JayB Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 "In Berkeley, push to rescind letter to Marines Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, February 5, 2008 (02-04) 18:52 PST Berkeley -- A week after blasting the Marines as "unwelcome intruders" in Berkeley, two City Council members want the city to back off the declaration that ignited the wrath of the nation's right wing and inspired a Republican senator to try to sever Berkeley's federal funding. Council members Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli on Monday proposed that Berkeley rescind its letter to the U.S. Marine Corps that stated that the downtown Berkeley recruiting center "is not welcome in our city," and publicly declare that Berkeley is against the war but supports the troops. The City Council will vote on Olds' and Capitelli's two proposals at its meeting next Tuesday. "I think we shouldn't be seen across the country as hating the Marines," said Olds, who voted against last week's proposals. "If you make a mistake, like we did, you should admit it and correct it and move on." The brouhaha started last week when the council passed two items condemning the Marine recruiting center on Shattuck Square, which opened about a year ago. The first called on the city clerk to send a letter to the Marines telling them they're unwelcome, and the second item granted Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office every Wednesday afternoon and allowed the group to operate a loudspeaker. After the items passed, the council was besieged with criticism from right-wing groups and military supporters. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed that the federal government cut off funds for Berkeley, including lunch programs, ferry service and UC Berkeley. Olds said she heard from hundreds of people angered by the city's action, including many in her Berkeley hills district. "People are so mad about this. They have relatives in the service, and now they think they're not welcome in Berkeley," she said. "My twin brother was a Marine in World War II. He'd be turning in his grave if he saw this." The council appears split on the idea of backing down. Some council members said the original proposals inadvertently insulted veterans and those currently serving in the military. Others said Berkeley should stand by its convictions. "People are used to Berkeley taking a stand for peace, but you have to do it intelligently," said Councilman Kriss Worthington, who voted against sending the letter calling the Marine Corps unwelcome. "You don't want to slap one group in the face and then, the next minute, slap the other group. I think we have an obligation to be thoughtful and sensitive and not be counterproductive to the cause of peace." Councilwoman Dona Spring said the council should not be cowed by the volume of hate mail and threats. "I still oppose the Marines recruiting in Berkeley because it's one way of protesting this wasteful war," she said. "Our military policy is a shambles. But we're not in opposition to the Marines; we oppose the policy that directs the Marines." Meanwhile, the Code Pink protesters said they were disappointed that Berkeley might rescind its letter to the Marines. "I hope they're not acting out of intimidation," said Code Pink spokeswoman Medea Benjamin. "Berkeley is a city of peace, and a recruiting station does not fit Berkeley's values." Mayor Tom Bates, a former Army captain, said it probably wouldn't hurt if the council clarified its position. "It's a symbol, but there are consequences to symbols," he said. "A lot of people think we're anti-Marine, but there's a difference between the warriors and the war. This is an attempt to clarify that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 What I don't get is why the Marines would even have a recruiting center right in the heart of Berkeley. Are they looking for closet jarhead warriors fighting to free themselves from their granola patchouli birkenstock chains? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Could this have something to do with the backtrack? Conservative bloggers and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also believe more articulation is necessary - from the opposite side of the political spectrum. DeMint began drafting legislation Friday to cut $2.1 million in federal funding to Berkeley in a current congressional budget bill and transfer the money to the Marine Corps. The funding would include $750,000 for prospective ferry service, $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District nutrition education fund and $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, which promotes nutritional awareness in school lunch programs.--from San Francisco Chronicle 2/2/08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 That's pretty hardcore. "If you won't serve up your sons of fighting age we will stop feeding your children." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 why take away the decision making of the sons? aren't they old enough to know enough to make the decision for themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 What I don't get is why the Marines would even have a recruiting center right in the heart of Berkeley. Are they looking for closet jarhead warriors fighting to free themselves from their granola patchouli birkenstock chains? actually lots of silver spoon left wingers would like to go to war so they can denounce it all when they come home and thus gain the respect of left wing females who admire their change of heart and also see that they aren't anti-war just because they're cowards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Initially, I was impressed to see a politician actually admit to making a mistake, but then I see that Olds, the one quoted as saying "we made a mistake" was opposed to the statement from the beginning, so really she's saying "mistakes were made, but not by me" which is just par for the course in politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Who took anybody's decision making? Berkeley told the Marines that they didn't like them. Reactionary right-wingers want to take federal monies from Berkeley. Neither side is taking away decision-making ability (i.e. forcing anyone to do anything). Are you worried about a young man who thinks he's tough enough for the Marines being afraid of Code Pink protesters? Sorry, but if that's a problem I really do think this situation is helping both the wannabe Marine as well as the Corps. If we're talking about coercion here we could easily get melodramatic and discuss taking food out of poor children's mouths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 shouldn't the free thinking left welcome the recruiters into their neighborhoods? give their kids all the options in the world. let the kids think for themselves and have easy access to all options? whether they are options the parents 'agree' with or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 shouldn't the baby-eating right be spending our money on fattening up their product rather than taking it away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 i see you're 1000 steps ahead of us all in thinking this through. wonderful talking point there... kudos! