The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
really? Are you fucking kidding me? Because I can find you 20 cases in two seconds of someone being discharged for being a homosexual.
You find me fucking one instance of someone being discharged for being straight. Just ONE.
Oh, and it can't be because he or she raped someone.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I went to UC Berkeley and the city council is really serious business. In my PoliSci class, I had to attend one and they allowed bums and panhandlers to step up and have their say.
As it relates to the USMC, the armed forces on campus is a second thought. They're off in their corner doing their thing while all the frats/clubs and other organizations are on the main walkway flyering people.
Berkeley is Berkeley. Berkeley allows people to march nude.
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
It's a nice distinction but an irrelevant one. Whether the military is anti-gay through a bigoted rule or through the bigoted selective application of a rule doesn't really change the fact that they are clearly anti-gay.
I agree with you, but I don't feel it grants a city council the right to sanction this sort of thing. It's important to note that, according to the article, the office is being protested for a number of things unrelated to homosexuality, like ''they are recruiting for an unjust war'' and ''I was drummed out when I opposed vietnam, so I'll be glad to see these guys hightail it''
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
Yep, and literacy tests applied to people of any color that couldn't read, so it was a fair policy.
Christ people.
Then you start a second debate about how literacy tests don't address the issue of people who aren't properly educated. You don't officially endorse the disruption of the employees that administer the tests, and completely disrupt the small business owners in neighboring buildings
Exactly! That's why the civil rights movement was so monumental. Because they sat there quietly in their homes thinking "by gum, someone should do something."
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
Something tells me dudes in army bases brag about the women they've had and nothing comes of it other than lolz.
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
Yep, and literacy tests applied to people of any color that couldn't read, so it was a fair policy.
Christ people.
Then you start a second debate about how literacy tests don't address the issue of people who aren't properly educated. You don't officially endorse the disruption of the employees that administer the tests, and completely disrupt the small business owners in neighboring buildings
Actually the parallel I was trying to bring up was that literacy tests were mainly used to stop southern blacks from voting even though the rule applied to everyone, much like 'don't ask don't tell' is mainly used to remove gay folks from the military even though the rule applies to everyone. This would make them both very discriminatory policy.
I wasn't trying to address how Berkley is handling this, just how you said the policy is fair.
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
really? Are you fucking kidding me? Because I can find you 20 cases in two seconds of someone being discharged for being a homosexual.
You find me fucking one instance of someone being discharged for being straight. Just ONE.
Oh, and it can't be because he or she raped someone.
did you bother to read his entire post? Or did you just go off the handle after the first sentence?
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
Yep, and literacy tests applied to people of any color that couldn't read, so it was a fair policy.
Christ people.
Then you start a second debate about how literacy tests don't address the issue of people who aren't properly educated. You don't officially endorse the disruption of the employees that administer the tests, and completely disrupt the small business owners in neighboring buildings
Actually the parallel I was trying to bring up was that literacy tests were mainly used to stop southern blacks from voting even though the rule applied to everyone, much like 'don't ask don't tell' is mainly used to remove gay folks from the military even though the rule applies to everyone. This would make them both very discriminatory policy.
I wasn't trying to address how Berkley is handling this, just how you said the policy is fair.
It's meant to be/seem fair but isn't used that way. My point is that it is a seperate issue from what the city is doing. The protest group might be in the moral majority, but I don't think that gives the city or the group the right to pass the kind of sanctions that encourage the group's behavior. To me it is akin to the city government declaring open season on people they don't agree with.
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
really? Are you fucking kidding me? Because I can find you 20 cases in two seconds of someone being discharged for being a homosexual.
You find me fucking one instance of someone being discharged for being straight. Just ONE.
Oh, and it can't be because he or she raped someone.
did you bother to read his entire post? Or did you just go off the handle after the first sentence?
Yes and no... the fact is, the rule was implimented to provide a legitimate means to discriminate against homosexuals. And the fact that it is currently being used to serve that purpose doesn't fly in the face of its intention... it fucking WAS the intention.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
It's a nice distinction but an irrelevant one. Whether the military is anti-gay through a bigoted rule or through the bigoted selective application of a rule doesn't really change the fact that they are clearly anti-gay.
