Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit
 

The Berkeley City Council, which has never officially liked the idea that foreign fascism and other obnoxiousism should perish from the Earth -- it seems their shibboleth that it's the Republicans that keep the fascist flame alive domestically, and how willfully ignorant of Republicans and Fascists is that? -- now attempts harassment of the USMC recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue by the petty gesture of reserving a parking space directly in front of the recruiting office for Code Pink to park vehicles in to further their anti-antifascism campaign. Mala fides is just rampant up there.

Et Semper Mala Fides. This is a petty hit-back at the cause of democracy, and therefore of humanity, for America's cause is humanity's cause. Our opposition is only about oppression, after all is said and done -- and what they do makes people spew.

There is one single councilmember named in one link below who comes out of this wholly without shame -- his was the dissenting vote against the 8 to 1 condemnation measure of the two measures passed against Marine Corps officer recruitment in downtown Berkeley, and I think also against the parking-space reservation, which wasn't as lopsided, passing 6-3. Seems the Marines are particularly looking for UC grads, no doubt from the sciences and engineering. Hardly the dumb high-schoolers of stereotype.

SF Chronicle

Yesterday, on FoxNews.com

Seattle blogger Karl Swenson

Jesse McKinley, for the NYT


The picture this action by the City Council paints has disturbing parallels with the first anti-Jewish law passed by the Nazis, though its scale is far smaller -- the space is reserved for Code Pink parking for four hours, one afternoon each week.

We see a group of persons, Code Pink, who are not sympathetic to the progress of democracy around the globe, or they wouldn't be carrying on the way they do, who have enough influence on an arm of government to cause them to pass a law harassing, well, persons of a different lifestyle choice than theirs. I'll leave it to the reader whether the Marine Corps constitutes a religion, remarking that like most military service, it is intensely formative. But really, where's the difference between what the pinkshirts have done and brownshirts in front of jeweler's shops going "Don't buy from Jews!"?

Whatever problem they have with Republicans breaking Fascists has never been clear to me. I don't think I'll ever understand it, being as I am enlightened these days.

I must say this action by Berkeley's council does strongly offend some deeply held beliefs of mine. How about a little impeachment and regime change in Berkeley? Hey, even a recall election or two would do nicely. So would somebody taking the parking space and fighting the ticket in court, expensively. He could doubtless get at least some pro bono legal representation. Whether the city could, I am not sure; there may be an ordinance against that.

I have to agree, after weeding out the hyperbole, The Berkeley City Council has no business targeting a legitimate, legal business for officially condoned harassment.

That weeding out takes so much effort. Too bad there isn't a Babelfish translator for UG. After parsing what his post says, I agree as well, but boy he makes it hard.

Well, glatt, do you need me to talk to you in baby talk, or would you all things considered prefer adult speech?

Quitcherbitchin; come up to my level. Nice view here.

Either one would be an improvement.

This is not outside of what democratic groups do, UG. Use big boy words from here on out. If they are being anti-freedom say so, but don't continue to re-define democracy per ancient talking points used for selling invasions. When we leave Iraq, you'll probably get to see democracy at its jackbooted best.

UG :tinfoil:

:lol: spot on, HM!

Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass. Say it in English. Or Spanish, or German, or any other language actually in common usage today.

So Berkeley is against the troops because they reserved the parking in front of a recruiter shop to an anti-war group; isn't that what you are trying to say?
A city doesn't have to give comfort to a recruitment shop, if the majority in the city disagree with military policies.

Not giving comfort does not allow harassment.

Until the pro-right courts rule on the new free-speech zone, we'll see. Meanwhile, Berkeley will have its fun.

Cool. I love it when cities think they're better than Federal agencies. If that's true, we need to cut all Federal funding from the area so they will, no longer, be contaminated by organizations that offend them.

Ahh, I love it when a bankrupt state screws with the ones that can help bail them out.....

