Berkeley Backing Down On Banning Marines (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/berkeley_backing_down_on_banning_marines/)

In the end, money speaks louder than hateful liberal rhetoric.
BERKELEY, Calif.—As six Republican senators devised a plan to yank $2.3 million in federal funding for Berkeley programs, the mayor of the famously liberal city apologized Wednesday for his hard stance against a Marine recruiting center.
Two City Council members vowed to soften their stance as well.
At their Tuesday council meeting, leaders will discuss scrapping a letter that might be perceived as targeting the center or the Marines.
The letter said that the recruiting center was not welcome on Shattuck Avenue and that the Marines were uninvited and unwelcome intruders.
“That letter will probably be pulled back and maybe more moderate language will be put in place which is appropriate I think,” said Berkeley mayor Tom Bates.
“Subtly stated in the resolution is perhaps an impugning of the soldiers fighting for us in Iraq and other places,” Berkeley City Councilman Laurie Capitelli. “And that was never the intention but that really needs to be cleared up. As I walked to my car that night I realized I regretted it and I had made a mistake.”
Sounds like they’re going to back off their position just enough to keep the federal and state earmarks rolling in. Which is fitting for a bunch of cynical liberals.
By the way, you gotta love the subtle bias in this story. It states that the letter written by the Berkeley City Council was “perceived” as targeting the Marines. The letter itself actually said that Marines were unwelcome in Berkeley and were considered uninvited intruders.
If that’s not “targeting” I don’t know what is.

Wish I could get a link to a real news story, not just a blog entry.

Here's one:

http://origin.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8199047

Another:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_8193511

Way to take it out on the school kids, congressmen.

Way to take it out on the school kids, congressmen.

Senators, but yeah, I know what you mean. They didn't like the wording in the letter so they threaten the funding for the kids.

Senators, but yeah, I know what you mean. They didn't like the wording in the letter so they threaten the funding for the kids.

kids? You mean the young adults who should of protested this policy from the beginning?

Why blame the government for following a policy that has been on the books for sometime? Why did these soon to be disadvantaged "kids" protest their school leaders for their part in this cause and effect situation that could of lead to loss of dollars for their institution.

If all of a sudden the funding was pulled because Berkley yanked all the African American students,,,would you be here blaming the government for suspending funds or would you be protesting the school itself?

Wish I could get a link to a real news story, not just a blog entry.

oh I apologize? was the blog entry's facts and quotes incorrect VS the real news story you managed to dig up?

oh I apologize? was the blog entry's facts and quotes incorrect VS the real news story you managed to dig up?
Well, it's a blog entry. Typically bloggers will quote part of a story, and then add their own take on things. (spin) I wanted the whole story, which I eventually got with a quick google search. If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have caught what me and dharma were taking about, namely the threat of pulling $243,000 from the organization providing school lunches to Berkeley public school kids. Note that it's the city's public school system, not UC-Berkeley.

When you dont follow the rules you pay a price. That is plain and simple.

When a father of two decides to steal a car and gets incarcerated over it. Do you blame the criminal justice system or do you blame the man?

When you dont follow the rules you pay a price. If your responsible for someone,either on a personal family level or an educational level,that should serve you with more incentive to follow the rules.

Wish I could get a link to a real news story, not just a blog entry.I think it's really great that LF brings us all these sayanythingblog threads.

I myself am not very handy with this internet thingy and would never be able to find them on my own.

When you dont follow the rules you pay a price. That is plain and simple.

When a father of two decides to steal a car and gets incarcerated over it. Do you blame the criminal justice system or do you blame the man?

When you dont follow the rules you pay a price. If your responsible for someone,either on a personal family level or an educational level,that should serve you with more incentive to follow the rules.
What rules?

kids? You mean the young adults who should of protested this policy from the beginning?

Why blame the government for following a policy that has been on the books for sometime? Why did these soon to be disadvantaged "kids" protest their school leaders for their part in this cause and effect situation that could of lead to loss of dollars for their institution.

If all of a sudden the funding was pulled because Berkley yanked all the African American students,,,would you be here blaming the government for suspending funds or would you be protesting the school itself?

"policy"? :rolleyes:

It was just a letter saying they are unwelcome.

Frankly I can see their point about not wanting a group that openly discriminates against people for their sexual orientation, which is a violation of their anti-discrimination laws, operating in their city.

Sounds like they (the City Council of Berkeley) are going to back off their position just enough to keep the federal and state earmarks rolling in.

Yep.

Just as it happens innumerable times every day in Amuuurica; small enclaves of progressive thinking people are forced to retreat from their heartfelt positions in order to conform to the viewpoint and ideology of the dominant political faction; the ConservaFascists.

Looks like the berkely councils principles were sold pretty cheap.
To paraphrase 'we know what they are, now we know what it costs.'

When you dont follow the rules you pay a price. That is plain and simple.

When a father of two decides to steal a car and gets incarcerated over it. Do you blame the criminal justice system or do you blame the man?

When you dont follow the rules you pay a price. If your responsible for someone,either on a personal family level or an educational level,that should serve you with more incentive to follow the rules.
So LF... City council writes a letter that the government doesn't like, and poor kids don't get lunch any more? Do you think that's fair? I don't think so. When I was little sometimes the only meal I got was school lunch.

That Little - Code Pink - chippie was on O'Reilly last nite
hosted by Laura *Ingraham.Laura kept pushin her about
some - Trans-Gender Convention - and whether or not That TOO
should be banned.It was a way for Ingraham to put things in
perspective.The Little - Code Pink - Cutey { who,to her credit is
always polite } didn't see and problem with Tree-huggers in San Fransico
but yes,Soldiers DO get killed in Combat,and a Military should only be
supported for DOMESTIC stuff.