I agree with you, but I don't feel it grants a city council the right to sanction this sort of thing. It's important to note that, according to the article, the office is being protested for a number of things unrelated to homosexuality, like ''they are recruiting for an unjust war'' and ''I was drummed out when I opposed vietnam, so I'll be glad to see these guys hightail it''
Well, I rechecked the article, and believe you're mixing together a number of separated items.
First of all, the article seems to say that the city council voted to make the USMC "unwelcomed" solely because of their sexual discrimination issues.
Next, they voted in a separate item to grant code pink the parking spot and sound licence. The article doesn't give the reasons for it, but it seems clear that it's for the same reason as the previous vote, the USMC's discriminatory policies.
Anderson, one of the council members who proposed the code pink motion, has a clear anti-marine bias because of his Viet Nam experience (he made the Viet Nam quote you quoted), but that's just him, and not the official position or justification of the council.
Code pink... well at first, based on their name and on the context of the article, I assumed they were a pro-gay-rights group. Seems I was wrong. They're basically your idealistic anti-war anti-violence peace-and-love hippies. I don't know why they got picked for the protest... there must have been some pro-gay-in-the-military group that would have been more appropriate. I'm stumped on that one.
I agree with you, I was just pointing out what you did a more effective job of reiterating: for Code Pink, its not just about discriminatory policies. The free pass they were given doesn't really communicate that to the public IMO - if you're anti-war in general, you have just as much permission as the anti-gay protesters, and as long as you are in Code Pink you can do it with a free parking space and without having to pay for the noise permit.
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Richy I was with you on code pink, the article really is misleading about that. I thought it was a gay group as well.
edit: are you sure it's not? we've got a group where I live and they seem like the same logo, but they're a lot more "pro gay rights" than the are "anti war, pro peace"
double edit: nevermind, our local gay and lesbian rights group has the pet name "pink army" not code pink, but they're not fond if it. (it's amazing what the secretaries in this building know)
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
That's dumb. I'm leaving this open because there's already a discussion going, but next time don't make a link thread.
While people showing public disapproval of the military's discriminatory policies is all well and good, this doesn't seem like it's going to accomplish much. If the city council is so invested in promoting equal rights in the military, they could have at least given a protest permit to a gay rights group or something, instead of a peace protest group, which, as laudable as it may or may not be, seems unrelated to their stated aim, and so comes off as kind of a cheap shot.
A couple years back, a bunch of law schools tried this, as some of you may remember. The federal response was pretty much "Yes, go ahead. But we will cut all federal funding to you."
While people showing public disapproval of the military's discriminatory policies is all well and good, this doesn't seem like it's going to accomplish much. If the city council is so invested in promoting equal rights in the military, they could have at least given a protest permit to a gay rights group or something, instead of a peace protest group, which, as laudable as it may or may not be, seems unrelated to their stated aim, and so comes off as kind of a cheap shot.
How do you figure? Their stated aim is: We don't want the Marines recruiting in Berkley.
They passed an ordinance asking that they leave, then gave protest permits to the group that requested them.
I really don't see why the council had to go encourage a pro-gay group to protest when this meets their aims just fine.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
While people showing public disapproval of the military's discriminatory policies is all well and good, this doesn't seem like it's going to accomplish much. If the city council is so invested in promoting equal rights in the military, they could have at least given a protest permit to a gay rights group or something, instead of a peace protest group, which, as laudable as it may or may not be, seems unrelated to their stated aim, and so comes off as kind of a cheap shot.
How do you figure? Their stated aim is: We don't want the Marines recruiting in Berkley.
They passed an ordinance asking that they leave, then gave protest permits to the group that requested them.
I really don't see why the council had to go encourage a pro-gay group to protest when this meets their aims just fine.
Meets their aims, but not their purpose - that they encouraged a group with a completely different agenda to protest there comes off like a cheap shot, like Irene said.
