Mother Talkers

The Marines in Berkeley

by Elisa

Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM PDT

BERKELEY -- There has been much international hoopla surrounding a misguided city council resolution to ban Marines from recruiting. In case you cannot tell where I stand on this issue, my local city council has, thankfully, rescinded a decision to give the Marines a letter calling them “unwelcome intruders” in our city, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Of course, this admittance of error will not be enough to satiate the wingnuts. They will demand multiple apologies as well as continuous condemnation of all of us who live in Berkeley. This has gotten so out of hand that six Republican senators have proposed cutting some of our federal funds for things like school lunches. Classy.

I have managed to stay away from nearby downtown Berkeley and its protesters, which I understand to be two extreme groups: the anti-military -- not just anti-war -- “peace” activists and wingnuts who have beckoned their call from wingnut radio. (Don’t any of these people have jobs?)

Nonetheless, I was appalled when I first heard about the letter. It’s one thing to be anti-war, which I wholeheartedly agree when it comes to our involvement in Iraq. But it’s another to be anti-military and take away options from our youth just because it isn’t your path in life. My husband was able to receive an undergraduate education thanks to the Army. Many men on my mother’s side of the family rely on the military to support their families. Not everyone is cut out to attend UC Berkeley and have it paid for by mom and dad. I find this anti-military bias nauseating and condescending.

Note to the wingnuts: Not all of us in Berkeley agree with these folks so don’t you dare paint us in the same light. (They will, of course.)

  • ::

Tags: Marines, Berkeley City Council, anti-war protesters, anti-military, wingnuts (all tags)

Permalink | 56 comments

  • They oppose military recruitment (0 / 0)

    not the military.  If the Democrats won't stop the war, recucing military recruitment may be the only way to do so.   Don't listen to right wing talking points.  The Berkley City Council shouldn't apologize or back down.

    by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM PDT

    • RW talking points? (0 / 0)

      I am 100% against this war, but despite my opposition I do respect the right of people to sign up for the military if they want to do it.  

      How are we any better than "them" if we use the same tactics that they do, like driving abortion providers out of town?

      Katherine

      by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:32:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Most of the troops still thin Saddam had (0 / 0)

        something to do with 9/11, the current military recruits by misinforming kids.  

        As it happens most places where there is a prolife majority have zoned abortion out so you point is what?

        by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • I am not convinced... (0 / 0)

          that the military sells children on nationalism. They get them by offering them money for college and to pay their bills. Unless, these protesting folks are going to step in, I don't think it's cool to take this option away from people who don't otherwise have access to funds.

          I agree with Katherine above that this is the same (rightful) argument we make about abortion services. Regardless of whether you'd get one, it isn't okay to take that option away from someone else.

          by Elisa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:42:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • The military often lies about the benefits it (0 / 0)

            gives young people.  

            From Alternet.org:

            Editor's Note: The following is excerpted from Army of None:Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World published by Seven Stories Press, August 2007. Reprinted here by permission of publisher. Copyright © 2007 Aimee Allison and David Solnit

