Posted by: Tree
- [3533298] Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:54
i don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but it's certain interesting. Showdown looms in 'treasonous' Berkeley
seems like those wacky Republicans have no taste for local communities making decisions on who or what is welcome in their communities.
well, unless those local communities are banning "illegal immigrants"...
1
Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 13:10
The Berekely City Council can certainly decide to prohibit a Marine recruitment office in its city. And the Federal Government can certainly decide to pull any federal funds for the city in return.
2
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 14:24
The Berkeley City Council can certainly decide to prohibit a Marine recruitment office in its city. And the Federal Government can certainly decide to pull any federal funds for the city in return.
I don't understand that reasoning at all PV.
The citizens of Berkeley pay federal income tax just like the rest of the country. Why do the Fed's have the right to withhold a citizens taxes that are collected with the expectation that they will be used in all jurisdictions?
I suppose if the Feds decide to withhold Federal funds the citizens of Berkeley can then just withhold that portion of their Federal income tax?
3
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 14:46
Sorry, but I'm with the Republicans on this one.
"If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders,"...
is such an inflammatory comment that its bordering on unimagineable form a governmental agency.
This nation has a long and proud history of generous individual rights. Rights by extension, imply responsibilities. One of which, is for the military machine which defends those rights, to peacefully coexist in the general population. For elected officials to declare public property to off-limits ot military personnel, lest they be deemed "unwelcome intruders", is IMHO bordering on treason. Its utterly, irresponsible and equally reprehensible.
4
Perm Dude
ID: 451161213 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 14:54
I thought that line of reasoning by Berkeley was rejected pretty thoroughly during the 60s on the civil rights issue (itself an echo of the Civil War arguments by the southern states).
5
walk
ID: 281501210 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 14:59
Seems belligerant on behalf of Berkeley, somewhat ironic. I like it there though...as I lived in SF, but jeez, let 'em be and if they want, they can protest, or just not enlist.
6
Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 15:04
Berekeley doesn't exist in a bubble. We can't allow cities, counties and states to dictate what parts of the federal government they find acceptable, and which they don't.
Suppose you get a city council somewhere filled with Jag-types that wants to throw out an office of the Enviromental Protection Agency on ideological grounds.
A Marine Recruitment office is a legitimate function of government, regardless of one's opinion about the reckless use of our armed forces in matters unrelated to national defense.
7
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 15:04
Exactly walk. What was the point, of the city council passing this "declaration"? Those recruiters are citizens, and have EVERY right to live where their employer is located. And for a governmental agency to "declare" members of another governmental agency as "intruders" (simply by virtue of their living/working there), is asinine.
I mean, this bears no resemblance to inter-departmental or inter-agency turf-wars. This is an American City, declaring members of the US Armed Forces as being "unwelcome intruders" within the cities limits. Absurd on the surface of it, and worse with any underlying intent one cares to assign the action.
8
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 15:05
#6; well said PV.
9
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:08
Rather then going after each argument above I will just make an overall comment.
Berekely is a lefty, anti war town, has been since the 60's. People that live there know this.
They don't want military recruiters operating in their town trying to influence their teenagers to go to foreign countries and kill people.
There are tens of thousands of towns in the USA that would welcome recruiting. They aren't welcome in Berekely...so take your propaganda and influence on teenagers somewhere else.
Not everyone wants their children brainwashed...that is the culture of Berekely and we all know it.
It's not that big a deal. The military isn't a good fit in that particular community, they can go where they are welcome and leave the good people of Berekely alone.
There are plenty of God fearing, red white and blue, bible thumping, veins in the neck bulging communities that would love to have propaganda fed to their youth so why not just set up shop where you are welcome?
Not everyone equates being against mind control and under age recruitment for the war machine as treason.
Calm down everyone, just because a community doesn't want their children recruited to go kill people in other countries doesn't make them evil.
Maybe it just makes them SMART.
If the EPA recruitment office isn't welcome in bum uck Alabama, fine, they can move an extra office to Berkeley...there will be plenty of Scientists there to work for the agency and apparently they can use the extra Federal funds.
10
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:16
And the Berkely mindset? You dont consider that maybe that too, is propaganda and brainwashing? Seems to me, to avoid the appearance of it, you let the recruiters be and let the people make their opwn decisions/choices. Underage (as in less than 18 yrs old), need parental consent to enlist.
Sorry Nerve, but the recruiters are entitled to have a presence in each and every city of this country, if their department cares to fund it. You want the benefits of this nation? Then at LEAST, bear the burden of having recruiters for the military within the city limits. Unless of course, Berkely cares to attempt breaking off and becoming an independent nation, in and of itself?