Zen: no. And I have Spanish, French, and Russian and hey, I can say it in any of these. If I choose to use my admittedly scant store of Latin, look upon it as a chance to enjoy the same broad horizons I do, rather than an excuse to complain at me. I'd say that's beneath your dignity. I'll make this plain: I do not listen to such requests, deeming them both beneath me -- a request to dumb down, which is the request I forever deny -- and beneath the asker also: is he not asking to be dumber? (What???) If you don't feel like rejecting that whole I-wannabe-a-dullard frame of mind yet, I'm not doing my job of making you a better man.

In that vein, I've not often found Happy Monkey to be all that well advised anyway. I did catch him at some good thinking over in Philosophy once, and I'd like to see him at it again, but his ideology does cause him to say absurd things. He's not the only one; this is the usual fate of the posters who wrangle with me on ideological grounds. Leftism keeps you childish and in a condition of dependency -- that's the only way the left retains influence -- and you say things that sound like they're from six-year-olds, not adult humans of free estate. No thank you; I enjoy a better road.

What makes it better? Boy, that would take a long essay. A lot of that work has already been done by writers through history. Orwell inoculated me against leftism in the beginning; Heinlein was a booster shot, and then there is the kind of writing free adults can do when they're conservative: almost every month of the year in National Review. To remain left of center, you have to carefully avoid the wit and wisdom on display there.

So, reading this thread over, it looks like the usual debate-club mess-up: can't dispute the validity of the argument? See if you can piss on the guy's style. Tsk tsk. That's going to carry the day for the opposition? That's known as a losing battle, people. Make a fight when you have a case. Don't try covering that lack up with a lot of noise over peripherals or personalities. That may have fooled some... has it fooled me, do you think?

What the hell?

The man was a communist! Well, okay, a socialist. He fought with the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain! The only way you could possibly use Orwell as an argument against 'leftism' is if either A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was good, and disagreed with him.
So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.

Hey now, that's not fair.... he could be both.

...

So... your advice is golden but when people try to advise you, you tell them in no uncertain terms that you don't accept it.

And there wasn't.

There's an important point you're whiffing on here. It goes so far over your head you may need a trampoline to reach it. Ready to leap?

If the people don't like you, they won't listen to you. In fact they often come to a conclusion the opposite of your argument... merely because they take you as a horse's ass.

That's not exactly critical thinking on their behalf. The argument should be separate from the speaker. But it's true. You do your arguments a terrible disservice by serving them up on a plate with dog shit garnish. You might as well take the opposite opinion of your own, because it would lead more people to seek the alternative.

And actually, though it's not critical thinking, there may be a gem of truth in not listening to pomposity. Who is more likely to be right: the person who believes he has never been wrong, or the person who knows he has been wrong, who has been thoroughly humbled in his wrongness...?

The people find no humility in you and so they find you suspect. I think the people know what they are doing, here.

If the people here are so far beneath you that you must lecture them and not listen to them -- if that's really the case -- if you really believe that --

Then you are playing tennis in a league beneath your skill, and you should find a game that matches your skill... otherwise you are just playing to make yourself feel good, do you see that? Who would stay in a game where they are so far superior? It does your game no good.

The rule of thumb for Truth is very simple...whoever has the most Money, Power and Force, bears Truth.

Therefore, America espouses Truth in all cases. To say otherwise is to be un-American, and therefore a threat to national security. Once we get rid of that nasty little Free Speech thing, it will be much easier for all of us to realize this.

But we'll be safe.

And yes, what Berkeley did was wrong. Equal parking for all, with special consideration given to the handicapped. Anti war protesters are not handicapped as a group.

I think the fellas at the USMC recruit station should just change their hours. Throw in a 4 hour lunch break during the Code Pink parking time, open up 2 hours earlier and stay open 2 hours later. Case settled. There would never be anyone there when they protest. Turn the time over to them as the council would have it. Code Pink is no more Jackboots than the Corps and military supporters are Fascists.

I'm guessing that the shit you use to expand your horizons are illegal in most states.

