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.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The average Berkeley resident cares more about actual real life human veterans returning home as damaged goods then most magnetic-yellow-ribbon-on-the-bumper fucks who only support the troops in some vague, distant, unhelpful way.
yeah, fuck those guys who i make unfounded assumptions about.
Berkeley City Council moderates anti-Marine position
City Council votes to rescind vote that Marine recruiters are "not welcome"
(CNN) -- The Berkeley City Council voted early Wednesday to rescind a previous vote that said Marine recruiters are "not welcome in this city," but held tight to its anti-war stance.
In a 7-to-2 vote, the council said it would no longer send a letter to the local Marine Corps Recruiting Station and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway saying recruiters aren't welcome in Berkeley.
Instead, the city is now simply stating it's opposed to the war and the billions spent on it. However, "we recognize the recruiter's right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence," the council said.
The council also said it supports and respects the men and women of the armed forces.
Ahead of the vote, passions ran high on both sides of the debate as pro-military demonstrators squared off with anti-war protesters. Berkeley police reported four arrests before the meeting began, all misdemeanors. Police said there were minor scuffles between the anti-war and pro-military camps.
An American flag was set aflame outside the City Council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles, police said.
Inside, members of the anti-war group Code Pink lined up at the podium to speak. Their salmon-colored signs read, "Berkeley says No to War" and "City Council - We have your back."
But others scolded the City Council. "City Council -- shame on you," said one sign, and "Don't surrender to terrorists," read a T-shirt worn by a Vietnam veteran.
Debbie Lee, whose son Marc was the first Navy SEAL to die in the Iraq war, demanded an apology from the council.
"My son gave up his life for you," Lee told the council as she clutched his framed picture.
"I'm appalled at what you did," she said, referring to the council's vote on Marine recruiters.
"It's despicable what you said about our military," said another military mom, Debbie Parrish. Her son, Victor, currently serves in Iraq.
"It's very, very sad. Shame on you."
But Jean Stewart called the council's stand "courageous and gutsy," saying the war was "immoral." And Judy Christopher said, "We need to stop the war. We need to stop recruitment."
In the measure passed by the council on January 29, Marine recruiters were called "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
It went on to say the council applauds residents and organizations that "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley."
Protesters with Code Pink have been camped outside the Marine recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue for the last four months, singing peace songs and chanting slogans for an end to the Iraq war. See photos of Code Pink protesters outside Marine office »
Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back last week, threatening to recall more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley, the campus that became a bastion of liberalism during the Vietnam War.
The Marine Corps has said it has no plans to move its office, which is located about a block from the college campus.
so this ended exactly the way that it should've. city makes a useless gesture against the war, federal government gets pissed, city realizes they don't have a leg to stand on and backs off (but still hates the war seriously guys it's bad we mean it)
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
so this ended exactly the way that it should've. city makes a useless gesture against the war, federal government gets pissed, city realizes they don't have a leg to stand on and backs off (but still hates the war seriously guys it's bad we mean it)
If you could enlighten me as to why the city didn't have a leg to stand on? I mean, is there some reason a city shouldn't be able to make the "useless gesture against the war" of their choice? Is there a reason that legislation with no tangible effect should be met with a (threatened) federal response that has a very tangible effect on both the citizens of the city and (to some extent) the rest of the state?
there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to make these kinds of gestures, but the plain truth is that the federal government has their balls in a c-clamp. that berkeley ever thought that they could do this without the federal government stepping in and smacking them in their faces is ridiculous.
i guess what i'm saying is that berkeley has the right to attempt whatever hamfisted anti-war gesture they want to (and hell, they've been doing them for generations), but i'm also saying that the federal government has the right to step in and protect one of their institutions.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
In any case - what right does the town have to deny the individuals who live in it the chance to be informed about the opportunities they would have in the marine corps?
Presumably, part of the logic is that the marine recruiters routinely practice deceptive advertising. They don't really tell you about all the extra tours you'll be serving, the stopgap loss, and so on. Sure, it's in the fine print, but that doesn't stop it from being a predatory office that preys on the uninformed.
And again, presumably, the offices that explain federal welfare and human services don't (or shouldn't) do that sort of thing.
Dude, there's no fucking fine print on a military contract, I'm tired of people saying this. It's only a few pages and everything is easy to read. When I joined I read everything, even the part about the government being able to keep me. I even asked about it, the recruiter did give me some bullshit answer, but it's pretty clear in the contract. I'm pretty sure it's even stated a few times, but I'd have to reread it to be sure.
If someone signing up for the military doesn't take the time to read a few pages I have zero sympathy for them. I mean shit you're signing up for something that will have you go out and fucking kill people...read the fucking contract.
It sucks for those that want out but can't, but it is a necessary part of the contract.
Of course, for some reason I seem to be in the minority on this one no matter who I'm talking to. People on the more liberal/progressive end of the spectrum don't generally see a problem with influencing local policy this way, and even people who think that ending slavery was a grievous breach of states' rights seem to think that this is a great idea (since, you know, it's the US Marines vs. some hippies in Berkeley).