11
Perm Dude
ID: 451161213 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:27
Well, maybe Berkeley is smart and maybe they aren't. And I agree that being lefty is part of what makes Berkeley Berkeley.
However, to simply reject a military recruiting office as "propoganda" to get "children" to "kill people in other countries" reveals a smug dissasociation which refuses to allow for the freedom of speech they so loudly would proclaim as their own.
It has been my experience that those on the fringes, whether left or right, share this "rights for me but not for thee" attitude which cuts to the heart of their own arguments.
If unpopular speech isn't protected, then none is. And there is no more unpopular speech than that of the military recruiter in Berkeley.
pd
12
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:30
And the Berkely mindset? You dont consider that maybe that too, is propaganda and brainwashing?
I am the wrong person to ask since I am in lock step with this mind set.
Underage (as in less than 18 yrs old), need parental consent to enlist.
They start the brain washing early though and they don't need parental consent for that.
Sorry Nerve, but the recruiters are entitled to have a presence in each and every city of this country, if their department cares to fund it.
Berekely hasn't said they "can't set up there", which none of you seem to get..they said they are not welcome and are the same as intruders....a sentiment I can appreciate if my kid is involved.
Berkely cares to attempt breaking off and becoming an independent nation, in and of itself?
We can only dream Sarge, we can only dream...
13
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:34
PD If unpopular speech isn't protected, then none is. And there is no more unpopular speech than that of the military recruiter in Berkeley.
No one is restricting their free speech, they just passed a resolution telling them they aren't welcome...sheez can anyone read a news article?
I tried to protest George Bush Senior when he spoke on my campus but wasn't allowed anywhere near the arena, I had to stand on a plot of land 300 yards away where none of the "guests" could see me...what's the difference?
14
Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:37
I posted this in the "America's Europeans" thread a couple of weeks ago....
[T]he [Bakersfield} City Council ... voted 8-1 Tuesday night to tell the [Gay and Lesbian Alliance] that its Shattuck Avenue [office] "is not welcome in the city, and if homesexuals' rights activists choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
In addition it officially encouraged the [anti-gay group from Fred Jones Babtist Church in Kansas] to impede the work of the [Gay and Lesbian Alliance] in the city by protesting in front of the [Gay and Lesbian Alliance offices].
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give [The Fred Jones Babptist Church] a designated parking space in front of the [Gay and Lesbian Alliance offices] once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m....
"I believe in the Rev. Fred Jones cause. The [Gay and Lesbian Alliance] don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Bakersfield Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast....
15
Perm Dude
ID: 451161213 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:41
No one is saying that GB's gang of theives isn't also restricting speech nerve. Your pique at Bush in particular isn't the issue.
So let's go over this thing slowly:
-Recruiters want to talk to young people, in order to recruit them into the armed forces;
-Berkeley doesn't want this to happen;
-Berkeley tries to ban them.
And this isn't a speech restriction to you? Berkeley is taking this action specifically because they don't want the military to speak to young people in their community.
16
Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:41
nerve - they're doing more than telling them they're "unwelcome" (which, frankly, is astounding in itself) they are actively favoring other groups attempts to shut the Marine office down, allowing the other groups to break Berkley's laws and the property rights of the people who own businesses on that street.
Substitute some group you favor for the Marines and I don't think you'd consider it no big deal that the local government is conspiring to keep their political message from being heard.
17
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:43
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give [The Fred Jones Babptist Church] a designated parking space in front of the [Gay and Lesbian Alliance offices] once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m....
Why can they only protest once a week from noon to four?
18
Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:49
nerve - They can protest any time they like; the "free sound permit" allows them break Berkley's nuiscance laws,as well.
In case you didn't pick up on it, I took the article about Berkley and the Marines and substituted Bakersfield and the GLA. You're A-OK with hypothetical Bakersfield running the GLA out of town, huh? They should just go where they're message is more appreciated, right?
BTW, if all the Berkley council had down was pass a resolution saying they didn't like the Marines message, it wouldn't be such a big deal; governments can favor one political message over the other, no problem. They'r doing more than tha here though. They're using the power of government in an attempt to keep one political speaker from access to the public.
19
Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 16:59
OK, maybe the EPA office was a poor choice. I was thinking about communities that have no problem subverting environmental laws for economic interests.
Maybe a better example would have been a welfare office.
