Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Zen: no.

...

Originally Posted by UG

I am here in part because I can offer you fresh insight. And why would there be refusal to accept it?

Originally Posted by UG

I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is there anyone reading this who'd like to speak up on UG's behalf?

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.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Ibram

What the hell?

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.

[busterb]

look upon it as a chance to enjoy the same broad horizons I do

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

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

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.

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.

New York Post
February 4, 2008

Muzzling The Marines

By Dale McFeatters

The city council of Berkeley, Calif., where the Free Speech Movement was born, has decided that some people deserve more free speech than others and the U.S. Marines don't deserve any at all.

For about a year, the Marines have had a recruiting station in Berkeley and the council wants it gone, voting 6-3 to declare that it "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

To underline the point, the council voted to support the weekly protests of Code Pink, the group of mostly women whose cringe-inducing war protests have done so much to trivialize the anti-war movement.

To help Code Pink members be even more annoying, the council reserved a parking place for them in front of the recruiting station one day a week and granted a sound permit that lets them use loudspeakers one day a week for four hours.

News accounts say that at one recent demonstration, a sparse group of protesters -- generally, it is said, there are about a dozen, not a great showing for a place like Berkeley -- shouted at the station, "Drive out the Bush regime!" Probably not a lot of thought went into that slogan since they seem to be calling for the Marines to mount a military coup, probably not what they had in mind.

The city council seems to have two objections to the Marines: They are icky militarists, which the Marines would probably not dispute; and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays, which is unfair.

Indeed, the council is exploring ways of enforcing the city's law prohibiting sex discrimination against the Marines. The left and particularly the academic left seems unable to grasp a critical point about "don't ask, don't tell": It is not some policy the military dreamed up, but a matter of federal law, enacted by Congress in 1993 and signed by Berkeley fave Bill Clinton. Take it up with Congress, not some recruiting sergeant.

One final point: The young people of Berkeley, although perhaps less disposed to than people elsewhere, have every right to join the military -- many of them may find it a satisfying experience, even a career -- and the Berkeley city council has no business impeding them.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by San Jose Mercury News

Berkeley officials want to rescind anti-Marines declaration
By Doug Oakley
Bay Area News Group
Article Launched: 02/05/2008 07:55:19 AM PST

Under the weight of a national uproar, two Berkeley City Council members want to rescind an official statement that the U.S. Marines and their recruiting station are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

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.

The item will come before the City Council Feb. 12.

"I would prefer they recruit somewhere else, but they have a constitutional and legal right to be here," Capitelli said today. "If they decide to be here, then there are actions (protesters) can take, and the Marines will have to decide whether that's an acceptable price to pay to be in Berkeley. That's their decision to make, but not the City Council's decision."

The council approved the resolution asking the Marines to abandon their office on Shattuck Avenue by a 6-3 vote last week. Capitelli supported the resolution, while Olds opposed it along with Gordon Wozniak and Kriss Worthington.

The council's action has generated opposition from across the country, and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., threatened last week to try to strip the city of federal funds.

Councilwoman Linda Maio said she will introduce an item of her own next week regarding the Marines. Maio said she welcomes "any member of the military" to be in Berkeley but she does not support the recruiting station.

"That's an important distinction to make," Maio said.

Mayor Tom Bates said last week he would ask the council to modify the resolution because the version passed last week "did not adequately differentiate our respect and support for those serving in the armed forces and our opposition to the Iraq war policy."

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

[BigV]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

I'm no lawyer,

good thing...

Originally Posted by aimeecc

but I believe this to be unconstitutional. The government cannot give one group favor over another.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[deadbeater]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[classicman]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

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.

I call BS.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.

[barefoot serpent]

@UG illegitimi non carborundum

[BigV]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

I call BS.

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.

The Army previously acknowledged that it has not met the 90 percent mark since 2004, and yesterday officials at U.S. Army Recruiting Command disputed the group's numbers but not the trend. They said that 79.1 percent of its active-duty recruits in 2007 had a high school diploma, down from 87 percent in 2005.

"It's really an indication of the difficult recruiting environment we're in, both with the impact of the ongoing wars, an economy competing for high school graduates, and a decline in the percentage of students who graduate from high school," said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the recruiting command. "But we're not putting anyone in the Army that we don't feel is qualified to serve as a soldier."

The independent study's data were based on more than 66,000 new recruits and did not include roughly 14,000 recruits who had prior military service and most of whom would have high school diplomas. It was unclear yesterday if the recruiting command's higher numbers included new recruits only or covered all recruits in 2007.

Both groups agree that the Army has met its high recruitment goals for the past two years by lowering acceptance standards, offering signing bonuses and loosening age restrictions.

The National Priorities Project said that Defense Department studies have shown that a high school diploma is an indicator of future success in the military, with about 80 percent of those with high school diplomas finishing the first term of enlistment and about half of the others making it that far. When recruits are unsuccessful in the Army, the service loses on its investment in training and has to recruit again.

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?