Why are my tax dollars used to,pay the salary of this moron? She is too stupid to have this job.

No, sorry.

Alinsky rules: make them live by their own rules. And punch back twice as hard. So give the little palestinian sympathizer as much love as she would give you.

Which is to say none at all. And a red hot poker.

Why are my tax dollars used to,pay the salary of this moron? She is too stupid to have this job.

That is one stunning thing about her.

I agree with you Amy, and thanks for writing that letter to Samuels.

Now, it probably is very true that had her remarks been about other minorities she would have been canned, and that UCLA has been weak in these areas.

But two wrongs and all, and it's better to champion her speech and try to reshape how these things are thought about then to just jump in with more censorship on the grounds, "well all's fair."

So we wants jews to go back to Israel, and abandon it to the palestinians at the same time?

A few points,

1. The land Israel was founded on was bought legally from the owners.

If I'm renting a house and the landlord sells it I dont get to claim that the new owners stole my porperty.

2. The land Israel expanded into was taken in a war of self defense, losers dont get to set the terms, thats why the US owns California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas now

3. The "Mexicans" aint natives, they are the decedents of colonial Spaniards who fucked some of the natives

4. The half breed Europeans calling themselves mexican have a long history of genocide against pure native peoples in their boarders.

Maybe this lady aught to protest her own peoples genocide and not the reason self defense of people defending themselves from genocide.

Not sure why but Jew hate is pretty common among Hispanics.

Must be a legacy of the Spanish. My grandfather was probably a Sephardic Jew but he was really tight lipped about the whole thing aside from his distaste for Catholicism.

Mexicans have this weird thing were they treat the natives like giant pieces of shit, yet view themselves as natives. It's not just Mexicans but even mostly black descent groups like Dominicans do the same (think of themselves as of mostly indigenous descent). I think because it's not trendy to be white anymore, and black is seen as inferior so the coolest thing to latch onto is native ancestry.

Very interesting Ppen.

And thanks for bringing that up, luj. Here's a link:

http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_jewishmethods.html

Not only was the land being legally purchased, it was being purchased at drastically inflated prices. Arab land owners were making a killing selling their land during the waves of Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the animosity against selling land to Jews coming from elitist Arabs, it simply made good economic sense for landlords to sell while they could exploit the thriving market Jewish demand was creating. Sometimes the land being purchased was nothing more than sand dune, malarial swamps and marshes, or other unattractive plots of waste. Even so, it was payday for many landlords; a day many hadn't seen in a long time and one that wouldn't come again:

•"Until 1936 ... the Jews acquired about 25,000 dunam in the Beit-Shean Valley ... The soil was of the poorest quality, in scattered parcels of land, and it was impossible to establish even one settlement on it. The Jewish purchasers paid the full price for these lands; in addition the Government compelled them to cover all the outstanding debts that the sellers had accumulated. (In most cases not one penny of these bad debts had been paid for years.)"12

•"The Jewish authorities have nothing with which to reproach themselves in the matter of the Sursock lands. They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."13

•"He [the Arab] may sell his land for a fantastic price and add to the congestion in the other zones by moving there. An Arab living a short distance away, just across the zone boundary, cannot obtain anything approximating the same sum for land of equal quality.”14

•"The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."15

•"The settlers were ready to pay much more than the economic value of the land. The same or better land is available a few kilometers to the east or north of the Palestine frontiers at one tenth or less of the Palestinian price."16

•“Between 1880 and 1914 over sixty thousand Jews entered Palestine … Many settled on wasteland, sand-dunes and malarial marsh, which they then drained, irrigated and farmed. In 1909 a group of Jews founded the first entirely Jewish town, Tel Aviv, on the sandhills north of Jaffa. The Jews purchased their land piecemeal, from European, Turkish and (principally) Arab landlords, mostly at extremely high prices.”17

An important bit from that link above about how Arab landowners had often skeeved Arab tenant farmers out of the land they sold to the Jews (but hey, easier to hate the Jews):

An initial contrast between the way Arab money lenders and merchants acquired land through economic oppression and trickery versus the way Zionist immigrants acquired land through paying exorbitant sums of money offers no answers for why conflict erupted. In fact, considering only the methods of land acquisition apart from any issue it would seem the arrival of Jewish immigrants and their money would have ended hostilities that should have already been in place. It cannot be suggested by any reasonable account that Jewish land purchases oppressed or dispossessed the legal owners of the land being sold. That was a willful agreement reached between two parties. The catch here was the tenant farmers that lived and worked the land being sold. These were often times the previous owners who had already been dispossessed of their ownership before Jewish immigrants arrived. Now with interested Jewish buyers available, the same Arabs guilty of demoting these farmers to tenant status were selling the land out from under them to turn a profit.

