Political horoscope

Aries

Liberals: The Occupy Wall Street movement will make you feel like you’re accomplishing something until you go back to occupying mom’s basement.
Conservatives: The Occupy Wall Street movement will make you embrace revolutionary traditions of the sixties…like pretending you have values just long enough to get into some hippie chic’s hairy, hairy lady cave.

Taurus

Liberals: Steve Jobs’ passing will mean you can listen to your iPod while threatening CEOs without being a hypocrite. Your mock turtleneck makes you look like a douche, though
Conservatives: Steve Job’s passing won’t phase you in any way. At least, not when you realize that your Apple stock is doing just fine without the ol’ bag.

Gemini

Liberals: “The new improvements to the YRL are exactly the kind of investments we need to improve education,” you will say to your bowl of cheerios during a Spongebob commercial break
Conservatives: “The new improvements to the YRL are exactly the kind of expenditures that are destroying higher ed,” you will say while complaining to the librarian about threatened cuts to Night Powell.

Cancer

Liberals: You can tweet about Ashton Kutcher lying bastard ways as much as you like but Demi Moore will never notice you.
Conservatives: You will be disappointed to learn that the Two and Half Men video you spent three hours torrenting isn’t a sex tape from Ashton Kutcher’s alleged affair after all.

Leo

Liberals: Your attempts to distract voters from the “Fast and Furious” scandal will have the opposite effect because they didn’t give a crap in the first place
Conservatives: Between  thinking about the Waco massacre and the “fast and furious” scandal, you’ll stop making  hackneyed jokes about an ATF convenience store and start filling out your job application

Virgo

Liberals: You will pray that Herman Cain loses the Republican Primary. You can’t have the son of Madelyn Dunham getting out-blacked by a Republican.
Conservatives: You will pray that Herman Cain loses the Republican Primary. That 9-9-9 thing will make your dreams of becoming a shady tax attorney roughly obsolete.

Libra

Liberals: Even the leaked nude pictures of Scarlet Johansen won’t be enough to make you “grow” out of your Iron Man Underoos though the stains she’s causing may warrant picking up a new pair.
Conservatives: You will continue to hold out for dirty Chris Evans candids. The only thing that gets you hotter than the thought of Captain America in his tighty-whities is Patriot Act-ing your way into his phone to get those pics.

Scorpio

Liberals: The President’s call for “Jobs Now” won’t be enough to overcome your Ethnomusicology degree.
Conservatives: The President’s call for “Jobs Now” won’t be enough to overcome your sense of entitlement. You’ll make minimum wage because you’re worth minimum wage.

Sagittarius

Liberals: You will never wash off the orange paint from your Ooompa Loompa costume. At least you’re all set to be John Boehner for next year.
Conservatives: You will never be able to explain your Halloween decorations. No one else thinks gay marriage is scary.

Capricorn

Liberals: Your parents won’t lend you the money you’ll beg for over Thanksgiving
Conservatives: You won’t lend your brother the rent he needs over Thanksgiving

Aquarius

Liberals: Putting a subscription to OutWrite magazine on your Christmas wishlist will make your mom cry
Conservatives: Putting a subscription to GQ magazine on your Christmas wishlist will make your dad think you’re gay.

Pisces

Liberals: Your bragging about Obama’s recent foreign policy wins will be tarnished by the fact that those policies were started by George W. Bush.

Conservatives: Your criticism about Obama’s ongoing economic woes will be tarnished by the fact that those policies were started by George W. Bush.

-------------------------

Why can’t we be friends?
Liberals, you guys are panty-waisted losers with three different flavors of whining and twice as many body odors. Conservatives, you all are egomanical sociopaths with various sizes of stick up your ass. Now, with that settled, don’t you think it’s time we moved on and focused on what we all have in common? There’s a lot we can agree on.

1. Tripping acid before a test is never a good idea -- especially in the botanical garden.
2. Almost anything Nancy Pelosi spends is a waste except whatever she’s paying Dennis Kucinich’s babysitter is not enough.
3. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t feel good to bitch about it sometimes.
4. A room with both Kasey Anthony and OJ Simpson sipping cocktails is not where you want to be.
5. There are indeed places called Hawaii and Kenya and they are different.
6. If jet fuel can’t cause steel-metling combustion, chemtrail components probably can.
7. Soylet Green is a fictional product but no matter what your pastor says, that gay couple down the street is people.
8. Meghan McCain is less intelligent than the dumbest Bruin and about half of all Trojans.
9. Some housewives are desperate but not as much as some politicians.

The Academian Nut: Thomas Harrison

Thomas Harrison

Fiefdom: Wherever socialism promotes output and progress. So maybe his own little world inside his own little mind?
Soapbox: Italian 46
Offense: Intellectually raping his captive audience
Question: If you’re not going to stick to Italian Cinema, can we at least discuss something useful?

     “A positive view of human nature is shared by the likes of Wilhelm Reich and Rousseau, while the Republican Party possesses a negative view of human nature.”  Professor Thomas Harrison of the Italian department was speaking matter-of-factly with a straight face, as if he had merely stated a simple historical fact.  His assertion went unchallenged in the Italian Cinema and Culture (Italian 46) lecture, despite the lack of any supporting reason or logical argument. 
     Aside from statements without factual or logical support, demonization is Harrison’s other tactic.  In a different lecture, taking a deliberate and gratuitous detour from the course material, Harrison quipped, “The Tea Party calls Obama a ‘Socialist.’  They use the term as if it meant ‘Satan.’”  At this point, he has a slight smirk on his lips.  One may wonder how he arrived at this point out of a discussion of an Italian film—I myself have forgotten.  Harrison continues with, “Obama’s no Socialist.  But ask people who live in Socialist regions—they love the way things are!”  Obama isn’t a Socialist?  You have to be looking from the perspective of a fervent Communist to not call Obama a Socialist! If Obama’s ObamaCare and his demonization of corporations and wealthy individuals is not characteristic of Socialism or even Marxism, then what is?  If Harrison wants America to shed its founding values and become Socialist, so be it.  But he ought to be honest about such motivations and use terminology correctly.  As for the latter part of Harrison’s statement—a government that is enjoyed is not an ideal one, and the maximization of pleasure is not a foundation of any respectable system of ethics.  Of course people love Socialism—after all, who doesn’t, through vestiges of infantile desires, take great pleasure in benefitting from other people’s money?  However, individual rights of ownership and Capitalism form the ethical and American system, which is unique in this world.  You want the opposite kind of government?  You can find it… anywhere else.  Harrison and Obama should have moved to God-forsaken Cuba if they wanted to be Communists, rather than stay here and afflict us—in America, the country that was founded on the ideal of limited government and suspicion of taxation.
Thus Harrison implicitly says that whatever feels right or gives you the most satisfaction must be the ethical and proper thing to do.  Very dangerous.  When Harrison, poked fun of Ronald Reagan for calling the former Soviet Union just what is was, an “Evil Empire,” he further demonstrated his disrespect for American values.  Live and let live, he must be thinking.  But live and let live is a naïve slogan that allows unrecognized evil to run unabated.  When Harrison sings the praises of moral relativism, he makes it seem as if there is no objective standard.  How can Stalin’s literal murder millions of his own people be acknowledged nonchalantly?  Anyone morally straight who has a half-decent knowledge of history knows of the sheer evils inflicted under the Soviet regime.
     Harrison’s further disrespect for the traditional moral establishment is shown by his treatment of religion.  He considers it worthless.  When discussing The Night Porter, he readily related that the film was an accurate portrayal of concentration camps, what with the Stockholm Syndrome and moral depravity depicted in the film.  He defends Cavani’s (the director) claim of, “I did my research and you didn’t.”  He is utterly dismissive of Elie Wiesel’s critique and treats such a serious subject with disturbing levity.  Elsewhere, in a particular story within the film adaptation of The Decameron, Harrison points out the man who, after his death, is recognized as a saint based solely on a self-report of his deeds.  Harrison then protracts the message and says that the people we appoint as saints may not necessarily be good people.  Well, Harrison doesn’t have any criteria for evaluating morality. For Harrison to espouse such views of his own accord is one thing.  But consider their impact on his students.  Many students – particularly those in the engineering field – had chosen Harrison’s Italian Cinema course because of its reputation as an easy GE, which indeed it was.  But undergraduates in the engineering school are required to take (at maximum) six north campus courses over their entire degree program and during that student’s experience in GEs, he receives little more than leftist indoctrination.  And since most college folks never encounter a single conservative argument on campus, the effect of leftist professors’ teaching is all the greater.  If this were happening only in private universities  it may be improper to interfere or even speak out, out of respect for the liberty of private businesses.  But in our case, Californian taxpayers are funding the public universities’ practice of bashing American values.