* I still can't get over how SHORT Ingraham IS. I woulda bet she was
at least 5'6" or so.I think she's under 5 foot.
Great van Susteren territory.So's,I glossed over some of Laura Ingraham's
Pics Album and there's one with her standing next to Madame Secretary
Albright.Who she recently interviewed on her Talk Radio program.
I swear,Miss Albright was about 5 inches or more SHORTER than Laura
in dat pic.I had NO Idea'r she was that Short.
Now I gotta check and find Pics of Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright
standing side by side.Or maybe one with Janet Reno { very tall }.
Say this height stuff is fun.

The "rules" or "policy" meltdown didn't start when the money stream was threatened.
It started years ago when this particular municipality made a Faustian deal and accepted government money. You sell your soul at that point.

I'm not one of those people who can quote the Godfather but isn't there a line that Don Carleone uses in it which says in effect that when you accept this favor, you may be asked to do something for me in the future.

There are suburban public pools, parks, beaches, etc... around the country which must allow people in from surrounding areas because they accepted construction money from the federal government.

That's all this is. And if a town or city is dumb enough to get tangled in this in the first place they deserve the results.

The only thing unique about this story is that the political bent of the participants is reversed from the usual government vs. public controversy.

The "rules" or "policy" meltdown didn't start when the money stream was threatened.
It started years ago when this particular municipality made a Faustian deal and accepted government money. You sell your soul at that point.

I'm not one of those people who can quote the Godfather but isn't there a line that Don Carleone uses in it which says in effect that when you accept this favor, you may be asked to do something for me in the future.

There are suburban public pools, parks, beaches, etc... around the country which must allow people in from surrounding areas because they accepted construction money from the federal government.

That's all this is. And if a town or city is dumb enough to get tangled in this in the first place they deserve the results.

The only thing unique about this story is that the political bent of the participants is reversed from the usual government vs. public controversy.
Accepting government money == Letting the mob do you a 'favor'.

Yeah.

The "rules" or "policy" meltdown didn't start when the money stream was threatened.
It started years ago when this particular municipality made a Faustian deal and accepted government money. You sell your soul at that point.

I'm not one of those people who can quote the Godfather but isn't there a line that Don Carleone uses in it which says in effect that when you accept this favor, you may be asked to do something for me in the future.

There are suburban public pools, parks, beaches, etc... around the country which must allow people in from surrounding areas because they accepted construction money from the federal government.

That's all this is. And if a town or city is dumb enough to get tangled in this in the first place they deserve the results.

The only thing unique about this story is that the political bent of the participants is reversed from the usual government vs. public controversy.

**************************8
The point I was making as well Laura Ingraham is that groups like
- Code Pink - who live to form Protess groups and demand that people
rise-up and demand better of their Government,are also Hypocrites.
- Code Pink - would never have any problems with a - Trans-gender
Convention - but the mere thought of a Military Recruiter visiting a school
is a schocking display of Barbarism.Some like Cindy Sheehan need to be
mocked.They are disingenuous Hypocrites,at best.

I cant really blame them for not wanting the Marines coming recruiting, who would want some of the best talent put in uniform and shipped to the ME.

Good to see freedom of speech is alive and well and not punished by the Gov.

I cant really blame them for not wanting the Marines coming recruiting, who would want some of the best talent put in uniform and shipped to the ME.

Good to see freedom of speech is alive and well and not punished by the Gov.

You all talk as if these recruiters come and snatch kids away in their bed at night. Each and every single one of these "talented ADULTS" sign on the dotted line of their own free will..

If a municipality accepts funding from the government,they have to follow certain guidelines. They have to ad bide by the rules set forth.

If these council members really wanted to make a stand why dont they relinquish their salary to make up the 243K.. take a collection,run a car wash,have a bake sale or any other way to raise the 243k...and then tell the Armed forced to take a hike.

I am sure there is some anti war business owner in the city limits that would love to get their name in the paper,by donating money.....

taking your political views and taking such a bold move while being responsible for what i would imagine is 1000's of children is not a very smart thing to do..... or as the article states they have already realized.

You all talk as if these recruiters come and snatch kids away in their bed at night. Each and every single one of these "talented ADULTS" sign on the dotted line of their own free will..
I wouldnt be so sure of that.
Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.
The second scenario is rather sad, as it couldnt be further from the truth.

If a municipality accepts funding from the government,they have to follow certain guidelines. They have to ad bide by the rules set forth.
Which means what-we'll throw you some funding,but we want our oppertunity to have our pound of flesh, that sounds like financial blackmail to me.

If these council members really wanted to make a stand why dont they relinquish their salary to make up the 243K.. take a collection,run a car wash,have a bake sale or any other way to raise the 243k...and then tell the Armed forced to take a hike.
Why should they-I believe Federal funds actually belong to the people of the United States-not the Federal Government.

I am sure there is some anti war business owner in the city limits that would love to get their name in the paper,by donating money..... Im sure there is-more than one even, maybe would do it because they believe the Republicans in Washington are using the Armed Forces for political gain and not for their real purpose, screw the media attention.

They have to ad bide by the rules set forth.
You still haven't told me what rules.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flQcR3mTBVk) is how Berkeley should be treating the US.

So LF... City council writes a letter that the government doesn't like, and poor kids don't get lunch any more? Do you think that's fair? I don't think so. When I was little sometimes the only meal I got was school lunch.DF, I'm surprised at you.

Providing free or subsidized school lunches for poor children is SOCIALISM at it's worst -- it's nothing less than stealing from the rich at the point of a gun!! Maybe if more poor kids went hungry their good-for-nothing parent(s) would get off their lazy asses and become productive members of our great American society!