While people showing public disapproval of the military's discriminatory policies is all well and good, this doesn't seem like it's going to accomplish much. If the city council is so invested in promoting equal rights in the military, they could have at least given a protest permit to a gay rights group or something, instead of a peace protest group, which, as laudable as it may or may not be, seems unrelated to their stated aim, and so comes off as kind of a cheap shot.
How do you figure? Their stated aim is: We don't want the Marines recruiting in Berkley.
They passed an ordinance asking that they leave, then gave protest permits to the group that requested them.
I really don't see why the council had to go encourage a pro-gay group to protest when this meets their aims just fine.
Meets their aims, but not their purpose - that they encouraged a group with a completely different agenda to protest there comes off like a cheap shot, like Irene said.
I didn't read it as encouragement... I read it as "this group wanted to protest" so the city gave them the okay and then a parking space...
It didn't read like the council specifically sought out this group and was like "you know what would be cool ladies.... protesting outside the Marine Recruiting Office."
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
A couple years back, a bunch of law schools tried this, as some of you may remember. The federal response was pretty much "Yes, go ahead. But we will cut all federal funding to you."
I imagine they could do the same thing here.
Yeah, Yale tried this too. I remember the backlash.
Just as a note, I'm not finding any wording anywhere in DADT's policies that would apply to straight servicemembers. It specifically addresses Homosexual and Bisexual. Would one of the servicement posting here mind telling me the regulation number that appends it to state any discussion of sexuality is grounds for a dishonorable discharge?
kildy on
0
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Just as a note, I'm not finding any wording anywhere in DADT's policies that would apply to straight servicemembers. It specifically addresses Homosexual and Bisexual. Would one of the servicement posting here mind telling me the regulation number that appends it to state any discussion of sexuality is grounds for a dishonorable discharge?
I don't know the regulation number, but there's a lot of morale codes that can be enforced regarding the mingling of male and female military personel. It can be grounds for discharge. It's still not enforced at all compared to DADT, but it does exist as a military code. The police use the same thing. It's more of a "conduct unbecoming" issue than a DADT issue, when dealing with straight relationships.
Just as a note, I'm not finding any wording anywhere in DADT's policies that would apply to straight servicemembers. It specifically addresses Homosexual and Bisexual. Would one of the servicement posting here mind telling me the regulation number that appends it to state any discussion of sexuality is grounds for a dishonorable discharge?
I don't know the regulation number, but there's a lot of morale codes that can be enforced regarding the mingling of male and female military personel. It can be grounds for discharge. It's still not enforced at all compared to DADT, but it does exist as a military code. The police use the same thing. It's more of a "conduct unbecoming" issue than a DADT issue, when dealing with straight relationships.
That's a regulation against relationships internal to the force. What rank can sleep with who, who can't sleep with who, etc. It applies to gay or straight relationships.
There is no regulation that states if you have heterosexual sex outside of the military and talk about it, you will be dishonorably discharged. That is exactly why DADT is discrimination: It imposes a new penalty on an action that beyond sexuality wouldn't be against the rules.
If a male officer sleeps with a female enlisted, he's Out. Period. If a male officer sleeps with a male enlisted, he's out under the same rule And DADT.
edit: not trying to be a dick here, it just irked me to see anyone post that DADT's issue was it being enforced wrong. It's being enforced per the letter of the rule. There is no line in DADT or anywhere in the rules even slightly close to this for straight people. It's not an enforcement issue. At all.
That is a very good point, and I was mistakenly confusing inter-service relationships with DADT. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
This link is pretty interesting, it says that serving in the military is not a constitutional right. This puts it more on the level of a 'private club' (albeit a large, federally-supported one) in terms of its policies, IMO.
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
"Denny Crane."
At least offer some kind of input. Why can't you remain objective on the issue? What stand do you take on it and why do you take said stand?
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
Rarely do people protest in dislike of the actual troops. They do it to influence the people who can control things.
I used to live in DC, grew up in a military household, and contracted for the US Army. Sure, you get the occasional person protesting who thinks You Personally are the horrible reason for all evil, but it's just someone who needs someone in person to yell at.
