UC Santa Cruz students: meet the butt-end of my M-16

[magellan01]

This just in (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/12/BAG3KI7INT1.DTL) via the San Francisco Chronicle.

Four military recruiters hastily fled a job fair Tuesday morning at UC Santa Cruz after a raucous crowd of student protesters blocked an entrance to the building where the Army and National Guard had set up information tables.

Members of Students Against War, who organized the counter-recruiting protest, loudly chanted "Don't come back. Don't come back" as the recruiters left the hilltop campus, escorted by several university police officers.

The left of Mao spoiled brats took a break from their surfing to block military recruiters from the campus and chase them off. No doubt this issue has been debated here before, but these poeple cannot be slapped enough.

WTF? These kids are in college, where they are supposed to have open minds. These are the same people who preach tolerance and hold the 1st Amendment up as holy. Yet they don't allow a government arm that the Supreme Court has said is allowed on campuses to even speak, or set up their desks so fellow students who might be interested about a career in the military can get information? What a bunch of scumbags.

You fucking arrogant, self-righteous hypocritical punks. You are not fit to shine the boots of someone who has chosen to serve this country and put themselves in harms way. You mobs of bullies, who alone would just be pathetic little pussies, need a good, old-fashioned ass kicking. Why don't you go to a nearby miltary base and find the bar where these guys hang out and spew your invective at them then?

Yes, because you are a bunch of unprincipled hypocritical pansies.

And now to you, David Kliger, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, you knew this was coming and even claimed you wanted to stop it:

David Kliger, campus provost and executive vice chancellor, said the school was most concerned Tuesday about safety issues, but also wanted to preserve access to the recruiters for students who wanted to speak with them, while still allowing protesting students their right to free speech.

Bullshit. You say you even tried (through officials) to engage the anti-war student group in discussions the week before. But when the talks broke down (which shows that you're either a liar or an even bigger pussy than those spoiled brats) you decided to bring in extra police.

Now here's where you show to be just a plain old incompetent fuck. This same thing happened last year, and included 300 students. So you were obstensibly going to prepare for that, or worse. But rain came and actually only 100 students showed up. Yet, the beefed up security presence you had was still overwhelmed to the point that they recruiters had to be escorted off campus. It was, at most, a third the size that you were expectiing, you had a heightened sense of urgency, and you still failed. What an incompetent fuck. And that goes for anyone else you may have delegated your responsibilties to.

So to the whole lot of you, slit your wrists because the military is so awful, wipe the blood all over your body and go for a nice surf. You'll no doubt make better chum than you do people.

And Mr. Police Captain, it is your job to make sure that the recruiters, who have a right to be there, can actually be there. It is your job to hurry off the transgressors who would interfere with their right. Hurry them off with a nice shove to the ground, handcuffed and carted off to jail. (Or the Pacific. See above.) So I pit you to, as just another incompetent fuck.

[treis]

This pit is a complete misrepresentation of the administration's actions in this situation. The talks broke down, and the adminsitration brought in more police. A perfectly reasonable response to the threat of a protest. Up to this point you were fine. However, then you said the security was overwhelmed, which there is no evidence that it was. What happened was the recruiters sensed the students were looking for trouble, and decided to pack up and leave before it occured. There is no evidence that the security couldn't have engaged in an old fashioned hippie beat down. Rather, the recruiters decided that they didn't want an old fashioned hippie beat down to occur, so they left.

[Otto]

If the big bad soldiers can't stand up to a few itty-bitty civilian protestors, that doesn't really speak very well of the backbone the Army's supposed to instill now does it.

As much as you'd like to pretend that this protest was somehow counter to the spirit of the First Amendment, it doesn't wash. But I do note your phony-baloney invocation of the "tolerance" shibboleth, the newest word to fall victim to right-wing perversion.

[Kyla]

What I want to know is why the military even bothered - it strikes me as very unlikely that they would even get enough recruits to make it worth their while.

-UCSC grad (Oakes class of '00)

[Syntropy]

Oh, NOES!! The college students didn't like the recruiters? And SAID SO??? COMMIES!! How dare they exercise their constitutional rights!

[Jackmannii]

What a bunch of scumbags.Banana slugs (http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/98-99/art/slug.99-03-29.150.jpg), actually.

[BrainGlutton]

The left of Mao spoiled brats took a break from their surfing to block military recruiters from the campus and chase them off. No doubt this issue has been debated here before, but these poeple cannot be slapped enough.

What? They're against the war so they're trying to monkeywrench the system, just like protestors who tried to block access to Army induction centers back in the '60s. If it was worth doing then (and it was!), why isn't it worth doing now?

[DiosaBellissima]

If the big bad soldiers can't stand up to a few itty-bitty civilian protestors, that doesn't really speak very well of the backbone the Army's supposed to instill now does it.
As much as you'd like to pretend that this protest was somehow counter to the spirit of the First Amendment, it doesn't wash. But I do note your phony-baloney invocation of the "tolerance" shibboleth, the newest word to fall victim to right-wing perversion.

Emphasis mine.

Right, so then we can have a big ole nice Pit Thread titled "FUCKING MILITARY RECRUITERS! WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM AND STUDENTS?!?"

The fact is, some college students may want to enlist- it isn't exactly a bad option. I have an inordinate amount of friends in the military (so perhaps I am biased) and not a single one of them was tricked by a shady recruiter into thinking it would be sunshine and rainbows. I see in all of my friends a huge improvement in themselves that they could have never gotten in the civilian life. Of course, this is all anecdotal ;)

Look, those kids had a right to protest, but they didn't have a right to scare away/ or physically block kids who actually might have wanted to look into the military. And honestly, it seems like it would have been more productive to pass out fliers explaining why the military is a bad choice, rather than just causing a big scene.

[magellan01]

If the big bad soldiers can't stand up to a few itty-bitty civilian protestors, that doesn't really speak very well of the backbone the Army's supposed to instill now does it.

As much as you'd like to pretend that this protest was somehow counter to the spirit of the First Amendment, it doesn't wash. But I do note your phony-baloney invocation of the "tolerance" shibboleth, the newest word to fall victim to right-wing perversion.

There are other students there who have more conservative views. One was talked about in the article. Why is it not correct the categorize the group's self-righteous hate of the military as intolerant of the beliefs of fellow students? Too bad you can't own a word, huh?