            Top military recruitment facts

            1. Recruiters lie. According the New York Times, nearly one of five United States Army recruiters was under investigation in 2004 for offenses varying from "threats and coercion to false promises that applicants would not be sent to Iraq." One veteran recruiter told a reporter for the Albany Times Union, "I've been recruiting for years, and I don't know one recruiter who wasn't dishonest about it. I did it myself."
            1. The military contract guarantees nothing. The Department of Defense's own enlistment/re-enlistment document states, "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay allowances, benefits and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/re-enlistment document" (DD Form4/1, 1998, Sec.9.5b).
            1. Advertised signing bonuses are bogus. Bonuses are often thought of as gifts, but they're not. They're like loans: If an enlistee leaves the military before his or her agreed term of service, he or she will be forced to repay the bonus. Besides, Army data shows that the top bonus of $20,000 was given to only 6 percent of the 47,7272 enlistees who signed up for active duty.
            1. The military won't make you financially secure. Military members are no strangers to financial strain: 48 percent report having financial difficulty, approximately 33 percent of homeless men in the United States are veterans, and nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night.
            1. Money for college ($71,424 in the bank?). If you expect the military to pay for college, better read the fine print. Among recruits who sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill, 65 percent receive no money for college, and only 15 percent ever receive a college degree. The maximum Montgomery GI Bill benefit is $37,224, and even this 37K is hard to get: To join, you must first put in a nonrefundable $1,200 deposit that has to be paid to the military during the first year of service. To receive the $37K, you must also be an active-duty member who has completed at least a three-year service agreement and is attending a four-year college full time. Benefits are significantly lower if you are going to school part-time or attending a two-year college. If you receive a less than honorable discharge (as one in four do), leave the military early (as one in three do), or later decide not to go to college, the military will keep your deposit and give you nothing. Note: The $71,424 advertised by the Army and $86,000 by the Navy includes benefits from the Amy or Navy College Fund, respectively. Fewer than 10 percent of all recruits earn money from the Army College Fund, which is specifically designed to lure recruits into hard-to-fill positions.

            The kids can join americorp.  I think Americorp should be rebuilding the levies in new orleans to stop and F=5 hurrican.  

            by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        • Um (0 / 0)

          most places where there is a prolife majority have zoned abortion out so you point is what?

          My point is, is that a good thing?  They might not like abortion, but it's still a right and should be available.

          Ditto with the military. I don't like it, but others have the right to sign up if they want to.

          "Kids" who sign up are free to listen to whomever they choose.  If we don't want them to listen to recruiters, maybe we should do a better job talking to them.

          Katherine

          by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • I think... (0 / 0)

    (Disclaimer: I grew up in Berkeley)

    ...if protesters want to picket outside the recruiting office, fine. If they want to blockade the door, chain themselves to it, again fine -- as long as they are prepared for the consequences that come with these tactics, like being dragged away by police.

    I didn't think the Berkeley City Council should have been giving Code Pink their own parking space, any more than some right-wing burb somewhere else should be helping anti-abortion protesters blockade clinics. And just because such cities do behave that way, doesn't mean that Berkeley has to do the same! I thought they were better than that. The Berkeley City Council should feel free to declare their opposition to the war, but I can't believe how tone-deaf they've been about this.

    As the saying goes, the only remedy for speech is more speech. I think it would have been more productive to set up a table nearby with literature about why joining the Marines might not be such a great idea right now. Or how about some wordless vigil a la the Women in Black. Or outreach in the schools, especially those outside the Code Pink comfort zone, where kids may be more vulnerable to the recruiters' messages.

    As it is, this situation got needlessly nasty, and I could see how people with loved ones in the military might be offended.

    by kathoakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:48:15 PM PDT

    • I don't think they are tone deaf (0 / 0)

      I think the are miscaracterized by the right wing media and partisan democrats.  There is nothing you can do about this except provoke so much publicity the public is provoked to figure out what you really meant.

      If code pink is so antimilitary how come the want our kids to stay home for a kiss on valentines day?

      http://www.codepink4peace.org/...

      by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • The Berkeley City Council (0 / 0)

        1. ...have succeeded in making people upset with THEM, as opposed to the war
        1. ... have given the 'wingers some new talking points
        1. By their own admission, they weren't expecting this level of reaction

        I'd say they didn't realize how this was going to play out on the national scene.

        We're not arguing, I don't think, about the central point -- this war is bad and military recruiters shouldn't be lying to entice kids into joining. However, I think we do disagree about tactics. It looks to me like this one backfired.

        Code Pink is a different story. They aim to provoke with political street theater. They may be happy with all the attention, but unless they can prove that they actually changed people's hearts and minds, this has all been pointless. I think all that's happened is that it's reinforced people's current ideas on the subject. Sure, I don't think they hate our boys and girls in uniform in the least, and that's a 'winger slur, but honestly, I don't think anybody's getting that nuance.

        p.s. Country Joe MacDonald -- he of the "Fixing-to-Die Rag" is staying well away from this one.