My issues with the military are almost entirely the fact that it is very difficult to attack on a legal front for the crap it pulls. See the old Drill Instructor thing and how long it took to get resolved. Recruiting Offices have their moments of completely shady stuff, the entire GSA system is mind bogglingly bad..
This is a case of people not screaming at the troops, but adamantly declaring their distaste for a policy that if enacted by any civilian institution anywhere would result in instant legal doom. It wouldn't even be a drawn out trial, it would be a "please bring all your assets in a box to the courtroom, you won't be leaving with them" trial.
http://www.bayareacodepink.org/actions/index.htm
They don't really display a distaste for DADT, they just want their city to be 'anti-military', and if you read the actions they take in this link, it seems to me that they are pretty much screaming at the troops here.
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
"Denny Crane."
At least offer some kind of input. Why can't you remain objective on the issue? What stand do you take on it and why do you take said stand?
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
Oh, I'm sorry... what freedoms is the U.S. Military currently protecting for me? Because, see, it pisses me off when people lump anything the armed services does under the heading "FREEDOM" and then shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
I have nothing but respect for military personnel, every male in my family is ex-military. But nothing that was in that article or has been said here has been anti-servermen... so don't go pulling the "we don't support the troops" card when this is CLEARLY a debate about policy.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
http://www.bayareacodepink.org/actions/index.htm
They don't really display a distaste for DADT, they just want their city to be 'anti-military', and if you read the actions they take in this link, it seems to me that they are pretty much screaming at the troops here.
They decidedly aren't part of the DADT complaint, but at the same time, this is pretty tame for protesting. They dislike the Iraq war, and military recruitment policies (and I can see where they come from on that, the military spent a lot of time when I was in highschool trying to convince me to sign up, and how they'd educate me and give me a chance to meet new people, and yadda.. completely skipping the death and war parts, even when asked about them. Recruiters are salesmen, I have the same respect for a recruiter in college as a credit card marketer.)
I don't see anything on their site that involves harassment of troops. They seem to want Everyone to stop dying. I do think their site is a tad sexist, which amuses me considering the council is anti DADT, but hey.
I think its important to note that the Dont ask Dont tell policy applies to heterosexual relationships as well (so the problem is in how it is implemented, not how the rule istelf is written) If I say something along the lines of 'woo boy having sex with girls is awesome because I'm not gay!' and someone gets offended (homosexual or not) the military can just give me the boot. The rule isn't just ''get them fag-o's outta here'' but unfortunately that's how it is used.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Learn a little something about EO policy. It will serve you well in your career.
I despise moves like this one, because the USMC, like other branches of the military, has absolutely no say about DADT. The UCMJ is defined by Congress. And yet many of the campuses that ban ROTC in the name of resisting discrimination are delighted to have their students get Congressional internships. The whole thing is pure socio-cultural prejudice masquerading as self-righteous tolerance, and I loath it.
I pointed out my error in my 2:41 but thank you for reminding me that I didn't understand what I was talking about. You see, after I said I was mistaken I was still somehow functionioning under the assertion that I was not mistaken.
Well, I can't think of a more constructive way to oppose the current military personnel policies.
I'm sure if you could, you would post it and enlighten.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
While people showing public disapproval of the military's discriminatory policies is all well and good, this doesn't seem like it's going to accomplish much. If the city council is so invested in promoting equal rights in the military, they could have at least given a protest permit to a gay rights group or something, instead of a peace protest group, which, as laudable as it may or may not be, seems unrelated to their stated aim, and so comes off as kind of a cheap shot.
How do you figure? Their stated aim is: We don't want the Marines recruiting in Berkley.
They passed an ordinance asking that they leave, then gave protest permits to the group that requested them.
I really don't see why the council had to go encourage a pro-gay group to protest when this meets their aims just fine.
Meets their aims, but not their purpose - that they encouraged a group with a completely different agenda to protest there comes off like a cheap shot, like Irene said.
I didn't read it as encouragement... I read it as "this group wanted to protest" so the city gave them the okay and then a parking space...
It didn't read like the council specifically sought out this group and was like "you know what would be cool ladies.... protesting outside the Marine Recruiting Office."
