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.”

In the first weeks of summer, Chancellor Birgeneau sent a mass e-mail to the student body regarding the university’s dire financial straits and his “leadership strategy”. Specifically mentioning the regents’ 9.3% increase in student fees and “other revenue enhancement”, and some unspecified “cost-saving measures”, he went on to say that “units with higher capacity will be asked to take larger cuts than those with lower capacity”, for the sake of “breadth”, with no judgment on the effectiveness or value of either set. And yet he described the policy as “the only rational approach”. The chancellor went on to “be clear as to what we will not entertain”, including “[sacrificing] our commitment to social access: low-income students who have earned a place at Berkeley must be capable of affording a UC Berkeley education” and “[abandoning] our efforts to train and promote a highly skilled and diverse workforce”. In short, Berkeley will be making an open-ended commitment to fully-subsidizing lower-income students, while forcing others to pay at least 10% more to cover that expense, and to “diversity”, at an institution that prides itself on the fact that the majority of its present student population is already some minority.

2. Letterman’s “Creepy Old Man” Look

Perhaps one of the reasons that Sarah Palin needs to protect her family from the spotlight and thus chose to resign is to avoid crude jokes made by late night television host David Letterman. In the Late Show host’s monologue, Governor Palin was referred to as having the style of a “slutty flight attendant.” Letterman then joked, “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” It was 14-year-old Willow, not Bristol Palin, however, who was at that game. Sarah Barracuda and her husband, Todd, shot back in a statement claiming that Letterman’s comments were “disgusting” and “inappropriate”, and only portray the type of sexual exploitation that society sees towards young women everyday.

3. Tax on Cigarettes a “Common Sense Revenue”

In an op-ed published in the Daily Californian, ASUC Senator Ariel Boone, Cal Berkeley Dems Policy Director Nik Dixit, and Cal Berkeley Dems Magazine Editor Mia Pskowski opine that the state’s recently-passed budget allows for too many “cuts, cuts, cuts” across the board. They claim that legislators “ignored new, common sense revenues which could have offset cuts and improved our outlook”. However, one of only two such “common sense revenues” Ms. Boone, Mr. Dixit, and Ms. Pskowski refer to happen to be additional taxes on cigarettes that would effectively a) raise money and b) reduce smoking. But isn’t such a tax, by design, meant to be a temporary, shrinking revenue source, and thus cannot reasonably serve to balance the costs of ongoing programs? One hopes it is still common sense that taxing something out of existence would make taxing it less profitable in the future.

4. Obama’s Ratings Down after Five Months

With each successive slip up, including the president’s “stupidly” remark, more and more seem to disagree with everything Obama does, but remain transfixed with Obama the man. On June 18, nearly five months after Obama’s inauguration, the Wall Street Journal released an article discussing Obama’s approval numbers – because they’re slipping. Moving past the president’s charisma and charm, two qualities that strongly boosted his number of votes in the presidential elections, Americans are beginning to take notice of how well (or how poorly) Obama can handle the important issues facing the country. Disapproval is already rearing its head on several of Obama’s key decisions – including the stimulus plan, the bailouts of banks and auto companies, and the decision to close Gitmo within the year. A majority of the survey respondents in the article claimed that their primary concern is to keep the budget deficit low, even if that means it takes longer for the economy to recover. In regards to Obama’s healthcare plan, more apparently favored it than opposed it at the time the survey was taken, as they still had yet to see what his plan would bring. Since then, ObamaCare’s met opposition on both sides of the aisle. As for Obama’s nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, overall support for her confirmation is strong, as critics quickly learned it is best not to bring up a Latina’s past, even if she is to be a justice of the Supreme Court.