Sheesh. :eek:

If everyone 'got off their lazy asses and became productive members of your great American society' then there wouldnt be any kids getten free lunch.

Sorta defeats the purpose :)

Quote from blog/article:

Berkeley City Councilman Laurie Capitelli. “And that was never the intention but that really needs to be cleared up. As I walked to my car that night I realized I regretted it and I had made a mistake.”

---

So I wonder how many days went by before she publicly backed off. She knew she made a mistake, but didn't really care until they threatened to take their money away...

Well theres one buckling down to pressure from DeMint.

DF, I'm surprised at you.

Providing free or subsidized school lunches for poor children is SOCIALISM at it's worst -- it's nothing less than stealing from the rich at the point of a gun!! Maybe if more poor kids went hungry their good-for-nothing parent(s) would get off their lazy asses and become productive members of our great American society!

Sheesh. :eek: Why should you punish children for having poor parents?

I wouldnt be so sure of that.
Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.
The second scenario is rather sad, as it couldnt be further from the truth..

So this mentality of a person is what you consider their "best talent"? During my senior year of high school i was bugged by every branch of armed service as a potential recruit. I assure you I didnt see any "fanfare". nor was i brainwashed.


Which means what-we'll throw you some funding,but we want our opportunity to have our pound of flesh, that sounds like financial blackmail to me...

I believe that as a result of accepting federal funding,,you need to follow a certain class of rules VS an educational system that is private a little different than getting a "pound of flesh"

However you bring up an excellent point. It is not right that they are being held accountable to guidelines just because they need federal funding....

So why doesn't this school council,instead of making an asinine gesture with the hungry stomachs of 1000's of students on the line,Why not protest the actual policy itself. Why not march on capital hill and say.. "hey we need these funds but we want the right to choose what we have as far as federal identities on our campasses....or like a suggested... raise the money via personal or private donations and tell the gov to stick it?

I guess it is easier to get on a soap box and blame the big bad government for enforcing a policy that has been on the books well before the check to Berkley was written.


Why should they-I believe Federal funds actually belong to the people of the United States-not the Federal Government.

I'm sure there is-more than one even, maybe would do it because they believe the Republicans in Washington are using the Armed Forces for political gain and not for their real purpose, screw the media attention.

Paul it doesn't matter red or blue,,,,left or right, republican,democrat,conservative or liberal running the government... If this happened at anytime the result would be the same. Do you think in this country once a Democrat comes into power all the standards and policies of the government automatically become a "if you feel like it" case?

If you are an educational institution in the United states of America and you accept federal funding you cannot bar or ban a federal identity of the goverment from posting up shop. That includes recruiters... There are rule where you can decide where they go and ect.... but tell them to take a hick alltogether.. No sorry.

We find out from this that what was posed to get cut off was a free lunch program for disadvantage kids..... The federal gov did not pick this program for the chopping block. It was was closest to the top of the barrel so to speak. The recruiters post shop on the community and Jr college campus as well a periodical post in the high school system. They are no where near the students that would suffer from a formal ousting of their posts.

I cannot see why this is even an issue. Again I will say it.. You dont follow the rules you have to pay a price. Instead of gambling lunches away for poor children to make a political point.... why didnt they try to fix the problem before they cashed the checks? This is a very irresponsible choice made by all those involved.

DF, I'm surprised at you.

Providing free or subsidized school lunches for poor children is SOCIALISM at it's worst -- it's nothing less than stealing from the rich at the point of a gun!! Maybe if more poor kids went hungry their good-for-nothing parent(s) would get off their lazy asses and become productive members of our great American society!

Sheesh. :eek:

Ouch that was a little on the rough side there.... i agree 100% about the lazy parents... i detest the way our foodstamp system and welfare system is so full of holes that they are abused by thousands every day....but programs like free and reduced lunches in school are important.

Originally Posted by LiquidFork
You all talk as if these recruiters come and snatch kids away in their bed at night. Each and every single one of these "talented ADULTS" sign on the dotted line of their own free will..


Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.

Exactly.

"Some kids" being virtually every youth in America.

The whole *Might Makes Right* thing and the notion of American exceptionalism is drummed into the herd's consciousness from birth.


Originally Posted by LiquidFork
If a municipality accepts funding from the government,they have to follow certain guidelines. They have to ad bide by the rules set forth.

Which means what -we'll throw you some funding,but we want our opportunity to have our pound of flesh,...

Yes, that is what it amounts to.

...that sounds like financial blackmail to me.

Yep.

You dont follow the rules you have to pay a price. (#3)
What rules?!?!?!

I hate the 'rolleyes' emoticon but I guess I'll have to start using it on occasion.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:We need a 'smartass' emoticon. :)

http://img2.myfreecams.com/mfc2/images/emoticons/447.gif

haha-I was just about to say to Sedan that if we had one of those it would be burnt out in a week :)

nor was i brainwashed.


If you were, you wouldn't be aware of it.

Why should you punish children for having poor parents?
I believe sedan was being sarcastic...

Exactly.

"Some kids" being virtually every youth in America.

The whole *Might Makes Right* thing and the notion of American exceptionalism is drummed into the herd's consciousness from birth.
You must be really out of touch with the younger generation.

Toledo, Ohio's (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080209/NEWS16/802090394) Mayor runs marines out of town. Says they scare people.

So LF... City council writes a letter that the government doesn't like, and poor kids don't get lunch any more? Do you think that's fair? I don't think so. When I was little sometimes the only meal I got was school lunch.

