Founded by E. Clasen Young, H.W. Crocker III, and Brandon Crocker in January 1982, our first issue was printed in late May, 1982.

Since then, the California Review has proudly infuriated the UCSD administration and student government with our persistent investigations into their financial mismanagement, lack of transparency, and abuse of student rights; topics that other newspapers on campus have been hesitant to cover. In addition to exposing these scandals, the California Review has had the honor of interviewing political heavyweights including Milton Friedman, George F. Will, Thomas Sowell, former California Govenor Pete Wilson, and Arthur Laffer, among many others.

The California Review is also the oldest student newspaper in southern California dedicated toward conservative and libertarian ideals. Our staff embodies a wide assortment of political ideologies and helps provide true intellectual diversity to our university.

We are grateful for the significant contributions of our dedicated staff and editors who have made it possible for the Califoria Review to have such a rich legacy and promising future.

May the California Review shine as brightly in thirty years.

“Fiat Lux.”

Joshua Marxen

The United States Postal Service has been running at a loss for years now. Things cannot continue as they are, and there are several options that the Postal Service and our government can adopt to solve the problem. What is the problem? What does it mean for us? How do we solve it? This article will attempt to answer these questions by taking stock of the factors undermining the postal service, looking into the history that brought these problems about, and examining the solutions other countries have adopted.

Before we discuss the problems, we must ask how the Postal Service affects us. First, is the financial (in)solvency of the USPS a tax burden? The answer is technically no, but practically yes. In 1970, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization Act, which made the USPS an agency independent of the Federal Government (before, it had been a department of the executive branch, the Post Office Department). As such, it was to be financially self-sufficient, and received no annual appropriation from federal tax revenues. However, in the last decade, it has taken out loans from the U.S. Treasury to compensate for recent losses, and it’s current outstanding debt is nearly $15 billion (it’s official debt ceiling). This should not be surprising, but it is far from the worst bailout in recent history.

Second, what would happen if USPS went bankrupt? It would mean an immediate cessation in the delivery of letters, because the USPS has a legal monopoly on this activity. It is illegal for any non-postal worker to deliver the mail (packages/parcels are exempt).

So, why is this happening? The losses incurred by the USPS stem from a convergence of several hardships. First, mail volume has decreased by 20% since 2006 – there is now more junk mail delivered than normal mail – presumably due to increased use of e-mail and the internet. Second, the USPS operates under a Universal Service Obligation (USO), which means two things: it must serve all addresses in the U.S., and it must serve them at a universal, cheap (sub-market) price. On account of this, it is estimated that 80% of the ~36,000 post offices in the US run at a loss. Third, the postal workers unions, such as the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) and the American Postal Workers’ Union (APWU), are the dominant forces shaping USPS financial policy. About 80% of USPS revenue goes to employee wages, compared with FedEx’s 43% and UPS’s 61%. In addition, the USPS has agreed in union contracts to pay for 79% of it’s employees’ health care, compared with the standard 72% for federal workers. Fourth, the USPS is subject to Congressional oversight that prevents it from using its discretion to adapt to market conditions, and is prohibited from making a profit or entering markets unrelated to mail.

Some argue that more recent hardships, such as the economic recession and, especially, a 2006 Congressional mandate that the USPS pay $5.5 billion annually into future retiree pensions, are more immediately threatening. However, since both Postmaster General Patrick Donahue and many of the unions agree that the pension payments are a bizarre and unsustainable expense, Congress will likely relax its mandate.

But what about the other problems? Donahoe is making every attempt to reduce costs within the given framework. Some make sense, but many compromise the USO, including: a raise in postage rates by 29% since 2001; closing 3,700 of the costliest post offices; and eliminating Saturday service. The latter two still await Congressional approval (this could change by the time this article is printed). If they pass, the USPS can only pretend to continue offering universal service. If they don’t, the USPS will continue to lose revenue until it must be bailed out with taxpayer money.