5. “Truth” Commissions for Berkeley High Students

Responding to “racist incidents on campus” protesters at a Berkeley Board of Education meeting in June demanded more diversity education in Berkeley High’s curriculum, such as mandatory courses in African-American studies and ethnic studies, more black teachers and more diversity training for teachers, according to a Berkeley Daily Planet article. The demands followed on the heels of what some alleged to be incidents of racism committed “by a few white students” either on campus or off. At least one of the alleged incidents happened on Facebook. In language that would make George Orwell cringe, the protesters also called for “truth and reconcilation forums”, or “restorative justice healing circles”, where those accused would be made to face their accusers and the rest of the student body.

6. A New Revolution: Vegetarianism

Lydia Guevara, the granddaughter of Argentine Marxist revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, is following in her grandfather’s footsteps as the icon of another revolution – vegetarianism. The 24-year-old vegetarian poses semi-nude in a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) ad promoting vegetarianism. In October, Guevara’s ad is expected to debut in magazines and posters first in Argentina, where Che was born, and then
debut internationally. In the ad, Lydia Guevara wears camouflage pants, a red beret, and bandoliers of baby carrots. Guevara’s ad is PETA’s first campaign promoting vegetarianism in South America. PETA spokesman Michael McGraw claims, “We say the best way to save animals is not to eat them.”

Will Smelko, the new president of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley, spoke with Editor-in-Chief Ann Marie Jelacich about his goals for the upcoming year.

California Patriot: What have you been doing this summer in preparing for the upcoming year as ASUC president?

Will Smelko: One of the most important lessons I have learned since taking office is that the downfall of student government usually is caused by getting started too late. Often times, officials do not actually figure out what their major goals are until December or January, and by then it is too late to implement them. I am spending this summer getting a head start on all the work that we will be facing throughout the course of next year. This includes meeting with any and all relevant administrators to get a map of who does what and who we should contact when we need to accomplish things during the year, as well as planning out all our projects and events that we will be putting on. We are also recruiting staff members and doing interviews to build a very large and successful office.

Patriot: How have your views of the office changed (if at all), since obtaining the position?

Smelko: My views of the office have substantially changed since obtaining the position. I used to think it was the role of government to focus mainly on campus wide projects or events. However, I have come to understand the magnitude of my role as being the representational voice of the student body to the campus and outside communities. Berkeley is such an immense and fragmented institution with exciting things going on every day, and it is my duty to try and not miss a beat so that I can be at those meetings and voice the concerns and ideas of the student body.

Patriot: Have you come across any unexpected difficulties with achieving the goals you had while running for office?

Smelko: The first problem is that while we have a lot of great ideas for what we would love to see implemented, like everyone else we are short on the cash to do all the things we want. This problem, however, is pale in comparison to understanding the complexities of structure in the Berkeley universe. Our campus is so decentralized with things occurring on so many different fronts, that it often times becomes difficult to distinguish who deals with what, and where to go to get things done. This is why summer has become so valuable in helping get this knowledge under my belt, so that we can jump right in come fall.

Patriot: What do you realistically think you can accomplish this year as ASUC president?

Smelko: The beauty of the ASUC has also been its major downfall. There are so many opportunities just sitting on our doorstep, and we are in a prime position to have a significant impact on campus policy and student life. However, students have justly witnessed past ASUC administration’s inability to multitask and leaving a lot of these opportunities to waste. Next year we will be organizing programs that foster community and learning outside the classroom, taking up policy initiatives that will improve student life, and enhancing the commercial operations of the ASUC. Our goal is to put students in a position to use innovation to bring new ideas and changes to our student union, projects, and even the way we approach dealing with campus policy.

Patriot: How does your board plan to unify the senate and make effective changes to benefit the student body?

Smelko: The perfect person to help bring unity and efficiency to our student government is Tu Tran, our executive vice president. Tu’s focus has always been on tangible action items we can deliver for students and it is my belief that when we focus on the actual work at hand we tend to ditch all the unnecessary bickering that accompanies senseless political battles. Tu has a lot of great ideas for improving the meetings themselves, but the most important aspect to bringing unity is the tone we set about why we are here. When we truly understand that the ASUC’s job is to serve the student body instead of ourselves or our own political affiliations, we tend to get a lot more done and everyone (including the student body) is happier in the process.