DarkFantasy,

Do you really think the students would get no lunch? Let the city of Berkely make up the shortfall. If you have honest convictions you should be willing to pay the price for them. When it was easy and there was no cost involved the city of Berkely insulted the military and tried to throw them out. The police were instructed to 'remain neutral' which in Berkely speak meant, allow the protestors to physically keep people out of the recruiting office.

As soon as there was a possible cost involved the city politicians folded their tents and slinked away. This tends to show it was a grandstand play and they really have no strongly held convictions.

Originally Posted by paulc

Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.
The second scenario is rather sad, as it couldnt be further from the truth..


And some kids truely want to serve their country, Paul. I enlisted in the army of my own free will. I was sent to serve in a foreign country and did not see my family or friends for years. Are you suggesting that I was somehow mesmerized by the fanfare surrounding recruiting rather than exhibiting my love for my country? Are you further suggesting that serving in foreign lands does not enhance the freedom of America.

I find your cynicism to be rather sad. You have basically insulted all the men and women who volunteer for service in the military of the United States.

I find your cynicism to be rather sad. You have basically insulted all the men and women who volunteer for service in the military of the United States.
You know, I actually agree with this. I have deep respect for everyone in the military. I think it's a very honorable job - and not one that requires "brainwashing" to want to do.

Distrust of nationalism is not contemptible.

Respecting the men and women of the military is not nationalism.

Did paul show disrespect? I don't think so. I think Frogger's overreacting as usual.

Did paul show disrespect? I don't think so.
Nor I. Paul was criticizing politicians, not people in the military.

Once again the conversation has gone beyond what Napsterbater is able to understand. That seems to happen so often lately.

Here is what Paul posted:

Originally Posted by paulc

Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.
The second scenario is rather sad, as it couldnt be further from the truth..

He claims the young people are mesmerized by some sort of fanfare as if it was the clarion striking up of the band at the beginning of the circus. He also claims they are brainwashed as if to be patriotic demands brainwashing and not simply a love of country.

Ask Jester if he was tricked by the fanfare or brainwashed into enlisting. Ask the rest of us who enlisted in the service of our country if we were mesmerized by the fanfare or brainwashed.

Don't ask Napsterbater because he probably was mesmerized by the fanfare and brainwashed because once he found himself in the military there was no substance to his service and he whined his way out with a general discharge.

Joining the United States Armed Forces is a tradition as much as anything else.
No doubt many people join for many different reasons. Secure work, learn a trade, get a qualification, see the world.

I find it strange that the recruiting officers would chose Berkeley to seek recruits.
I dont think its too hard to graduate from that place of learning and find a decent paying job.
Is there no recruiting near the college:
US Army Recruiting Office
64 Shattuck Sq, Berkeley, CA
This one is within a mile of the campus.Why would the military need to drive up the road to gain recruits, Im sure every student knows where it is.

As Berkeley is a place of learning, with an International reputation, the city fathers are correct to demand the troops go back to Shattuck Sq.

Anyone wanting to 'sign up' knows were to go.

But it seems that some Republican Senator 3000 miles away has threatened holding or blocking financial grants because of the protest.

Is this the new Republican response to any American who doesnt stand in line and join the ranks of a military which they deem to be their own play thing, maybe just maybe, the elders of Berkeley dont wish to see some of their brightest young minds used to their political ends.

As for your other comment Frogger about being mesmerised, yes, I think young impressionable minds are easily caught up in it all.

As for being brainwashed, you dont need to put on a uniform to show your love for your country, thats one of the problems in the US, a right wing lie.

You should consider that not every American see's things that way.

Yourself and why you enlisted, well thats your decision, and the world was a very different place then.
Jester and all the other men/women serve abroad now and may read this.
Firstly keep safe and get home in one piece.
Secondly, if you believe serving were you are helps protect the USA in some way, well, your the ones there not me, I respect your reasons.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Exactly.

"Some kids" being virtually every youth in America.

The whole *Might Makes Right* thing and the notion of American exceptionalism is drummed into the herd's consciousness from birth.

You must be really out of touch with the younger generation.


You must be really out of touch with the sort of indoctrination (i.e., pro-militarist, pro-belief in God, pro-America is the Best!) that every citizen of this country is immersed in from the time they are born.

You must be really out of touch with the sort of indoctrination (i.e., pro-militarist, pro-belief in God, pro-America is the Best!) that every citizen of this country is immersed in from the time they are born.
Young people are, and have always been, a big component of any anti-war movement in the US, and college and university students are often at their very center. Additionally, young people are consistently more likely to vote for liberal candidates than older people.

Just take a small sample: members of Allforums who are 25 or under. I can't think of a single one who has the mentality that you describe. That's quite unlikely if we all went through such indoctrination.

Did paul show disrespect?
I think Frogger's right. When Paul referenced the mesmerization and the fanfare he is definitely saying that one who joins the Marines does it because he was duped rather than that he/she strongly believes in something important to them.

If these council members really wanted to make a stand why dont they relinquish their salary to make up the 243K.. take a collection,run a car wash,have a bake sale or any other way to raise the 243k...and then tell the Armed forced to take a hike.This is a great succinct point. They just feed into the right-wing's perception about liberals and liberalism (kindness and generosity through other people's money).

I think Frogger's right.

There's a shocker.
Aren't you the guy who defends Ann Coulter?
:rolleyes:

This is a great succinct point.

Actually "why don't they give up their salaries" is a pretty stupid point.
Nobody should have to lose their homes or screw their families in order to make a point.
That "point" feeds right into most people's perception of right wingers as cold, callous, uncaring and vindictive.

This is a great succinct point. They just feed into the right-wing's perception about liberals and liberalism (kindness and generosity through other people's money).
Yeah. A fantastic idea. Why don't they sell their houses while they're at it?