Nerve, not sure if this was covered, but I'm quite familiar with Berekley's history. When we had dinner next door in Oakland a while back, the reason for our family get together was the death of my uncle. His kids, my cousins, both went to Berkeley for college in the late 60s. I once ran away from home(1968) and ended up on cousin Gary's couch when he was a student there. Additionally, I am a veteran of protesting Vietnam, having been tear gassed on November 15, 1969 in DC during the biggest anti-war gathering in the nation's history. I have been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, so it's safe to say I'm not a promoter of children recruited to go kill people in other countries.
Kriss Worthington, a progressive Berkeley activist and council member for 11 years, believes the council overreached.
"The inflammatory language in the City Council item is really outrageous -- not just to right-wing people, but to mainstream liberal people and even to some peace activists who have said they're insulted that the city would have such language," Worthington said.
Now, it's my hope that this country will rally behind Barack Obama, who is the only remaining candidate(with any real chance) that will allow for the opportunity of withdrawing our military from Iraq.
20
Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 17:03
Now, it's my hope that this country will rally behind Barack Obama, who is the only remaining candidate(with any real chance) that will allow for the opportunity of withdrawing our military from Iraq.
My first reaction when I saw this story was that it was all a set up to give Obama a chance for his "Sister Soulja" moment....
21
Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 17:11
My first reaction when I saw this story was that it was all a set up to give Obama a chance for his "Sister Soulja" moment....
Andy Warhol said we all will have 15 minutes of fame.
I say that everyone who has had his/her 15 minutes, their next momentous event with be their "Sister Soulja moment."
22
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 17:28
PD Berkeley tries to ban them.
Telling someone they are not welcome does not equate to banning.
In case you didn't pick up on it, I took the article about Berkley and the Marines and substituted Bakersfield and the GLA. You're A-OK with hypothetical Bakersfield running the GLA out of town, huh? They should just go where they're message is more appreciated, right?
Yeah I caught that MBJ and are you delusional enough not to realize there are scores of towns in the country where a "gay/lesbian recruitment office" targeting teenagers would be burnt to the ground?
I have to go to bed but this has been fun.
I spent 2 hours with a new client today, an Iraqi.
His house was hit by a USA bomb in 1997 during the Clinton years...they were going after a rumored biological chemical plant close by.
His wife of 1 year 9 months caught on fire, she died 5 days later. He showed me the burns on his wrists where he tried to put out the fire on her.
He got out in 1999, his parents still live in Baghdad.
True story.
He likes Americans though...also true. We had a good talk.
23
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 18:31
Gay Recruiters?????
24
Tree
ID: 201531218 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 20:01
to me, it's a local issue.
the feds coming in heavy-handed is what bothers me, because it's hypocritical.
if a local community wanted to ban abortion clinics, i don't think we'd see Republicans demanding that some sort of monies be withheld...
or, say, a gay rights group...
25
sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 20:24
Recruiting for the national military, is most decidedly NOT a "local issue".
26
Perm Dude
ID: 451161213 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 20:47
It is a local vs federal issue. One in which the locals will lose.
27
Wilmer McLean
ID: 57112120 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 20:48
Interrupting this thread for a musical interlude.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. ;
28
Tree
ID: 411581219 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 21:02
Recruiting for the national military, is most decidedly NOT a "local issue".
when you're doing it in a local town that doesn't want you, it is.
we don't have a draft in this country. military service is not required.
on a related note, the Village People was my first concert, when i was like 10.
i still have the original ticket stub, and 12 years later, when they played at my college in front of a considerably smaller audience, they asked to sign my that original ticket stub when we were at the on campus bar later.
29
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:26
Priceless spot to put that, Wilmer. 8]
30
Boldwin
ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:27
Were they influencing teenagers?
31
Tree
ID: 411581219 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:43
of course. being in the same room with a band that includes one or two gay men instantly made all the men in the audience spontaneously leap into a frenzied gay orgy, while all the women went into a different room for their own all-girl orgy.
32
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 10:02
of course. being in the same room with a band that includes one or two gay men Marine Recruiter instantly made all the men in the audience spontaneously leap into a frenzied gay killing orgy, while all the women went into a different room for their own all-girl orgy.
See how ridiculous that looks? Marine Recruiters, are entitled to have an office in any city in the country and NO city, has the authority to inhibit the Federal Govt from conducting recruiting activity.
33
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 13:25
Do the Armed Forces need some sort of business or other licensing to conduct recruiting on a local level?
34
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 13:38
You're asking (if I understand the question correctly), if the Fed Govt needs to get a permit form a local authority in order to open an office?
I dont know the answer, but I'd be inclined to think not. (And if they did need a permit, they'd just issue themselves one.)
35
Perm Dude
ID: 25139138 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 14:31
They need to get regular business licenses and follow local ordinances as required. But there is no local or state licensing requirement for military recruitment per se.