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 You put up a ridiculous simplistic mischaracterization and I countered with one of my own. Why should I argue carefully and thoughtfully if all you're going to do is throw up stupid Limbaughisms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 mischaracterization??? how so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 You mischaracterize the "free-thinking left" by making the simplistic assertion that they would want their kids to have easy access to any option with no regard to perceived dangers or immorality. Not to mention that even you ignored my initial reply and failed to respond to the fact that your premise is faulty. No one is taking away anyone's choices here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 right.. it isn't taking away their choice. that is why i refered to it as easy access. it certainly seems that the left likes their kids to have easy access to all options w/o regard for danger or immorality. ...how bout free condoms in schools?? as an example. i'm not sure i agree w/ the returned middle finger from the feds... but i think the pinkers pulled the first dick move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Agreed the pinkers are not being polite. I think almost by definition "you are not welcome" is an impolite thing to say. I can turn your arguing tactic right back at you and say, it seems that right-wingers are usually so anti-PC, shouldn't they be all for this clear expression of truthful dislike? You make a simplistic generalization and damn the entire group because they are not uniformly acting in complete consistency your mischaracterized motives. Are you really serious in that you think that someone who supported offering kids free access to condoms in school would be hypocritical to place a breachable barrier between their child and a fast talking salesmen with a quota who has the power upon signature to relieve his son of his liberty? I really don't see how condoms equates with military service, but you did say it was just an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 place a breachable barrier between their child and a fast talking salesmen with a quota i don't have kids... but with some imagination, i can see the analogy between this and a daughter going on a date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Yes indeed. Also ties in well with the free condoms in school part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It is reasonable that when a non government organization such as the Boy Scouts does not allow Guys as leader lose all government funding. It is not reasonable that when a government entity, a state university, does not allow marines, they do not lose their funding. Why is it this way? I think this is a double standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Seems like a certain percentage of children from homes where they are more or less indoctrinated from birth, and are not encouraged to develop the capacity to evaluate moral, religious, and political issues independently as they mature - tend to react against their environment and careen headlong in the other direction as soon as they have the freedom to do so. Gary Larson had a great cartoon about this a while back that showed a kid sneaking away from the circus to go join corporate America. Seems like a rebelious teen in Berkeley would have a difficult time doing anything short of rape or murder that would distress a set of ideologically overbearing Leftist parents more than joining the Marines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Well those doting parents can now feel better knowing that if their wayward son wants to join the Marines on a Wednesday afternoon in Berkeley, then he'll have to find some way to get past a pink van with a megaphone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's funny Jay, these kinds of peaceful, legal actions undertaken through a freely elected legislature to affect political change would seem to be exactly the kind you suggested in the Olympia thread. But here, and this is only an assumption, you've held it up to be ridiculed. The Berkeley measure and DeMint's subsequent economic austerity proposal would seem a good example of the democratic process thwarted. Then again, your pretense of law-and-order/liberal neutrality never fooled to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 shouldn't the baby-eating right be spending our money on fattening up their product rather than taking it away? Chez Panisse Foundation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 shouldn't the baby-eating right be spending our money on fattening up their product rather than taking it away? Chez Panisse Foundation I used to think avocados were disgusting until I had a Mexican grown avocado. Wow it was great! Now I know it is the Californian grown avocado that suck. Just like so much other Californian junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It is reasonable that when a non government organization such as the Boy Scouts does not allow Guys as leader lose all government funding. It is not reasonable that when a government entity, a state university, does not allow marines, they do not lose their funding. Why is it this way? I think this is a double standard. So, if I understand you correctly, your conclusion is that marines=gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.