This is a great succinct point. They just feed into the right-wing's perception about liberals and liberalism (kindness and generosity through other people's money).




Actually "why don't they give up their salaries" is a pretty stupid point.
Nobody should have to lose their homes or screw their families in order to make a point.
That "point" feeds right into most people's perception of right wingers as cold, callous, uncaring and vindictive.



Yeah. A fantastic idea. Why don't they sell their houses while they're at it?


Once again the liberals fudge facts in their attempt to make conservatives seem heartless.

Lose their homes, screw their families, to make a point. What a bunch of liberal hogwash. Based on the amount of money needed and the population of Berkely it would cost each person less than $2.50 to make up the shortfall. That hardly translates into losing one's house or screwing one's family. It does however show that the people of Berkley value their principles at less than the cost of a Starbucks latte'.

There's a shocker.
Aren't you the guy who defends Ann Coulter?
:rolleyes:Um, sometimes.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
You must be really out of touch with the sort of indoctrination (i.e., pro-militarist, pro-belief in God, pro-America is the Best!) that every citizen of this country is immersed in from the time they are born.


Just take a small sample: members of Allforums who are 25 or under. I can't think of a single one who has the mentality that you describe. That's quite unlikely if we all went through such indoctrination.

Do you honestly think that a cross section of young Allforums posters is in line --societally and politically-- with what the unwashed masses out in the hinterlands believe?

While we're at it let's poll all subscribers to the New Yorker magazine as to how many of them are staunch war supporters, or who support the Ten Commandments being displayed in front of courthouses.

This all goes back to one premise that was stated ----- ""
""Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.""

To which i replied-- "Some kids" being virtually every youth in America."

And I still maintain that the vast majority of youth in America would, if polled, reply "Yes", to the question --- **Does American military involvement in foreign lands 'enhance the freedom of America' in some way?**

I'm just pointing out that the entire citizenry in this country is immersed in and surrounded by the mindset and the common theme that **America needs to be strong militarily; America needs to "protect" this country and its people through the projection of military force"**

Do you honestly think that a cross section of young Allforums posters is in line --societally and politically-- with what the unwashed masses out in the hinterlands believe?

While we're at it let's poll all subscribers to the New Yorker magazine as to how many of them are staunch war supporters, or who support the Ten Commandments being displayed in front of courthouses.

This all goes back to one premise that was stated ----- ""
""Some kids are mesmerised by the fanfare surrounding recruiting, or, worse still, brainwashed by their political leaders into thinking that military involvement in foreign lands in someway enhances the freedom of America.""

To which i replied-- "Some kids" being virtually every youth in America."

And I still maintain that the vast majority of youth in America would, if polled, reply "Yes", to the question --- **Does American military involvement in foreign lands 'enhance the freedom of America' in some way?**

I'm just pointing out that the entire citizenry in this country is immersed in and surrounded by the mindset and the common theme that **America needs to be strong militarily; America needs to "protect" this country and its people through the projection of military force"**

It's entirely a Generational thingy.The more a Culture & Society
escape the perils of a World War or even a Vietnam,the more a
cushy way of life permeates the Culture and Kids grow up taking
Our {their's also } Freedom for granted.It's not really that dynamic
a scenario.War and sacrifice and committment to Flag & Country go
hand-in-hand.There was NO Divisiveness during WWII.Everyone did their
part,even Moms who worked stateside,in Factories helping the War
Machine.Enduring curfew and Gas/food rationing.
Shared Sacrifice makes for Great Americans.
What we got now is a bunch of Dweebish Slackers with Tattoo and
funny colored hair and even more funny attitudes.

Council, on the basis of council's 'principles', felt entitlted to make a statement on behalf of the citizenry of Berkeley, without actually consulting said citizenry. When the realization that the impact of council's 'principles' might actually affect the citizenry and the citizens principles weren't the same as council's, the council beat a hasty retreat. It wasn't the threat of losing the money as much as the threat of losing their own jobs that council sold their principles down the road.

Well, it's a blog entry. Typically bloggers will quote part of a story, and then add their own take on things. (spin) I wanted the whole story, which I eventually got with a quick google search. If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have caught what me and dharma were taking about, namely the threat of pulling $243,000 from the organization providing school lunches to Berkeley public school kids. Note that it's the city's public school system, not UC-Berkeley.

I have a feeling if this were entirely true Berkley would refuse then raise a big stink about Republicans taking lunch money away form needy kids. Something tells me your not getting the full story from the real "news" either.
IF there is one thing that is certain, liberals love to point out that republicans love to take kids lunch money.

I think Frogger's right. When Paul referenced the mesmerization and the fanfare he is definitely saying that one who joins the Marines does it because he was duped rather than that he/she strongly believes in something important to them.
Kids are very impressionable, the fanfare and flag waving that surrounds recruiting adds to the sense of mesmerising kids.
A military,any military has no business going onto campus to seek recruits.
Every year Im sure Berkeley has an open day when corporations and business attempts to attract the best minds, if the Marines show up, well and good.

Like I said earlier, there is a recruiting office down the road.

The sooner someone stands up and breaks the cycle of militarism in the US the better.

Young men who join the military spend a lot of time researching it and finding out all about it. There may be a few who walk by a recruiting office and see a cool pitcure and and sign up, but those are usually the ones who drop out of basic training. The great majority know exactly what they are signing up for and are not swayed by recruiting posters. It is sad that many of the people who "support the troops but not the war" always say the troops are stupid and dont know what they are doing and are being used. It is more like they support them like a grown up supports a retarded kid who is being taken advantage of. These are grown men who probalby have thier shit together better then you.