        The issue has very little to do with the Marines and a lot to do with political grandstanding and NIMBYism, McDonald said.

        "The council said the Marines can't recruit here, they should recruit somewhere else," he said. "And if there's a problem, we still want you to help us. It's astounding. It allows everyone to make fun of Berkeley again."

        He said protesters on both sides are driven by "civilian guilt."

        "Most people yell and scream about this issue because they're trying to show how patriotic they are," he said. "At this rate, Berkeley's going to be a damn noisy place."

        by kathoakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • the same statements were made about mlk (0 / 0)

          he wasn't popular with mainstream politicians.  the purpose of direct action is to provoke debate.  I don't think it created backlash among any groups that weren't inclined toward backlash against antiwar protesters to begin with.  All the groups that spoke to them were outside right wing groups.

          by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Code Pink is no MLK (0 / 0)

            MLK made a real point of staking out the higher ground. He used peaceful action and words of reconciliation. He recognized that he had multiple audiences and he chose to take approaches that would win over the majority of Americans over time, by speaking of universal shared values.

            Yes, he also advocated civil disobedience, but he had no expectation that any city council was going to give him a parking space!

            by kathoakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • code pink are peaceful as well (0 / 0)

              I don't believe they did expect the council to give them parking spots.  The council just did it.

              Here is MLK from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

              You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and halftruths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

              The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue...

              This was published in the "Christian Century" on June 12 1963. It was a response to an open letter from 8 White Alabama Clergymen named "A Call For Unity" This letter argued that the fight for civil rights would be better left to the courts rather than taking to the streets, and that Blacks should just be patient.

              MLK's "Letter From A Birmingham Jail" critiques mainstream religion for its satisfaction with the status quo and explains the purpose of direct action.

              by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Yes, but... (0 / 0)

                Sure, "negotiation" isn't the point here. Of course we're not going to be able to negotiate with the U.S. military to not recruit in Berkeley or any other town.

                The point is to choose the most effective means of persuading 1) potential military recruits that they don't want to join the military and 2) the general public to pressure their elected officials to end the war (or vote them out and replace them with officials who will end the war) There are two audiences - the group whose behavior you are trying to change, and the general public, whose support you need.

                I think part of the reason MLK's tactics were so effective was that the American public could see a group of people who wanted equal rights so badly they were putting their bodies and lives on the line and marching together. It tapped into the David vs. Goliath story on some level, and the general public started to get the point.

                Another example I can think of is the mothers of the desaparecidos in Argentina. They danced publicly and silently with photos of their missing loved ones. Again, the world saw this and got the point.

                There's no imagery in Code Pink's protests so far that has that power. Unfortunately, they come across as adversaries, as opposed to advocates.

                This isn't the 1960s, and mass protests are not materializing. There's got to be another way to win hearts and minds. And something is happening - the majority of the country wants the war to end. They need to know what the next step is -- not just see tactics that they can't relate to.

                by kathoakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:11:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • you don't think those who wanted to preserve (0 / 0)

                  segregation viewed him as an adversary? Most americans still don't know who code pink is. Mass protest haven't materialized yet. It doesnt' mean they won't.  There is no law that says they can't.

                  Reducing military recruitment is the next step and they can't know about it unless code pink and those of us who agree with them continue plugin away and pissing the right people off.

                  Mainstream politics hasn't thus far worked.  Pelosi and Reid are disappointments.  Reducing military recruitment will force their hand.

                  If you find another way, tell us, in meantime, stop the handwringing over those of us willing to do something tangible.  I am sick of people who complain about doers like code pink, while the sit around banging on keyboards.

                  by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  • banging on keyboards (0 / 0)

                    Feel free to stop replying to me then.