That is, unless Congress adopts this solution: 1) remove the USPS’s monopoly on mail delivery, 2) remove regulations on and privileges enjoyed by the USPS which do not apply to competitors like FedEx and UPS, and 3) relieve the USPS of it’s universal service obligation, or at least redefine the USO so that the USPS is only required to provide mail service for citizens who have not or cannot select a private mailing alternative.

All of these steps go hand in hand. The reason that the USPS is subject to so much regulation and oversight is because these were the conditions on which it was granted it’s monopoly, in lieu of competition and to balance out the privileges it enjoys (no federal taxes). No monopoly means no reason to regulate it any differently than other businesses in the industry, and the USPS could have the same flexibility as their competitors in adapting to market conditions. Also, the monopoly was conferred so that it would have the market access necessary to meet its USO. No USO, no need for a monopoly.

Many believe the elimination of the monopoly would be detrimental to citizens because they see mail delivery as an essential service that can only be reliably supplied by the government. Besides the fact that the USO is tenable only as a contribution to the federal deficit, as demonstrated above, and that the status of mail as an “essential” service is plummeting rapidly, the argument is flawed because it assumes that a single organization must be responsible for universal service. A newly privatized USPS will start out with 100% of the letter delivery market. Any reduction from that is necessarily an improvement for citizens, because it means that those who turned away have found a more suitable alternative mail service otherwise unavailable during the monopoly. Thus, service distribution is not only maintained, but it is also improved by allowing competitors to take up some of the service.

Postal privatization has worked in Europe. Sweden became one of the first countries to open its postal service, Posten, to competition in 1993, adopting provisions similar to those outlined above. Germany was quick to follow in 1994. These governments require the privatized postal departments to maintain their USO, primarily to ensure that rural residents maintain access to postage rates comparable to urban residents, despite the increased cost of delivery to remote locations. (Whether or not a market solution to the problem of rural delivery exists is a debate for another time.) But the legal monopolies are gone, and competitors have moved in to satisfy niche markets. Allowed to freely innovate, the businesses have decreased costs by moving their operations and employment into supermarkets and banks, and brought themselves up to speed with new telecommunications technologies by offering increased online and cell-phone services to replace traditional mail services.

Joshua is a junior in Warren College studying Environmental Engineering.

Alec Weisman, Alumni (Editor-in-Chief 2008-2011)

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

Washington DC – Two new ballot initiatives at the University of California, San Diego are in the works that if passed would raise student fees by $534 per year, an increase of more than 150 percent. The high stakes of these two referenda have prompted entrenched interests at UC San Diego to spread misinformation, half-truths, and factual distortions in an attempt to pass their fee hikes.

The most contentious of these referenda, the Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA) Student Activity Fee Referendum, seeks to move UCSD from NCAA Division II to Division I. To do so, UCSD needs to increase the athletics budget by $13 million to be competitive, according to a $28,000 UCSD Feasibility Study by the consulting firm Athletics Staffing & Consultants released in March 2011. This referendum requires undergraduate students to pay an additional $165 per quarter, which will generate around $11 million for the athletics budget if enrollment remains the same. The fee would go into effect as soon as UCSD is accepted into the Big West conference, which must happen by September 30, 2014 or else the results of this referendum would be nullified.

The vote will be held on Tritonlink from Monday, February 27 and continue until Friday, March 9. Although UCSD moved to Division II in 2001, its top sports, fencing, men’s volleyball, and water polo, already compete at Division I. UCSD has debated moving to Division I since at least 2004, although prior to 2007 UCSD did not even offer athletic scholarships. These scholarships are estimated to compose about a third of the ICA operating budget if the referendum is approved.

The distortions begin with the “Pro Statement” on the referendum itself. It reads, “The Division I and Student Scholarships Referendum will raise nearly $8,000,000 per year in scholarships, $3,000,000 of which will go to student grants and aid, not just to athletes.” However, after mathematically calculating the fee breakdown of this referendum, it becomes apparent that only about $6 million will actually be raised from this new referendum, while the remaining $2 million comes from the prior $119.78 per quarter ICA Student Activity Fee.