36
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 15:32
Again everyone seems to be implying Berekely is saying get out we will not allow you here, we are forcibly removing you...everything I've read implies they are just making it clear to the war machine snake oil salesmen they would prefer they move on to the next locale.
If the recruiters decide to stay there is nothing Berekely can do about it.
Some of you in your posts are making implications that don't exist.
I would prefer the junkies didn't sit on the corner of my street in SF. I could tell them each time I walk past I wish they would find a new home. I can write letters to the editors mentioning what an eye sore to the neighborhood they are. In the end if they choose to stay theres nothing I can do about it.
Berekely is in the same boat with these recruiters. Some of you seem to imply they are forcibly removing them.
Telling someone they are not welcome and shutting down the recruiting office at gun point are two different things.
37
Perm Dude
ID: 25139138 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 15:33
shutting down the recruiting office at gun point
Who said this? Talk about saying something which isn't happening!
38
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 15:34
No Nerve, there is a HUGE difference, between you as a citizen expressing displeasure with a loiterer, and a city government passing a resolution condemning the presence of military personnel conducting routine (ie not marshall law type) business.
39
chode
ID: 293141514 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 16:38
Which Marshall is that again? Donyell or Penny?
40
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 17:33
Who said this? Talk about saying something which isn't happening!
You did PD. You said "Ban them".
For a government to Ban a group from functioning in thier jurisdiction, it implies the rule of law would be used to "ban them" which implies enforcement of the ban by police if the banned party refused to complie.
Choose your words more carefully.
41
Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 18:31
I really think the protest is misdirected. The Marines didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. They are not responsible for misguided foreign policy decisions.
The Marines perform a vital function as part of this nation's armed forces. That they are used improperly is, if you subscribe to the message on Harry Truman's desk, the responsibility of the Commander in Chief.
nerve, I was specifically pointing to your use of "gun point."
43
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 04:47
PD nerve, I was specifically pointing to your use of "gun point."
PD it is an expression I use to mean that it is being enforced by law, which carried to extreme means if not followed the police will show up to enforce the law. Police carry guns, therefore the "point of a gun" reference.
You said they were "banning" them, which is not accurate. It was just a resolution telling them they aren't welcome. (At least that's how I read it)
Obviously I don't think they will enforce this with the police since they are not making there removal a "law". Saying they are banning them does imply a law and therefore enforcement if not obeyed.
Let's at least argue the facts.
If someone has read they want to forcibly remove the recruiters, then you have a completely different argument and I might actually agree with Sarge, PD et al.
It's just a resolution expressing their "desire" for the recruiters to recruit somewhere they are welcome. If the "recruiters" choose to stay there is nothing that Berkeley can do about it.
Am I misunderstanding the situation? If so correct me, if not let's at least debate in an accurate context and not use words like "ban".
44
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 13:07
Sarge, PD: They need to get regular business licenses and follow local ordinances as required. But there is no local or state licensing requirement for military recruitment per se.
So if a local ordinance existed such that military recruiting is illegal within city limits they would have to comply?
I'm conflicted here gentlemen. I understand this is Berkeley and their history, but follow me anyway. Why is it that when the left goes after the government to tell them to get the fvck out of their lives, they've got to go about it this way?
If leftists want to start thumbing their nose at the gov't, GRRRRR--EAT!!! Just do it on issues like taxes or social issues (states rights anyone?) because I'm telling you that you'll build up credibility that way and maybe more folks will listen to you the next time around.
This is partly where leftist doctrine loses me. You guys want everything goes with abortion, MJ use, bang who you want to bang, all that crap, but then you've got nothing better to do than try and control the damn federal gov't expenses that jack up our taxes and make life harder for people like me. Make up my mind for me. Gov't out or in?
I can see some of the views. I don't know how many times I've said it, but I'll say it again here. I don't give a toss if a guy like Zen wants to smoke a joint, get an abortion, or pay high taxes in Washington State, but if the folks in Illinois want it illegal then he needs to STFU about how we want to live. I just don't see the left extending that courtesy.
45
Perm Dude
ID: 28140147 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 13:10
No--there are certain areas in which local and state ordinances are completely trumped by federal law.
But this doesn't mean that a recruiting office can open up without an occupancy permit, or follow zoning regulations with regard to stormwater management, sewer, parking, etc.
The local municipality can't outright ban a recruiting office. But they can ensure that such an office follows standard ordinances appropriate to the use.
Hope this clarifies. I'm on my local Planning Commission, and this stuff comes up more than you'd know.