You're right, encouraging isn't exactly the right word. But I would say that giving them a parking space and permission to make noise in a four-hour slot isn't exactly discouraging them from protesting there. It is a measure of support for a group with a different agenda to the council's.
I pointed out my error in my 2:41 but thank you for reminding me that I didn't understand what I was talking about. You see, after I said I was mistaken I was still somehow functionioning under the assertion that I was not mistaken.
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
"Denny Crane."
At least offer some kind of input. Why can't you remain objective on the issue? What stand do you take on it and why do you take said stand?
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
Oh, I'm sorry... what freedoms is the U.S. Military currently protecting for me? Because, see, it pisses me off when people lump anything the armed services does under the heading "FREEDOM" and then shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
I have nothing but respect for military personnel, every male in my family is ex-military. But nothing that was in that article or has been said here has been anti-servermen... so don't go pulling the "we don't support the troops" card when this is CLEARLY a debate about policy.
Dear Daft, Fucking Hippie:
When did I do that, hmmmm? Did it seem to your confused little brain that I was some how waving the flag in some orgasmic fit of patriotism?
Hah, if you only knew.
But that would deny you your tantrum, so continue with your self-rightious tyrade.
http://www.bayareacodepink.org/actions/index.htm
They don't really display a distaste for DADT, they just want their city to be 'anti-military', and if you read the actions they take in this link, it seems to me that they are pretty much screaming at the troops here.
Really, 2 out of 5 of those actions seem quite reasonable. For those that didn't check out the website, the 5 actions Code Pink is planning basically breaks down to this.
1. Picket daily.
2. Petition City Council to enforce their 'anti-war resolutions' and make Berkley a 'military-free zone'.
3. Ask the landlord to terminate their lease (via e-mail, mail, phone etc.)
4. To call several times a day and ask them to shut down.
5. Circulate a petition asking them to leave.
As far as I'm concerned, 1 and 5 are definitely reasonable actions no matter what someone believes in. Its 2-4 that irks me. 4 is just plain a form of harassment even if they ask them 'nicely'. 3 is a form of harassment for the landlord. The guy/gal probably has a contract and can't boot them out without a reasonable cause, so he is just going to be drowned in requests that he can't acquiesce to. And 2, well, it isn't too bad except for them pushing the naive idea of by having no military we would somehow be better off. It isn't like the marine recruiters are going out there with sticks and burlap sacks and shanghaiing the teenagers who walk by.
This entire thing just wreaks of shenanigans. The fact that the city council passed a resolution allowing for the harassment of a business is ridiculous and petty.
If we're debating the actions by the city council, then I'd say there is little doubt that they are in the wrong here. They have targeted one particular organization of the federal government despite the fact that it is a policy of the U.S. Code enacted by Congress. If the Marines wanted to change this - they couldn't. There have been certain officers in the ranks who have suggested a change, but no one in the military could even order a change should they want to.
If we're debating the DADT policy, then that is an entirely different can of worms which I haven't seen anyone give any reasoning behind.
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
"Denny Crane."
At least offer some kind of input. Why can't you remain objective on the issue? What stand do you take on it and why do you take said stand?
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
Oh, I'm sorry... what freedoms is the U.S. Military currently protecting for me? Because, see, it pisses me off when people lump anything the armed services does under the heading "FREEDOM" and then shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
I have nothing but respect for military personnel, every male in my family is ex-military. But nothing that was in that article or has been said here has been anti-servermen... so don't go pulling the "we don't support the troops" card when this is CLEARLY a debate about policy.
Dear Daft, Fucking Hippie:
When did I do that, hmmmm? Did it seem to your confused little brain that I was some how waving the flag in some orgasmic fit of patriotism?
Hah, if you only knew.
But that would deny you your tantrum, so continue with your self-rightious tyrade.
You did it twice in your own post.
Or did you not write that? Are you, perchance, Ron Paul?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I pointed out my error in my 2:41 but thank you for reminding me that I didn't understand what I was talking about. You see, after I said I was mistaken I was still somehow functionioning under the assertion that I was not mistaken.