Lessons and lunches of an outdoorswoman

The Bruin Standard writer shares her outdoor experiences and explains why they convinced her to become a vegetarian  Just kidding. She eats bunny rabbits.

By: Jenny Nguyen -- Staff Writer

     I’ve spent a lot of time outdoors, mostly camping, hiking and backpacking. I also enjoy horseback riding, and have also had the opportunity to go kayaking in Alaska for an entire week, paddling to different islands along the Kenai Fjords when I was 17. I’ve been lucky enough see and stand in places most people my age have never touched. As an adventure seeker, I’m always looking for the next opportunity to expand my world, to widen my experience and understanding of nature. A year ago, I decided to take up hunting.
I have always been curious about hunting. The problem was, I was raised in a culture that viewed hunters negatively. I remember watching Bambi, of course. I remember reading a book about the extinction of dodos in kindergarten. In school, U.S. History books never failed to mention the near extinction of the colonial beaver and the extermination of the American bison that roamed the prairies in the millions. I even remember PETA literature being handed out in class when I was in junior high.
     And on college campuses like UCLA, organizations like Bruins for Animals and the UCLA Animal Law Program wholeheartedly agree that hunters are “immoral” people— per my emails with both organizations, while national organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) make fantastic claims about their service to animals, targeting college students through emotional means. It’s hard to escape. People in our part of the country are taught early on to see hunters as bad people. However, we are only getting a one sided view, and a disastrous one. Think back to 2008, when the liberal and mainstream media completely tore Sarah Palin apart because of her hunting, without even trying to understand her world. And it wasn’t just vegans and vegetarians talking; it was from people like Rosie O’Donnell… who I’m pretty sure isn’t a vegetarian.
     In Southern California, the hunter is a rare breed. His world is foreign to many. You rarely hear from him, unless if you know where to look. It was by mere chance that I bumped into one a couple years ago, and it has been an eye-opening learning process since then. After hearing from many hunters about their experiences in the field, I can now wholeheartedly conclude: the hunter most people think they know is a myth. Today’s North American hunter knows a whole lot more about animals than most other animal-loving groups do. His or her service to America’s wildlife is unmatched. 
     The most important myth to debunk is that the modern-day hunter is not the hunter of ancient times. He doesn’t sit on a train and pick off buffalo one by one, leaving the carcasses to rot and waste in the sun. He doesn’t go out and hunt animals willy-nilly, without concern for taking the animal as humanely as possible. An important point to emphasize is that hunting is not the same as poaching. Modern-day hunting in the United States has never led to the extinction of any species. It is also unlawful to hunt for commercial purposes. If you ever had venison or duck in a restaurant, it was not a wild but domesticated animal you were eating.
Sitting in a nine hour Hunter Education class last summer, which is required of all new hunters, I was blown away at how much the instructors knew about wildlife and about environmental responsibility. Course instructors reiterated time and time again that the Department of Fish and Game cracks down hard on those who break the law, and they stood by it 110%. Good hunters understand and respect the law. They understand to respect other people and their property. There were many kids in the class, and I was glad that they were learning this at an early age.
     And who else better would know the difference between a mourning dove and a Eurasian dove? A mallard and a teal? Or the sound of a cow in estrus between a breeding bellow? In reality, hunters spend a lot more time around animals than any animal rights activists I’ve ever known, and a good hunter knows that he has a responsibility to preserve and protect America’s wildlife so that future generations can enjoy.
Anything you read in the newspaper or see on TV about hunting is blown out of proportion. Accidents happen, like in anything. The truth is, hunters do a lot more good than our mainstream media gives them credit for.
     After going through websites of beloved organizations like PETA and the Humane Society, this is what I found: lots of emotional rhetoric and pictures of beautiful celebrities posing awkwardly with their Pomeranians. What I did not find were any clear cut numbers that would convince me that these organizations are more committed to saving animals than just making lots of expensive noise. Why do we not often hear from pro-hunting conservation groups? Because making noise is not their objective.
     Ducks Unlimited, a pro-hunting organization and a leader in waterfowl conservation, shows a clear-cut pie chart of where their money goes, on top of being an accredited Better Business Bureau charity organization on their website. Ducks Unlimited directs a whopping 81% of its money towards “Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation and Education,” meaning restoring grasslands, replanting forests, restoring watersheds, and working with partners and private landowners to make their land more wildlife friendly. The organization will also on occasion buy land, restore it and sell it or donate it back to government agencies that will manage it for wildlife.  In 1901, few ducks remained. Today, there are over 44 million ducks populating the United States and Canada, thanks to state wildlife agencies and groups like Ducks Unlimited.
     Another pro-hunting organization, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s (RMEF) 2010 Annual Report clearly indicates that 86% of its donations goes towards its programs, including elk restoration, land conservation, conservation education and stewardship projects. In 1907, only about 41,000 elk could be counted in the United States. Today, populations in 23 states total approximately 1 million thanks to conservations efforts of organizations like the RMEF.
     Furthermore, sportsmen contribute $7.5 million every day, adding to more than $2.7 billion every year for conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. This tax is only levied against those who buy hunting gear, such as guns and ammunition.  This is probably one of the only, if not the only group of citizens, who have asked to be taxed by the federal government just to restore our wildlife populations.
And these are only a few examples I am mentioning here. For hunters, hunting and conservation goes hand in hand. Hunters are the ones with the real stake when it comes to the outdoors, because it is where they spend so much of their time. I dare you to go to the websites of PETA and HSUS. I did, and what I found was infuriating, incomprehensible and dishonest. Take a look at their financial reports. Good luck trying to find them and read them.
     Next time you marvel at wildlife, go thank a hunter. The next time you stand in that voting booth, think twice about whom you are voting against regarding issues of gun rights and animal rights.
I chose to hunt because I wanted to better understand where my food comes from. All my life, I have been getting my meat from the grocery store, neatly packed in plastic wrap. Sometimes, I forget that an animal had to die to sustain me, and I take it for granted. I went hunting for the first time early September. I sat in 115-degree weather in Arizona, scanning the horizon for dove for two whole days, and got ONE dove. Hunting isn’t “easy.” Effective hunting takes years of practice. If I were a cavewoman, I’d starve to death.
Another thing I never had to deal with was processing my own meat. The one dove I had, I learned to pluck it chest feathers off and peel away the breastbone. I also learned to skin a rabbit on that trip. Having gone through all that, I learned to better appreciate what animals provide. I look forward to hunting for whitetail deer this November in Nebraska, my very first big game hunt. Yes, I currently eat venison almost every single week, and even keep a cooking blog called Wild Game In the Kitchen (shameless plug).
      I don’t think it’s fair to say that hunters are immoral. It’s about sustenance, not morality. Hunters confront their food. They know and appreciate the sacrifices. Every hunter knows how much work it takes to get food on the table. Despite what any vegan or vegetarian wants to say, human beings are omnivores. It’s basic human biology. If vegans and vegetarians were so happy with eating rabbit food, they wouldn’t be eating things like hotdog shaped tofu, “Soy Chicken,” and “VBQ Beef” sandwiches at Bruin Café.  Admit it. Your body craves tasty animals. And to those of you who do eat meat, don’t let others push you around.