Patriot: Do you have anything that you would like to say to the Cal students going into the year?

Smelko: I would just ask that students do their part to remain committed and informed. The ASUC is an association of the entire student body, and as such we are only as strong as the students we are comprised of. This doesn’t mean everyone has to take up work in an office, but even if you just take the due diligence to find out more about how buying books at our student store benefits the students financially, or about how encouraging faculty to list their textbooks for the upcoming semester early could save you millions of dollars in textbook costs, you are doing your part to benefit not just the ASUC, but your university, yourself, and your fellow students. Thank you and I look forward to a very exciting year!

In June, the Honduran military took arms against its sitting president, Manuel Zelaya. The move has been decried by most countries, the UN, the Organization of American States (OAS), and international media as a “right-wing coup”, a direct assault on Honduran political freedom and a destabilizing influence in Latin America. Meanwhile, military leaders, the Honduran supreme court, the Honduran legislature, and even many in the Honduran public, have been vocal in their support of the president’s exile. Where does the US stand in all this, how does it, or should it, pass judgment, and what role does the US have?

First, some questions. What preceded the military’s actions? Was it a coup? Is it a threat to rule of law or stability in the area? Dropping any of this context invalidates any answer to these vital questions.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya had been continuously attempting a referendum that would allow for his re-election, which violates the Honduran constitution and had been declared illegal by the Honduran congress, supreme court, attorney general, and electoral tribunal. Zelaya did not even have the backing of his own party, nevermind the public at large, so he unilaterally proceeded with his plans, and had the ballots delivered from Venezuela. The Honduran military, ordered by Zelaya to distribute the election materials, refused to comply and sided instead with the supreme court. Its army chief, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, was subsequently fired, prompting the resignation of all leading army officers and the defense minister. The supreme court ordered Velasquez’s reinstatement; Zelaya refused and led a mob in a raid on a military base that had election materials. The military simply enforced the court’s orders that Velasquez be reinstated and that the referendum attempt cease. This was necessary because the Honduran constitution does not allow for a civilian process such as impeachment.

The “coup” was thus merely the enforcement of a supreme court decision, based strictly on the Honduran constitution, and affirmed by the congress, attorney general, and the Honduran public. And to its credit, it immediately restored authority to the president of the congress, as specified by the constitution. It did, however, violate the Honduran constitution in a somewhat smaller matter, which prohibits expatriation of any Honduran citizen. The military has acknowledged this fact, but defended its actions by asserting that they were trying to avoid bloodshed. Regardless, a coup “is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment”, and this was fully sanctioned by the Honduran legal system.

The fact that this “coup” was legally valid clearly demonstrates that the military’s actions, as such, do not threaten rule of law, but in fact support it. The OAS, which is composed primarily of states that rely heavily on Venezuela’s oil, are pliable when it comes to Hugo Chavez’s political pressures. The OAS has repeatedly dismissed its members’ violations of its democratic charter, and combined with the fact that Zelaya is a close ally of Chavez, the OAS’s condemnation of the military’s intervention is unsurprising, if not predictable. As if this weren’t enough, confiscated computers had certifications of the election results – for an election that never happened. It’s somewhat difficult to portray the exposure of fraud in an unconstitutional referendum as a threat to rule of law.