And as far as who can stand up to who, there was that little rendevous in a bar that I recommended.

[Lama Pacos]

And honestly, it seems like it would have been more productive to pass out fliers explaining why the military is a bad choice, rather than just causing a big scene.

Actually, what they did seems pretty productive towards their goals since the rally, uh, you know, worked.

[magellan01]

What? They're against the war so they're trying to monkeywrench the system, just like protestors who tried to block access to Army induction centers back in the '60s. If it was worth doing then (and it was!), why isn't it worth doing now?

Whether or not I agree with the actions in the 60s aside, there is one HUGE difference. The ones joing today are doing so by choice. Kind of a big differecne, don't you think?

And before you parade out the "oh, but these poor kids don't have any options", keep in mind we're talking about college, and UC Santa Cruz specifically.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

If the big bad soldiers can't stand up to a few itty-bitty civilian protestors, that doesn't really speak very well of the backbone the Army's supposed to instill now does it.

As much as you'd like to pretend that this protest was somehow counter to the spirit of the First Amendment, it doesn't wash. But I do note your phony-baloney invocation of the "tolerance" shibboleth, the newest word to fall victim to right-wing perversion.

Would you prefer that they show that backbone by standing their ground and defending themselves by cracking some students all over the campus?

Frankly, I think it took more backbone to leave rather than letting them come to them and getting into it.

[Mr. Moto]

If UC Santa Cruz can't ensure that students who want to speak to military recruiters can do so without being hassled, then UC Santa Cruz ought to see how well they can manage next year without about $80 million in federal money.

The Solomon Amendment is federal law, just affirmed unanimously by the Supreme Court. This seems like a good use of it.

[magellan01]

What I want to know is why the military even bothered - it strikes me as very unlikely that they would even get enough recruits to make it worth their while.

-UCSC grad (Oakes class of '00)

Well, there was art least one, evidently.

[Fionn]

If the big bad soldiers can't stand up to a few itty-bitty civilian protestors, that doesn't really speak very well of the backbone the Army's supposed to instill now does it.


This is similar to what occurred to me when reading the OP's rant. If a student's desire to enlist is completely and utterly foiled by the presence of protesting college students at a career fair, he or she might not be cut out for life in the military.

[magellan01]

Oh, NOES!! The college students didn't like the recruiters? And SAID SO??? COMMIES!! How dare they exercise their constitutional rights!

Don't you think that there's room between protesting to make sure they are heard and doing so to the degree that another group that has just as much right as they do to be heard has to leave in order to avoid the outbreaak of violence? :rolleyes:

[Monty]

Otto,

In case you've never noticed it, military recruiters don't show up garbed in riot gear.

[BrainGlutton]

Don't you think that there's room between protesting to make sure they are heard and doing so to the degree that another group that has just as much right as they do to be heard has to leave in order to avoid the outbreaak of violence? :rolleyes:

That depends on the aim of the protest. If you're trying to monkeywrench the system, making the recruiters leave is the only criterion for success.

[Snooooopy]

Slashing the recruiters' tires seems counterproductive -- if you want them to go AWAY, why make it harder for them to do so?

[treis]

If UC Santa Cruz can't ensure that students who want to speak to military recruiters can do so without being hassled, then UC Santa Cruz ought to see how well they can manage next year without about $80 million in federal money.

The Solomon Amendment is federal law, just affirmed unanimously by the Supreme Court. This seems like a good use of it.

Hello? Is this thing on? The administration provided extra police, and there is no evidence what so ever that the recruiters or those wishing to speak to them were in any danger. The students had apparently escalated the situation to where skulls were in danger of being cracked. At that point the recruiters decided to leave instead of having a confrontation unfold.

[magellan01]

That depends on the aim of the protest. If you're trying to monkeywrench the system, making the recruiters leave is the only criterion for success.

So, one's right to "monkeywrench the system" trumps another's right to free speech? Okay I'm gonna go kill a congreesman I disagree with. But it's okay because what I'm doing is really "monkeywrenching" the system. And him not casting any more of his votes or making any more of his speeches is the way I measure success.

Gotcha.

[magellan01]

Hello? Is this thing on? The administration provided extra police, and there is no evidence what so ever that the recruiters or those wishing to speak to them were in any danger. The students had apparently escalated the situation to where skulls were in danger of being cracked. At that point the recruiters decided to leave instead of having a confrontation unfold.

The point is that they should not HAVE TO LEAVE. They have a right to be there. The kids have a right to protest, but not to the point that violence is imminent. And if it does get to that point, the cops should arrest the students that are going too far.

[DxZero]

So, one's right to "monkeywrench the system" trumps another's right to free speech? Okay I'm gonna go kill a congreesman I disagree with. But it's okay because what I'm doing is really "monkeywrenching" the system. And him not casting any more of his votes or making any more of his speeches is the way I measure success.

Gotcha.


WHOA.....there's a tiny bit of difference between what you suggested doing and what the protesters were doing.

For one, murder is illegal. And the protester's actions were not. No violent acts happened.

Try again.

[magellan01]

Slashing the recruiters' tires seems counterproductive -- if you want them to go AWAY, why make it harder for them to do so?

Nice. :D Now I pit you for making me laugh. That is all, back to the scumbags...

[magellan01]

WHOA.....there's a tiny bit of difference between what you suggested doing and what the protesters were doing.

For one, murder is illegal. And the protester's actions were not. No violent acts happened.

Try again.

There actions were illegal. The only reason violence didn't ensue was because the recruiters left. If you're standing in the street holding a sign "Stop the war"? And a bunch of rednecks make it clear that if you don't leave that violence will ensue—without overtly threatening you, you think that's okay. I would say that if a cop was around that he would be duty bound to protect your right to legally speak your mind. Do you disagree with that?

[Mr. Moto]

The students had apparently escalated the situation to where skulls were in danger of being cracked. At that point the recruiters decided to leave instead of having a confrontation unfold.

Right. And those students ought to know that by doing so, they can have the tap of federal funds shut off to their precious school.

Actions have consequences, even in Santa Cruz.

[Ogre]

They did not have the right to physically block the recruiters or interested students. The military is an honorable and productive career, and, in general, makes excellent citizens. The student protest probably should have been broken up (or at least controlled) by riot squad.

The recruiters have the legal right to be on campus, regardless of protests. The assembly should have been protected. Period.