Jenny Nguyen is a fourth year American literature and culture major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com. Visit her blog at foodforhunters.blogspot.com

The Bruin Standard eats up this new trend

Farmer's markets offer multiple benefits to the college-aged grocery shopper and lucky for us, there are options all around Los Angeles.

By: Alex Wood -- Staff Writer

     Fresh peaches, decadent brownies, assorted trail mixes, and even Greek and Indian Food describe the hodge-podge that was the De Neve Farmers’ Market on Wednesday, October 12, 2011.
     After first appearing on campus back in April with a huge turnout, UCLA decided to give the market another try this year, with five more possible markets on the line up for the rest of the school year. The big draw for students is the availability of fresh, local and organic produce that they can snack on en route to class or keep in their backpacks or fridges to complement their on-the-go lifestyle.
     The farmers market is a great opportunity to reap unique benefits in shopping. For one, it is a way for students to incorporate healthy choices into their always busy schedules, making it a little easier to avoid the “freshman 15.”
     Also, shoppers can sample the produce before they buy it, easing some concern about wasting money if they don’t like the food.  This allows students to expand their horizons and try new foods that they might not normally try (after all, isn’t college when everyone goes wild?).
The market is a win-win situation all around; It provides an advantage to local businesses because they are attracting new customers, or at least making a small profit, as well as to students because it is an opportunity to explore healthier options and break from the monotony of eating the same foods offered on campus every day.
     If UCLA continued with the farmers markets on campus, we would be a healthier campus altogether and we could even make a difference in our economy. Sure it’s not much, but even a little spending spurs growth and will improve our community…Or at least that’s what economics majors say!
     If you enjoyed the farmers market and literally can’t wait until the next one-don’t wait! The Los Angeles area hosts a plethora of farmers market in various locations and on different days of the weeks year round, so one is bound to match up with your schedule. Head down to Westwood where many of the vendors present at the De Neve market camp out every Wednesday from 2-7pm. Or venture out a little farther and experience the Santa Monica Farmer’s market every Wednesday and Sunday mornings. Brentwood, Beverly Hills, and Hollywood all have farmers’ markets and thanks to the internet, all information is online. But if any of them outshines the others, it has got to be Santa Monica’s.
     It’s nothing new; Santa Monica has been hosting its weekly farmers market for over twenty years now, filling Arizona Avenue in downtown with locally grown produce, flowers, and the like every Wednesday and Saturday mornings, attracting everyone from renowned chefs, local foodies, flocks of tourists, surfers and beach-goers, and the occasional UCLA student (ok, maybe that was just me). Bright red tomatoes, shiny apples, and a wide variety of pumpkins and gourds speckle the avenue between second and third streets, with produce changing according to the season. But for a freshman new to the Los Angeles area like me (and an aspiring chef, too) the outdoor market was enrapturing. Sure, I’ve been to farmer’s markets before. But in most cities across the nation, they take place in concrete parking lots, not exactly the sort of ambiance that screams “fresh” or “organic.” There is no cool ocean breeze to tickle your nose and instead of hearing the rhythmic beat of the ocean’s waves hitting the shore, you hear the start up of an engine or cars whizzing by. But in this beachfront town, all the factors add up to create a recipe for success, especially for the UCLA student: the sunny weather, mix of people, nearby activities (such as surfing, jogging, shopping, and going to the beach or pier), and close proximity to campus, with easy access via the Big Blue Bus, lines 1,2, or 3. So maybe you’re not a gourmand, and the giant heap of artichokes and the entire tent dedicated to different fresh herbs just doesn’t appeal to you as it does me (not to mention the idea of a ripe, juicy peach just after you’ve finished running along the beach). Anyway, maybe you are the kind of person who says “I bought this meal plan and darn it I’m going to use these swipes!” If that’s the case, then I would like you to see the market in a different light, viewing it as an outdoor bazaar for exotic gifts. Yes, you heard me right-EXOTIC! I’m talking fresh honey still on the comb, perfectly safe, not to mention delicious, for eating (I asked), as well as flower stands, reminiscent of the stalls along the banks of the Seine in Paris, to brighten up your cramped dorm room, surprise that special someone, or kiss up to your TA. Lilacs, sunflowers, roses, they have them all. And who wouldn’t want a dragon fruit-a dragon fruit!!! Have you ever eaten one? Yeah, me neither. Still not convinced? (sigh) Well, at least be a tightwad and go solely for the free samples-pink lady apples, flavored pistachios, and sweet honey from the bees, and then beg with the local homeless for your bus fare to get back to campus.


Alex Wood is a first-year English and political science major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com

As DREAM Act passes, protesters eagerly await next protest

DREAMers make a good point but they don't make it well. A look at how overly aggressive activists can alienate constituents on the fence.