The UN, meanwhile, has condemned the Honduran military’s actions, its criticism stemming primarily from the fact that the military was necessary to execute the court’s decision. It is just that criticism that does pose a real threat to rule of law, for both Honduras and other countries. The events have put some pressure on political leaders across the world, particularly the current administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a mild condemnation of the Honduran military, which was escalated by President Obama, who demanded that Zelaya be reinstated, contrary to the Honduran legal system and the popular opinion of its citizens. It has put the administration in a bit of a bind, offering public support for a dictator, Hugo Chavez, who has stifled political and economic freedom in his own country and supported the same around the world. The Obama administration has also condemned a legitimate legal procedure, and has thus come out against rule of law. Republicans, meanwhile, have been confronted with a harsh choice: stand with Obama and negate their declared political principles posturing illegitimately as defenders of liberty, or affirm their commitment to “free minds, free markets, and free people” while supporting what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiable coup against a legitimate political figure. In either case, they will have a lot of explaining to do in the coming months – as will the Democrats.

A few years ago, the City of Oakland passed Measure DD, which permitted the city to issue about $200 million worth of bonds, the revenues being used to fund “safe parks and clean water”. A recent regatta hosted at Lake Merritt showcased the benefits derived from the spending.

The tour begins with the streets, approaching the boathouse. The sidewalks were renovated, narrowed considerably to make room for “multi-use” dirt paths for the benefit of cross country runners. Of course, few people actually use these “multi-use” paths – casual pedestrians always used the concrete, and the runners often aren’t willing to jog in the mud caused by the Bay’s frequently wet weather when there’s solid concrete one step away.

On entering the boathouse, two remarkable traits stand out immediately: first, that it doesn’t have enough bays to store all the boats at the club, and second, that there’s a rather large restaurant dominating much of the space. Clearly, money that could have gone to a boathouse’s essential function of storing boats was instead redirected toward something else. And sure, the restaurant has little to do with “safe parks” or “clean water”, but it contributes to the ambiance, so we like it anyway.

The inefficiency and impracticality demonstrated here are not uncharacteristic of government projects designed by committee with borrowed cash. Not only is there no coherent principle behind the project, each interest group can requisition its own favored expenditure, because no one feels compelled to think about how it is to be paid for. Unfortunately, since it’s paid for with bonds, the spending is not only wasteful, but also comes with some unpalatable strings attached. Because bonds are issued by governments, they can only be repaid with more taxes – the original spending, plus the interest. As it turns out, bonds make sense only where there is a budget surplus. Taking out bonds during deficit years leads to an endless spiral of taking out debts to service other debts, as we can see in the state’s budget. The spending must also be on infrastructure, which has a positive economic return, rather than amenities, which everyone likes but are a net drain when financed by borrowing. Of course, this kind of thinking lacks popularity; being against “safe parks” and “clean water” is like being against motherhood. A final consideration is the payback period relative to the lifespan of the project. If the payback period is Measure DD’s 46 years, everything the bond paid for will be replaced before the obligation is repaid, and that replacement will cost money too. Is that to be financed with bonds as well?

Perhaps more important than the mundane, practical issue of how projects like this are paid for is the question of whether it is appropriate to have such spending in the first place. How is it appropriate for the public to subsidize bays for private boats that the overwhelming majority of citizens will never row or paddle in? That money could be better and more equitably spent by individual private citizens than a grandiose “public project”. Similarly, how is it appropriate to use taxpayer money to subsidize a restaurant? Even if the restaurant was profitable enough by virtue of its waterfront location to repay its share of the expenses, what justifies the confiscation of some citizens’ wealth for the benefit of the users of the restaurant, and what justifies the artificial advantages granted to the restaurant at the expense of its competitors?

There’s not much of a solution possible for this particular measure, since it has already passed and the bonds will be issued and repaid over the next 40 or so years. At the very least though, citizens should learn two simple rules that will make them more prosperous and free: have a realistic plan for how to pay for all the nice things there are to buy, and keep the public public and the private private. Tangling the two together in any fashion just causes trouble.

California’s state legislature has taken notice of this outrage. Efforts have been made to decrease the UC’s autonomy, to try to make our “public” institution act more publically. State Senator Leeland Yee of San Francisco has headed these efforts by introducing SCA 21, a bill that would give power to our state’s legislature to pass statutes affecting the university. Senator Yee argues that this proposed public oversight is similar to that of the California State University (CSU) system and will keep the UC’s student fees down while maintaining its sterling reputation.