The advocates of this referendum have also been engaged in secretive lobbying efforts. These have prompted a public outcry. First, a private Facebook message urging AS members to keep the publicity about the referendum on the “dl” was leaked to the public on February 1. In addition, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Penny Rue, has asked UCSD staff and departments to remain neutral on this referendum. She did this after a program assistant for the UCSD Recreation Services sent out a negative email urging students to get informed and vote on the referendum, prompting the director of the Recreation Department to issue an embarrassed apology for the email.

Nevertheless, the Triton Athletes’ Council is campaigning on behalf of the referendum and working to build its voter lists under the radar. Supporters claim that moving to Division I is of utmost importance. To make their point, they emphasize that moving to DI will help boost UCSD’s name recognition, prompt an increase in school spirit, and generate other  “positive social effects.” These ambiguous and unquantifiable allegations are often tied to the assumption that moving to DI is inevitable and a critical investment in the university.

Yet as they clamor for Division I, these standard bearers appear to be blind to the realities in California. Several DI UC schools (UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and UC Irvine) have cut some of their teams, while others (UC Santa Barbara and UC Riverside) are reducing funding to their athletics departments. UCSD has seen more than a quarter of its state funding disappear between 2010 and 2012, and the state of California is considering borrowing as much as $200 million from the UC and CSU systems in March because of their high credit ratings. The state currently owes the UC system $1.7 billion from past borrowing.

Opponents of the referendum have also fought to make their voices heard, explaining that the benefits from joining DI are exaggerated. According to a 2007 NCAA-commissioned study, every university that moved from DII to DI between 1993 and 2003 suffered multimillion-dollar losses. Only 19 of 119 Division 1 schools in the country were profitable in 2006, while the other schools had negative median revenue of $8.9 million. In addition, the only D1 programs that generated any profit were men’s basketball and football. It should be noted that three of the top five highest paid state employees are coaches at UCLA and Berkeley.

These critics recognize that the funding plan for moving to D1 assumes that UCSD will generate around half a million dollars ($550,000) per year from increased ticket sales, donations, and sponsorships. Yet if this goal is not met, the burden will likely be placed on students that will already be paying $3,417 over four years. UCSD students currently pay 95 percent of the athletic budget from student fees, which cover $6.9 million out of the annual $7.3 million athletic budget. This far exceeds average schools in the Big West Conference, in which students typically only support around 35 percent of the athletic budget.

Even more alarming is the revelation that the UCSD Health System is sponsoring the San Diego Chargers for more than $300,000 per year. This hospital giant made more than $900 million in 2011, with almost $150 million as profit. This year alone, UCSD Health System paid its associate vice chancellor a $600,000 salary and purchased the bankrupt Nevada Cancer Institute for $18 million. Rather than help share the burden of DI with their students, the university appears content to allow undergraduates to raise their own fees to support athletics.

Another referendum seeking to go to a vote this year would increase the University Center’s Advisory Board’s (UCAB) University Center’s (UCEN) Fee by an additional $39 per year, which would bring the total UCEN fee to $268 per year. AS is set to decide whether to approve the referendum on February 29. According to the Student Life Business Office, the University Centers (which includes Price Center, the Old Student Center, and the Che Café) has been in debt since the 2010-2011 academic year. Students rejected this ballot referendum last year when UCEN asked for a $15 per year fee. However, the half-truths have already begun to flow from supporters of this referendum.

According to notes from a meeting on February 22 between the AS Representative to UCAB Jeremy Akiyama and the Interim Director of University Centers, Sharon Van Bruggen, UCEN is considering possible actions to respond to decreasing revenues and increasing costs. Some of these threats, such as removing 24-hour access to Price Center, closing several stores, and reducing the availability of student org offices amount to a breach of contract. These amenities, among others, were guaranteed within the 2003 Price Center expansion referendum and UCEN cannot threaten to remove them just to pass a referendum.