First, its not the point of giving the parking spot to anti-war protesters and not giving comfort to recruiters. Its beyond that. They actually voted 6-3 to declare that the recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders." Wow. Calling recruiters intruders? Un-welcoming a federal office space? That's what a recruiting station is.

Furthermore, on top of giving a parking space to an anti-war movement, they also gave them loudspeaker priveleges - something not given to the recruiters. I'm no lawyer, but I believe this to be unconstitutional. The government cannot give one group favor over another. If they give code pink a parking spot and loudspeaker privileges, they need to give the same privileges to the recruiters, then to the pro-gay-in-the-military movement, then to the pro-recruiter movement, then to the 'I don't know what I'm protesting but I'm here' movement.

Also, as the article points out, the 'don't ask, don't tell' is a federal policy, nothing the Marines control. And furthermore, active duty personnel are not authorized to state political opinions while in uniform, nor are they allowed to insult the president, nor can the campaign (in or out of uniform) for a candidate. Active duty have two choices: support Bush, or keep their mouth shut if they disagree.

The article is dead-on - the proponent of free speech is muzzling the Marines.

I actually knew a USMC Major that went to Berkeley. Great officer. Never would have guessed he went there by looking at him with a high-and-tight haircut, but exceptionally bright and very thorough.

Funnier is the fact DoD funds a lot of research at Berkeley, to include research on eyes and breast cancer.

It appears to me that the Berkeley City Council is refining their message, with special attention to respect for the law. Good for them.

good thing...

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that the government does exactly this All. The. Time?

What if one group is in favor of A and one group opposes A and a third group wants prefers the status quo? Examples of this *abound*. Doesn't the government ****always**** wind up "favoring" one group over another? Come on. I think you misspoke here, you overstated your point. I won't speculate out loud why I think so, but this particular instance is out of character compared to your previous posts, clear and unexaggerated.

When they do, they should be taken to task for it.

Yes, they will be taken to task. Meanwhile, they made their point: that an unneeded, unwanted and economically disastrous war is not conducive to recruiting.

If that's true, why did Berkeley have to do anything, to harass the Marines?

I call BS.

If a city bans a cross on a piece of local government property, they cannot allow menorah's and other religious symbols. If a public school allows a wiccan group, they have to allow a Christian group. If they allow a Malcolm-X-ish group to have a parade, guess what, they have to allow the white supremecists to have a parade. These have been cases before - one group cannot be given preferential treatment by the government - local or otherwise - over another. Am I naive enough to say that certain groups aren't given special treatment through special programs? No. Some are very transparent (affirmitive action) and have approved reasoning, some are not (how is it white men do less time for the same crime than black men? how does one company get a contract over another company?). I also know not every group has the funds or backing of ACLU to fight it when a city does make laws that are contrary to various court rulings in similar circumstances.

"Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli, however, did not move to rescind three other items the council passed last week: giving the protest group Code Pink a free weekly parking space and sound permit; calling on residents to impede the work of any military recruiting station in the city; and asking the city attorney to investigate whether the Marines violate city laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation."

It's not the Marine's policy. It's a federal law.

@UG illegitimi non carborundum

Hey aimeecc:

You're conflating a number of issues that don't fall under the same category. Nothing in this story, or this thread even, has to do with religious freedom, or the establishment clause, except your introduction of crosses, menorahs, wiccans and Christians. We have well established laws about these specific kinds of expression. None of which apply to the Marines, or their recruiting activities.

You're on somewhat less treacherous ground when you discuss the differences in the city's treatment of different non-religious groups "parade permissions". Even then perfectly equal treatment is not going to happen. Equal opportunity, sure. Equal outcomes? Pretty much never.

I didn't think you were naive about the way the world works and you clarified that. But your original statement did sound naive. Fighting city hall can be tough. And expensive. And it happens all the time, all over.

As to the three standing items, what is your complaint here? That the Marines don't get a parking space and sound permit when another group does?