But is more public oversight really a good thing? Undoubtedly the regents have made rather poor decisions recently with giving some executives higher incomes than the president of the United States, especially in a time of financial crisis. However, is eliminating the regents’ autonomy an apt punishment for their actions, or will it in turn end up punishing the students of the university?

Before our state legislature makes any rash decisions, it should step back and analyze the situation more closely. First and foremost, the University of California in its present state is a top-rate collective of colleges. Our school, Berkeley, is presently the #21 top university in the country according to U.S. News & World Report, outranking well-known private schools like Georgetown University and New York University, as well as being the top public school on the list. Similarly, UCLA is #23, outranking its private rival school, University of Southern California. Additionally, the UC’s sites at San Diego, Davis, Irvine, and Santa Barbara all make the Report’s top hundred list, qualifying them as Tier 1 institutions. The UC is the educational pride of California, as well as the finest public collective of colleges in the nation. This superlative institution has been functioning under autonomous control from the state legislature since 1952 and has greatly increased in prestige over its 57-year run of independence.

So why exactly should the university have more public oversight? Why suddenly change a system that has been run more or less acceptably for over a half of a century? Why hand the controls of the UC to politicians who cannot even balance our state’s budget? Senator Yee argues, “Only five other public universities in the country have a similar status, with UC receiving the greatest level of autonomy. This completely outdated model results in the regents thinking they are above the law.” Although the senator’s statement regarding the five other privately-functioning public universities is true, what he fails to mention is that this group of five includes the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, and the University of Michigan, each of which are top-tier schools ranked in the Report’s top 50 best universities.

Under SCA 21, the UC would function very similarly to the CSU system. California’s state legislature would have power to pass statutes affecting the university. However, as Berkeley Graduate School of Education professor W. North Grubb, who specializes in studying higher education, told the Daily Californian, it is unfair to treat these two separate systems equally. “[The University of California] is not really a public institution in the sense that all of its money comes from the public.” In fact, only $3.25 billion of the university’s $19.6 billion budget is public funding. That’s roughly 16.5%, far less than a quarter. “I acknowledge the university’s failure,” he said, “[But the amendment] will create an additional level of bureaucracy, slowing down the nimbleness the UC system needs in order to respond to those concerns.”

Not only is it simply unfair to treat the two different systems equally, but it is not academically wise either. The prestige that the UC carries could very well be at risk if it were to be treated like a CSU. Although the CSU is a respectable collective of universities, we must face the fact that none of the CSU’s 22 schools are ranked as “top-tier” according to the Report. In fact, they are not even ranked as “second tier” or “third tier.” Additionally, the Department of Education ranks California’s pre-college education system as the third worst of all 50 states. We must remember these two education systems of our state function with a high degree of public oversight. Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between the quality of each education institution and its amount of public oversight: the more oversight each institution has, the poorer its quality. The UC has the least oversight, and also happens to be more prestigious. Our state’s pre-college institutions have the most amount of oversight, and they’re quality is extremely substandard. It is an indubitable historical fact that private educational institutions tend to function more efficiently than public ones (i.e., the schools of the Ivy League). Similarly, privately-functioning public institutions (like the UC) act more efficiently than publically functioning counterparts (like the CSU). Thus, placing the UC at the level of oversight the CSU has could deflate its reputation so severely that the two institutions would become indistinguishable. We would no longer have the best public university system in the world.
It is very easy to get caught up in populist rage when an injustice arises. But before we shout with the masses for public oversight and government takeover, we must step back and analyze the situation closely. In the case of the UC, it is very doubtful that a system that has run efficiently for 57 years will function as well under control of politicians who cannot balance a state’s budget.