[DxZero]

There actions were illegal. The only reason violence didn't ensue was because the recruiters left. If you're standing in the street holding a sign "Stop the war"? And a bunch of rednecks make it clear that if you don't leave that violence will ensue—without overtly threatening you, you think that's okay. I would say that if a cop was around that he would be duty bound to protect your right to legally speak your mind. Do you disagree with that?

You know, you're right. I came back here specifically to mention that the protestor's actions were basically intimidation, which is illegal. I basically had a brain cramp on the original post.

However, my point is that your analogy is still very shaky. But I understand you were being extreme to make a point.

[Otto]

There are other students there who have more conservative views. One was talked about in the article. Why is it not correct the categorize the group's self-righteous hate of the military as intolerant of the beliefs of fellow students? Too bad you can't own a word, huh?
Not suggesting anyone owns any word. You and your fellow right wing toadies are free to use whatever words you want.

And as far as who can stand up to who, there was that little rendevous in a bar that I recommended.
And why exactly should the students go to a military base bar where soldiers who will undoubtedly be unable to control themselves will assault them? Even you, who wasn't even there, want to club these students with your big ol' gun.

Slashing the recruiters' tires seems counterproductive -- if you want them to go AWAY, why make it harder for them to do so?
The tires were slashed last April, not at this protest.

[Snooooopy]

The tires were slashed last April, not at this protest.

Then I guess they got smarter since then!

[Otto]

Right. And those students ought to know that by doing so, they can have the tap of federal funds shut off to their precious school.
Wrong. The Solomon Amendment only applies to denial of access by the schools themselves. Students protesting recruiters does not endanger federal funding.

[treis]

The point is that they should not HAVE TO LEAVE. They have a right to be there. The kids have a right to protest, but not to the point that violence is imminent. And if it does get to that point, the cops should arrest the students that are going too far.

Which completely ignores the fact, and my point, that you are misrepresenting the administration's culpability in this case.


Right. And those students ought to know that by doing so, they can have the tap of federal funds shut off to their precious school.

Actions have consequences, even in Santa Cruz.

Yeah, and here back in reality the 14,039 or so other students that weren't protesting don't face the consequences of the 100 or so students who were protesting.

[Ogre]

Wrong. The Solomon Amendment only applies to denial of access by the schools themselves. Students protesting recruiters does not endanger federal funding.Betcha any reasonably competent attorney could make a very convincing case that failure to provide a safe environment for the recruiters and interested students is tantamount to not allowing them access.

[Operation Ripper]

Mob rule, eh?

[Kyla]

Well, there was art least one, evidently.

I read that article in the physical paper this morning, actually, and was surprised to see that. (Despite my listed location, I'm visiting my parents in the Bay Area at the moment.) I'm being a little bit hyperbolic here, but I went to school in Santa Cruz for three years and I can promise you that "career in the military" doesn't even register on the typical UCSC student's radar. I remember once making an offhand comment about how guys in military uniform are hot to some housemates in Santa Cruz and was met with puzzled and/or horrified looks. The military is bad! Guns are bad! Why don't we all have some nice stir-fried seitan and then meditate for awhile? Afterwards, we can have a drum circle on the beach!

[magellan01]

Which completely ignores the fact, and my point, that you are misrepresenting the administration's culpability in this case.

How so? If this just happened for the first time, I would agree with you. But last year 300 kids "protested". This year they had every reason to expect that 300 or more would "protest". Not only did they not briing in enough cops to handle the 300 kids, they didn't bring in enough cops to hand le the 100 that actually showed up, due to the rain. That's either willful complicity or fuck-head incompetence. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[magellan01]

You know, you're right. I came back here specifically to mention that the protestor's actions were basically intimidation, which is illegal. I basically had a brain cramp on the original post.

However, my point is that your analogy is still very shaky. But I understand you were being extreme to make a point.

Yes. Thank you for being so gracious. On both counts.

[treis]

How so? If this just happened for the first time, I would agree with you. But last year 300 kids "protested". This year they had every reason to expect that 300 or more would "protest". Not only did they not briing in enough cops to handle the 300 kids, they didn't bring in enough cops to hand le the 100 that actually showed up, due to the rain. That's either willful complicity or fuck-head incompetence. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Sigh, I am going to say this again using small words. There is no evidence that there were not enough cops. The recruiters felt the situation was going to result in someone getting hurt, and decided to leave instead of that happening. No matter how many cops are there they can't magically move the protestors. If the students were not complying with the police then the cops would have to use force to get their demands met. The recruiters did not want to see force used, so they left.

Again, there is no evidence that the police presence was not adequate.

[magellan01]

Sigh, I am going to say this again using small words. There is no evidence that there were not enough cops. The recruiters felt the situation was going to result in someone getting hurt, and decided to leave instead of that happening. No matter how many cops are there they can't magically move the protestors. If the students were not complying with the police then the cops would have to use force to get their demands met. The recruiters did not want to see force used, so they left.

Again, there is no evidence that the police presence was not adequate.

Okay. I see your point. My point is that if things escalated to to the point that violence between the two groups was imminent, that either 1) there weren't enough cops or 2) the cops didn't do their job correctly. I admit we do not know which from the article. So in the meantime, I pit them both (just to be safe).

[Snowboarder Bo]

Okay. I see your point. My point is that if things escalated to to the point that violence between the two groups was imminent, that either 1) there weren't enough cops or 2) the cops didn't do their job correctly. I admit we do not know which from the article. So in the meantime, I pit them both (just to be safe).
translation: I don't know what happened, but military people ran away from something and people I would call "liberals" were involved, so I'm fucking pitting someone goddammit.

Cry me a fuckin' river, magellan. Boo-hoo.

[treis]

Okay. I see your point. My point is that if things escalated to to the point that violence between the two groups was imminent, that either 1) there weren't enough cops or 2) the cops didn't do their job correctly. I admit we do not know which from the article. So in the meantime, I pit them both (just to be safe).

No, thats bullshit. There is no magical fairy dust to get protestors to comply. Either they do it with force or they don't do it at all. There is no number of cops that can change that equation.

[DiosaBellissima]

translation: I don't know what happened, but military people ran away from something and people I would call "liberals" were involved, so I'm fucking pitting someone goddammit.

Cry me a fuckin' river, magellan. Boo-hoo.