Sorry. It was a fairly easy post to miss.
No worries, it was very small. I agree with your thoughts on the hypocrisy of taking federal money while banning ROTC programs from colleges (and really, if you wanted help create a more liberal military, wouldn't you WANT to place your educated students in a program that prepares them for comissioned positions?) I think the law school analogies that were drawn earlier were very appropriate.
Does anyone feel that the city itself is right in sanctioning this sort of thing?
Thank you, but I am well aware. If you look at any of my former OP's I usually ad commentary. But this... I just didn't know what to write so I let the news speak for itself. For me, there was really no way I could be objective on the issue.
"Denny Crane."
At least offer some kind of input. Why can't you remain objective on the issue? What stand do you take on it and why do you take said stand?
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
Oh, I'm sorry... what freedoms is the U.S. Military currently protecting for me? Because, see, it pisses me off when people lump anything the armed services does under the heading "FREEDOM" and then shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
I have nothing but respect for military personnel, every male in my family is ex-military. But nothing that was in that article or has been said here has been anti-servermen... so don't go pulling the "we don't support the troops" card when this is CLEARLY a debate about policy.
Dear Daft, Fucking Hippie:
When did I do that, hmmmm? Did it seem to your confused little brain that I was some how waving the flag in some orgasmic fit of patriotism?
Hah, if you only knew.
But that would deny you your tantrum, so continue with your self-rightious tyrade.
You did it twice in your own post.
Or did you not write that? Are you, perchance, Ron Paul?
Posts
really? Are you fucking kidding me? Because I can find you 20 cases in two seconds of someone being discharged for being a homosexual.
You find me fucking one instance of someone being discharged for being straight. Just ONE.
Oh, and it can't be because he or she raped someone.
As it relates to the USMC, the armed forces on campus is a second thought. They're off in their corner doing their thing while all the frats/clubs and other organizations are on the main walkway flyering people.
Berkeley is Berkeley. Berkeley allows people to march nude.
I agree with you, but I don't feel it grants a city council the right to sanction this sort of thing. It's important to note that, according to the article, the office is being protested for a number of things unrelated to homosexuality, like ''they are recruiting for an unjust war'' and ''I was drummed out when I opposed vietnam, so I'll be glad to see these guys hightail it''
Exactly! That's why the civil rights movement was so monumental. Because they sat there quietly in their homes thinking "by gum, someone should do something."
You would be correct, but that was his point.
Why just the USMC? I assume there are other recruiters in the city.
Actually the parallel I was trying to bring up was that literacy tests were mainly used to stop southern blacks from voting even though the rule applied to everyone, much like 'don't ask don't tell' is mainly used to remove gay folks from the military even though the rule applies to everyone. This would make them both very discriminatory policy.
I wasn't trying to address how Berkley is handling this, just how you said the policy is fair.
did you bother to read his entire post? Or did you just go off the handle after the first sentence?
It's meant to be/seem fair but isn't used that way. My point is that it is a seperate issue from what the city is doing. The protest group might be in the moral majority, but I don't think that gives the city or the group the right to pass the kind of sanctions that encourage the group's behavior. To me it is akin to the city government declaring open season on people they don't agree with.
Yes and no... the fact is, the rule was implimented to provide a legitimate means to discriminate against homosexuals. And the fact that it is currently being used to serve that purpose doesn't fly in the face of its intention... it fucking WAS the intention.
Well, I rechecked the article, and believe you're mixing together a number of separated items.
First of all, the article seems to say that the city council voted to make the USMC "unwelcomed" solely because of their sexual discrimination issues.
Next, they voted in a separate item to grant code pink the parking spot and sound licence. The article doesn't give the reasons for it, but it seems clear that it's for the same reason as the previous vote, the USMC's discriminatory policies.
Anderson, one of the council members who proposed the code pink motion, has a clear anti-marine bias because of his Viet Nam experience (he made the Viet Nam quote you quoted), but that's just him, and not the official position or justification of the council.