Instead of unjust (and unwise) demand for a government takeover of a top-tier university system, we should focus our attention on a just demand for a fair payroll for UC executives.

In May 2009, The Jerusalem Post conducted a survey of Jewish Israelis in regards to the special relationship that Israel has with the United States. The survey found that 88% of Israelis believed the Bush administration to be pro-Israel whereas only 7% found it to be neutral. Only 2% found the United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush pro-Palestine. Most striking about the poll is that once Jewish Israelis were asked about the Obama administration, they made a complete about-face: only 6% thought President Obama as being pro-Israel. 50% viewed him as pro-Palestine while 44% either stated no opinion or believed him to be neutral.

On first inspection, the poll results regarding the Obama administration do not seem alarming. Significant populations of Jewish Israelis find his policies rather neutral or they simply had no opinion regarding President Obama. However, that cannot continue. Israel is our strongest ally in the region and a threat to the state should be considered a grave threat to American interests in the Middle East.

The United States has long been the pillar of freedom and democracy since its inception as a nation. Other nations in the world have long sought to emulate the United States and our remarkable Constitution. In the Middle East, Israel is the only nation who shares those same values that we take for granted: Israel is a beacon for human rights, recognizing everything from property rights to equality under law regardless of gender or religious affiliation. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state that grants religious minorities such as Muslims, Druze, and Christians equal legal status. Notably, there are many Arab Muslims in the Israeli legislature, where many Arab parties appreciate legitimacy and admittedly a great amount of influence in the Knesset and other areas of Israel’s government. The United States needs to continue this relationship as Israel stands apart as one of the Middle East’s freest places.

Israel is at the forefront of major issues plaguing our world today – chief among them, the threat of a nuclear Iran. It is quite evident now that Iran’s nuclear ambition is not for civilian purposes. Iran has continuously been in the news with threats of violence, as war games and rhetoric from Iranian leadership have reached new heights of aggression. Furthermore, a nuclear Iran would be devastating for the world. Given how emboldened Iran has become after the election of President Obama and the administration’s willingness to negotiate without preconditions, our future seems as dangerous and uncertain as ever. Iran would seek to advance its dangerous foreign policy; it would advance its dealings with terrorist organizations and destabilize our advances with Arab nations in the region. The number of Arab nations on friendly terms with the United States is small, and we need to focus on strengthening those relationships while building working relationships with others. This goal will be hindered by a nuclear Iran with even more ability and desire to destabilize, intimidate, or destroy its neighbors. Israel, as one of the first likely targets of Iranian nuclear weapons, needs to have support in preventing Iran from acquiring those weapons, and doing so would be in our best interests as well.

The Obama administration needs to look at this poll as a wake-up call. President Obama needs to remember Israel’s significance both in the Middle East and abroad. The United States cannot have success in the Middle East without Israel on our side. We need to take a more proactive role with Israel involved and so we cannot keep pressuring or alienating our strongest ally. Should that not work, perhaps Barack Obama should take heed from his Christian faith that was so prominent in his campaign: “And I will bless them that bless thee [Israel], and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3, KJV).

In fact, the parallels between the plot of the twentieth century philosopher’s magnum opus and our current recession are so shockingly similar that there has been a great surge in interest in the book recently. Thus far in 2009, sales of the book have tripled compared to the previous year, far surpassing 2008’s total of 200,000 copies sold. Fans of Rand’s 1,200-page epic have described the book as “eye-opening” and “life changing.” This chilling, yet inspiring, look at the future ahead has been ranked as the second most influential book of the modern era (behind only the Bible). In fact, in January of this year, Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore wrote, “If only Atlas were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration, I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.”

So, does the book live up to its hype? Or is it merely gibberish, the nonsense of a cult leader preaching the sham of a philosophy she calls “Objectivism” (as her critics claim)? After reading the novel, I opine that Atlas Shrugged is indeed as great as its sensation has painted it to be.