                    I have made some concrete suggestions in this thread:

                    1. street actions that are more emotionally powerful and less adversarial, and I've given you examples.
                    1. Passing out educational flyers in front of recruitment offices (not just in Berkeley)
                    1. Trying to go speak to at-risk kids at schools where they might be more vulnerable to recruiter messages.

                    If you don't think those suggestions will work, feel free to explain why, but don't just dismiss them as "handwringing."

                    I would appreciate it if you'd provide some evidence that Code Pink is actually changing anybody's minds or persuading anybody outside of the Bay Area of their point of view. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes.

                    by kathoakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:43:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • code pink does things. (0 / 0)

                      You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.  MLK was inflammatory.

                      <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zXEIYpnlxbw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zXEIYpnlxbw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

                      by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  • "pissing the right people off" (0 / 0)

                    Who are the right people?

                    Bunch of dudes from Danville and Tracy in camouflage hats that like to punch skateboarders and get into shouting matches with Medea Benjamin?

                    And what does that accomplish?

                    by Amy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:22:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • war mongers (0 / 0)

                      I think most people can tell the difference between protesting recruitment and protesting the military.  I don't know why it is desirable to continue the Iraq war as a college opportunity.

                      There are some military that maybe offended but I suspect they are largely right wingers.  Veterens for Peace also supports counter-recruitment.

                      by Dameocrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:40:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          • I disagree (0 / 0)

            I am not inclined toward backlash against anti-war protesters, because I am  an anti-war protester. And Code Pink's tactics totally turn me off.

            I don't think they provoke debate at all, just create a spectacle of dogmatic opposites squaring off in a nasty, uncivil way. No winners, no converts.

            by Amy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:01:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • oh, lord (0 / 0)

    I'll state my biases straight outfront and let the chips fall where they may. I'm anti-war, for sure. But no way am I anti-military - numerous members of my family have served in the US military (my dad, who was drafted in the late 50s; my uncle; two cousins; my grandfather, a commodore in the Navy; my great-great-great uncle, who had a ship named after him; my great-grandfather, who won the Medal of Honor... you get the idea).

    I find the Berkelely city council's actions puzzling because they are fundamentally hypocritical - one cannot ban a group from conducting legal activities just because one disagrees with them. Protest outside of recuitment offices? Great. Act to get recruitment activities out of schools? Fine by me. Ban recruitment altogether? Nope. I'm not with you.

    Also, it seems as though a number of city councilors voted for the resolution without reading it; that's not too reassuring, you know?!

    by Rachel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM PDT

    • They didn't ban military recruiters (0 / 0)

      , but if they had, I don't see a difference between banning them from the schools and banning them from town.

      by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:11:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • There's a big difference to me (0 / 0)

        My child is a captive audience at school.  There's lots of things that I don't mind having in my city but I don't want being "sold" to my kids at school.

        by Lisa in Austin on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • I agree (0 / 0)

          when recruiters come into schools, it gives a certain imprimateur of authority that I would think would be difficult for teenagers to handle. When I was in high school, ROTC and the military had booths at our college fair, but that was it. That's reasonable, and the limit I'd probably accept.

          by Rachel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • that's my problem with it (0 / 0)

          I don't want them in schools, and I don't want them talking to children under the age of 18.  When they lie, recruits cannot demand a refund.  Yes, they offer to help with college costs and sometimes make good on it, but they take in much more in non-refundable deposits.  After the military, a soldier is statistically more likely to be homeless and unemployed.  

          If there were consequences to recruiters lying, I would feel very differently.

          by Erin on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      • I see a difference.... (0 / 0)

        A kid in school is a member of a captive audience. Because kids are required to be on campus, there is an element of coercion to anything taking place on the campus, and more of a sense that the school is endorsing any booth or presentation there. If a recruiter comes and gives a presentation at an assembly, a student can't opt out as easily as they can walk away from a recruiter set up on a street corner downtown.