The UCSD Associated Students is very inconsistent with deciding what referenda should be a priority. In the past six years, AS has seriously considered at least nine referenda. Of those, five have gone to a vote and four have passed. Once a referendum becomes voted in, the fees essentially become locked in forever. Last year the AS President Alyssa Wing killed a proposed referendum of $8 per quarter that could have stopped the Center for Library and Instructional Computing Services (CLICS) from closing, recognizing that it was dangerous to expand student fees to cover the library. Students eventually reclaimed and reopened the library in December with the tacit support of administrators, who had decided not to further antagonize students.

Yet the AS pushed for and passed the $21 per year Promoting Understanding and Learning through Service and Education (PULSE) Referendum in 2007, which established the Student Promoted Access Center for Education and Service (SPACES), Academic Success Program (ASP), and Student Initiated Outreach and Recruitment Commission (SIORC). SPACES has used this money to promote a radical agenda through their publication, the Collective Voice. Not only is the Collective Voice exempt from issuing a disclaimer in its issues because it is not a “registered media organization,” but the two editors of the Collective Voice are paid $3,500 per year from student fees, which violates UCSD AS funding policies.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) defends “individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.” FIRE is a firm opponent of referenda that violate viewpoint neutrality (such as SPACES) and force students to fund “groups that advocate ideas they find morally or politically unacceptable.” The Supreme Court ruled in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) that public universities cannot force students to fund specific organizations even if they win a referendum.

Adam Kissel, the Vice President of Programs for FIRE elaborated on referenda like PULSE. “UCSD cannot base allocation decisions about mandatory student activity fees upon the outcomes of student referenda, even when they are merely advisory. This is viewpoint discrimination that crowds out minority views.” Nevertheless, referenda remain an attractive tool of the UCSD Associated Students to promote their cause du jour.

As students prepare to vote on these referenda they should consider if the Associated Students even has the moral authority to impose fees on UCSD students at all. By voting in favor of these fees, students give the AS the legitimacy to ask for more money. By voting in favor of these fees, students give the administration the incentive to promote entrenched interests by any means necessary. It is time to stand up and protect your liberty. Enough is enough. Now is not the time for more referenda.

The higher administration of UC San Diego receives a disproportionately large salary compared to professors, according to a database of California public employee salary records compiled by the Sacramento Bee. This reflects the appeal of finding a job in the UC administration, which has increased in numbers by more than 200 percent in the entire UC system. As the salaries of the UC administration seems to have been prioritized over that of teaching faculty, several high-ranking professors have made the choice to seek employment elsewhere.

It is no secret that UC San Diego professors earn less than their contemporaries at equivalent universities. UC San Diego compares itself with 8 other universities: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, SUNY-Buffalo, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Yale. Harvard, for example, pays its professors on average $193,000 a year.

In 2010, the average salary of all full-time professors of the Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, Linguistics, History, Literature, and Music departments was a whopping $129,300. This includes overtime, bonuses, housing allowances, sick leave pay, vacation pay, and many other forms of cash compensation. The average salary varied between departments, as Linguistics professors earned an average of $84,000 while Molecular Biologists earned around $169,700.

But even the compensation for science professors seems pathetic in comparison to the salaries of our upper administration. In 2010, the average income of our Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Assistant Chancellors, Assistant Vice Chancellors, and Deans was $262,850. On average these members of UC San Diego’s upper administration earned $130,000 more than instructors.

Of course, the state government bears responsibility for this disparity to an extent. Indeed, it is disheartening to see that a professor of UCSD who uses computational modeling and psycholinguistic experimentation to explain cognitive language processing earns considerably less than a correctional officer at the Fairfield State Prison. Obviously, there are many fiscal decisions on the state level that demand serious reform, but the UC system can no longer afford to blame the state budget for the severely unbalanced allocation of funds.

As the system stands, there is a greater economic incentive for professors to set aside their lectures and pursue a position of authority within the administration. The primary difference between the responsibilities of senior administrators and instructors is essentially a matter of power.

