep the university’s academic quality up to par with what is expected of the number one public university in the world. Cal was not surprised when it was forced to cut its budget. The campus administration anticipated the possibility of further reductions in the budget and made plans to handle the situation in the most efficient way possible. In December 2008, Birgeneau sent out a campus email warning everyone of what may come of the budget cuts, including staffing cutbacks, departmental cuts and the resumed contributions to the employee retirement plan. In order to close the funding gap, Birgeneau plans to rely on revenue generation and expense reduction, among other factors.

Realistically, however, it is hard to believe that academic quality will not be affected. With every cut, there is an impact. Over the past year, over 11 reading and composition classes have been canceled, while a number of physical education classes are no longer in the works either. Science departments, including molecular and cell biology, physics and chemistry, saw about a five-percent cut.

The UC system is planning to reduce this year’s freshman class enrollment by 2,300 and community colleges are curtailing their enrollment by 22,000. The federal government has passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, from which California public schools and universities will receive $11 billion. Depending on how much the university receives from this act, the stimulus may allow Cal to bounce back from this year’s budget cuts.

One of the primary concerns of the university amidst the financial crisis is the school’s affordability to low-income students. As the number of minority applicants has increased for first-year students and transfer students from community colleges, Birgeneau specifically plans to keep university costs low for those in need.

Thanks to the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pell Grant awards have increased from $500 to $5,350, allowing UC Berkeley to bolster financial aid and ease the stress of budget cuts. In order to receive a Pell Grant, a student’s annual family income must be less than $45,000. Of the 25,000 undergraduate students at UC Berkeley, nearly 8,000 receive Pell Grants. UC Berkeley has more students on Pell Grants than all the Ivy League schools combined, a fact that Birgenueau says he takes great pride in.

The university offers many affordable programs, which are made possible by the school’s direct lending policy, where students receive their loans directly from the university instead of a lending bank. The campus still has to be resourceful, however, and if budget cuts persist, private funding will no longer be able to save the day when a public university is in need of funding. Among other priorities of the chancellor are the international students. According to New America Media, Birgeneau stated, “When I first came to Berkeley I thought the number of international students was too low. So for the sake of the education of our students, we are increasing progressively the number of international students at the school.” The main concern of UC Berkeley officials, including Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Harry Le Grande, is sustaining the public education system, especially grades K-12. Le Grande states, “Those students are our pipeline, and if we fall, the rest of the country will follow suit.”

This year, 11,016 students, or 31% of the student body, voted in the A.S.U.C. elections, which is a 5% jump from last year’s turn out.

In contrast to the single party-dominated executive board, the Senate was more evenly divided, with Student Action landing eight seats, CalSERVE winning seven, and the last five won by independent and third party candidates.

One SQUELCH! candidate, Emily “Joe the Plumber” Carlton, made it to the Senate, coming in at number eighteen. The SQUELCH! party is famous for providing the alcohol and making professionalism in the A.S.U.C. look completely overrated…in all seriousness, of course. Coming from a party that makes the A.S.U.C. look like one big circus, Carlton’s win is a big one. Her platform emphasizes fair allocation of money to the students and student groups, while being aware of where the money is actually going. Carlton promises to bring transparency, efficiency and responsibility to the A.S.U.C. as a senator.

The Berkeley College Republicans candidate, Rick Chen, was not elected to the Senate. Chen claimed, “I was disappointed initially, but I am excited that there was justice for John Moghtader and I’m happy that CalSERVE lost the executive positions. I’m also happy that SQUELCH! was able to win a place in the Senate.” With Chen’s loss, and BCR’s current senator, Tommy Owens, graduating this year, BCR will no longer have representation in the A.S.U.C.

Ariel Boone, a member of the Cal Berkeley Democrats, was able to land a seat in the Senate, running for CalSERVE.
The Student Action executive victory serves as a drastic change for the A.S.U.C., as this is the first time that Student Action candidates have won all four executive positions since 2006. CalSERVE has controlled most of the executive positions for the past two years, which ultimately created a Student Action fever during the elections. People wanted something different, something new.

CalSERVE can be thought of as the more liberal of the two parties, as its platform emphasizes multiculturalism, social equality and social justice, or basically the ideals behind a huge support system for affirmative action.

The Student Action party is concerned with accountability of the student government to get every voice heard, while also improving the quality of student life. The party’s goals include providing more accessible studying space, increasing student resources and research opportunities, working towards Lower Sproul re-development, and increasing student safety.
These platforms are all very stimulating, but how much do the students actually care about them? The not-so-impressive 31% voter turnout illustrates how detached the A.S.U.C. really is in student life. Apparently 69% percent of the student body doesn’t walk to class preoccupied with who their student government officers should be and what to do about such issues as former Senator John Moghtader’s recall.

Followers of A.S.U.C. news will remember the controversy about Moghtader’s involvement in a physical fight at an anti-Israeli event. The recall supporters brought into action a recall election, despite video proof of Moghtader’s complete detachment from the violence. Of the approximately 35,000 students that attend the University, 2,689 students voted in favor of the recall and 1,021 against it, which allowed the A.S.U.C. to take official action in Moghtader’s removal from office. At the cost of $20,000, Moghtader’s recall raises questions about the A.S.U.C.’s ability to budget their already limited spending.

At the election results meeting, Tommy Owens, current A.S.U.C. senator and BCR member, held a sign that read “Justice” and had Moghtader’s picture on it. After the Student Action sweep, Owens waved the sign towards the defeated CalSERVE crowd. The Student Action win was a happy one for Moghtader’s supporters.

One may wonder how such a large number of students can simply not care about the actions of the biggest student government in the nation. Maybe it’s the corruption, or maybe it’s the shocking political apathy of college students. Either way, the A.S.U.C. does not seem to be doing its job in reaching out to students.

Of the students that do vote, there are a considerable amount that feels quite strongly about which party they vote for, and others who remain uncertain about who are the best candidates.

Tikvah member Matthew White stated, “I voted Student Action all the way, and I encouraged all the people in the club to vote Student Action.” In support of Will Smelko’s candidacy for President, White claimed, “Will Smelko was one of the few people in the Senate who dared to defend John Moghtader.”

Mia Pskowski, member of the Cal Berkeley Democrats, believes that the executive board works better when it is split between two parties, and that the dominance of CalSERVE in the past created a strong want for change, leading to the Student Action sweep. Pskowski stated, “There was only a 30% turnout of votes, which means that the A.S.U.C. really needs to start reaching out to students.” Pskowski believes that it is important for the students to be knowledgeable about voting because the A.S.U.C. has a big impact on student life, including funding for student groups and Lower Sproul development.

Mariam Sarwary, member of the Muslim Student Association, stated, “I didn’t know the stances too well, so I didn’t want to vote for all of the positions.” Sarwary voted Isaac Miller for Academic VP under CalSERVE and for another MSA member for Senate. Sarwary claimed, “Many of the candidates focus on getting out their views and platforms, but they do not necessarily advertise their names well enough for people to remember who they are.”

As the new executives and senators of the A.S.U.C. embark on the 2009-10 school year, a new kind of student government will be in place since recent history, and the student body (or at least 31% of it) will await the changes promised by these new student government leaders.