By: Matthew Murray -- Managing Editor

     While the California Senate recently witnessed the signing into law of the DREAM Act, UCLA’s emotionally charged protesters ironically did more to alienate potential supporters of the act than make a positive impact. The “support” offered by UCLA’s resident DREAMers was, to no surprise unconstructive. Ask financial analysts about the act and they can tell you about the billions that it can generate. Ask ethicists, sociologists, and psychologists and they can tell you about the positive impact education can make for marginalized students and their families. Even ask Chancellor Block and he will laud the act as a huge step forward in the world of education. Just don’t ask students picketing on campus. Instead of just raising awareness of the merits of the DREAM Act or producing a carefully reasoned argument in a public forum, these DREAMers brought to the table hackneyed slogans and plenty of non-sequiturs. It’s as if UCLA has a team of minutemen protestors ready to drop everything, grab a poster board and markers, and run to campus for a day of hysterical shouting and protesting for the sake of protest.
     For some reason, the protestors would rather vilify the opposition to their cause than simply promote their own. The DREAMers spent ample time attacking straw men as they chanted the truism, “dreams aren’t illegal” - which was also printed on their t-shirts. We all know that dreams aren’t illegal and we would tell anyone that disagreed that they are gravely mistaken - dreams, ambitions, and desires can’t possibly be illegal. What might be illegal is what it takes to realize a dream. If I dream of having a sports car, taking one from someone’s garage is still illegal. So, instead of producing a meaningful slogan that might have piqued students’ interest in the cause, they just made students like me scratch their heads in puzzlement as they hustled through the Bruinwalk gauntlet to class. However, the chanters kept chanting and I wondered just who hates the DREAMers dreams so much?
     When in doubt, it’s usually safe to turn to a learned scholar teaching at UCLA.  Professor and head of the UCLA Labor Institute Kent Wong had the answer to my question. As the person beating his chest for the protest du jour, he’s the go to guy.  I learned from Mr. Wong that the culprit is the state and the people who run it. In other words, The Man is responsible for all this dream hating. While I thought that heads of state generally cared about other human beings (or at least the ones who vote for them), Wong’s enlightening discourse begs to differ. According to Mr. Wong, politicians are more interested in “big business research and development and training corporate leaders” and the federal government has a “deplorable track record of supporting repressive regimes.” Regarding undocumented immigrants, Mr. Wong explained that there is a “handful of people who are trying to block their dreams and aspirations.” I though this was a silly proposition. Who would want to block dreams? Does the state have a secret Department of Inception? The professor clarified, “let us be very clear what is behind the anti-immigrant hysteria in Congress today, and especially among certain Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate; it is racism pure and simple.”
     I’d really like to land a good job after college so I tried looking for a state subsidized Corporate Leader Training Program, but I had no luck. I also wanted to find out who these racist politicians might be, but I couldn’t identify them. It started to feel as if I’d been sent on a goose chase by the questions that Mr. Wong was begging. Fortunately, he was able to explain. Apparently, you can become a successful corporate leader by being a beneficiary of the DREAM Act and the dream hating racists in the senate aren’t just any old politicians - they are old, white, and male. At a rally last year he told everyone, “the young people of the DREAM Act movement, will go on to accomplish and do great things with your lives....You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the U.S. Congress to replace those old white men.” So there you have it. The Man and the greedy fat cats in the state legislature have just been keeping all the good UC bachelors degrees to themselves. With the passage of the DREAM act, corporations can hire new degree holding immigrants and we can finally out the “old white men” running the state - except for old white men like Jerry Brown of course. He did sign the DREAM act after all.

Matthew Murray is a third-year philosophy major. He can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com

DREAM Act proponents miss the point

We look at the bill recently signed by Governor Jerry Brown and discuss the financial ramifications that would burden an already overwhelmed state.

By: Barbara Efraim -- Staff Writer

     California makes the news, yet again, for joining Texas and New Mexico in rewarding illegal behavior. Last weekend, Governor Jerry Brown signed the California DREAM Act, or AB 131.
The new law gives illegal immigrant students “on the path to citizenship” access to the state’s public financial aid and goes into effect Jan. 1, 2013.
     Proponents of the DREAM Act are rejoicing because Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed their long-awaited legislation; opponents are in disbelief. Upon the passage of the first half of the DREAM Act in July of this year, Republican Assemblyman Jeff Miller expressed his disappointment with Governor Brown, “This legislation, in no uncertain terms, subsidizes higher education for illegal immigrants.”
Illegal students are already subsidized under AB 540, a law that makes them eligible for in-state tuition, thus paying about two and a half times less than what an out-of-state student would otherwise pay. (The University of California website shows tuition for residents is $13,200 and out-of-state students pay $36,078, that’s an additional $22,878). AB 131 would give students already sheltered by AB 540 the opportunity to apply for and receive financial aid from the state of California. Illegal students will now be granted access to Cal Grants, among other state aid programs, in order to pay their tuition costs.
     The reported cost of AB 131 is at least $13 million. Although, judging from the economic dire straits of the Golden State, these numbers seem to reflect the bottom of the projected estimates.
     In my phone interview with Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly Twin Peaks, he assumed the real cost will be triple that, as most state expenditures end up costing three times as much as originally predicted. For the record, Assemblyman Donnelly, whose firm stance on immigration has alienated him from a number of state legislators, won’t back down: he intends to file a referendum against the DREAM Act.
The fiery debate over AB 131 has reached UCLA, where the school newspaper published a number of articles dealing with the DREAM Act in the past couple of weeks.  To their credit, a few pieces were against this costly legislation, but they seem to lack an understanding of the facts.
     A common misconception is that illegal students would have access to financial aid only after the aid has been dispersed to California residents, thus not taking any money from legal residents. Assemblyman Donnelly’s explanation is simple: “There’s no way this could happen.”
     When applying for financial aid, the student need not display his legal status. This makes it impossible for the California Student Aid Commission, the administrator of financial aid, to distinguish illegal from legal students. The concept of putting illegal students second in line is therefore very unlikely.
     The school paper is also making an effort to avoid using the word “illegal,” which doesn’t appear even once. The reason for the reluctance of using the term that’s used in every court of law, Donnelly says, is that “they don’t like to call things what they are because then they’re going to have to do something about it.”
No one is disputing that these students’ statuses are complex and multi-faceted, but by facilitating their way through higher education, the problem is not getting any easier. Just what are illegal students supposed to do once they graduate from college? College diplomas don’t magically turn into Green cards or Social Security Numbers, so these students are going to continue being illegal.
     The argument in favor of the California DREAM Act, and even the national DREAM Act, is that these students will be assets to society and as such, they’re a great investment.  Supporters are forgetting to analyze where the payoff of such investment will be. These students will remain illegal and unable to work. Their solution is to wait for a Federal DREAM Act or some kind of amnesty to pass for there to be gains from this risky and short-sided investment.
     I’m absolutely not suggesting that the children of illegal aliens can’t get an education because they’re illegal. But when the state is drowning in a debt of close to $375 billion, rewarding illegal immigrants by subsidizing their tuition (which is rising for everyone) does not seem to be the best idea.
     Not only is the bill financially irresponsible, but it worsens the problem of illegal immigration: what’s to motivate people to immigrate legally if it’s much easier to reap the benefits of illegally?