What is wrong with "calling on residents to impede the work of any military recruiting station in the city"? How is this different from the city calling on residents to take any other lawful action? "Please recycle" or "Conserve water" or "Give generously to charity" or "Return your library books on time"? Really. Governments try to influence the behavior of organizations all the time.

Often this kind of desire to influence behavior takes the form of incentives to draw an organization closer to the city. "If you locate here, we'll offer these bonuses!" Sometimes theses efforts are designed to drive an organization away. Uh, no, don't want a strip club next to the elementary school. Or using zoning laws to restrict certain activities to certain areas. Happens all the time. Most of the time, the overwhelming majority of the time, these actions are legal, though sometimes not.

I don't see why the Berkeley City Council can't strive toward the kind of mix of activities and commerce they want in their city, if they're striving in a legal way.

Third item: calling on the city attorney to investigate. The city attorney works for the city council, so to speak. Being asked to investigate is what they do. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. What's to fear? If there's no illegal activity, so what? If there is, how else could it be discovered and prosecuted if not first investigated?

Bottom line: BCC doesn't want the Marines to recruit in the city. There is not one thing wrong with that desire. And I haven't seen one piece of evidence yet that shows that they're doing anything illegal. Why do you think the Marines want to recruit there? Because there are likely some smart capable people they'd like to have in their organization most likely. Why don't the Marines setup a recruiting office waaaay out in the middle of nowhere? Because, probably, the likelihood of meeting their recruiting targets would be diminished. They pick Berkeley because they think they can do well there. Berkeley's under no obligation to make their life easier.

I think you're serious. I think you're seriously wrong and/or seriously misinformed.

The Army *has* had trouble meeting its recruiting goals for the past few years, and the Iraq war has had a far more negative impact than a positive one.

From here.This stupid war has made it hard on the Army in many ways. One big hardship is the increased difficulty in recruiting good people to become soldiers. You call bullshit on that?

Remember when the complaint was that dissent is automatically labeled unpatriotic? I have one question.

Exactly how unpatriotic do they actually have to be, before it's fair to label them?

It's legal -- and immoral.

First, a local government is essentially battling the federal government, but are abusing a Marine recruiting station to attempt to make their point. The recruiters aren't working for a civilian company. The BCC reasoning is seriously flawed. Don't ask don't tell is a federal law, nothing the Marines control. Also, Marines don't "start wars" - its done by the President and Congress. So aiding a group to shout anti-war slogans at recruiters who have nothing to do with the policies they are protesting is stupid. You can't expect a group of protesters called code pink to understand these things, but come on, a city council?

Second, I disagree with you. It doesn't matter whether the group is a religious group or not. They fund a boys baseball team, they have to fund a girls baseball team. All of my examples are real, covered by different laws and different cases, but the overarching principle remains - local governments are not suppossed to give a group preferential treatment over another.

I am not complaining. Someone posted a news article. I expanded on it. I think the BCC is wrong. Everyone has the right to free speech but recruiters?

Does the BCC seriously think kicking out recruiters will end the war?

What do the Marines do to 'detract' from the city? Nothing. In fact, Marines are invited to live there, just not recruit there.

Why do you support the BCC when they state "they have a constitutional and legal right to be here" yet are trying to make working there so difficult in an effort to get them to leave? What city does this to an office? A legitimate federal office? You would never hear of a city council setting aside parking and loud speaker privileges for a group to protest a strip club.

I'd like to see a city government give parking and loudspeaker privileges to operation rescue right in front of planned parenthood. Have the city council tell the people working in the clinic, oh, you can live in our city, just not work here. How long would that last before national outrage?

Its the same thing as what BCC is doing to the Marines, except the recruiting station is a federal office.

Yes. I do "remember when" dissent was automatically labeled unpatriotic. I remember it like it was yesterday. Because it was yesterday. And today. And some of those labelers are here in this thread. And that's fine. That's fair. That's what those Marines are fighting for, in part, is it not? Liking it is a different matter altogether.