And face it Paul, US militarism is the only thing that saved western europe from being swallowed up by the Soviets and continues to allow the western europeans to do whatever it is they do that makes them so superior to us and think of us as militaristic thugs

It is sad that many of the people who "support the troops but not the war" always say the troops are stupid and dont know what they are doing and are being used.

That is obviously a lie.



And face it Paul, US militarism is the only thing that saved western europe from being swallowed up by the Soviets and continues to allow the western europeans to do whatever it is they do that makes them so superior to us and think of us as militaristic thugs

Riiiiiight... if it weren't for U.S. Militarism, the world wouldn't be the peaceful utopia that it is today. :rolleyes:

Young men who join the military spend a lot of time researching it and finding out all about it. There may be a few who walk by a recruiting office and see a cool pitcure and and sign up, but those are usually the ones who drop out of basic training. The great majority know exactly what they are signing up for and are not swayed by recruiting posters. It is sad that many of the people who "support the troops but not the war" always say the troops are stupid and dont know what they are doing and are being used. These are grown men who probalby have thier shit together better then you. Thats very nice Trav, infact Id be more impressed if I knew what the expression 'have their shit together better than you' actually meant, but alas I dont.

For way too long now, the military in the US has been an 'in your face' issue. I know of no other country were the Armed Forces has such a position in Government.


And face it Paul, US militarism is the only thing that saved western europe from being swallowed up by the Soviets and continues to allow the western europeans to do whatever it is they do that makes them so superior to us and think of us as militaristic thugs
This arguement may be partially true, the US more than likely did keep the Ruskies out of Western Europe, but that was sometime ago, and its been the main arguement used to defend the endless spending by military minded Americans for years now.

I would say your right-most Europeans do view America as a militaristic nation,for one simple reason-it is.

I would also say your right about the superior mindset in parts of Europe,
you dont honestly think countries like the UK actually like America do ya.

paul,

quoting churchill. The price of greatness is responsibility.

The US carries the military burden because no one else will. One would think that Europeans would have learned that the assasination of a serbian archduke in a long forgotten country, or the annexation of a little piece of ground called sudentland, or the return of an obscure cleric to iran or the radicalization of the son of a construction tycoon has wider import than they can imagine.
Apparently some in Europe will have to re-learn those lessons.

Council, on the basis of council's 'principles', felt entitlted to make a statement on behalf of the citizenry of Berkeley, without actually consulting said citizenry. When the realization that the impact of council's 'principles' might actually affect the citizenry and the citizens principles weren't the same as council's, the council beat a hasty retreat. It wasn't the threat of losing the money as much as the threat of losing their own jobs that council sold their principles down the road.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Spend some time in Berkeley (five minutes oughta do it) and get back to me.

:rolleyes:

Accepting government money == Letting the mob do you a 'favor'.

Yeah.

My thoughts exactly when I read that post.

Federal government to subordinate government relationship is a tad different -In other words, the federal government takes the subordinate government's money, then hands it back to the subordinate government, with strings attached. Acting as if the subordinate government's are choosing to be a part of this relationship as an act of their own free will is little absurd.

The choice is do what we say or we will tax you into the poorhouse - not really a choice at all.

paul,

quoting churchill. The price of greatness is responsibility.
Thanks Waldo-quoting Churchill to an Irishman always helps :rolleyes:

The US carries the military burden because no one else will. One would think that Europeans would have learned that the assasination of a serbian archduke in a long forgotten country, or the annexation of a little piece of ground called sudentland, or the return of an obscure cleric to iran or the radicalization of the son of a construction tycoon has wider import than they can imagine.
Apparently some in Europe will have to re-learn those lessons.
Waldo-at least one generation of American youngsters has to be allowed to grow up and live without being militarised.

The US has to carry the burden:
No Waldo-the right wing of the Republican Party has taken on that responsibility all by itself. Its an excuse to keep spending and making America stronger and stronger.
The US is about 20 ahead of everyone else in weapons technology, it isnt enough for these people,
30 years wouldnt be enough.
What happens when America is 50 years ahead, it becomes the very thing its entity was based on, it becomes the new Rome, everyone else on the planet will fear it.
Might aint right.
Peace comes from negotiation.

Thanks Waldo-quoting Churchill to an Irishman always helps :rolleyes:


Waldo-at least one generation of American youngsters has to be allowed to grow up and live without being militarised.

The US has to carry the burden:
No Waldo-the right wing of the Republican Party has taken on that responsibility all by itself. Its an excuse to keep spending and making America stronger and stronger.
The US is about 20 ahead of everyone else in weapons technology, it isnt enough for these people,
30 years wouldnt be enough.
What happens when America is 50 years ahead, it becomes the very thing its entity was based on, it becomes the new Rome, everyone else on the planet will fear it.
Might aint right.
Peace comes from negotiation.

If you think it's only the right wing has taken on that responsibility than i can only suggest re-acquainting yourself with US history over the last 100 years.

Peace comes from negotiation? Get that from Chamberlain?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Spend some time in Berkeley (five minutes oughta do it) and get back to me.

:rolleyes:

Really? Guess again.

"I am absolutely incensed," said Cheryl Tolman, a 12-year Berkeley resident. "It's outrageous that the City Council is trying to close the Marines office down and let these total radicals protest there. This is supposed to be the city of free speech.".....

Mehdi Hussain, an apartment manager originally from Fiji, said the Marines should be able to stay in Berkeley.

If you think it's only the right wing has taken on that responsibility than i can only suggest re-acquainting yourself with US history over the last 100 years.
Forget the last 100 years-this has been going on since 1945.
And its still going on.
Just have a look at which side is talking about 'a strong military'.
'more funding for defence'

Peace comes from negotiation? Get that from Chamberlain?No-Belfast 1998.