The Vice Chancellor for External and Business Affairs, for example, has worked for the past twenty years managing business operations for the entire campus (at least his salary of $286,215.96 would appear to suggest so). There’s no denying that his job is potentially demanding, yet there are many tenured professors at this university who have been teaching for over 20 years and barely make six figures. This income disparity is even more disconcerting after recognition of the unquestionable authority of our professors in their respective fields of studies and their devotion to the education of their students.

What motivation is there for decent professors to maintain their teaching positions at UC San Diego, when they are offered more money to work as an administrator or teach at a competing university?

For the UC regents, the solution is a fancy accounting gimmick. In August 2011, the majority of the UC faculty that currently earn less than $200,000 was granted a three percent pay raise. However, this pay raise is actually a pay cut, because professors are now obligated to contribute 3.5 percent of their income to the University of California Retirement Plan, effective as of last July. Effective next July, they will have to contribute 6.5 percent, which ultimately reduces their take-home pay to less than it was before the “pay raise.”

In a letter addressed to the chancellors regarding the “three percent pay raise,” the University of California President Mark Yudof surprisingly acknowledged that most of the senior faculty across the board are compensated below market levels.

Yudof explained, “During the furlough program, employees at the higher end of the scale saw their salaries reduced at a proportion far greater than their colleagues in the lower ranges. But, I am confident that these senior employees, notwithstanding their enormous contributions to the University, will understand that the fiscal pressures we are under make it imperative that we focus this merit pool on our faculty and those of our non-represented staff who are not at the high end of our compensation range.”

Even President Yudof seems to sense the danger of losing more research professors to higher paying institutions at the expense of compensating the administration. It is no coincidence that his letter was released shortly after the top physicists Jose Onuchic and Herbert Levine and the biochemist Peter Wolynes, left UC San Diego to conduct research at Rice University, where they will now earn 40 percent more than they did at UCSD.

Economic incentives aside, the UC regents should consider what their students want. Students have made our opinion clear time and time again: we just want to be taught. Students in the UC system compete for internships and lab positions in the hopes of having an opportunity to work directly with our instructors. UCSD students boast an average GPA of over 3.0 – the result of an exceptional discipline to our courses. It is a figure reflected during the final exams of Fall 2011 when at least a hundred students were caught breaking into the closed Center for Library & Instructional Computing Services (CLICS) just to study. CLICS library had been permanently closed by the administration last spring in a desperate effort to save $450,000. Yet the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences raked in $737,500 just the year before. Granted, the library budget and that of Health Sciences are separate, but the former is a direct service to the students. Ultimately, the UC regents need to ask the question, “Who is worth more?”

Brian Chapler

Several recent state-by-state studies paint a bleak picture of California. These surveys on “best and worst run states,” economic freedom, state services and benefits, income inequality, and interstate migration reveal California is the worst-run state in the nation and is ranked 24th for economic freedom. Although California has some of the highest levels of services and benefits amongst the states, it also has some of the highest levels of income inequality. Given these rankings, it is perhaps not surprising that Californians are fleeing California faster than the residents of any other state.

A review of financial health, standard of living, and government service data was conducted to determine how well each state is managed by 24/7 Wall St., LLC, a Delaware financial news and opinion company. According to their analysis, Wyoming is the best-run state in the nation, and California is the worst. California scored below average in every category except median household income—scoring last (tie with Texas) in high school graduation rates—and next to last in unemployment and foreclosure rate. California also has the worst credit rating, being the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P.

In their 2011 Economic Freedom of North America report, the Frasier Institute – an independent non-partisan research and educational organization based in Canada – compiled comprehensive economic freedom ratings for US states and Canadian provinces. The Frasier institute develops an index of economic freedom that measures the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals engage in voluntary transactions. Their annual report consistently finds economic freedom to be a powerful driver of growth and prosperity, which is confirmed in the 2011 report. California came in 24th amongst the US states at the “all government” level but falls to 43rd at the subnational level. The overall scores are based upon rankings of size of government, takings and discriminatory taxation, and labor market freedom.