So, to your other one question. How unpatriotic do they have to be before it's fair to label them? Label them unpatriotic? Label them immoral? That's up to the labeler, of course. And you're welcome to use the most persuasive speech you can muster to convince those in earshot of the worthiness of your position.

I don't think the actions of the BCC are unpatriotic or immoral. I know absolutely nothing about the individuals that make up the council, so I will not hold forth on their individual patriotism and morality.

Come on. You know full well that these kind of subjective evaluations are *all* in the eye of the beholder. And it is one of American's great pastimes to kibitz about other people's politics. No, it's more than a pastime, it's our heritage. Now in the heart of election season, talking about how to govern ourselves is one thing we do well. Or at least loudly.

Fact is, if you think the actions of the BCC are legal but immoral, what can you do about it? Certainly you're doing one thing, same as me, talking about it in a reasoned debate. Good for you, for me for us all. But it's just so much hot air, since we don't get to have a direct influence on the government making these decisions. The citizens of Berkeley do. What are *they* doing? And how would you react if they decided your local city government was screwing things up?

You bring up a good point. Dissent is **not** unpatriotic. How much toeing the line should I be required to do? We don't have politkal officers round here, and I don't want any. Neither do you. Don't like the message? Shun them. Out shout them. Fight city hall. Call them mean names. Whatever. You've the same right to be wrong as they have.

I think you aimed at my point and hit a big water balloon full of molasses that was sitting on somebody's stoop down the road.

T'ain't to me to do anything but label it, and so I have done. You summed it up yourself: the BCC is creating a condition where the US military does not find the very best people. That seems utterly and very obviously unp*tr**t*c.

And hey, also, when the city council is doing it, they aren't dissenting. They are establishing the dominant position. *I* am dissenting. *You* are toeing the line.

If it weren't for the US military, the BCC wouldn't exist.

ORLY?

Fine. I'll try again.

What exactly was your point?

One of the most ridiculous debates I've ever been in: this guy on AG said Bill Maher was un-American, and I said it was un-American to say someone is un-American, and he said I couldn't say that, because then I was calling him un-American when I just said it was un-American to say someone is un-American, and I said I could because I was just using his own words against him (the you-started-it defense). I won, because he went to all-caps.

Well you were focusing in on the label part and I was more focused in on what I think is the immoral behavior part.

You were all like whatre ya gonna do about it? And I'm like I just did it!

So your point is that the actions of the BCC are legal and immoral.

I did get that. I disagree with you.

Moving on...

You're a smart guy. What are you doing, or failing to do to aid the Marines' recruitment effort? What ground do I have to label your actions unpatriotic or immoral?

How about me? I haven't done fuck-all to help the Marines recruit anybody good. Am I unpatriotic? Am I immoral?

I failed to tutor J's boy in math to the point where he could qualify. Too bad, the kid would have made a great Marine.

We are unpatriotic, but not immoral. Our lives don't require national service... because other, better people than you and I volunteered to do the heavy lifting.

It has nothing to do with how they have been used, whether you agree or disagree with it. The Marines themselves have as much say as the BCC as to how they'll get used. Today it's the hard stuff in Iraq, tomorrow maybe it's Afghanistan again or peace-keeping or fuck-knows what-all. But when it comes to how to consider such things, "Provide for the common defense" is one of the only fundamental roles of government that everyone agrees on. They agree on it so well, it went right into the opening of the Constitution.

So you and I, we can say whatever we like on a message board, and you're right, it means dick. But if a city council does it, that's a whole 'nother league there. That's a government working to make the Marines worse. That's fucked up.

We should have the best Marines we can possibly find. And we should use them correctly if they have to be used at all.

Why is the action of the BCC held to a different standard? Why should the BCC help (or hinder) the Marines at all? Isn't it more unpatriotic that a city council defy the wishes of the electorate?

They're following the law. I haven't heard any dispute as to this point. Beyond that is the very difficult area of legislating moral behavior.