Code pink... well at first, based on their name and on the context of the article, I assumed they were a pro-gay-rights group. Seems I was wrong. They're basically your idealistic anti-war anti-violence peace-and-love hippies. I don't know why they got picked for the protest... there must have been some pro-gay-in-the-military group that would have been more appropriate. I'm stumped on that one.
edit: are you sure it's not? we've got a group where I live and they seem like the same logo, but they're a lot more "pro gay rights" than the are "anti war, pro peace"
double edit: nevermind, our local gay and lesbian rights group has the pet name "pink army" not code pink, but they're not fond if it. (it's amazing what the secretaries in this building know)
That's dumb. I'm leaving this open because there's already a discussion going, but next time don't make a link thread.
I imagine they could do the same thing here.
How do you figure? Their stated aim is: We don't want the Marines recruiting in Berkley.
They passed an ordinance asking that they leave, then gave protest permits to the group that requested them.
I really don't see why the council had to go encourage a pro-gay group to protest when this meets their aims just fine.
Meets their aims, but not their purpose - that they encouraged a group with a completely different agenda to protest there comes off like a cheap shot, like Irene said.
I didn't read it as encouragement... I read it as "this group wanted to protest" so the city gave them the okay and then a parking space...
It didn't read like the council specifically sought out this group and was like "you know what would be cool ladies.... protesting outside the Marine Recruiting Office."
Yeah, Yale tried this too. I remember the backlash.
I don't know the regulation number, but there's a lot of morale codes that can be enforced regarding the mingling of male and female military personel. It can be grounds for discharge. It's still not enforced at all compared to DADT, but it does exist as a military code. The police use the same thing. It's more of a "conduct unbecoming" issue than a DADT issue, when dealing with straight relationships.
That's a regulation against relationships internal to the force. What rank can sleep with who, who can't sleep with who, etc. It applies to gay or straight relationships.
There is no regulation that states if you have heterosexual sex outside of the military and talk about it, you will be dishonorably discharged. That is exactly why DADT is discrimination: It imposes a new penalty on an action that beyond sexuality wouldn't be against the rules.
If a male officer sleeps with a female enlisted, he's Out. Period. If a male officer sleeps with a male enlisted, he's out under the same rule And DADT.
edit: not trying to be a dick here, it just irked me to see anyone post that DADT's issue was it being enforced wrong. It's being enforced per the letter of the rule. There is no line in DADT or anywhere in the rules even slightly close to this for straight people. It's not an enforcement issue. At all.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
This link is pretty interesting, it says that serving in the military is not a constitutional right. This puts it more on the level of a 'private club' (albeit a large, federally-supported one) in terms of its policies, IMO.
I try to take some kind of objectivity with posts. It is just good practice, considering my career.
I was in the service for seven years, and currently my brother is serving in Iraq. So it rubs me the wrong way when people, while enjoying the freedoms that are being protected by US service men and women, take such a stance against military personell that really have no say in foreign policy. Their problem is with the current administration, not PFC John Doe, corpsman. Issues like this, hot-button knucklhead issues like this, make me pivot to my brother and what he's doing right now. It's personal to me.
On the other hand, leaning so heavily on the 1st Amendment as a rule... I have to respect their right to protest and behave in such a manner that infurates me.
So yeah... conflicted. In hindsight, I shouldn't have posted it at all.
I used to live in DC, grew up in a military household, and contracted for the US Army. Sure, you get the occasional person protesting who thinks You Personally are the horrible reason for all evil, but it's just someone who needs someone in person to yell at.
My issues with the military are almost entirely the fact that it is very difficult to attack on a legal front for the crap it pulls. See the old Drill Instructor thing and how long it took to get resolved. Recruiting Offices have their moments of completely shady stuff, the entire GSA system is mind bogglingly bad..
This is a case of people not screaming at the troops, but adamantly declaring their distaste for a policy that if enacted by any civilian institution anywhere would result in instant legal doom. It wouldn't even be a drawn out trial, it would be a "please bring all your assets in a box to the courtroom, you won't be leaving with them" trial.
They don't really display a distaste for DADT, they just want their city to be 'anti-military', and if you read the actions they take in this link, it seems to me that they are pretty much screaming at the troops here.