Paul - What do you mean when you suggest that all of American youth has been "militarized"? I don't think I have been.

Paul - What do you mean when you suggest that all of American youth has been "militarized"? I don't think I have been.
By that I mean-as has been said here already.
Serving your country-shows you love your country.
Serving your country-helps keep America safe.

There is a mindset in American Society regards the military and Militarism.
Look at the politicans running for the White House.

They advocate more spending-more more more.
Senator McCain has never once that Ive seen, take to the mantle without his past military record being mentioned. Sure he was a brave man who endured a lot, but you wouldnt keep bringing that up unless it appealed to the voter.

Like I was saying earlier, ita all more more more.
More spending, more indoctrination of society into the might is right philosophy.
What has it got America, since 1945 very little.

By that I mean-as has been said here already.
Serving your country-shows you love your country.
Serving your country-helps keep America safe.

There is a mindset in American Society regards the military and Militarism.
Look at the politicans running for the White House.



What do they say in Europe? Let your country serve you?

What do they say in Europe? Let your country serve you?
What they say-very little.
European Armed Forces rarely reach the news channels and nearly never are talked about in society.

Everybody knows they are there in the background,and leave it at that.

Sadly that is where they will be if they are ever needed too.

If they are ever needed to what?

To do what they are paid to do. You are aware of the purpose of a military is right?

My belief is that they are to defend the soverign territory, thus the name,
Defence, maybe Im wrong tho.

By that I mean-as has been said here already.
Serving your country-shows....
Paul, I don't recognize the place you are describing in this post, and I supposedly live there.

A "militaristic nation" would be one that is awash in military culture and military requirements. If you think this nation's current administration is militarily aggressive that's a different thing.

I've read that some foreign leaders enjoy going to Crawford Texas because they see people on horses wearing cowboy hats. To them, that's America.
Similarly, I think your limited news about this country would lead you to the conclusion that this nation is militaristic.

This is what I am talking about. European militarys are an after thought. Put on the back burner, never talked about. Why is that? Because European nations know big brother Uncle Sam has their back. If there was no US I bet European militarys would have a little more attention paid to them. They would have to.

Really? Guess again.

Wow. Two whole people! Yeah, that proves the Berkeley city council has a different agenda than the majority of the population. And it REALLY proves that community as a whole is calling for the city council to be fired. :rolleyes:

I have to ask again, exactly how much time have you spent in Berkeley, waldo?

If you'd ever been to the place about which you spout completely undocumented bullshit so freely, you'd know that Berkeley is one of the most overwhelmingly Democratic cities in the country - with more than 90% of the 2004 presidential vote going for Kerry. Bush hatred is rampant in Berkeley, and the community has no absolutely use for his ugly little war in Iraq. This includes having no use for people or places whose sole purpose it is to send more of America's youth off to die for a pack of lies.

But hey, I guess you kinda have to make shit up in order to quell the cognitive dissonance presented by factual data from someone who actually lived and worked there for more than a dozen years. Dontcha?

Pinhead.

Paul, I don't recognize the place you are describing in this post, and I supposedly live there.

A "militaristic nation" would be one that is awash in military culture and military requirements. If you think this nation's current administration is militarily aggressive that's a different thing.

I've read that some foreign leaders enjoy going to Crawford Texas because they see people on horses wearing cowboy hats. To them, that's America.
Similarly, I think your limited news about this country would lead you to the conclusion that this nation is militaristic.
Goodman Brooks-playing the 'you dont live here card'.

Are you saying you think America does not have a military culture-debatable.
My limited news of your country comes from the same source as anyone else,the media.

And yes your Administration is militarily aggressive-tho its use of the Armed Forces does zero in protecting the United States.

This is what I am talking about. European militarys are an after thought. Put on the back burner, never talked about. Why is that? Because European nations know big brother Uncle Sam has their back. If there was no US I bet European militarys would have a little more attention paid to them. They would have to.

Yeah-Id say thats pretty accurate. So why bother.

Yet again, an example of America putting in all the effort and getting little in return.

There is a mindset in American Society regards the military and Militarism.
Look at the politicans running for the White House.

They advocate more spending-more more more.

Exactly so.

Senator McCain has never once that Ive seen, take to the mantle without his past military record being mentioned. Sure he was a brave man who endured a lot, but you wouldnt keep bringing that up unless it appealed to the voter.

Again, absolutely correct. This nation and its people are -collectively- SO incredibly focused on the military, military superiority, massive military spending and military preparedness that it must seem to an outside observer to be like something from the Twilight Zone.

Like I was saying earlier, ita all more more more.
More spending, more indoctrination of society into the might is right philosophy.
What has it got America, since 1945 very little.

What has is got America since 1945?

A huge segment of the rightwing wags in this country would no doubt be moved to pontificate that ""Well, it's kept Amuurica safe all these years!!""

Which is true. But then, half as many trillions as were spent could have been spent and this country would STILL have enjoyed massive superiority in terms of the military.

What has it actually brought this country? It has placed it trillions of dollars in debt and brought it to the brink of insolvency. It has for many decades drained funding away from things that could have and would have benefited millions upon millions of poor or uneducated or jobless or homeless or disadvantaged people and instead deposited those dollars --trillions of them-- into the pockets of the owners of the military/industrial complex.

THAT, paul c., is exactly what all the so-called "Defense" spending has "done for" this insane asylum of a country.

Paul, I don't recognize the place you are describing in this post, and I supposedly live there.

A "militaristic nation" would be one that is awash in military culture and military requirements. If you think this nation's current administration is militarily aggressive that's a different thing.