How do you feel about gambling and prostitution? Those are subject that are often associated with highly polarized moral positions? Certainly some feel that the *legal* activities in these areas, in Nevada, for example, is immoral. What to do, besides saying whatever we like on a message board? Vote. That's what.

And I have another question for you: what is the connection you're making between moral and patriotic behavior? How are these two related? What happens to the "moral" stance of support for the Marines/war/administration/etc when the law changes? When the legitimate governing authority makes rules/laws/ordinances that are different from what's in place today? Does the moral action of yesterday become immoral today, by law?

Geeze, UT.

If you please, would you please give me your answer to your original question? How are actions, whether by citizens or by city councils, judged moral or patriotic?

Actually, I just went and reread your post with my quote. How can *desires* be moral or not or patriotic or not? There can be no freedom of expression if there is no underlying freedom of thought.

The high potential for getting shot or parts of your body blown off may have a lot to do with the recruiting shortfall. I'm just guessing, but it seems logical.

If that's the case, the electorate has voted to be unpatriotic.

They're not specifically called out in the preamble to the Constitution.

In your paranoid imagination.

I would use the same definitions I use in other contexts.

So, BigV, how is it legal for the city council to hinder the recruiters when they admit its legal and constitutional to be there? Normal protesters are not allowed to actually interfere with the a business they are protesting (usually meaning the protesters have to be a certain distance away from the entrance so workers and customers have access to the building). In this case the city council is encouraging a certain protesting group to INTERFER. Its one thing to protect the rights of the protesters to protest, but another to encourage them to interfere.

Its not about morality. Its not even about patriotism. Its about the legality of their decisions. You don't have to be patriotic or moral to be within legal bounds.

More on my analogy. What would the national reaction be if, say, Colorado Springs (hotbed of extreme far right, home of Focus on the Family) gave operation rescue (a somewhat militant pro-life group) their own parking and loudspeaking privileges in front of a Planned Parenthood office? Not one of their clinics where abortions are actually performed, but an office where women could go for information regarding family planning. So once a week during peak business hours, operation rescue with their free reserved parking and their loudspeaking privileges, COURTESY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, arrive and scream at the workers and all the customers outside a legitimate office space (that the local government freely admits have the constitutional right to be there), "YOU'RE KILLING A BABY!!! YOU'RE A MURDERER! BABY KILLER!!!!!" Really, what would the national reaction be? Can you imagine the headlines from NY Times to CNN?

The BCC is helping Code Pink's anti-war protest direct their protest at the wrong office. Screaming at recruiters and possible recruits will not end the war. A few less educated people in the Marine Corps is no big deal. They meet their recruiting goals and haven't lowered their standards much. But helping Code Pink scream at the Marines for no apparent reason is idiotic at best, and probably illegal.

Again, screaming at recruiters does not change the federal law, nor will it end the war. Those are decided by completely different offices, and have absolutely nothing to do with the Marine Corps. All it does is make the recruiters job harder. It doesn't further any cause Code Pink is supposedly fighting for. Maybe one of them dated a Marine and got dumped or killed in Iraq and that's why they protest at the Marine's recruiting spaces? That's about the only logical reason I can think of as to why they would pick a Marine recruiting station, instead of their senators office (which is the logical place to carry on their protest IAW stated goals).

UG I really, really wish you'd stop saying this. If America's cause is humanity's cause then frankly we should get a say in who sits in the White House...we don't? Ok, that's cool, then America's cause is America's cause and the rest of humanity can figure out our own causes according to our own national interests.

And Ibby's right about Orwell. he was a socialist and sometime communist. He eventually fought against communism but retained his socialist beliefs until his death. You claim that the writings/words of the left sound like they've been penned/spoken by infants, yet I find it hard to imagine that such a description could apply to Orwell.

So this is your new point, the BCC and the citizens of Berkeley are unpatriotic. What is patriotism? Is patriotism like obscenity? You know it when you see it?