Oh, I'm sorry... what freedoms is the U.S. Military currently protecting for me? Because, see, it pisses me off when people lump anything the armed services does under the heading "FREEDOM" and then shove it in a drawer and forget about it.
I have nothing but respect for military personnel, every male in my family is ex-military. But nothing that was in that article or has been said here has been anti-servermen... so don't go pulling the "we don't support the troops" card when this is CLEARLY a debate about policy.
They decidedly aren't part of the DADT complaint, but at the same time, this is pretty tame for protesting. They dislike the Iraq war, and military recruitment policies (and I can see where they come from on that, the military spent a lot of time when I was in highschool trying to convince me to sign up, and how they'd educate me and give me a chance to meet new people, and yadda.. completely skipping the death and war parts, even when asked about them. Recruiters are salesmen, I have the same respect for a recruiter in college as a credit card marketer.)
I don't see anything on their site that involves harassment of troops. They seem to want Everyone to stop dying. I do think their site is a tad sexist, which amuses me considering the council is anti DADT, but hey.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Learn a little something about EO policy. It will serve you well in your career.
I despise moves like this one, because the USMC, like other branches of the military, has absolutely no say about DADT. The UCMJ is defined by Congress. And yet many of the campuses that ban ROTC in the name of resisting discrimination are delighted to have their students get Congressional internships. The whole thing is pure socio-cultural prejudice masquerading as self-righteous tolerance, and I loath it.
I'm sure if you could, you would post it and enlighten.
You're right, encouraging isn't exactly the right word. But I would say that giving them a parking space and permission to make noise in a four-hour slot isn't exactly discouraging them from protesting there. It is a measure of support for a group with a different agenda to the council's.
Sorry. It was a fairly easy post to miss.
Dear Daft, Fucking Hippie:
When did I do that, hmmmm? Did it seem to your confused little brain that I was some how waving the flag in some orgasmic fit of patriotism?
Hah, if you only knew.
But that would deny you your tantrum, so continue with your self-rightious tyrade.
Really, 2 out of 5 of those actions seem quite reasonable. For those that didn't check out the website, the 5 actions Code Pink is planning basically breaks down to this.
1. Picket daily.
2. Petition City Council to enforce their 'anti-war resolutions' and make Berkley a 'military-free zone'.
3. Ask the landlord to terminate their lease (via e-mail, mail, phone etc.)
4. To call several times a day and ask them to shut down.
5. Circulate a petition asking them to leave.
As far as I'm concerned, 1 and 5 are definitely reasonable actions no matter what someone believes in. Its 2-4 that irks me. 4 is just plain a form of harassment even if they ask them 'nicely'. 3 is a form of harassment for the landlord. The guy/gal probably has a contract and can't boot them out without a reasonable cause, so he is just going to be drowned in requests that he can't acquiesce to. And 2, well, it isn't too bad except for them pushing the naive idea of by having no military we would somehow be better off. It isn't like the marine recruiters are going out there with sticks and burlap sacks and shanghaiing the teenagers who walk by.
This entire thing just wreaks of shenanigans. The fact that the city council passed a resolution allowing for the harassment of a business is ridiculous and petty.
If we're debating the actions by the city council, then I'd say there is little doubt that they are in the wrong here. They have targeted one particular organization of the federal government despite the fact that it is a policy of the U.S. Code enacted by Congress. If the Marines wanted to change this - they couldn't. There have been certain officers in the ranks who have suggested a change, but no one in the military could even order a change should they want to.
If we're debating the DADT policy, then that is an entirely different can of worms which I haven't seen anyone give any reasoning behind.
You did it twice in your own post.
Or did you not write that? Are you, perchance, Ron Paul?
No worries, it was very small. I agree with your thoughts on the hypocrisy of taking federal money while banning ROTC programs from colleges (and really, if you wanted help create a more liberal military, wouldn't you WANT to place your educated students in a program that prepares them for comissioned positions?) I think the law school analogies that were drawn earlier were very appropriate.
Does anyone feel that the city itself is right in sanctioning this sort of thing?
Are you, perchance, Dennis Kucinich?