Well, um, I'm a liberal and I agree with the pitting. Are you guys going to take away my super secret Democrat decoder ring now? :eek:

[An Arky]

Wow. I'm not a big fan of some military recruiters' tactics, think the Iraq war is flat wrong, and I would fight for students' right to protest, but that was way out of hand.

It was a job fair; I envision the recruiters' job there as being sitting at a table, giving out pamphlets/trinkets, taking down contact info if given, just like any other company...it's supposed to be a pretty low-key situation. It's not like those recruiters in Fairenheit 9/11, cruising low-rent strip malls trying to hard-sell guys into signing up. So boo hiss on the students in this case. I mean, if you really hate the war, you should be bumrushing the chickenhawks who foisted it on us, not some working stiffs.

It reminds me of something Henry Rollins said in an article I read the other day (though he is against the war, he has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places many times - he doesn't talk about that stuff with the troops):

"Getting into a beef with the military about the war is to me like getting into an argument with a cop about the law; it's really not the person to take your grievances out on."

[magellan01]

translation: I don't know what happened, but military people ran away from something and people I would call "liberals" were involved, so I'm fucking pitting someone goddammit.

Cry me a fuckin' river, magellan. Boo-hoo.

Reading the OP might be helpful. Reading the other posts likewise. Maybe even just the title. :smack: :rolleyes: :smack:

Now who was the primary target of this pitting? Go figure it out, shithead. I'll check back with you in an hour or so to see how you did.

[magellan01]

No, thats bullshit. There is no magical fairy dust to get protestors to comply. Either they do it with force or they don't do it at all. There is no number of cops that can change that equation.

I pretty sure you're incorrect. When cops know something is brewing they present overwhleming force. They do that because that is the tactic that best ensures that nothing will happen, other thatn people's rights being protected. If a law enforcement officer can weigh in, I would be grateful.

[Mr. Moto]

Overwhelming force does not equal overwhelming numbers. Any cop will tell you that as well.

[magellan01]

Overwhelming force does not equal overwhelming numbers. Any cop will tell you that as well.

But overwhelming numbers is one way to demonstrate overwhelming force. In any event, that is what I meant by it, not showing up with three tanks.

[Miller]

Okay. I see your point. My point is that if things escalated to to the point that violence between the two groups was imminent, that either 1) there weren't enough cops or 2) the cops didn't do their job correctly. I admit we do not know which from the article. So in the meantime, I pit them both (just to be safe).

That doesn't follow, magellan. We don't know if there were enough cops or not to protect the recruiters because the recruiters decided to back out before it became necessary to find out. The school's preparations were probably more than adequate. It was the military that didn't want to force the issue.

And, hey, how about that? The military showed restraint and good judgement. I don't agree with the protesters, and I think the recruiters had a right to be there, but good for them for realizing that it wasn't worth getting in a fight over. Isn't that what we expect from our armed services?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Reading the OP might be helpful. Reading the other posts likewise. Maybe even just the title. :smack: :rolleyes: :smack:

Now who was the primary target of this pitting? Go figure it out, shithead. I'll check back with you in an hour or so to see how you did.

Oh ok... so the translation should read: I don't know what happened, but military people ran away from something and people I would call "liberals" were involved, so I'm fucking pitting everyone goddammit.

So far you've cussed out

the students who protested
the administration of the school
the police (for 2 different reasons)
the police captain

and yet, in your own words, you don't really know what went down. You just spotted a chance to froth at the mouth and decry those damn lib'rals, and so you went and started frothing. Good call! I hope your raised blood pressure and urge to commit random acts of violence are making you feel good... because you just look like a stupid knee-jerk reactionary from where I sit.

You have very few facts and no actual experience in crowd control, but you have an opinion and a gun that you are very quick to threaten people with. Way to go, dorkboy. How's that lifestyle workin' for ya?

[magellan01]

The military showed restraint and good judgement. I don't agree with the protesters, and I think the recruiters had a right to be there, but good for them for realizing that it wasn't worth getting in a fight over. Isn't that what we expect from our armed services?

I agree with your estimation about the recruiters. But I maintain that the cops should never have let it get to the point where the recruiters are thinking "Hey, guys, this is going to get ugly, we have to get out of here."

By the way, the line in that other thread concerning a special "Thursday" on campus, hilarious.

[Miller]

I agree with your estimation about the recruiters. But I maintain that the cops should never have let it get to the point where the recruiters are thinking "Hey, guys, this is going to get ugly, we have to get out of here."

I honestly don't see how they could have prevented it. They can't crack down on the students until the students give them a reason to - but when the students gave them a reason to, the recruiters decided to leave before the crack down could start. Also, you're assuming the recruiters left because they were in fear for their own safety. They didn't. One of the recruiters specifically said,

"The situation had degraded to the point where there was a possibility of injury to either a student or law enforcement officer. We certainly didn't want that to happen,'' said Capt. Will Griffin, one of the Army recruiters.

Emphasis mine

The recruiters are there to make the military look good. The absolute last thing they want is for some poor dumb kid to slip and crack his skull open trying to dodge a cop. No matter how justified the military is, people are going to be screaming about Kent State and the whole thing makes them look bad. They left because recruiting at Santa Cruz (pretty much a pointless proposition in the first place) wasn't worth some student or police officer getting hurt. Not because of fear for their own safety. The only reason the police officers didn't "do their job" is because the recruiters decided they didn't want them to do it.


By the way, the line in that other thread concerning a special "Thursday" on campus, hilarious.
Thanks!

[magellan01]

Oh ok... so the translation should read: I don't know what happened, but military people ran away from something and people I would call "liberals" were involved, so I'm fucking pitting everyone goddammit.

So far you've cussed out

the students who protested
the administration of the school
the police (for 2 different reasons)
the police captain

and yet, in your own words, you don't really know what went down. You just spotted a chance to froth at the mouth and decry those damn lib'rals, and so you went and started frothing. Good call! I hope your raised blood pressure and urge to commit random acts of violence are making you feel good... because you just look like a stupid knee-jerk reactionary from where I sit.

You have very few facts and no actual experience in crowd control, but you have an opinion and a gun that you are very quick to threaten people with. Way to go, dorkboy. How's that lifestyle workin' for ya?

Pretty good, actually. Thanks. And man, you really are a dumb fuck. But maybe I came back too soon and you didn't get through all the posts yet. I did say I'd give you an hour.