Here's the Preamble to the Constitution:

You're right. No mention of gambling or prostitution. Precisely the same amount of ink devoted to moral and patriotic standards of behavior. And of military recruiting.

Actually, the creation of a militia *does* get more ink later, and none of it discusses the role of local governments and their responsibilities to offer up the first fruits to a higher authority, not even the Marines. Perhaps you've confused this issue with another well known text.

Ladies and Gentlemen, behold! Captured for the first time, my paranoid imagination!
Oops, sorry. Guess that wasn't *my* paranoid imagination after all.

The same definitions, but different standards? *These* same definitions?
That's not using the same definitions. That's called a double standard.

You're clearly upset about the actions of the BCC. You've called the actions immoral, unpatriotic. You've suggested the same about the citizens of the city. What you haven't done is offer any reason why it should be different than it is. I haven't heard anything from you (or others here) that has given me reason to agree with your opinions as to the morality and patriotism of the BCC. Neither have I heard anything to persuade me that their actions are illegal or even improper.

But I have learned much from you in the past, and I keep an open mind on this subject, in the hopes that I can learn from you again.

:banghead:

Hey, aimeecc. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not disrespecting you. I .. um... just haven't yet set aside enough time to answer you properly. Sorry.

Preview: I think you're on the wrong track, with the comparisons you've made. My longer answer will be better thought out and better supported, I hope.

Can you see how something can be both unpatriotic and immoral without there being a necessary connection between the two adjectives?

No? Well can you see how a person can be both left-handed and alcoholic without there being a connection between the two adjectives?

What is patriotism?

Take the first dictionary definition you come to. Dictionary.com:

"Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country"

If one is against the troops, without which the country can't exist... I find that to be plainly and obviously unpatriotic. That's fine, their choice, and frankly they should be comfortable with their label. It is accurate and it is what they asked for.

I also find it to be immoral, as a government action, because these United States created a common government in part to provide for the common defense. Says so right up front. It's one of the top six reasons, and even Libertarians agree -- even Libertarians! -- that defense is one of the only acceptable "common goods", to be Federally managed.

If this little sector wants to hold the troops in contempt, that's one thing, but they then become "free riders", because the entire country can't be defensed minus their little sector. They benefit from that defense, whether they care to admit it or not. But they also have an impact of the defense of the entire country, so their will is infringing on you and I as well.

Some R congresspeople have floated the idea that Berkeley should face the loss of a few monetary earmarks in return. Sounds fair to me.

Ah, but we can't let these kids go hungry.

Send them MREs.

My question about this is whether the BCC is doing this to oppose the unpatriotic war in Iraq or the patriots who were conned into fighting it? I've done my part to try to convince kids not to serve and die during this unpatriotic regime. I believe that makes me a patriot.

Defense not offense; you know that whole initiation of force thing.

but but but... "The Best Defense is a Strong Offense"

I don't agree with that, its simplified too much.

If the troops do the job that they are suppose to do, defend the country, yes they should be supported because there is very little doubt that they are doing what is best for the country but once, keep in mind this is opinionated, they start going past their duties and start attacking other countries on reasons that I find immoral, I find it very difficult to support them.

What the army is doing right now is not necessary for America's survival and is blatant imperialism, which I do not support so naturally I cannot support the war or the troops that are fighting this war. Do I want those troops to die, of course not, but I will not support their goal as long as they are out there. If they come back and start doing their job of defending the country, then yes, I will go back to supporting.

Showing love for one's country is very subjective and to put a single stance on what a patriotism is not only wrong, but very threatening. I show my love for for my country by speaking out against what I see are flaws in our policy. Another person may show love by supporting the troops no matter the situation. Neither of us our wrong, we are just patriotic in different ways.

The troops have zero responsibility for any decision about how they are used.

Once a person decides to join the US Armed Forces, that is said to be the last free decision they can make about their future for two years.

