Kumbayah Redux...

[chucK]

[sirwoofalot]

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?

 

OK, now that was funny!

[JayB]

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.

 

The thing I actually object to *most* in this story is the Congressman's actions. Even if the city council's actions are in breach of Federal law - which I doubt - the proper place to take action would be in the courts, not in a rider attached to an appropriations bill.

 

As far as their opinions are concerned - they are free to make whatever statements they wish. I am free to ridicule and criticize them (and the people who voted them into office) as I see fit, just as I would be if this were a school board passing a motion declaring that evolution is the devil's handiwork, etc. This is no way contradicts my earlier positions.

 

As far as their conduct is concerned - as long as we're talking about a lawful enterprise, be it a strip-club, a bar, a casino, a brothel (in Nevada), an abortion clinic, or what have you - I think it's important to protect people's right to demonstrate and voice their opinions, so long as they don't obstruct anyone's access to the said enterprise, vandalize it, threaten or intimidate the people that work there, etc. If they take the law into their own hands or otherwise take it upon themselves to use coercion deny others the right to exercise their rights and freedoms, then they need to be put in check. This is not the case with the folks from Code Pink so far as I can see.

 

 

 

 

[prole]

Thanks for the clarification. If you'd like to contact Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who wants to pull federal funding from Berkeley, you can contact him here. Though if the main problem's with Sen DeMint, why the kumbayah dig?

 

Now, about those other forms of economic discipline designed to affect partisan political outcomes: the IMF's structural adjustment programs...

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Jane Fonda was soooo hawt in those days.

[JayB]

'Kay

 

"Dear Congressman DeMint:

 

As a child I lamented the fact that I was too young to cast a vote for Ronald Reagan in anyplace other than the mock elections held in my elementary school - so it is quite likely that there are many issues that you and I would agree on.

 

However - when it comes to the manner in which you've handled the matter involving Berkeley and the Marines, I am afraid that this is not the case. Specifically - I think that using what amounts to fiscal blackmail to punish and discipline a town because the leadership of that town voices opinions that you personally take exception to or find offensive sets an incredibly dangerous precedent that could just as easily be used against local governments who voice sentiments that you agree with. I also think that if this practice became widespread, it could very well undermine one of the central liberties that this nation has relied upon the Marine Corps to protect.

 

I assure you that I find the statements by the members of the city council at least as misguided and as worthy of contempt and ridicule as anyone. However, it's clear to me that attempting to influence public opinion - not the disposition of public finances - constitutes the only acceptable and constitutionally sound means which a Congressman should use to take action against members of a local government who express opinions that he finds objectionable.

 

Consequently, I hope that you will reconsider your actions and publicly disavow any effort to deprive the citizens of Berkeley of public funds on account of statements made members of their city council.

 

-Jay Brazier"

 

Kumbayah because I disagree with their opinions and love to bait and mock ideological necrophiliacs who can't seem to let the corpse of 60's-era leftism rest in peace...

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

That's pretty hardcore.

 

"If you won't serve up your sons of fighting age we will stop feeding your children."

 

1) It is the responsibility of parents to feed their children. Not the Federal Government's. 2) Are there really starving children in Berkley?

[empire]

Exactly. If those kids are starving, we got a warm meal and a hot rifle waiting for 'em right over in Islamistan!

[Peter_Puget]

Wait! An actual report from the front lines: the report

[Peter_Puget]

my fav

[HappyCamper]

A little thread drift. This thread reminded me of a high school history teacher of mine that had a habit of inviting speakers into his classrooms. He got some serious flack for bringing in speakers from the Communist Party (this was Bremerton in the mid-80's) and another time a Christian minister to speak about creationism (I think there were others too).

 

I suppose the most interesting thing to me about this is that the teacher said very little about why he brought the speakers in and during the talk he said nothing\asked nothing and let the students form their own opinions and ask questions of the speakers. Some agreed with the speakers, some did not and we had a great, respectful debate.

 

The subject matter was almost beside the point. What was most important was that we were left to develop our own impression about the subject matter. I still appreciate now the fact that while I am pretty sure I knew which way the teacher leaned, he refused to influence the discussion and stayed out of it. It was not until well after high school that I realized the amount of crap my teacher had to go through with the administration to give us that experience. Thanks Mr. Sweet.

 

It is a disappointment to me that nowadays inviting speakers from either end of the spectrum would likely not be possible in a public high school school.

[tvashtarkatena]

A little thread drift. This thread reminded me of a high school history teacher of mine that had a habit of inviting speakers into his classrooms. He got some serious flack for bringing in speakers from the Communist Party (this was Bremerton in the mid-80's) and another time a Christian minister to speak about creationism (I think there were others too).

 

I suppose the most interesting thing to me about this is that the teacher said very little about why he brought the speakers in and during the talk he said nothing\asked nothing and let the students form their own opinions and ask questions of the speakers. Some agreed with the speakers, some did not and we had a great, respectful debate.

 

The subject matter was almost beside the point. What was most important was that we were left to develop our own impression about the subject matter. I still appreciate now the fact that while I am pretty sure I knew which way the teacher leaned, he refused to influence the discussion and stayed out of it. It was not until well after high school that I realized the amount of crap my teacher had to go through with the administration to give us that experience. Thanks Mr. Sweet.

 

It is a disappointment to me that nowadays inviting speakers from either end of the spectrum would likely not be possible in a public high school school.