What does the title say? Go back and check. That's it just scrool up, that's a good SnowboarderBoy. Look shithead I mainly pitted the students, then the school official, and very minorly at the end the Police Captain, just for good measure. And because he should have protected the recruiters right to be there without them feeling the threat of physical violence was imminent.

Another poster made a good point that maybe the school official was not as incompetent as I thought. And maybe he's right so I left room for that possibility by placing more of the responsibility on the cops. It falls on one of those two groups for letting this happen.

So I hope this clears things up for you SnowboarderBoy. Either way, go fuck yourself with your baggy SnowboarderBoy pants that you shit and and so you can carry it around all day. And stay out of my way on the slopes. Unless, that is, you'd llike to feel the butt of that M-16 I'm so quick to use across your teeth. I'll be the one in the camo with the rifle slung over his shoulder. Now, outya my way, boy. Go hit the bong and give yourself some more face jewelry.

[even sven]

Some background on Santa Cruz.

The military is about as popular, and about as inflammitory there, as the KKK. Just about every day there are protests somewhere. One of the major throughfares has a just about permanent protest presence. The darn city passed a resolution against the Iraq war as soon as it started. It's hard to go a few steps without seeing some kind of anti-war sign or flag. It's not like this is a new thing, or an expected thing, or even merely a student thing. If there is an anti-war ground zero, Santa Cruz is probably it.

Usully these protests don't get too far, since everyone in Santa Cruz basically agrees. So usually people just kind of walk around with their signs and play drums a lot. So now being confronted with someone that officially represents everything they are upset about is going to release a lot of pent-up emotions.

Secondly, the police in SC arn't too friendly with the feds. SC passes it's laws. Occassionally the feds come in with helicopters to try to enforce their's. People get a little pissed off when those laws conflict. Add this to the recent admission that student groups, etc. have been under survillence and infilterated, and that some kids were injured in police action last year, and you've got some really hostile folks.

Finally, it's not a big town. It's not secret where the military recruiting office is. It's not like any student interested in the military doesn't know where to go.

I think the recruiters went there and realized what they could have probably figured out beforehand if they hadn't been forced to make a one-size-fits-all recruitment plan- it's just not worth it. They arn't going to be able to get their work done and their presence isn't doing anyone any good. Honestly, I don't think any police force that the small town (50k people, about 10k students) could muster up could have really handled the students anyway. It was just a bad scene all around.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Pretty good, actually. Thanks. And man, you really are a dumb fuck. But maybe I came back too soon and you didn't get through all the posts yet. I did say I'd give you an hour.

What does the title say? Go back and check. That's it just scrool up, that's a good SnowboarderBoy. Look shithead I mainly pitted the students, then the school official, and very minorly at the end the Police Captain, just for good measure.Which is what I said... you pitted everyone even remotely involved in this... without knowing what they did or didn't do, or their level of involvement. You just went off on an uninformed rant, because somehow you and your gun felt threatened or anguished by something that had nothing to do with you. And because he should have protected the recruiters right to be there without them feeling the threat of physical violence was imminent.And again, without understanding anything about the situation, you assumed that the recruiters felt threatened... but they didn't... You were wrong. In fact, they thought that the cops and the students were the ones at risk, not themselves, as has been pointed out to you.

Another poster made a good point that maybe the school official was not as incompetent as I thought. And maybe he's right so I left room for that possibility by placing more of the responsibility on the cops. It falls on one of those two groups for letting this happen.Actually, the student protesters didn't let this happen... they made it happen. They wanted the recruiters to go away, and the recruiters went away. Success!

The police don't have unlimited power and ability, jerkoff. They can't just start shooting into the crowd, or start beating people up and throwing them in the ocean (as you suggested they should have done). See, they're bound by these things we call laws that preclude them from just busting skulls whenever some nuutbag with a gun wants them to. Unless you have proof that the protesters were breaking laws of some kind, admit that you have only a vague idea of what went on there and shut up.

So I hope this clears things up for you SnowboarderBoy. Either way, go fuck yourself with your baggy SnowboarderBoy pants that you shit and and so you can carry it around all day. And stay out of my way on the slopes. Unless, that is, you'd llike to feel the butt of that M-16 I'm so quick to use across your teeth. I'll be the one in the camo with the rifle slung over his shoulder. Now, outya my way, boy. Go hit the bong and give yourself some more face jewelry.You're writing skills are on a par with your reasoning. Perhaps a class at UCSC could help you with the writing, at least.

In the end, all you're mad about is the fact that a bunch of 18-22 year olds yelled loudly, and the police didn't shoot them and dump their bodies in the ocean. Great attitude, pal. You're a real credit to the country.

[Giraffe]

And stay out of my way on the slopes. Unless, that is, you'd llike to feel the butt of that M-16 I'm so quick to use across your teeth. I'll be the one in the camo with the rifle slung over his shoulder. Now, outya my way, boy.magellan01, threats of physical violence against other posters are not permitted here. This is an official warning.

[Der Trihs]

You mobs of bullies, who alone would just be pathetic little pussies, need a good, old-fashioned ass kicking. Why don't you go to a nearby miltary base and find the bar where these guys hang out and spew your invective at them then?Soooo, the way to persuade people who think the military is composed of brutal thugs that they are wrong is to beat them up ? I think you sprained a logic muscle there.

"The beatings will continue until morale improves"

[Scumpup]

If UC Santa Cruz can't ensure that students who want to speak to military recruiters can do so without being hassled, then UC Santa Cruz ought to see how well they can manage next year without about $80 million in federal money.

The Solomon Amendment is federal law, just affirmed unanimously by the Supreme Court. This seems like a good use of it.

Weren't you leaving?

[Garfield226]

You're writing skills are on a par with your reasoning. Perhaps a class at UCSC could help you with the writing, at least.
Gaudere strikes again!

[Snowboarder Bo]

Gaudere strikes again!lol yep :smack:

[magellan01]

magellan01, threats of physical violence against other posters are not permitted here. This is an official warning.

:eek: Are you kidding me? :confused: It was a joke. Notice the skiing with camo, with a rifle slung over my shoulder? Unbelievable. This warning is ridiclous.

But for the record I will state: I was joking. And I apologize if you viewed it as a serious threat. I thought I made it so over the top that even SnowboarderBoy would get it. I didn't think a Mod would have trouble with it. But if anyone took it seriously, rest assured that I was just playing with Snow-Boy.

