Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[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?

There is not one thing wrong with that desire.

It's legal -- and immoral.

[aimeecc]

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.

[aimeecc]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by UT

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[BigV]

ORLY?

Fine. I'll try again.

What exactly was your point?

[Flint]

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.

[Undertoad]

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!

[BigV]

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?

[Undertoad]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by BigV

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?

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

How do you feel about gambling and prostitution? Those are subject that are often associated with highly polarized moral positions?

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

And I have another question for you: what is the connection you're making between moral and patriotic behavior? How are these two related?

In your paranoid imagination.

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?

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

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

"I would prefer they recruit somewhere else, but they have a constitutional and legal right to be here," Capitelli said today.

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).

[DanaC]

America's cause is humanity's cause

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.