If you have difficulty reading the newsletter, please go to www.patriotreturns.com to see the latest release.
THE PATRIOT RETURNS |
Vol. 46, No.4 April 07, 2009
THE DEAR LEADER'S
On Sunday, we were humbled to receive a “personal message” from our Dear Leader. We were hoping that Barbara Bowen would take the opportunity to explain why she has refused to work under the contract that she had negotiated for the rest of CUNY faculty, and instead had arranged for herself to receive a $40,000 annual bonus. But, alas, the Dear Leader spent most of her time attacking the CUNY Alliance (probably a good strategy, given the New Caucus' record). We were particularly struck by one item in her personal message. Wrote our Dear Leader, “During this period I have been testifying at City Hall, advocating for CUNY in Albany , meeting with the governor's office to press for more federal stimulus funds for public higher education, participating in budget hearings on the campuses, and working with our representatives in Washington to maximize federal stimulus funding for public colleges and universities.” Really? Well, what about last week? As state Senate Republicans offered an amendment to ensure that all money from the tuition increase would go back to CUNY, the Dear Leader decided that it wouldn't be a good time for her to be “advocating for CUNY in Albany.” Was the Dear Leader reaching out to state Senate Democrats, perhaps? Not exactly. In fact, the New Caucus picketed the office of Brooklyn Democratic state senator Carl Kruger. You can take a look at this “protest” at this link. Alex Vitale, a member of the New Caucus' executive committee, explained that the protest was part of the New Caucus' desire to “advocate for CUNY in the state legislature.” That's one way of putting it. Let's get this straight: the Dear Leader believes she can best “advocate” for CUNY by picketing the offices of Democratic state senators and refusing to work with Republican state senators when they happen to take pro-CUNY positions. No wonder the PSC is viewed as a laughingstock in Albany. ----------------------- NEW CAUCUS “FOREIGN MINISTER”: IN 2002 Far be it from us to question our Dear Leader, but we believe another item in her “personal message” was . . . well, factually inaccurate. Barbara wrote that in the campaign, the CUNY Alliance has given members “no strategy” for running the union. It seems the Dear Leader hasn't been following the campaign too closely. (Too busy picketing the offices of Senate Democrats, perhaps?) The Alliance has been crystal clear about its strategy—it will focus on what it has called “paycheck justice” instead of the New Caucus fetish with global politics, which has alienated needed allies in politics and the media. We can understand, however, why the Dear Leader isn't any more eager to talk about the New Caucus' global agenda than she is about her $40,000 bonus. We've been forwarded several emails from New Caucus executive committee member Steve Trimboli trying to explain away the New Caucus' January 2009 anti-Israel resolutions. The resolutions, he claimed, came from “International Committee” chair Renate Bridenthal, and the committee, he wrote, “is not controlled by any caucus.” Trimboli didn't mention that Bridenthal has been a close ally of the Dear Leader for more than a decade. She was installed as “international committee” chair—the PSC's de facto “foreign minister”—at the Dear Leader's behest. And she certainly has an . . . extreme . . . position on Israel. In 2002, in fact, Bridenthal signed a petition wildly asserting that the Israeli government “may be contemplating crimes against humanity . . . up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing.” Now, Renate Bridenthal is entitled to any position that she wants on Israel , no matter how extreme. But—leaving aside the question of why the PSC needs an “international spokesperson”—why has the Dear Leader refused to explain why she decided that Bridenthal was more qualified than any other CUNY faculty member to handle international issues? Does the Dear Leader believe that having as the union's chief international spokesperson a figure who suggested in 2002 that Israel might be contemplating “crimes against humanity” and “ethnic cleansing” is really the best way to “advocate for CUNY,” given the realities of New York politics? In the Dear Leader's “personal message,” she denounced the “big lie” approach to politics. Then why are she and her minions employing it? Why won't Barbara come clean regarding the New Caucus' on-the-record anti-Israel extremism? As the Dear Leader knows, despite the claims in Trimboli's email, the New-Caucus-led PSC instituted a procedure whereby the New Caucus-controlled Executive Committee decides which resolutions come before the Delegate Assembly for discussion and/or vote. According to New-Caucus-promulgated rules of engagement, resolutions may NOT be brought before the D.A. that have not been approved by the Executive Committee. So, the record: The New Caucus Executive Committee—for reasons the Dear Leader has refused to explain—approved the anti-Israel resolution sponsored by Bridenthal, an anti-Israel extremist given her union position by Barbara Bowen. Most New Caucus members in the D.A. spoke in favor of Bridenthal's resolution. A few partially sane members of the New Caucus comprehended the intra-union political implications of flirting with anti-Semitism, and so put the matter off for another day. And now, in the heat of the campaign, Trimboli won't tell the truth about the New Caucus' own procedures? Talk about the “big lie”!
Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at As you know, Susan O'Malley has sought to silence the Patriot by bringing a lawsuit which seeks to limit his free speech and financially bankrupt him. Interested colleagues have weighed in at |