And SnowboarderBoy, please accept my sincere apology if you thought that to be a real threat and it caused you to take another dump in your pants.

[Otto]

And SnowboarderBoy, please accept my sincere apology if you thought that to be a real threat and it caused you to take another dump in your pants.
Yeah, the apology is just suffused with sincerity.

Suck it up and take your warning like a man, ya pansy.

[magellan01]

I honestly don't see how they could have prevented it. They can't crack down on the students until the students give them a reason to - but when the students gave them a reason to, the recruiters decided to leave before the crack down could start. Also, you're assuming the recruiters left because they were in fear for their own safety. They didn't.

This is a good point. I'd like to read more about the incident, but based on that one article I think you are correct. I didn't think the recruiters were necessarily in fear for themselves, just that violence would occur. Because if it did, regardless of who got hurt or who started it, it would turn into bad PR for the military. So, I also agree with the rest of your post.

I therefore retract and withold pitting of the police. I'll dial it back on the school official, as well. Half -way. While he might very well have made sure a sufficient # of police were there, he did not use his powers as a school official to control his students with threats of suspension or expulsion.

Students involved in this protest, you still get the full deal. So, into the deep with you. Don't forget to rub the blood all over and kick and flail a lot.

[Snowboarder Bo]

:eek: Are you kidding me? :confused: It was a joke. Notice the skiing with camo, with a rifle slung over my shoulder? Unbelievable. This warning is ridiclous.

But for the record I will state: I was joking. And I apologize if you viewed it as a serious threat. I thought I made it so over the top that even SnowboarderBoy would get it. I didn't think a Mod would have trouble with it. But if anyone took it seriously, rest assured that I was just playing with Snow-Boy.

And SnowboarderBoy, please accept my sincere apology if you thought that to be a real threat and it caused you to take another dump in your pants.

Either way, go fuck yourself with your baggy SnowboarderBoy pants that you shit and and so you can carry it around all day. And stay out of my way on the slopes. Unless, that is, you'd llike to feel the butt of that M-16 I'm so quick to use across your teeth. I'll be the one in the camo with the rifle slung over his shoulder. Now, outya my way, boy.

Oh yeah... I can see the humor right there in between you telling me to go fuck myself and to get out of your way. Right there after you claim that I shit myself all the time. Real fucking funny, asshole.

What was over the top about it? You've mentioned several times in this thread that you would like to see others harmed, including So to the whole lot of you, slit your wrists because the military is so awful, wipe the blood all over your body and go for a nice surf. You'll no doubt make better chum than you do people.and Hurry them off with a nice shove to the ground, handcuffed and carted off to jail. (Or the Pacific. See above.)andYou mobs of bullies, who alone would just be pathetic little pussies, need a good, old-fashioned ass kicking.andSo, one's right to "monkeywrench the system" trumps another's right to free speech? Okay I'm gonna go kill a congreesman I disagree with. But it's okay because what I'm doing is really "monkeywrenching" the system. And him not casting any more of his votes or making any more of his speeches is the way I measure success. (bolding mine)

After all those posts advocating violence and causing physical harm, if not death, we were supposed to see that your post threatening to knock my teeth out with your gun was funny? You're deranged.

And I'm sure your apology is completely sincere, since after apologizing you again claim that I shit on myself.

Your writing skills, your judgement, and your humor are all lacking. Go crawl back under that rock and get back on your meds.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Students involved in this protest, you still get the full deal. So, into the deep with you. Don't forget to rub the blood all over and kick and flail a lot.
Before I can even get done posting that you are a deranged, violent maniac, you post again that you think the student protesters should slit their wrists and become shark bait.... you are a seriously disturbed individual.

Seek professional help.

[magellan01]

Which is what I said... you pitted everyone even remotely involved in this...

Didn't pit the recruiters, did I? Nope.

Actually, the student protesters didn't let this happen...

I didn't say they did. The two groups refer to the cops and the school officials.

...They can't just start shooting into the crowd, or start beating people up and throwing them in the ocean (as you suggested they should have done).

:rolleyes: What ever you do, don't read science fiction. We'll never get you out from under your bed. Come to think of it, stay away from fiction altogether.

Unless you have proof that the protesters were breaking laws of some kind,...

I posted the article I read. You know what I know (about the incident). This pitting is a response to that article. I think that preventing people from exercising their free speech is a crime. Do you know/think differently?

In the end, all you're mad about is the fact that a bunch of 18-22 year olds yelled loudly...

No, SnowboarderBoy, Im angry that a bunch of coddled, punk kids acted as a mob to shut up people who have a constitutionally protected right to speak, something they would never do off the safety of their campus or without overwhelming numbers. But maybe some of the metal from your nose ring has leached into your brain and you are of the opinion that such thuggery is protected by the Constitution.

I'm angry that the fine young men and women who serve in our military, who are willing to put their lives on the line at a moments notice to protect us if the need should arise, get such little respect from their fellow Americans. Idiots who are too dumb to realize that we need a military. That whether you agree with a particular war or not has nothing to do with that fact.

I'm angry that we have hypocrites like you afoot who, if the people speaking was the brown/black/yellow/gay/transgendered/pro choice arm of Greenpeace and the group intimidating them were a bunch of rednecks that you'd be railing to the high heavens (godles, of course) about fucked-upness of these people being denied their rights. But because it's the evil military the attitude becomes: "Come on, they're kids, they have passion, they're trying to monkeywrench the system, they didn't actually hit anyone. what's the big deal?

That's what I'm angry about. You get that, SnowboarderBoy.

You're a real credit to the country.

[Blushing, shuffling feet] I do what I can. Nothing someone else who loves his country wouldn't do if given the chance.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Well, I get that you're a depraved lunatic who's given to stereotyping people even tho you have no information at all about them.

I don't have a nose ring. I can't be a hypocrite, because I never gave my position on recruiting. Or the military. Or my religious views. You just went with a bunch of stereotypical assumptions, based on the word "snowboarder" in my user name.

Oh, and I get also that you wish to hurt and even kill people who make you angry by not conforming to your own particular world-view. You've made that quite clear.

Its also clear, you are a (borderline) psychotic.

[DanBlather]

I have to agree with the OP: violence never solves anything. That's why the students should have paecefully allowed the military recruiters on campus, to show that violence doesn't... Oh, wait a minute.