If you don't believe that armed forces are the only reason we can have this conversation, then I'm not sure what to say. Don't like the current conflict? Shit, then, just reduce the number and effectiveness of the troops, then just wait. I'm sure you'll find validation for them soon enough. Or maybe, if you don't have that long of a memory, ask why Bush had a 90% approval rating in November 2001 (and the Marines probably 95%). Ask what would happen to the BCC if we had another attack on this soil. Unthinkable, well it certainly was.

But even more unthinkable is giving today's troops the same treatment as the those that returned from Vietnam, to be treated with derision and disrespect after having done the hardest job ever required of them. One big reason there is "support the troops" thinking despite how things turn out, is because people looked back on their own behavior post-Vietnam and blanched. Don't be like that in a few decades, don't look back at your own behavior with shame.

Well if Marines are needed for the next war, not this one, hope you will still feel as proud. Meanwhile you are a "free rider" as well. You got to live a free life without serving your country one iota. And if it turns out you were wrong in some way, no big whoop, right? So what if the country is a little less defended; you did your part, right? Nobody will die from your approach to the whole conflict, although when we last left it you had Kurdish oil that couldn't make it to a secure port without making a deal Turkey would never accept, IIRC.

Don't confuse supporting the troops with supporting the war.... too many people do.

Perhaps the BCC prefers fighting war without the troops. If you really do *need* to fight a war, and you don't have a strong enough Marines, there are other ways to go about it.

And so as NATO weakens from Europe's lack of interest in a military, the top NATO Generals are planning other ways to get the job done, if it should come to that.

Not exactly what the BCC would have intended, one suspects.

As it stands right now, the bigger our overseas presense is the worse we are defended. These conflicts are counter to our national interest. That untenable Kurdish situation was the result of my following an interventionist's train of thought. If I remember properly, it started with me accepting responsibility for earlier interventionist policies. I'm better now.

When was last time we needed to fight a war?

2001.

For a few years, yes he was. Experience of these converted him away; hence, Orwell's work amounts to an inoculation against socialist totalitarianism and to some degree against socialist niceguyism too.

That being a reflection of the above. Young men volunteer for war, Orwell no less than any other.

A. Some part of him always rather did; there are online essays on Orwell's life and work noting a "well-concealed totalitarian streak" in his makeup. Animal Farm and 1984 open a couple of windows on hell, hence again the inoculation. Read them and see if I'm not right; I know I've linked you to a 1984 e-book, and I hope you profited by it. Fascism and leftism's totalitarian phase are the same thing; a bird couldn't live on the difference between the two. The Nazis and the Soviets fought as hard as they did not because they were antitheses; far from it: they were competitors. Each one even tried setting up as a sort of atheist religion, with their respective Parties being the objects of worship. This worship can be seen at several points in 1984 -- the cinema scene, the later parts of Smith's time in the Ministry of Love, and the last paragraph in the book.

B. This proposition is illogical. I doubt I could both disagree and think it good -- not about an overall social order, which seems to be the context you intend. I'm sure on consideration you'll agree.

I know you'd like to be as unfair to me as possible for as long as possible, but I urge you not to pursue such a mug's game. My choice is actually "smarter than you, and antifascist in ways you likely are not." Figure out what those ways are. It's very difficult for a leftist to really be an antifascist. And remember I still have thirty-three more years in the world than you do. Experience tells. So do apostrophes, btw.

***

DanaC, what you want me to stop doing is precisely what I must keep on doing. Humanity is served by democracy. Humanity is trammeled by anything lesser -- have you noticed our opposition being about anything but trammeling? You should be downright rabid against them for that sin. I certainly am. You know humanity is very well served by democracy, from your own experience living in a constitutional monarchy and within a tradition of limited government beginning at Runnymede with the Magna Carta -- and the Charter of Liberties, ref'd and linked here.

Too little government is dangerous, and too much is destructive and impoverishing. These extremes are not bipolar conditions, binary states, but a continuum. In a fluid political order, the balance first tilts one way, then the other.