First, on a surface level, the novel is simply fun. The book captures the reader with its thrilling plot. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, is a proud industrialist in a time when such types are politically hated. She considers herself to be one of the few sane people left in a growingly insane world. As the operating vice president of Taggart Transcontinental, the premier railroad of the book’s fictive world, she struggles to keep her trains running as dozens of her customers, the industrialists of the world, mysteriously disappear without a trace. Anxious by the vanishings of her professional colleagues and close friends, Dagny sets out to search for the cause of these disappearances, and to find an answer to the question that people mindlessly mutter every day in despair: “Who is John Galt?” These mysteries had me turning the pages faster than Obama spends non-existent money (oh, and Atlas Shrugged has that too). Even better, the resolutions to the book’s enigmas are as intriguing as the buildup to them.

However, the book’s real strength is its underlying philosophy and the clarity and ardor with which she defends it. Rand successfully lays out her philosophy in such a rational manner that it is very hard to intelligently disagree with by the end. Specifically in the chapter “This is John Galt Speaking,” Rand’s character John Galt (who is the manifestation of Objectivism) beautifully explains Rand’s philosophy in such an eloquent and logically airtight manner that it leaves the reader in awe. Galt explains that the fundamental truth of his philosophy is that “existence exists”, and that “A is A” (things that exist have real, objective identities, hence the name Objectivism). From this, Galt explains the cardinal virtues of Objectivism, foremost among them being rationality.

Rand set herself apart from philosophers and ethicists by asking, “Why does man need morality, anyway?” Her answer: “not to suffer and die” (as most other philosophies assert), but “to enjoy yourself and live”. Since mankind’s standard of value is life, actions that advance man’s life are morally good, whereas actions that cripple or destroy it are morally evil. Galt’s speech is impeccable philosophically and logically; any student of reason would smile.

Those unfamiliar with Objectivism may find its conclusion that man’s highest moral purpose is to live solely for himself is a bit of a stretch if not downright wrong. However, Atlas Shrugged soundly explains this idea in such a rational manner that by the end of reading the novel it is hard not to take the central oath of Objectivism as written in the book: “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Editor’s Note: Berkeley has a strong Objectivist presence on campus. Their club regularly meets to discuss philosophy and ethics, and periodically hosts guest speakers for the student body.

Normally when I read, write, or even think about economics, my mind is full of nothing but glee. To illustrate: I have, on more than one occasion, stayed up past 3 AM to discuss monetary policy with friends – for fun. Economics 1 is a prerequisite for all subsequent economics courses (although it is possible to take the “Econ 2” and “Econ 3” variants of essentially the same course), and was taught last semester by Martha Olney. It is one of the few regrettable exceptions to my opinion of the subject. Professor Olney sets the standard, not only for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty, but for corruption of young minds with misinformation and political indoctrination.

To put it bluntly, Professor Olney does not teach good economics: her lectures regularly contradict the research and theories of even Nobel Laureates, without offering any justification or qualifications. As an example, she has asserted that spending, as such, stimulates the economy. The professor seems to be confusing cause and effect: fundamentally, the economy is shaped by production; it is self-evident that production must come before consumption. People spend because there is wealth (something to buy); wealth does not exist by virtue of someone spending. If it did, many African and Latin American countries would be wealthier than the US. Such a claim is the logical equivalent of saying “eating your cake causes you to have it”. She goes on to make such nonsensical assertions as “rising corn prices causes inflation”, to which Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman would retort, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” (in short, inflation causes rising corn prices, not the other way around). She has also claimed that “Inflation and unemployment are correlated in the long term”, a view that directly led to the “stagflation” of the 1970s and one specifically contested by many Nobel Laureates for decades. Edmund Phelps won the Prize in 2006 for demonstrating conclusively that the two are not correlated. And let’s not forget this little gem: “Key assumption of Keynesian Model: GDP changes ONLY WHEN there are unplanned changes in inventory holdings”. In other words, economic growth occurs more or less randomly – producers don’t make more of anything or sell things faster, they just have unexpected inventory changes. The Industrial Revolution? The productivity boom of the 90s? Just “unplanned changes in inventory”. Even her definitions are patently false: she asks the difference between a normative statement (an opinion) and a positive (factual) one, with this example: Government spending is always better for the economy than tax cuts (Her answer: positive).