[magellan01]

Right there after you claim that I shit myself all the time. Real fucking funny, asshole.

If I would have known that this was a problem you suffered from I wouldn't have joked about it. Maybe something about the patchouli eating away at your brain, but not the shitting yourself thing.

What was over the top about it?

1) Skiing in camo. 2) with a rifle slung over my shoulder. Most people would recognize that as over the top.

You've mentioned several times in this thread that you would like to see others harmed, including

If assholes want to slit their own wrists, who am I to stop them?

and

If they interfere with others exercising their right to free speech they should be arrested. If they resist and get a little scuffed up in the scuffle, think of it as an education. After all, there in college to learn.

and

I think anyone who acts in a mob intimidating others deserves a good old-fashioned ass kicking.

and

As anotther poster already seconded, it was an analogy taken to extremes for effect.

After all those posts advocating violence and causing physical harm, if not death, we were supposed to see that your post threatening to knock my teeth out with your gun was funny?

Again, camo, skiing with a rifle slung over my shoulder... Like I said, stay away from the fiction.

And I'm sure your apology is completely sincere, since after apologizing you again claim that I shit on myself.

My apology to the board is sincere, as they claim I ran afoul of the rules. I think that estimation is riduculous, but I have respect for rules. If they bother me that much I can always leave. As long as I want to stay I need to abide by them. So, yes, my apology to them is sincere.

I will also say that if you took that as a real threat, I sincerely apologize to you for THAT, as well. I also think your soft in the head if you considered that a real threat. But if you did 1) I apologize and 2) rest assured, it was NOT IN ANY WAY a real threat.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I think anyone who acts in a mob intimidating others deserves a good old-fashioned ass kicking.
:rolleyes:

So when you said You mobs of bullies, who alone would just be pathetic little pussies, need a good, old-fashioned ass kicking. Why don't you go to a nearby miltary base and find the bar where these guys hang out and spew your invective at them then?what you meant was that this mob should go get their ass kicked by this other mob, or shut up? So you're invoking a second mob in an attempt to intimidate the first mob to stop intimidating people... I would say that's pretty hypocritical, right there.

You don't even have anything in your OP-linked news story that says that the students threatened anyone with violence. Of course, the Army's Griffin said he sensed that some of the students were "looking for action" and decided to pack up their table before things got out of hand and someone got injured.I had no idea that we employed psychics in the US Army. Is that where you got your psychic powers, too? You know, the ones that let you know that the school administration and the cops were at fault... Oh wait, you backed off those guys because people pointed out that you had no idea what really happened. It's looking more and more like the only thing you've ever shot off is your mouth. And maybe your foot. That's prolly why you keep threatening to club people with your gun instead of threatening to shoot them.

And since you are so incensed about mobs intimidating others, I can only surmise that you are equally upset at how a mob of armed men intimidated a foreign ruler into having to give up his country, thereby destabilizing the lives of millions of people? At how an armed mob is forcing people halfway around the world to redesign their country according to the whims of those guys currently in Washington, DC? Or is it okay, because that is "your" mob?

And if it isn't okay, what are you doing to try and stop it?

At least these protesters, who we have no evidence to show that they threatened anyone, were acting with the goal of putting an end to the killing which they do not like or want to continue. All you are doing, on this anonymous internet board, is expressing your desire for others to endure pain and death, because you don't think they agree with you, or because you think, with no evidence, that they acted in a manner you don't approve of.

You're a reprehensible, hypocritical lunatic. Self-deluded and full of hate & anger.

Seek professional help.

[RandMcnally]

Well, um, I'm a liberal and I agree with the pitting. Are you guys going to take away my super secret Democrat decoder ring now? :eek:



Well...you are a fan of Toby Keith aren't you?

[Mr. Moto]

You know, you're right. I came back here specifically to mention that the protestor's actions were basically intimidation, which is illegal. I basically had a brain cramp on the original post.

Worse than that, the protesters were interfering with military recruitment during wartime, which can be prosecuted under the sedition laws.

If a group was involved, they all could be prosecuted as being part of a seditious conspiracy.

[Frank]

1) Skiing in camo. 2) with a rifle slung over my shoulder. Most people would recognize that as over the top.
Why? It's called the biathlon.

[DxZero]

Worse than that, the protesters were interfering with military recruitment during wartime, which can be prosecuted under the sedition laws.

If a group was involved, they all could be prosecuted as being part of a seditious conspiracy.

Meh....when was the last time anyone was prosecuted for sedition?

Actually, thats a good question. Answers! I need answers!

[Mr. Moto]

Some background on Santa Cruz.

The military is about as popular, and about as inflammitory there, as the KKK. Just about every day there are protests somewhere. One of the major throughfares has a just about permanent protest presence. The darn city passed a resolution against the Iraq war as soon as it started. It's hard to go a few steps without seeing some kind of anti-war sign or flag. It's not like this is a new thing, or an expected thing, or even merely a student thing. If there is an anti-war ground zero, Santa Cruz is probably it.

You probably know Santa Cruz better than me.

Still, their feelings do not mean that they can rid themselves of their obligations of American citizenship. And again, I will point out that UC Santa Cruz has an $80 million dollar obligation to the federal government, and one of the strings that come with that apron is allowing military recruiting on campus.

I will also point out that, for all of the anti-military fervor you point out, two soldiers from Santa Cruz have died in Iraq. Many more, I'm sure, serve with honor. Their opinions count as well, even if they are in a vanishingly small minority.

[DianaG]

The onus of allowing miliatry recruiting falls on the administration, not the students, right? Seems to me that they've fulfilled that obligation. After all, the administration didn't force them to leave. Actually, no one forced them to leave.

[DianaG]

Just to clarify, I think that they were right to leave before it got ugly, and I don't contest their right to be there. I'm just pointing out that the school does not actually appear to be in violation of the Solomon Amendment.

[Mr. Moto]

I think it does, same if a school, in the guise of allowing protesters the right to exercise their free speech rights, in fact prevents black students from actually getting to class.

This was put to the test forty years ago. What argument won out then?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Classic magellan. Shaky analogies, condescension to folks far smarter than him, and a complete ignorance of, and apathy about, the complexities of the real world. Good stuff!

What ever you do, don't read science fiction.
If this is a warning to stay away from your posts, it's a good one.