The reason this was such a concern was that Jewish buyers wanted the land free of tenant farmers. Unlike absentee Arab landlords living in Damascus, Beirut, and Cairo, the Jews desired to live and work on the plots they bought. Certainly the new Jewish owners were within their rights to expect the land they had spent so much money for would not have to be shared, but we are looking to explain why this dispossession led to conflict, not to justify owners' rights which do not require a defense.

Perhaps the physical act of relocation was of greater psychological consequence than losing intangible ownership and therefore accounts for why conflict only arose against the Jews. Yes, it was the Arab elite who stripped them of this ownership through a series of oppressive measures and then in a second pass sold away the land they used, but it was typically not until the Jews arrived that the Arabs faced the physical consequences of relocation. The next section in this series explores the extent to which this form of Zionist dispossession took place.

Eh, free speech isn't freedom from its consequences. I'd probably have fired her, because the lack of judgement shown by her probably infiltrates into her job abilities, as well.

Three points;

One. Yep, I agree it is better to have the haters hate in the open rather than keep it to themselves. But, I also believe that an employer does have the right to fire someone for speech that they don't agree with. Especially when, as others have said, that speech shows clear lack of good judgment. Just why should any employer keep a stupid person on staff?

The problem here, though, is that this is a public school so if they do fire her it is like the government oppressing her speech. I'm not sure what can/should be allowed in this case. And, yea, if it had been about any other group besides Jews she would have, no doubt, been fired.

Two. Ppen, yea, I've noticed that too. It is very much a contradiction when some Hispanics claim that they are the natives and ignore that their ancestors were also colonists who enslaved/killed the original natives. I'm not saying that they should be blamed or held accountable for that; just that it is ignorant of them to pretend otherwise. And while there may have been more mixing of Europeans and native American bloodlines in Latin America, I think you, Ppen, are right in that it is fashionable to pretend to be a native rather than be descended from European whites.

Three. It is very true that both the USA southwest and Israel were lands first occupied by others. And wars were a major factor in what forced the change of ownership.

But, it is also equally true that the former residents considered the lands as worthless; yet, after changing hands those areas became very productive lands - through the hard work and ingenuity of the new residents.

So, I look at both the Hispanics claiming that the SW US is theirs and many Arabs claiming that "Palestine" belongs to them as nothing more than jealousy. Just that; pure simple jealousy, even if they make other claims.

Without knowing much about her, I'm inclined to think the same about her; Lisa Marie Mendez's anti-Jewish rants could really be nothing more than jealousy. She sees Jews succeeding where she thinks she should be; yet, isn't because she lacks basic common sense.

Still, Lisa Marie Mendez is a hateful bigot.

She gets some points for creativity (assuming she's not just repeating what she's been taught). But she gets marked way down in the Common Sense categories - both logic and social skills. Extremely weak on history; and her belligerent tone suggests she would do poorly in a position of leadership.

Amy, thanks for the cool history lesson.

Could a Jewish patient at the UCLA Medical Center feel at ease that even though someone who hates them (has their medical records? their financial info? governs who can visit them? who knows - we just know the student works there) might subtly, silently do them harm? I dunno - it seems like there's a line where speech becomes a declaration that a person can't abide by civil rights laws.

I second Rusty's thoughts. Though I applaud free speech and all its infamous tirades such as this one, I have to give great pause to someone with such a vitriolic view being in patient care. I think we have to hold them accountable to what they've said, because it lends itself into what they believe and therefore what they will DO. Do you really believe she will give the same patient care to a Weinstein as to a Smith? I don't think this is something you can take a chance on. If this is an at-will place of employment, she should be fired immediately. Her judgement is completely flawed.

"The land Israel expanded into was taken in a war of self defense."

And in fact the bulk of it (that being the Sinai) has since been returned. How often does the victor in a war give territory back to the losers?

Regarding Mendez, if I were employer, after reading these rants I would have to regard her as a security threat. She's made some fairly specific threats against groups of people she doesn't like. In the future, if she pulls something at work, those posts could be used by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against my business. I'd have to either fire her, or at the least try to put her in a job where she has little or no interaction with others.

And Ppen, thank. You have unique cultural insights as usual. I've spent some time in the Southwest and I've run into a few of those La Raza types.

That bitch has freedom of speech and freedom to get her ass fired...

So much reverse racism in LA it's not even funny. I worked at a grocery store in LA. Lots of antisemetism, very disheartening to see.

Amy: "(I particularly loved the part about Jews never being dragged from their homes. Miss that Holocaust thingie, dearie? Never heard of the pogroms?)"

Sure, but I think a far better example would have been the Babylonian Exile, where they were literally dragged out of Israel. Maybe that would have been to esoteric of a reference for her, but it's in the Bible for Christ'a sake!

-Jut