I've read that some foreign leaders enjoy going to Crawford Texas because they see people on horses wearing cowboy hats. To them, that's America.
Similarly, I think your limited news about this country would lead you to the conclusion that this nation is militaristic.

I guess I'm on a liberal streak today, but I agree with Paul. Our nation is very militaristic. Our kids love to play with toy machine guns and GI Joe. Soldiers are granted this hero-like status in our society even though many, if not most, of 'em are dumb as bricks.

Shit, we spend a huge chunk (about a third I believe) of our federal budget on military expenditures. I would guess that's more than any other nation in the world, except for maybe some rogue African nations.

But yes, you probably don't see it that way cause we live that way, but to the rest of the nation, we are militaristic. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, the military has done a lot of good things for this nation and the rest of the world, but you have to admit our military is a pervasive part of our society.

Military and warrior culture have dominated societies for the entire history of mankind. it is part of human nature. The militaristic warrior culture of free societies give the people who criticize it a safe place to do it in. It would be safe to say that a militaristic society such as our allows the development of the pacifist/non militaristic portions of our society who would normally be imprisoned or shot in less civil societies.

Military and warrior culture have dominated societies for the entire history of mankind. it is part of human nature.
This is somewhat true, tho most societies have moved away from this stance, I think the term for it in the west is 'civilisation'. Its kinda ironic that a nation that has never experienced war on its territory or experienced an occupation is right on these matters and everyone else is wrong.

The militaristic warrior culture of free societies give the people who criticize it a safe place to do it in. It would be safe to say that a militaristic society such as our allows the development of the pacifist/non militaristic portions of our society who would normally be imprisoned or shot in less civil societies.
Militaristic warrior culture, for use of a better term, conflicts with the term
'free society'.
In a militarstic society a pacifist is either ignored labelled anti patriotic and/or demonised, they obviously dont fit in to the said society.

Tho a good example of how extreme Republicanism displays its arrogance at viewing itself as better Americans or more Patriotic Americans than those who dont share their war war war views.

By that I mean-as has been said here already.
Serving your country-shows you love your country.
Serving your country-helps keep America safe.

Those are both true. I don't think people who hate America join the American military. And the military DOES keep us safe. I don't know how you could argue that it doesn't.

We are not a pacifistic nation by any means, but I don't think we are an extremely militaristic nation, relatively.

Like I said-its a mind set.

Sometimes you cant see the wood for the trees.

By that I mean-as has been said here already.
Serving your country-shows you love your country.
Serving your country-helps keep America safe.



You've pretty much summed up my thinking, Paul. I served my country because I love it and I wanted to help keep it safe. Do you really have a problem with that?

Lose their homes, screw their families, to make a point. What a bunch of liberal hogwash. Based on the amount of money needed and the population of Berkely it would cost each person less than $2.50 to make up the shortfall. That hardly translates into losing one's house or screwing one's family. It does however show that the people of Berkley value their principles at less than the cost of a Starbucks latte'.
Where's the math?

Edit: Waitaminit. Like every other argument, Frogger's completely fucked it up. Liquidfork stipulated that the council members should personally pay for it. Frogger is talking about a tax on all Berkeley residents. *slaps Frogger around with a giant trout*

You've pretty much summed up my thinking, Paul. I served my country because I love it and I wanted to help keep it safe. Do you really have a problem with that?
When I wrote that post I took it from one of yours on page 3.

Do I have a problem with serving ones country-No.

What I do have a problem with is the mind set which has been nutured these last 50 years,by the extremeists in America, who saw just how powerful America became in a very short period of time, during WW2.

That mindset is now embedded in American culture, none of you guys seem to think its strange or unusual that your military has such a high profile in your nation, but, these days I know of no other western country this happens in.

I find the connection between 'serving' and this proof that ones love for ones country disturbing.
This continues the militaristic mindset.

I find disturbing the connection between 'serving' and 'keeping America safe,
a false and misleading notion.
As has been seen in recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan, 'serving' there has had zero effect on US security.
Once again its another militaristic mindset played out in politics and media.

The cycle has to be broken. You yourself have said many times on these boards that you believe in an isolationist policy, why not, the politicians have conned the American people, the rest of the western world has conned America.

Forget the last 100 years-this has been going on since 1945.
And its still going on.
The point that it's been US foreign policy for the over the last 100 years, thru democratic and republican presidencies seems to have eluded you.;)



No-Belfast 1998.

Chamberlain, peace in our time. Some 60 million dead later. That worked out well didn't it.

Wow. Two whole people! Yeah, that proves the Berkeley city council has a different agenda than the majority of the population. And it REALLY proves that community as a whole is calling for the city council to be fired. :rolleyes:

I have to ask again, exactly how much time have you spent in Berkeley, waldo?

If you'd ever been to the place about which you spout completely undocumented bullshit so freely, you'd know that Berkeley is one of the most overwhelmingly Democratic cities in the country - with more than 90% of the 2004 presidential vote going for Kerry. Bush hatred is rampant in Berkeley, and the community has no absolutely use for his ugly little war in Iraq. This includes having no use for people or places whose sole purpose it is to send more of America's youth off to die for a pack of lies.

But hey, I guess you kinda have to make shit up in order to quell the cognitive dissonance presented by factual data from someone who actually lived and worked there for more than a dozen years. Dontcha?

Pinhead.

What else are we to conclude? That city council are moral cowards? Their principles for sale for a pittance. That they can't count on the support of their citizenry to make up the difference? If the citizenry really supported council they should be demanding council not cave regardless of the financial cost, right. Somehow i don't see that happening. Nor do i see your ilk volunteering to help them make up that difference. Now why is that?

As i said earlier, we know what they and their supporters are and know we know what it costs.