        A town is public and open space. Sure, there are some limitations (zoning, etc.) but different rules apply, because if somebody doesn't want to talk to a recruiter, they don't have to go to their office and can just walk away from them on the street.

        by kathoakland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Wow, I had no idea (0 / 0)

    I only know that when the military show up ON CAMPUS it causes a big stir (since the UC won't let any other organization that discriminates against the GLBT community hawk its jobs on our campus).

    But making a statement that they aren't welcome in the whole city?

    Like Elisa, I'm not anti-military, I'm anti-war...most specifically THIS war.  I was set to sign my paperwork and join the Army reserves in 2001.  Then the towers came down and DH wouldn't have it.  I think CODEPINK and other groups discouraging enlistment is great, and that they should hold the US military to each of its promises to recruits (they LIE, LIE, LIE)...but the City itself shouldn't be involved.

    What do you mean, uh-oh? baby pictures

    by round peg inna square hole on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:46:49 PM PDT

  • I'll make an inflammatory remark (0 / 0)

    I know it's provocative, but here goes: I'm with Charlie Rangel in the call for the return to universal draft. If everybody's child runs the risk of being sent to war, I think the rush to military deployments would be far fewer and better thought-out.

    by Rachel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM PDT

    • I agree (0 / 0)

      I think the war would be over once they did that, until then I will discourage recruits.  The draft is where I probably part company with Code Pink, but I am completely supportive of anti-recruitment efforts.

      by Dameocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • I'm on the fence about that... (0 / 0)

      I see the argument, but I feel like the very elite would still find a way to keep their kids out.  As Ani DiFranco said, "those who call the shots are never in the line of fire."

      by Erin on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:29:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • this is true (0 / 0)

        I agree with you that elites will try to get their kids out. I'm almost amused to think of the panic and frantic negotiations that this generation of helicopter parents would go through to keep their kids out of the front lines. And that, I think, would do it - could Congress handle thousands of over-entitled, over-empowered Gen X/latter day Baby Boomer parents calling all the time with the same dedication that they devoted to getting Little Johnny/Janey's grade pumped up to an A?!

        The fear of "could it be me next?" is a very powerful motivator in this context.

        by Rachel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:12:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Well... (0 / 0)

          draft my unwilling child (young adult, I guess), and I'll go all helicopter on their ass, too!

          Not for an A, though.

          by Erin on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:18:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • but you know what I mean? (0 / 0)

            The people that do do that kind of thing for their kids, could you imagine how apesh*t they'll go if Little Precious gets drafted!? Holy cow, they'd have the articles of impeachment stapled to the President's head in minutes!

            by Rachel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • I know what you mean (0 / 0)

              but I feel like we haven't risen up against the many, many outrages of the Bush administration, so it's hard for me to imagine we would successfully rise up against that.  It's true that most of us will go to bat for our children mama lion style, but global warming, education and the economy all effect our children directly, and we haven't impeached GW.

              by Erin on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • individual risk v collective risk (0 / 0)

                I think it's a matter of what impacts on the individual. For a lot of people "education" may suck, but their child(ren) are doing well, so there's little impetus to change. Ditto global warming. Most people will acknowlege, intellectually, that global warming is a problem, but the actual impact, day to day, on the individual is hard to feel so it's difficutlt to get up and get going. But if your child individually, could be drafted and sent off to war, well, I think the danger is clear-and-present and parents who couldn't conceive of their child in that kind of situation would finally be stirred to action.

                by Rachel on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:04:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  • Don't ask Don't tell. (0 / 0)

    Personally, if the current don't ask don't tellstays in place I see no problem I will just suggest to my kids to say they are bi or gay if they do not want a military career.

    I find it unlikely that they will want one, none of us like to be told what to do in this house.

    I can see protesting recruitment - after all if no one shows up there can be no war.

    I don't support the troops, as much as I support the individuals.

    I was never big on team sports, or borders or nationalism.

    But that is just me and I am glad to live in a county where I can have these strange ideas, like peace justice and freedom.

    by Mythhuner on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM PDT

Permalink | 56 comments