Barbara Efraim is a fourth-year political science major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com

Discovering the cultural side of Israel

Despite vilification attempts by everyone from USAC representatives to people who actually matter, Israel has much to offer as a cultural and historical hub.

By: Lydia Mazuryk -- Publisher

     At UCLA, students take up causes and are surrounded by efforts to spread diversity, increase dialogue between campus groups, effect change through awareness, make the world a better place.  In short, we all work towards empathy.  If only one group could hear and understand the other, we could at least be civil and all get along.  Whether or not these efforts actually bring about real moral action, or DOING what is right, is not the scope of my article.  But I will attempt to reach all groups touched by one topic: Israel.  In true Bruin spirit, consider this my effort to jump on the Empathy Train and share a few personal experiences.      
    This summer I had the opportunity to participate in the Anti-Defamation League’s Campus Leaders Study Mission to Israel.  My time in Israel, I imagine, is similar to that of many others who travel to the land of milk and honey.  It is an incredible experience that opens your mind to a culture and country that is often talked about with assumed authority by many who have never stepped foot on its shores. 
     Israel is a modern nation like any other Western civilization.  Simultaneously, Israel has an ancient and unique history that has influenced its exceptionally tumultuous path to nationhood and still influences its foreign policy today.  Israel is a nation of Jews, both culturally and religiously, as stated in its constitution.  And even today where over 65% of the nation considers itself secular, one of the central issues precluding peace between Israel and the Palestinians is determining how to govern Jerusalem, the Holy City for multiple faiths.
I never dreamed I would see the Holy City first hand and will always be humbled by the experience.  Seeing pictures of the Wailing Wall and the Temple Mount cannot be compared to actually standing in the vicinity of these historic locations.  And standing next to the Wailing Wall cannot be compared to actually touching it.  The Wall seemed to come alive with all the prayers and emotions that it has absorbed into its cracks over the centuries.  Similarly, walking down the Mt. of Olives in Christ’s footsteps and through the Stations of the Cross on the Via Dolorosa reminds you of an omnipresent God whose existence is broader than any religious definition and sets this city apart from any other.
     With even the most “touristy” of attractions, camel riding, our tour guide was able to show us the merging of history and modernity.  We were taught about the ancient and small, but significant, Bedouin culture residing outside the Old City.  Camel rides are a form of livelihood for this ancient Israeli people.  And like the United States, Israelis for the most part have struck a balance of tolerance and coexistence among its many different cultures.  It is no wonder that the United States and Israel have such strong ties and remain close allies. 
During this trip, as has happened to me in the past, I expected to be questioned by foreigners I met abroad about American life and culture.  In Israel, however, having meals with Israelis from various walks of life, I found them to be open and excited to share about their lives and culture.  Whether discussing their military service or their opinions about recent social or political events taking place in Israel, there was a profound pride and eagerness to share their success as a nation with others.  To listen to Israeli soldiers, some of them barely 21 years old, who have already experienced combat talk about their future plans puts into perspective how much an Israeli youth is expected to accomplish at  a young age versus Americans of the same age.  Without the need to prove anything, Israelis are simply proud to share their own stories of overcoming adversity and the constant external threat that exists from their regional neighbors, while maintaining and improving their democracy.
     Having Shabbat dinner with host families also illuminated daily life in Israel for me.  This geographically small nation is built on intimate and closely knit families and neighborhoods. Throughout the service with the Yaar Ramot congregation, it was clear how close the congregants were and that their shared religious beliefs and culture sealed their connection.  Not only did my fellow mission participants and I receive a gracious invitation to dinner after Temple, but we were immediately welcomed as part of their families.  Coupled with the homey atmosphere that characterizes families in Israel is their eagerness to talk politics.  The father of the host family I visited with, a scientist working in dentistry technology, relayed his observations of Israeli tolerance and their willingness to share innovations with neighboring Arab nations.  But to his lament, non-Israelis who benefit from this generosity go to great lengths to erase connections to Israel.  Countries like Egypt will buy Israeli medical goods and technology and release it for Egyptian public use or export it only after repackaging and stripping any references to the Israeli origin of the product. The obvious goal is to deny recognition of the top-quality of Israel’s technology and manufacturing industry, as well as to negate Israel’s very existence.
     Another more serious effect this trip had on me is my understanding of anti-Semitism.  With leaders like Iranian President Ahmadinejad openly calling for the death of Jews and destruction of Israel it is clear that anti-Semitism is not a relic of Hitler’s Germany.  Anti-Semitism has morphed and manifested itself in new ways.  Whether it is Wall Street Protestors, politicians, or comedians reinforcing age-old stereotypes, like that Jews are rich and tight with their money, or students making light of the Holocaust with Anne Frank jokes, I aim to counter such derogatory comments with a more respectful approach to Judaism, the Jewish people and Israel. 


Lydia Mazuryk is a fourth-year history major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure"

Don't blame us. Blame Sir Winston Churchill. He said it.

By: Justin Tsang -- Staff Writer

     The recent Occupy Wall Street protests are remarkable not only for their spontaneity, but also for their sheer ignorance. The fact that such a huge burst of ignorance can emanate from people in the United States is not only disheartening, but bodes a terrible future for humanity. The protestors are not advocating social justice – far from it, they support socialism; they support theft. The idea that someone who is wealthy should be punished will cause the death of capitalism – the driving force behind all great economies. Former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill once said that “socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” These protestors are nothing but a mob of failure, ignorance and envy. They are discontent with their current situation, but take little measures to improve their own lives. Instead, they look on at others who have worked hard, secured extremely tough jobs (trading at Wall Street can consist of 100 hour work weeks), and earned compensation for their labors, and decide to blame them for all their troubles. Wall Street was not responsible for the economic mess we are in – the government’s ineffective handling of the situation is.
     The protestors rally against banker bonuses, but among their discontented ranks are musicians and pop stars. I daresay they contribute much less to the economy than bankers, yet many of them earn much more just by opening their mouths. What would happen if we all went outside some stars’ houses and rallied against their nonsensical pay? This idea of “unfairness” is inherently wrong – pay should be based on what the person is worth, not on what they think they deserve.
     This is part of the longstanding battle between those who have, and those who don’t. Those who support distribution of wealth are just as greedy as people they protest against, but of course, they don’t see themselves that way. They believe that the bankers do not deserve their high pay, but in reality, if anyone does not deserve high pay, it is them, who destroy areas the public should be able to enjoy, whose actions destroy the livelihoods of the small businesses near where they protest.
     If you ask any of the protestors what they actually are hoping to accomplish, standing in the park accomplishing little away while Wall Street bankers actually go to work and contribute to the economy, no one will be able to give a sensible reply. In fact, some of them have admitted that they were being paid simply to stand there, no doubt by groups (such as labor unions) who wish to push the blame of the faltering recovery efforts on Wall Street.
     The ‘war’ against Capitalism must stop; the notion that socialism will lead to a fairer society has been proven wrong time and time again. There is a reason why post-Soviet economies are still struggling, and why China’s wealth gap has been skyrocketing. Yet the media does not mention this. Newsweek once proudly proclaimed that “We are all Socialists now.” Yet look at what Socialism has given to countries that adapt its flawed principles. Few media articles will ever expose the immense divide between the rich and poor in ‘Socialist’ or ‘Communist’ economies. These protestors think Capitalism is unfair because Capitalism rewards innovation and thinking – something they have not done. Prominent Socialists, such as Michael Moore, take every opportunity to attack Capitalism, yet he distributes his films through corporations, charges people to see them, and earn millions as a result. Is he truly socialist, or just an opportunist? Ultimately, it is Capitalism that allows him to do this; it is a system that gives everyone – even Michael Moore – the freedom to make money.
Long live Capitalism – it is the only system which promotes opportunity for those who try hard enough to seek it. It is time we stopped tolerating failure, and reward achievement.