In another survey by 24/7 Wall St., government spending was examined to identify how much states spend on their residents. Naturally, those states that provide the most money and benefits to their residence have higher tax burdens. The analysis also finds that these states have particularly high costs of living. California is ranked 10th in providing money and benefits and ranks in the top ten for average pension benefits (8th), temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) per month (2nd), and number of months of TANF received (7th). Interestingly, the study finds that these states also have high levels of income inequality, despite the fact that the poor and the dispossessed receive the most from government services. According to this study, California has the 7th highest level of income inequality. This result is supported by a study conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, which finds the gap between California’s richest and poorest families to be the 8th largest in the nation, and the gap between the richest families and middle-class families to be the 3rd largest in the nation. This study finds the growth in income inequality in California since the late 1980s between the richest and poorest families to be the 18th largest, and 5th largest between the richest and middle-class families.

Altogether, Californians may be becoming increasingly dissatisfied by the poor performance of their state and are now “voting with their feet”. In their recent Geographical Mobility: 2011 Report, the US Census Bureau reveals that Californians are leaving California at a faster rate than residents leaving any other state. In fact, four out of the top ten most common state-to-state relocations from 2009 to 2010 were from California. These include California to Nevada (35,472 movers), Washington (39,468), Arizona (47,164), and the most common state move in the nation, California to Texas (68,959).

Brian is a gradute student in the Physics Department.

For further details on these studies (And where the information for the graph was gathered) see:

• http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/
• http://www.freetheworld.com/efna2011/Complete-Publication-CA.pdf
• http://247wallst.com/2011/11/11/the-states-doing-the-most-and-least-to-spread-the-wealth/
• http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=255
• http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/mobility_of_the_population/cb11-193.html

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

According to Samer Naji, the Vice President of External Affairs for the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego, due to complaints and “various concerns raised about the Occupy Resolution, the External Affairs Office decided to draft a different resolution directed mainly towards our campus.”

Therefore, instead of passing a resolution to support the occupy movement, they decided to focus their efforts on passing a resolution in support of Reclaim UCSD.

However, the AS office of External Affairs does not stop there. Instead, their new resolution decides to overturn their former Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community that was passed last April. The new resolution states: “LET IT BE RESOLVED, the ASUCSD shall rescind their decision to maintain neutrality in regards to world events and political issues and instead shall take a more proactive approach to allow the association to partake in relevant political affairs that deeply impact students and are significant to their student lives.”

This clause effectively overturns AS decision to remain neutral regarding world events and national political issues. Sadly this clause in the current resolution is completely unnecessary. The Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community only restrains AS from remaining neutral on “divisive external political issue[s].” Although divisive, Reclaim UCSD is an on campus issue and does not fall under the purview of the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community. Therefore, the AS Office of External Affairs is effectively trying to once more assert itself as a partisan organization by seeking to repeal the Resolution Upholding Commitment to the Principles of Community.

It was your actions and your emails that got the AS office of External Affairs to update its resolution. Keep up the hard work. To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Attached is the updated resolution: Resolution in Support of Reclaim UCSD

Originally posted on The Word From the Wise, Alec’s personal blog.

On April 13, 2011 the Associated Students at the University of California, San Diego voted to endorse a principle of neutrality on political and divisive issues and refrain from passing resolutions.

Yet this promise has faded quickly, with the announcement that the AS Vice-President External Affairs Samer Naji will be introducing a resolution on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 that will explicitly announce the Associated Students support for the Occupy movement.

Although I am generally sympathetic with some of the goals of the Occupy movement, such as their concern that big business is in collusion with government and that bailouts for banks are wrong, yet other claims, such as debt forgiveness for all and “magic” money for every pet project they could imagine are hollow demands and are stupid. In addition, the recent acts of violence in Washington DC, Oakland, and San Diego (among others) has slowly eroded their positive attributes.