Whatever. I reiterate my suggestion that we simply give Congress the ability to revise and override state and local policy directly, just to avoid the drama.
i understand your point of view, but really your argument is all about orders of magnitude. both the federal government and the city of berkeley are using essentially the same tactic to get what they want; the only real difference here is that the stick that the federal government uses is about a billion times bigger than the one the city has.
if this were a city in georgia conducting a campaign against a porn store from its town because it felt that it violated family values or some shit, you'd be all up in arms, and rightly so. but because it's an institution of the federal govenrment being interefered with, who gives a shit because it's the feds and they can take the hit, right?
except that's bullshit, beause the federal government not only has the right to protect its institutions whenever they're being messed with, but they have a responsibility to do so. we operate a federal system of government, and if the government simply let things slide every time something they valued was taken on by a freaking city of disgruntled hippies/gun nuts/drunk cajuns/racists, that'd be a blow to the concept that we operate a centralized system of government.
federal institutions should be protected by the federal government wherever a challenge exists by the states or cities. am i saying states should always kowtow to the feds even if they feel something is wrong? of course not. but if the federal government didn't meet these challenges head on, they'd lose the kind of legitimacy they need to enforce necessary legislature and programs.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Yes, because the idea that a bunch of cities might congregate in a town, and that that town's council might declare that "The Marines are a bunch of meaniheads" will just tear down the whole system, m i right?
And all those cities and towns across the country that have passed resolutions opposing our occupation of Iraq? Maybe DeMint should cut all of their funding as well. But I guess those are okay. So I guess the bar against which largely pointless resolutions from local governmental bodies is measured is whether it pisses off fuckwit legislators from South Carolina.
please, resolutions against the iraq war don't have a tangible impact in any way shape or form against a govermental entity. what berkeley did was to single out a particular government institution for harassment because they wanted to make a point. they weren't just making an off-the-cuff point about how war is bad, they were encouraging the disruption of a federal institution.
within their rights as a city to do so? sure. but acting like the federal government somehow is just going to grin, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well! you know how those goofy hippies are!" is wishful thinking. frankly, i'd be furious if the US government allowed a state or local government to mess with their institutions like that.
to clarify my position: the only issues I think the federal government has any real business exerting power over local governments are civil rights issues...and that should be done through the courts. It should not be done through the power of taxation, as federal funding should not be conditional.
if the federal government had taken this appraoch with things like the civil rights act, half the south would still be segregated.
and federal funding should not be conditional?!? so a state flaunting a defiance of a federal proclamation, even one approved and endorsed by the other 49 states, should still be able to reap the benefits of the very federal system that they're defying? fuck that. there's a reason why we ditched the articles of confederation.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Posts
yeah, fuck those guys who i make unfounded assumptions about.
ANYWAY
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/13/berkeley.marines/index.html
so this ended exactly the way that it should've. city makes a useless gesture against the war, federal government gets pissed, city realizes they don't have a leg to stand on and backs off (but still hates the war seriously guys it's bad we mean it)
there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to make these kinds of gestures, but the plain truth is that the federal government has their balls in a c-clamp. that berkeley ever thought that they could do this without the federal government stepping in and smacking them in their faces is ridiculous.
i guess what i'm saying is that berkeley has the right to attempt whatever hamfisted anti-war gesture they want to (and hell, they've been doing them for generations), but i'm also saying that the federal government has the right to step in and protect one of their institutions.
Dude, there's no fucking fine print on a military contract, I'm tired of people saying this. It's only a few pages and everything is easy to read. When I joined I read everything, even the part about the government being able to keep me. I even asked about it, the recruiter did give me some bullshit answer, but it's pretty clear in the contract. I'm pretty sure it's even stated a few times, but I'd have to reread it to be sure.
If someone signing up for the military doesn't take the time to read a few pages I have zero sympathy for them. I mean shit you're signing up for something that will have you go out and fucking kill people...read the fucking contract.
It sucks for those that want out but can't, but it is a necessary part of the contract.
i understand your point of view, but really your argument is all about orders of magnitude. both the federal government and the city of berkeley are using essentially the same tactic to get what they want; the only real difference here is that the stick that the federal government uses is about a billion times bigger than the one the city has.
if this were a city in georgia conducting a campaign against a porn store from its town because it felt that it violated family values or some shit, you'd be all up in arms, and rightly so. but because it's an institution of the federal govenrment being interefered with, who gives a shit because it's the feds and they can take the hit, right?
except that's bullshit, beause the federal government not only has the right to protect its institutions whenever they're being messed with, but they have a responsibility to do so. we operate a federal system of government, and if the government simply let things slide every time something they valued was taken on by a freaking city of disgruntled hippies/gun nuts/drunk cajuns/racists, that'd be a blow to the concept that we operate a centralized system of government.
federal institutions should be protected by the federal government wherever a challenge exists by the states or cities. am i saying states should always kowtow to the feds even if they feel something is wrong? of course not. but if the federal government didn't meet these challenges head on, they'd lose the kind of legitimacy they need to enforce necessary legislature and programs.
please, resolutions against the iraq war don't have a tangible impact in any way shape or form against a govermental entity. what berkeley did was to single out a particular government institution for harassment because they wanted to make a point. they weren't just making an off-the-cuff point about how war is bad, they were encouraging the disruption of a federal institution.
within their rights as a city to do so? sure. but acting like the federal government somehow is just going to grin, shrug their shoulders and say "oh well! you know how those goofy hippies are!" is wishful thinking. frankly, i'd be furious if the US government allowed a state or local government to mess with their institutions like that.
if the federal government had taken this appraoch with things like the civil rights act, half the south would still be segregated.
and federal funding should not be conditional?!? so a state flaunting a defiance of a federal proclamation, even one approved and endorsed by the other 49 states, should still be able to reap the benefits of the very federal system that they're defying? fuck that. there's a reason why we ditched the articles of confederation.