Justin Tsang is a first year economics major. He can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com

Letter from the Editor

Only you can prevent inefficiencies in your life. Also forest fires. That's on you too, apparently.

By: Kelly Bowers -- Editor in Chief

     In this issue, you’ll read about a young woman who recommends hunting for sustenance. You’ll hear from a gentleman who, having lived in the technocracy of England, defends the choices of Capitalism. And, if you didn’t skip the front page, you know that there are students and faculty who long for the liberal arts education that once built a classical intellectual foundation – and indeed the foundation of the West (if you did skip the front page, please reconsider your unfortunate, hasty decision!).
     Outside of these pages, however, there are people who dismiss outdoorsmen as uneducated, bands of young people across the nation “occupying” metropolitan areas to achieve some goal of social design and ownership, academics who view themselves as sacred cows of thought so immersed in absurdly obscure fields they feel smart enough to force every world problem through the limited lenses of that field.
     Now, I don’t mean to suggest that my team of writers are somehow more original than the rest of the world, no. While they are incredibly intelligent and gifted intellectuals, they are simply individuals; individuals who want the freedom to make their own way. They are individuals who are justifiably leery of the alternative.
In contrast, academia surrounds us with professors and peers who promote central planning as policy – almost exclusively.
     For example, I have an economics professor who, though confident in a market system, would have the government provide disincentives to pollution and incentive to “green technology.” The latter was the goal behind the Solyndra loans and we all know how that turned out.
     Of course, the ultimate failure of government investment in Solyndra is only one part of the problem and arguably it wasn’t even the biggest slice of that pie.
     By all accounts, this professor is a highly intelligent man (some of these accounts are his own but that doesn’t make it any less true). He isn’t necessarily wrong – government intervention could affect pollution and green technology.
      His logic behind it is exceptionally sound, intellectually and economically (in that depressingly Keynesian way). The goals of the environmentally concerned economist may in part be achieved by giving money to “green” companies and taking it (via taxation) from…ummm… “brown” ones.
     Indeed many people ivtn favor of central planning happen to be quite intelligent. One would hope that the government agents and bureaucrats chosen to execute this planning are also intelligent. That isn’t the point. The point is that any action has so many unforeseeable reactions. As F. A. Hayek put it, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” I quote Hayek for several reasons. First, as a catty attempt to mimic Dorian Electra (seriously, go to YouTube and run a search for “Roll with the Flow;” she’s adorable – how’s a girl supposed to compete!?!). Secondly – and I swear there’s a point here – is to explain that government intervention, economic or otherwise, is wildly inefficient. There may be an infinite number of variables
     As Miss Electra’s buddy Frédéric Bastiat believed “a bad economist looks only at the obvious” (her words). Even the best economist can only dream up a handful of scenarios (and the trendy economists are too busy looking for a correlation between school teachers and sumo wrestlers, and really, who can blame them?). The same is true for scientists who can only dream up a handful of scenarios – all within the realm of their particular field – and don’t have the training to consider political ramifications. Or for politicians who won’t consider economic and scientific causes and effects. And not a damn one of those experts knows how to give every member of the population the solution that benefits them.
     These people are smart and they do mean well, but they can’t micromanage the world.
The economy is basically an ecosystem – an incredibly complex ecosystem with different creatures of varying thoughts, hopes, dreams, or – for the economists in the world – units of utility are achieved and earned in an absurd number of different ways.
     Hayek, in his final book, called this principle the “fatal conceit” (indeed, this moniker was the title of said book). He argued that private property – and as an extension capitalism and free trade – were the basis to modern civilization. Socialism is the deviation from this foundation and, as he proposed, fatally flawed. Any attempt by a social planner to actively organize a society disrupts the order that naturally occurs by letting players in the economy make their own choices with respect to their assets.
     The desire of intelligent men to step into a problem and fix it in a way that seems absolute and infallible to him has existed as long as intelligent men have. It is one of the main arguments in Plato’s The Republic. Plato’s solution to protect citizens from tyrants is to install a morally incorruptible “philosopher king.” Leave it to a philosopher to assume a philosopher would not be tempted by power. It has been suggested that this philosophical stance inspired minds like Hitler and Stalin.
     Even without jumping to Godwidian extremes, the fatal conceit of philosopher kings is apparent. By arguing that philosopher-kings are better than the average citizen, Plato reveals that he believes them to be inherently different. Let’s give Plato the benefit of the doubt here, and take that difference for granted. How could we assume these social planners would have the same goals and visions for their society?
The assumptions of this conceit occur even today. Politicians, commentators, economists, world leaders, environmentalists, policy makers and academics all think they know how to solve the problem they thing is the greatest.  They are convinced they know better than laymen and experts who choose to focus on a different field. Even if they were somehow able to account for every single variable – even those outside their expertise – would their vision of America match yours? Your parents? Your neighbor? Your friends? A mother in Kentucky? A dog breeder in New York? How about their parents, neighbors, friends?
     There are individuals who derive sexual pleasure from pain, men and women who dislike chocolate, and people who can afford BMWs buy Toyotas. Who can say they are “wrong?” Applying a “correct” answer to an even broader group of people is an even broader mistake.
     I know what I want for my life, I know how to achieve it, and I’ll work hard to do so. Out of respect for you, I’ll stay the hell out of your way while you discover or execute your plans. Shouldn’t a government comprised of men you’ve never met do the same?