In addition, the resolution conflates the recent protests that have been met in some cases with what could be characterized as “excessive force” in the UC System with the Occupy movement at large. The resolution opens with statements claiming: “reckless greed committed by Wall Street firms and Executives,” “corporations prey[ing] on the hopes and aspirations held by millions of people with the simple and selfish aim to maximize profit,” “these corporations are responsible for the eviction of millions of people from their homes due to predatory lending practices.”

Most concerning of all however, this resolution calls upon the “Associated Students [to] provide support for protests and or occupations, should students decide to set up an occupation on campus.” This means that the A.S. will be using your student fees to bring the Occupy movement to UCSD and then proceed to disrupt traffic and interrupt classes and speeches. If members of A.S. want to use their stipends to cover the “Occupy Movement,” then that is their prerogative. But it is a shame that the Associated Students at UCSD continue to try to misrepresent more than 23,000 undergraduates, display their biases in a official capacity, and for revealing their belief that they know whats best for you.

I hope that UCSD students will tell AS to keep itself out of political and controversial matters and let them get back to problems that they have direct influence over, such as improving the parking situation at UCSD, dining dollar inflation, and restoring SunGod.

To express your disapproval for the Associated Students at UCSD passing this resolution, email asvpexternal@ucsd.edu or contact the council members directly: http://as.ucsd.edu/council

Below is the Resolution in full.

***

Resolution to Support the Occupy Movement

Whereas, individuals in the United States and across the world have been severely impacted by the reckless greed committed by Wall Street firms and Executives;

Whereas, these corporations preyed on the hopes and aspirations held by millions of people with the simple and selfish aim to maximize profit1;

Whereas, the profits made by the major businesses and corporations are being used to influence the American political system and the choices it makes, regardless of the impacts to ordinary individuals2

Whereas, these corporations are responsible for the eviction of millions of people from their homes due to predatory lending practices3;

Whereas, University of California, San Diego students, faculty, staff, and workers have been deeply impacted by the 2008 Financial Crisis and following recession that was caused by reckless management of domestic and international financial systems;

Whereas, billions in taxpayer dollars were committed to bailing out selfish and predatory corporations at the cost of neglecting Main Street America and cutting public funding for vital public services4;

Whereas, funding cuts to institutions of higher education, including the University of California, have led to skyrocketing tuition and fees, service cuts, and faculty, staff, and worker layoffs;

Whereas, personal and student debt has and continues to skyrocket5;

Whereas, concerned individuals have committed to peaceful occupation of symbolic centers in protest of the symbiotic relationship between corporate and government institutions, in addition to protesting public service cuts and the continual reduction of their standards of living,

Whereas, the demands made by the various occupations are closely aligned with the demands made by the University of California Student Association, including but not limited to:
The demand for corporate accountability,
The demand for a separation between corporate money and the American political system,
The demand to reform Proposition 13 to raise corporate property tax rates,
The demand to return for public higher education to return to be fully publicly funded and affordable.

And whereas, local police departments, including the University of California Police Department, have resorted to forceful eviction and suppression of peaceful demonstrators, in violation of their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble6;

Let it therefore be resolved that the Associated Students of the University of California, San Diego endorse the Occupy movement;

Be it further resolved that the Associated Students provide support for protests and or occupations, should students decide to set up an occupation on campus;

Be it further resolved that the University of California, San Diego Chancellor sign a pledge, ensuring students’ rights to free speech and assembly on campus;

And let it finally be resolved that the Associated Students strongly condemns and demands that the University of California, Davis, and the University of California, Berkeley Chancellors and Police Chiefs resign immediately for authorizing the use of force by the University of California Police Department on UC students, faculty, staff, and workers

1. http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html
2. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12184365

4. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html
5. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136214779/college-student-debt-grows-is-it-worth-it
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/03/occupy-militarisation-policing-protest

Iran dug itself into an even deeper hole on Tuesday when a collection of United States federal agencies foiled an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. In addition to this plan, it is also widely suspected that Iran was planning on attacking the Israeli embassy in Washington.