Apart from simply being bad economics, her pronouncements are leading students to support policies that will have disastrous consequences. Her advocacy of simply printing and distributing more money will no doubt lead to inflation, which tends to paralyze economic activity and encourage poor, even wasteful, investments. At the same time, she admits in her lectures that she is unfamiliar with monetary policy; rather than becoming familiar with it, she simply states that “Greenspan had his way” and that a “fiscal solution is needed, not a monetary solution” (indicating her ignorance of the connection between the two, as well as Mr. Greenspan’s role in the problem). Furthermore, she expresses no support for the rule of law and sanctity of contracts that form a fundamental basis for free markets and prosperous economies.

As if misinforming the students who pay her salary were not enough, she takes class time to politically indoctrinate students, even forcing them to agree with her political views for the sake of a grade. Case in point: her final exam, which she has kindly uploaded to the Internet for your benefit. From the beginning of the exam, she presumes that the students in her class support Barbara Boxer. In her third and fourth point, her questions are phrased in such a way that presumes a particular answer. “Why should the government subsidize business and consumer purchases of green technology?” and “How will that spur an economic recovery?” presume that it is both practical and economically sound to distort markets, and morally appropriate to force individuals to adopt some third-party’s values in their decisions. The idea that forcing people to pay for something that is not economically viable – a fact that is demonstrated by the “need” for subsidies for products to hit the market – will somehow help the economy is nonsensical. Points five and six are loaded questions, written so that students cannot assert a view opposing hers. She implicitly dismisses the summary destruction of large corporations with tremendous economic influence and the reduction of consumer choice and competition in the marketplace as potential reasons not to support subsidies, while indicating that there are long term benefits to “green technology” (with the implication that the costs are less than the benefits, which is possible but by no means certain). Accepting these implicit premises makes it logically impossible to oppose, or even express neutrality toward the subsidies she proposes.

From there, she asks what defines recession and recovery, and how the housing bubble and credit crisis contributed to the recession. At this point her questions’ intent is deniable and arguably innocent. From her lectures, she expects an answer reflecting her view that the housing bubble was caused by “corporate greed”, rather than policies in Congress and the Federal Reserve that created perverse incentives to grow an already overlarge housing bubble. She specifically dismisses tax policies (such as the deductibility of mortgage payments from taxation) and regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley (which economists have criticized for causing an amount of economic damage on the order of $1 trillion) and the Community Reinvestment Act (which mandated subprime mortgages) as “Republican talking points”, dismissing as “partisanship” the numerous critiques of these policies even when many of those critiques were from all corners of the political spectrum. She even dismisses any concern about the moral hazard caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s implicit government guarantee, and the de facto monopoly in mortgage lending made possible by it, which magnified a market correction into a market collapse. At the same time, she admits that her knowledge is largely limited to “what she reads in the papers”, particularly the San Francisco Chronicle, a newspaper for which she is a writer.

Martha Olney’s control over students’ introduction to economics, combined with her deliberate misinformation to advance her political agenda, colors their political views and renders them incompetent to assess even elementary economic problems. She presents these views as gospel, without any discussion of alternative (and sounder) theories, nor even a pretense at objectivity.

The tenure system exists for the purpose of protecting academics with unconventional views from censure by vindictive administrators, and thus redeems its many faults by protecting academic freedom. But academic freedom and academic standards are not in conflict, regardless of whatever Professor Olney’s abandonment of her contractual obligation to properly educate those students in her classes might suggest.