Kelly Bowers is a fourth-year economics major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com
 

Much ado about Moore

By: Darren Ramalho -- Staff Writer

     According to UCLA’s mission statement, it is the intention of this university to “strive at once for excellence and diversity, recognizing openness and inclusion to produce true quality.” UCLA had no problem hosting liberal activists such as former President Bill Clinton and Governor Jerry Brown during the previous academic school year, but the campus was in uproar when conservative speaker David Horowitz came to campus in May 2011. Is this openness and diversity?
     ASUCLA and USAC’s Campus Events Commissioner has fueled the continued bias for liberal speakers, hosting leftist documentary maker Michael Moore during Zero Week on September 20, 2011 in Royce Hall. Moore was promoting his first autobiographical work, Here Comes Trouble: A Memoir of Childhood. Campus Events attempted to sell tickets for $12 per person, but eventually had to provide at least 70 free tickets as a result of low ticket sales. Spectators from a variety of backgrounds came to the event, including students, parents, grandparents, and documentary enthusiasts.
     As Michael Moore approached the podium in Royce Hall, at least 300 students gave this college drop out a standing ovation. Moore, wearing an oh-so-classy orange baseball cap, jeans, and black sweatshirt, started the evening discussing current political issues. One issue addressed included the execution of Troy Davis, a Georgia man convicted of murdering a police officer in 1991. Moore, outraged that Davis was to be executed, stated: “Why exactly do we want to keep the South?” This led to further statements of deep resentment, deeming the South as “f**ked up people,” claiming that after the slaves were freed to fight the Civil War, “…[their] master’s heads could have come off right and left on the road.” Moore feels this action would have led to “an African nation on our borders.”
     Of course, this wouldn’t be a completely atrocious Michael Moore lecture without the opportunity to attack the Republican Party incessantly. Despite record high spending and deepening deficits from our federal government, Moore claims America is not broke.  “The wealthy made off with all the cash, [they are] hoarding the cash.” Not only are the wealthy “hoarding” the American economy, the Republican Party serving in Congress, “[drove] the economy into the toilet” and “f**ked this place up.”  Despite making many factually errant statements that led to frequent applause, Moore failed to acknowledge the projected $1.2 trillion deficit credited to the Obama Administration. Generalizations are not rewarded with the same credibility as researched analysis, Mr. Moore.
     These statements were made within the first hour of the evening. Following this, our documentary-making, pro-socialism guest read excerpts from his new book, recollecting his time as a man on welfare until he found inspiration to film his first documentary. Throughout the reading period, the audience remained silence, in a state of zombie-esque simple awe and admiration. Following this drawn out reading, Moore spent the final portion of this lecture answering questions from the audience. Many were aspiring documentary filmmakers while others solicited Moore’s opinion regarding the Republican primary. Moore had no hesitation in quickly criticizing Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann and Texas Governor Rick Perry, claiming these debates were only promoting the need for the Democratic Party.
     Outside of Royce Hall, the Revolutionary Communist Party attracted college students, seeking donations and selling publications for $10 describing the need for a revolution in the United States. One of the women demonstrating outside the Moore event expressed her support for Michael Moore, but she truly wished Moore would shift focus on finding solutions to our current government problem.



Darren Ramalho is a second year political science and English major, public affairs minor and all around overachiever. He can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com
 

Discussing divisive diversity at the UC

Extra credit: Read every third word to crack Republican "code words" that finally prove they're racist.


By: Brooke Cook -- Staff Writer

     Cookies and cupcakes.  How could something so harmless (and so delicious) turn into such a controversy?  Ask the Berkeley College Republicans (BCRs), a group that decided to turn a bake sale into a political statement about a piece of California legislation that would allow California universities use affirmative action in admissions.  Now, cookies and cupcakes are no longer merely a means for decadent indulgence, but they have become a symbol for free speech on college campuses.
     On September 27, 2011, the BCRs set up a table on Sproul Plaza (the Berkeley equivalent of Bruin Plaza) to sell cookies and cupcakes from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in what they called an “Increase Diversity Bake Sale.”  Next to the table, there was a sign that assigned different prices for the baked goods depending on the race of the customer.  Each baked good was priced accordingly: Whites, $2.00, Asians $1.50, Latinos, $1.00, African-Americans, $0.75, and Native Americans, $0.25. Women got $0.25 off their purchase.  Adjacent this sign, there was another sign that clarified the prices were merely trying to get a message across and that the baked items were not priced differently based on race.   Since it is illegal to price things differently based on race the controversial pricing was merely communicating a political point and did not represent the literal prices of the baked goods. In fact, the BCRs were accepting any price offered by customers for the baked goods.  If someone did not want to pay for the cupcakes, the BCRs gave them to the customer for free.
     Mixed emotions filled the plaza as the bake sale captured the attention of students. “Naturally it’s ingrained in our culture that we want to be treated equally,” remarked Andrew Glidden, a fourth year Materials Science student and a member of the BCRs, who was holding a sign next to the table on the day of the bake sale. The president of BCR, Shawn Lewis, a third year Political Science student, told The Bruin Standard that the bake sale was “meant to get people to think more critically about any policy that treats people differently based on their ethnicity or gender.”
     California Senate Bill 185 (SB 185) is the affirmative action policy that Lewis referenced.  SB 185 was a bill that would allow California state universities to “consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions.”  This bill, if signed into law, would contest a proposition that voters approved 14 years ago prohibiting not only California universities, but any public institution in California from considering such factors.
     The bake sale has received national and even international attention, causing many to discuss not only the merits of the bill, but also whether or not the bake sale was an offensive way for those opposing SB 185 to get their message across.  In response to claims from students and faculty that the bake sale was offensive to minority groups, Lewis claims, “race in politics in America is an inherently controversial subject, so we faced it with a controversial event.”
     But the ASUC, Berkeley’s student government, as well as the chancellor, and minority and student groups on Berkeley’s campus, including the Black Student Union, MEChA, and Cal Democrats came out passionately opposed to the bake sale. And not just on the day of the bake sale.  No, the BCRs began receiving opposition and even media attention almost a week before the bake sale occurred. 
     According to Lewis, the bake sale was a response to an “Increase Diversity Phone Bank” that was sponsored by ASUC to encourage students to call Governor Brown and urge him to sign SB 185 into law.  Lewis says, “There was a one sided conversation on-campus regarding this issue and this bill.”  According to Lewis, the goal of the bake sale was to have another view represented on campus.  Perhaps this view was more consistent with the citizens of California—a Survey USA poll conducted on September 26, 2011 found that 77% of Californians opposed SB 185.
     Five days before the bake sale, the event was announced via Facebook, and it immediately went viral.  Within 24 hours of the Facebook event post, Student Action, one Berkeley’s student government political parties (similar to Students First and Bruins United), set up an emergency townhall to oppose the bake sale. 
Two days after the townhall and two days before the bake sale, the student government held an emergency Senate session, in which a resolution was passed condemning “offensiveness” on campus, implicating the bake sale that had not yet occurred. The resolution threatened to revoke student funding from any event that was offensive.  Later that day, the president of ASUC told media outlets that there was a strong possibility that the BCRs might lose their funding. 
     In response to the threats to cut BCR’s funding, Lewis firmly expressed that the BCRs would take legal action.  “It would be illegal. It would be unconstitutional in California, it would be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution,” emphasized Lewis.  Evidently many others agree with Lewis, because public interest firms and civil rights attorneys from across the nation called the BCRs and told Lewis that they would defend the group in court for free.  As of now, threats to revoke funding have died down, and no party has taken legal action.
     The chancellor sent an email to the students of Berkeley the evening after the bake sale.  In the email, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau discussed his disappointment in the bake sale by saying, “The issue is whether community members will be intentionally - or unintentionally - hurt or demeaned by that action.” Glidden responded to this email expressing, “this is an impossible standard to live up to.”  Chancellor Birgeneau further comments on First Amendment liberties saying, “Freedom of speech is not properly exercised without taking responsibility for its impact.” 
     On Sunday, October 9, 2011, Governor Brown vetoed SB 185.  Was his veto a result of the BCRs bake sale?  Maybe not, but Lewis states that the bake sale “brought attention to something that was on its way to quietly moving through the legislature.”