As the story goes, two Iranian citizens held a meeting in Mexico in May of this year seeking assistance with the assassination of the Saudi ambassador. That is when U.S. federal agents began to infiltrate the plot which then led to the September 29 arrest of Mr. Arbabsiar, one of the two men believed to be a part of the conspiracy.

Politically, this has come at a very bad time for Iran. The Iranian regime is currently seeking a nuclear program, whether it is for power or weapons. In response to these Iranian actions, the U.S. Congress has passed sanctions against Iran in order to slow down the Iranian financial sector. Congress’ hope is that this pressure will grind Iran’s nuclear program to a halt. Not only does the United States fear a nuclear armed Iran, but so do regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and others as confirmed by Wikileaks. Although up to this point the United States has spoken somewhat rhetorically in regard to an attack on Iran in order to prevent the advancement of their nuclear program, it seems that this Iranian attempt might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

First and foremost, the United States has been reluctant to advocate a military option due in part to its recent military engagements in the Middle East. But now, it would not be surprising to see the American stance on Iran become slightly more hostile. On this point does this whole hypothesis rest: if the United States increases its threats against Iran, even moreso will Israel and Saudi Arabia increase their threats against Iran. Thus, these threats could turn into action and an attack could be eminent. Below, a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facility will be played out.

Understandably, the Saudis are not going to take the Iranian threat lightly. Saudi Arabia and Iran have had poor relations for many years. As a client of the United States, Saudi Arabia has one of the most advanced militaries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s arsenal includes around 200 F-15s, one of the most advanced airframes in the world. If Saudi Arabia feels that Iran is posing enough of a threat, these planes could play a very large role in a potential reprisal raid against Iran by Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia would be most useful as an origin for the attacks.

In addition to Iran’s poor relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran’s relations with Israel have fallen apart since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has, on multiple occasions, called for the absolute destruction of Israel, a statement that Israel does not take lightly given its location and the Jewish people’s long history of persecution. In comparison to Saudi Arabia’s almost 200 F-15s, Israel weighs in with about 100 F-15s and about 225 F-16s. Likewise, given Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear program and calls for the destruction of Israel, these airplanes could play a pivotal role in an attack on Iran. However, one of Israel’s best weapons is its logistical resilience. Israeli planes knocked out the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s without losing a single plane.

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia come nowhere close to the United States’ air capabilities. The United States has almost 500 F-15s, about 1000 F-16s, 22 B-2 Bombers – all just in the Air Force. If you include the other branches of the military, there are literally hundreds of other attack aircraft available for a retribution strike against the Iranian nuclear program. Also, unmanned drones and cruise missiles could play a large part in a potential attack.

Winning a battle or, in this case, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, would take more than a bunch of airplanes. This attack would require lots of logistical planning with simultaneous strikes taking out Iran’s air force, anti-aircraft defense, and its early-warning radar. This is precisely where the various countries involved can best be put to work. The Saudis, for instance, are located closest to Iran. The headquarters for this reprisal operation could be centered from an airbase in Saudi Arabia. In regard to gathering intelligence, Israel has one of the most effective intelligence gathering organizations in the world. With regard to tactical planning, Israel and the United States have lots of practice. While the United States made easy word of the Iraqi early-warning radar and missile-defense system in both Desert Storm and the Gulf War, Israel has shown its planning resilience in the Bekaa Valley and in the attack on Iraq’s Osiraq reactor. Needless to say, the combined ability of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia could prove devastating to the Iranian state. Further, there are many more countries, be they regional or part of NATO, that also feel threatened by Iran’s nuclear program and could feel prompted to join in on an attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities if prompted to do so.

It will be very interesting to see how the Saudis, Israelis, and Americans respond in the next few weeks. The United States has already said that it will be pushing for stronger sanctions against Iran, but Saudi Arabia might feel so threatened that it might choose to attack. And if Saudi Arabia is determined to balance the Iranian threat, Israel and the United States might well be tempted to provide assistance to the process as well.

Steven is a senior in Revelle College majoring in Political Science: International Relations. He is currently studying abroad in Israel.