Governor Labels Student Rebellion An Act Of Terrorism
 

Do you see what I see? The governor is linking civil revolt to terrorism. These kids are out of line, yes. They broke the law, yes. But they are revolting over policies that our government has unjustly placed on them. They are not terrorists. Not yet anyway. The governor belittles and cheapens the 9/11 events by linking them to the term falsely. If the governor gets away with this, we...you and I are going to be the same if or when we get fed up like these kids did. The Governor is tossing citizen revolt in the same category as Bin Laden et al. It is not the same at all. We have to hammer him on the difference. I'm not defending these kids per se, but we have all sat around wondering when Americans were going to grab torches and pitchforks and head to the castle. We cannot allow them to be labeled terrorists. It's not appropriate and creates an extremely slippery slope for the rest of America's citizenry

I think you are confusing their cause with the misclassification of this event as terroristic. It was not terrorist because of why they were doing what they were doing, but because what they did was not terrorism.

If they had placed a bomb there are tossed a bomb or had otherwise attempted some act of aggression to incite a reaction to the public, then that might qualify as terrorism.

But this was an organized and violent act of aggression against an individual. There are already a sea of laws posed to deal with the situation that have nothing to do with terrorism. One might wonder why the governer is so excited about applying this level of reaction. This could be another attempt to blur the reality that our threat from terrorism is primarily from outside the country. We are seeing very thinly veiled attempts to pose even middle eastern terrorism or attempts in this country as being domestic terrorism, even when the core of the perpetrators are either immigrants themselves or their offspring. For example our last attack at the military installation might be classified as domestic terrorism.

That together with the idea of the "lone wolf", sources of terrorism are being mischaracterized to deliberately excuse what can really more apropriately characterize their source.

I have hated student rioters since the 60's, but they're not terrorists and expanding the definition of "terrorism" to include them is very frightening.

I have always feared the expansion of that term as a means of denying habeas corpus, bail, right to counsel, jury trial, speedy trial and as a justification for torturing prisoners the way the Israelis do.

Were they using terrorist tactics to affect political change? When Bill Ayers bombed police stations was that a terrorist act? When he threw a molotov cocktail through the window in the home of a judge, was that a terrorist act? Of course it was. So too what these kids did acts of terrorisim. They are using terrorist tactics to affect a policy change. It was not an act directed at the chancellor for some sort of act the chancellor did. He might not even agree with a tuition hike. It was a terrorist act designed to affect a policy change. It was terrorisim.

THe crux of the students displeasure is that tuition rates were raised. The students are ENTITLED to higher education, free if they can get it. Left alone, these little dime store terrorists would have absolutely no problem with going house to house of professors, perhaps even fellow students, and doing the same thing if they thought they could affect policy.

The tuition rates should have been raised long ago. California STILL has one of the lowest tuitions in the nation. These are simply spoiled brats who believe they can get by use of force that which they are NOT ENTITLED to.

On what basis do you believe a hike in tuition rates is unjust?

Was Ayers a terrorist? Yes. Are these folks who raided the chancellor's place capable and politically oriented to become terrorists? Yes. Was the attack on the chancellor's place an act of terrorism? I don't think so. But this is a matter of law, not politics. Constantly accusing the bad behavior of people you don't like of being terrorists is not a good practice.

If a terrorist gets a parking ticket, that is not an act of terrorism.

Throwing a flaming torch through the window of someone's home is not getting a parking ticket.

We better start figuring this out real fast. It is going to be a nasty problem if left untreated. We saw a smidgen of where this might lead in the acts after the Prop 8 vote where individual voters were targeted.

The chancellor did not raise the student tuition. Likely he may not agree with it himself. Vandalizing his home and attempting to burn it down isn't an act of agression against the chancellor, but the policies of the entity that the chancellor works for. That makes it an act of terrorisim.

Throwing a flaming torch into someone's home is arson and possibly attempted murder. These are already well established crimes. There is no need to expand the definition of terrorism with the draconian elimination of constitutional rights to regular crimes.

Liberals think a pro-life bumper sticker is terrorism. This cancer of calling everything "terrorism" is very dangerous.

Yes, that's it. I agree 100%.

I don't know what the law says, but I think terrorism is best characterized as acts against the general population commited against population centers and general populations. The Fort Hood attack was a terrorist attack because it was an attack against a random grouping of a population in order to injure and paralyze the larger population. This attack on the chancellor had nothing to do with any larger population.

I agree completely. Perhaps these students are of the same variety that want low tuition for illegals. I wouldn't doubt that. So now they face a real world situation in terms of money and they want to force their will upon a financial reality. Little jerks!!

A little salt to rub in the wounds now:

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2397631.html

UC research workers call for pay raises

Should researchers in research departments get raises provided for by increased federal funding? Is the answer to deny researchers a pay raise because it would make students "feel bad" as their tuition was hiked due to a lack of state funds?

Does one have anything, at all, to do with the other?

The purpose of universities is to teach, not to conduct research. The only reason that universities conduct research is that they have a ready supply of intellectual workers in the students aspiring to PhD's and part of the necessary qualifications for a PhD is to be able to discourse on the frontiers of whatever the student is aspiring to master.

Research is the natural domain of private corporations. If research departments get funding it will be under the pretext, at least, of advancing the cause of educating people in whatever field is being funded. Sometimes private corporations offer grants to students and this makes them less vulnerable to tuition increases.

But of course the students that are the most likely to suffer from tuition increases (if any) are the least likely to be that far in their education.

One certainly has something to do with the other, but as it happens, has nothing to do with the people rioting and attacking the chancellor.

Most Universities have research departments and some of them are very good.

If you are saying that Universities should NOT have research departments because that is not a function of Universities, that's an entirely different subject. The students at the research department are normally graduate students.

The particular funding for the research department is not coming from the school or the state system. So an increase in research funding is removed from tuition hikes.

You're exactly correct. The tuition is completely separate and a small pittance of the cost to run a university. It's the deep pockets in business, medical, pharmaceutical etc. that fund the university research. They are the ones who 'tell' the school what direction the school should go. Follow the money.