Brooke Cook is a fourth-year communication studies major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com

Academic center fills abandoned need for a classical liberal arts education

That's right. We said the word "liberal" without a punchline. On the front page and everything.

By: Virginia Boles -- Staff Writer

     Shakespeare, Milton, Aristotle, Austen, Du Bois, Dostoyevsky, Beethoven, Einstein . . . names that we, as UCLA students, are at least familiar with.  Why are we familiar with them?  Because they have created the greatest achievements of our intellectual heritage, be it in literature, philosophy, music, or the sciences.  These men and women have confronted basic questions of the meaning of life and of beauty, the nature of the cosmos and of human society, and the principles of right and wrong.  Every human being must, at some point in his or her life, confront these questions.  For much of the history of Western Civilization, from ancient Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, and up until perhaps sixty years ago, exploring such questions were the primary objective of an education.  This kind of education is traditionally called a Classical, Liberal Arts education.  “Liberal” comes from the Latin adjective liber, which means “free.”  It is understood that studying these perennial human questions  - why life exists, what truth and beauty are, how a society should be organized – makes a person more free.  Nurturing/fostering/developing insight into these ideas, and being familiar with the great achievements of one’s culture, is enriching. 
     However, it is possible for a student to graduate with a B.A. or a B.S. from UCLA without having ever comprehensively studied these ideas, these figures, or their works.  As a research institution, UCLA professors often focus on the latest discoveries and techniques in their field, or fill their lecture halls with post-modern interpretations of literature, sociology, and history.  The general education requirements, which are UCLA’s attempt at giving their students a well-rounded education, are a mere a parody/vestigial organ/shadow/ of a true classical, liberal arts education.  Often, they do not provide a “general” education by a long shot: a student can fulfill his or her “Historical Analysis” requirement with a class on “Joan of Arc and Gilles de Rais.”  As important as these figures may be, to pretend that they constitute a general education in history is ridiculous.  And yet, that can be the only history class that a non-history major takes at UCLA.
Enter Daniel Lowenstein. A registered Democrat professor who worked for Jerry Brown hosts a dinner for UCLA students celebrating Constitution Day, Professor Lowenstein directs a new center at UCLA promoting the study of Western civilization and the liberal arts.  Seems contradictory?  In fact, not at all.  In 2009, UCLA Law Professor Lowenstein founded the Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions, abbreviated “CLAFI”.  Its purpose is to help UCLA students get a comprehensive, traditional liberal arts education, studying the greatest literature, philosophy, art, music, history, and science of, primarily, the western intellectual heritage. 
     CLAFI is founded on three principles.  First, “an educated citizen in a democracy should have a sound understanding of the history of free institutions and their underlying principles.” Second, “a central purpose of a university is to assist and encourage students . . . to confront basic questions of the meaning of life, the nature of the cosmos and of human society, and the principles of right and wrong. The study and appreciation of history, literature and other arts, philosophy, religion, and social science are of value in themselves and are also integral to consideration of these basic questions.”  Finally, “the study of the great works and achievements of Western and other civilizations, combining respectful criticism with the presumption that we have much to learn from our greatest forerunners, is a valuable if not indispensable means for the study of the principles of free institutions and the fundamental questions we face as humans.”
Many mistakenly consider a liberal arts education to be a rigid, regressive examination of the works of dead, white, oppressive males.  (Sorry Jane Austen and W. E. B. Du Bois, the critics seem to have overlooked you in our canon.)  The more important emphasis in a liberal arts education, however, is not who is studied, but what is studied.  This education liberates the mind, endeavoring to give students an understanding of the principles and achievements that have built Western society.  As a professor at Dartmouth College put it, “The goal of education is to form the Citizen. And the Citizen is a person who, if need be, can re-found his civilization.”  It is fitting that we focus on Western civilization because the nation in which we reside was founded in that tradition.  However, this does not undermine the value of studying other civilizations.  There is no political agenda behind UCLA’s Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions.  CLAFI simply tries to foster and facilitate a better understanding of the foundations of our American society.
     As its opening event of the 2011-2012 academic year, CLAFI hosted a (free!) dinner in the Faculty Center for UCLA students on September 29th to celebrate Constitution Day.  While students sipped coffee and ate a chocolate mousse dessert, Prof. Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna University gave a talk on the idea of limited government under the U.S. Constitution.  Over fifty students were present at the event, including both North and South campus majors, liberals and conservatives.       
     CLAFI also offers upper-division and Fiat Lux courses.  Currently, Prof. Lowenstein is offering a course entitled “Justice and Public Responsibility in Literature.” Using the Socratic method, Prof. Lowenstein facilitates the discussion of eighteen students, covering works ranging from classics such as Sophocles’s Antigone and Shakespeare’s Othello to modern works such as Taking Sides by Ronald Harwood and Doubt: A Parable by John Patrick Shanley.  In most UCLA discussion sections the TA praises every comment put forth by a student, even when that comment is irrelevant or unintelligent.  “Discussion” is an abuse of the term  since no comment builds off of the one that came before it.  The seminars offered by CLAFI, however, offer a refreshing intellectual exercise.  Students must support their comments with evidence from the text, rather than sharing their impressions and feelings about the work.  If a student’s point is too vague, he or she is asked to refine and clarify their point.  Students are expected to follow the discussion and respond to one another.  Students learn to be intellectually agile, to think critically, and to express their ideas articulately.  They stimulate their powers of reason while steeping their minds in the classics.
     If you would like notices of CLAFI’s public lectures, seminars, or classes, or if you would like to become more involved in CLAFI’s growth at UCLA, please contact either Prof. Lowenstein at lowenstein@law.ucla.edu, or the affiliated student organization, “CLAFI@UCLA” at clafi.bruin@gmail.com.  You can also visit CLAFI’s website, www.clafi.ucla.edu.


Virgina Boles is a fourth-year Greek and Latin Major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com