Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

Here's the Preamble to the Constitution:

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[Extracted from The Constitution of the United States of America (May 2006), The Constitution of the United States of America.]

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

In your paranoid imagination.

Ladies and Gentlemen, behold! Captured for the first time, my paranoid imagination!

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

Oops, sorry. Guess that wasn't *my* paranoid imagination after all.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

The same definitions, but different standards? *These* same definitions?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And hey, also, when the city council is doing it, they aren't dissenting. They are establishing the dominant position.

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.

[aimeecc]

[BigV]

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

One earmark provides $243,000 in taxpayer dollars for the organization Chez Panisse to create gourmet organic school lunches in the Berkeley School District. Chez Panisse is dedicated to "environmental harmony" and their menu features "Comté cheese soufflé with mâche salad," "Meyer lemon éclairs with huckleberry coulis," and "Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast."

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

Send them MREs.

[Griff]

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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

[classicman]

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

Recently, several government reports have emphasized the need for increased attention to the defense of the American homeland. The proliferation of technology for creating weapons of mass terror and conducting chemical, biological, nuclear, and information warfare has reawakened interest in protecting the homeland.

A study completed for the U.S. Department of Defense notes that historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and terrorist attacks against the United States. Attacks by terrorist groups could now be catastrophic for the American homeland. Terrorists can obtain the technology for weapons of mass terror and will have fewer qualms about using them to cause massive casualties. The assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs maintains that such catastrophic attacks are almost certain to occur. It will be extremely difficult to deter, prevent, detect, or mitigate them.

As a result, even the weakest terrorist group can cause massive destruction in the homeland of a superpower. Although the Cold War ended nearly a decade ago, U.S. foreign policy has remained on autopilot. The United States continues to intervene militarily in conflicts all over the globe that are irrelevant to American vital interests. To satisfy what should be the first priority of any security policy--protecting the homeland and its people--the United States should adopt a policy of military restraint. That policy entails intervening only as a last resort when truly vital interests are at stake. To paraphrase Anthony Zinni, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, the United States should avoid making enemies but should not be kind to those that arise.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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 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.

[Undertoad]

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.

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

When was last time we needed to fight a war?

[Undertoad]

2001.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

What the hell?

The man was a communist! Well, okay, a socialist.

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.

He fought with the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain!

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

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.

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.

So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.

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.