 

I speak for the ACLU at high schools all the time. We're not the Communist Party, but we present and discuss very controversial issues. There are still plenty of good teachers out there who want their students to learn how to think for themselves and weigh opposing points of view.

 

The first tool in the anti-dissent kitbag is to make the dissenters look like clowns. This is practically the ONLY tool in Pugets and JayB's tool bag. They find the easiest targets; the angry lesbos, etc etc, and let fly.

 

They're not too keen, however, on discussing the stupid fucking war that and stupid fucking ideas behind the war, both of which these two posters supported vigorously (before it became, um, 'unfashionable' to do so, that is) that these dissent groups are opposing.

 

So who are the real clowns here, relatively speaking?

Edited February 6, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Methinks you are confusing a disinclination to perpetually play rhetorical groundhog-day with an incapacity to discuss either the invasion or anything related to it. I must have ~500 posts or more where I lay out my views on the war, and you are free to peruse them at your vast and internet-centric leisure.

 

I'm curious though. At debates where you represent the ACLU, when the event is over, the audience has left, the janitor has long since stacked the last of the chairs, and only the dim-green light from the illuminated letters of the "EXIT" signs keeps total darkness at bay inside the middle-school gymnasium - do you find yourself bellowing at and taunting the empty lectern next to you, pointing at it and proclaiming "Yeah. That's RIGHT! That's what I thought..." when it fails to offer up a rebuttal, and finally punctuating the silence with the trademark onano-triumphalist closing (along with a raised fist, perhaps?) before scanning the emptiness for approval and filling the space with the tepid din emanating from the applause.mp3 file stored on your special red "Bono" themed iPOD?

 

Just wondering.

[underworld]

link

[mattp]

I must have ~500 posts or more where I lay out my views on the war, and you are free to peruse them at your vast and internet-centric leisure.

 

I just went back and tried to look this up. I found dozens of posts where you mock the imaginary "left" or argue some economic theory in an oblique response to a discussion of the war, but I could not locate a post where you actually stated what YOU think. Why did Bush pull the trigger? What has he accomplished?

[underworld]

maybe he actually thinks the left is mock-worthy?

[tvashtarkatena]

 

I'm curious though. At debates where you represent the ACLU, when the event is over, the audience has left, the janitor has long since stacked the last of the chairs, and only the dim-green light from the illuminated letters of the "EXIT" signs keeps total darkness at bay inside the middle-school gymnasium - do you find yourself bellowing at and taunting the empty lectern next to you, pointing at it and proclaiming "Yeah. That's RIGHT! That's what I thought..." when it fails to offer up a rebuttal, and finally punctuating the silence with the trademark onano-triumphalist closing (along with a raised fist, perhaps?) before scanning the emptiness for approval and filling the space with the tepid din emanating from the applause.mp3 file stored on your special red "Bono" themed iPOD?

 

Just wondering.

 

If anyone here can decipher this neural fibrillation, please let me know.

[tvashtarkatena]

I must have ~500 posts or more where I lay out my views on the war, and you are free to peruse them at your vast and internet-centric leisure.

 

I just went back and tried to look this up. I found dozens of posts where you mock the imaginary "left" but I could not locate a post where you actually stated what YOU think.

 

Like most hipsters, JayB is WAY TOO COOL to put his opinions out there. Hey, dOOd, if you have to ask.....After all, there's so much to mock, and so little time. Even hipsters, however, can eventually come off sounding like broken records.

Edited February 6, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

I must have ~500 posts or more where I lay out my views on the war, and you are free to peruse them at your vast and internet-centric leisure.

 

I just went back and tried to look this up. I found dozens of posts where you mock the imaginary "left" or argue some economic theory in an oblique response to a discussion of the war, but I could not locate a post where you actually stated what YOU think. Why did Bush pull the trigger? What has he accomplished?

 

All I can say is look harder. Maybe when I have the time and inclination I'll hammer something out.

[tvashtarkatena]

I feel a Manifesto coming on! Will there also be an Anthem? The Left would be proud of you, JayB.

Edited February 6, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Even money says you regularly make mention of the fact that one of your hobbies is ice-climbing..."Yes. You heard correctly...Ice *climbing.* The kind where you use ropes, 'ice-tools,' and 'crampons,' which are metallic implements with 12 sharp points that that you secure to your 'ice-climbing boots'" to ascend frozen waterfalls that are often vertical or near vertical." into the verbiage that you dispense in your ACLU appearances...

[chucK]

How do you get the ropes up there?

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, I do post TRs and participate in the ice climbing forum, if, in fact, that's damning evidence on a climbing website. And, when certain inexperienced wankers bring up my TR pics out of context with ill-informed critiques, I educate them.

 

I also respond when ill-informed postings concerning the ACLU come up. Unlike yourself, I'm not afraid to make my positions very clear and open for debate, and that includes calling you on your frequent bullshit. As for my speaking engagements, no, the subject of climbing has never come up. My audiences do most of the talking, actually, and we tend to stay on topic. The post- talk feedback I get has been very positive, by the way. Thanks for fantasizing about it. I'm flattered.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

My audiences do most of the talking, actually, ...

By the egocentricity you've displayed here, any interruption to the sound of your own voice would leave you with that impression.

 

 

Thanks for fantasizing about it. I'm flattered.

In suit, you require this.

[tvashtarkatena]

You're boring.