Back when I went to college (Evergreen, another pinko left college on the Left Coast), I was involved in some radical politics. A forwarded email I received regarding a UCSC protest was a watershed moment for me: it described the world's stupidest protest (against the anti-immigration, proposition, I think). Students blocked traffic to convince people that their side was right, delayed people getting home from a long day at work to build sympathy for their cause, screamed at passersby to persuade them to join the movement. Then they had several students climb the clock tower and handcuff themselves to it to show the righteousness of their cause, while the remaining students formed a defensive ring around the tower's base. When the police just hung back and watched them, they took it as a Victory for the Movement.

Of course, the cops waited till all the kids had gone off to bed before climbing up and arresting the handcuffees--the email said this showed the cops' cowardice.

As I read the email, I kept waiting for the punchline, the moment when the author would have an epiphany realizing that the entire protest was just so much self-congratulatory bullshit whose only effect would be to alienate potential allies and make the protestors feel good about themselves. That epiphany never came for the author; but because it never came for the author, a different epiphany came for me:

Radical politics has got a lot of dumb motherfuckers in it.

***********

Of course, the military has got a lot of dumb motherfuckers in it, too. I can only imagine the conversation between these recruiters and their boss: they tried not to whine as they described how idiotic it was to send them out to UCSC. The best compromise they could get was that if things got hairy, they could leave; so as soon as they got on campus, they were waiting for things to get ugly enough for them to leave.

Is that an excuse for the protestors? Hell, no: anyone looking for violence at such an event is a dumb motherfucker. Anyone trying to silence political debate is a dumb motherfucker. The proper form of protest would have been to set up a table next to the military recruiters, find a Veteran Against the Iraq War (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) to staff it, and invite visitors to the recruiter's table to come over to their table for some counterpoints.

But it does mean that the campus probably handled the event in the best possible way. Had they engaged in idiotic magellan tactics, it wouldn't have solved anything: at least in this situation, violence would have been the last refuge of the incompetent. All it would have done is to ignite the entire town in full-scale protest/rioting--and that serves nobody.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

Whether or not I agree with the actions in the 60s aside, there is one HUGE difference. The ones joing today are doing so by choice. Kind of a big differecne, don't you think?

What's that got to do with it? Starving the Army of recruits -- voluntary or otherwise -- is a pretty good way to stop a war.

[Mr. Moto]

The proper form of protest would have been to set up a table next to the military recruiters, find a Veteran Against the Iraq War (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) to staff it, and invite visitors to the recruiter's table to come over to their table for some counterpoints.

No.

If the recruiters were sitting at a table in the student union, sure, this would be acceptable. But this was a job fair, which isn't an acceptable venue for this.

If you allow this, you'd have to allow it for anyone who wants to protest any other company there for whatever reason (animal rights, labor laws, whatever), and that would turn the job fair into a free for all.

The Solomon Amendment specifies that recruiters be allowed onto campus with the same access as other employers, and other employers wouldn't have to contend with protesters at the next table at a job fair.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

No.

If the recruiters were sitting at a table in the student union, sure, this would be acceptable. But this was a job fair, which isn't an acceptable venue for this.
Oops--missed the job fair part. Sorry, you're right.

In this case, the proper format would have been to set up their table in a public space as near as possible to the entrance of the job fair, put up a big banner inviting folks interested in the military to come talk to them, and otherwise proceed as above.

Daniel

[Indygrrl]

So I hope this clears things up for you SnowboarderBoy. Either way, go fuck yourself with your baggy SnowboarderBoy pants that you shit and and so you can carry it around all day. And stay out of my way on the slopes. Unless, that is, you'd llike to feel the butt of that M-16 I'm so quick to use across your teeth. I'll be the one in the camo with the rifle slung over his shoulder. Now, outya my way, boy. Go hit the bong and give yourself some more face jewelry.

Any credibility you had with this rant was lost on me right here. Is this how you debate? I know it's the pit, but I assume you aren't 12-years-old. Lame.

[Mr. Moto]

Oops--missed the job fair part. Sorry, you're right.

In this case, the proper format would have been to set up their table in a public space as near as possible to the entrance of the job fair, put up a big banner inviting folks interested in the military to come talk to them, and otherwise proceed as above.

Daniel

Agree totally. I'm certainly not anti First Amendment here. However, that right must coexist with the rights of others to express themselves and go about their business.

And that does include the government.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Any credibility you had with this rant was lost on me right here. Is this how you debate? I know it's the pit, but I assume you aren't 12-years-old. Lame.It is indeed how he debates, as I discovered to my dismay in Great Debates yesterday.

Mr. Moto, it does occur to me that the students could have been clever: they could have asked for a table from which Veterans Against the Iraq War (or another anti-war group) could recruit summer interns. Once they got that, they could have sent a student to stand politely near the military recruiters table and invite visitors to that table to go visit the VAIW table before making their decision.

That would almost certainly be within the rules (if not entirely within the spirit of the rules), and would have accomplished their goals through freedom of speech.

Daniel

[Mr. Moto]

That would almost certainly be within the rules (if not entirely within the spirit of the rules), and would have accomplished their goals through freedom of speech.

Well, "companies" do compete with each other for new hires, don't they?

As long as they didn't disrupt the fair or the recruiting being done, I'd have no issue there.

The only real way to counter a message you don't like is with your own message, not by shutting the other message down.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The only real way to counter a message you don't like is with your own message, not by shutting the other message down.
Exactly. It'd be beautiful if UCSC (and, for that matter, Evergreen) would include a day-long symposium on the first amendment as part of Freshman Orientation.

Daniel

[RTA]

Having invoked the image repeatedly here, magellan01 has clearly meditated at length on the intense rush of adrenaline and sensation of power that bashing someone in the head and/or teeth with "the butt of his M-16" would bring him.

I say the same thing to him that I'd say to anyone: if you like this war so goddamn much, why not join the military yourself? ... If recruiters are having such a hard time and all, if you are so compassionate for their struggles, why not help them out and sign up? ... Is it because you are a big pussy who can only be a tough guy when hunched over a keyboard?

Why, I'd bet you could be bashing heads in with the butt of your M-16 by this October, if that's what you really want to do.

[Mr. Moto]

I say the same thing to him that I'd say to anyone: if you like this war so goddamn much, why not join the military yourself? ... If recruiters are having such a hard time and all, if you are so compassionate for their struggles, why not help them out and sign up?

"Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country."

George Washington, September 14, 1775

[El_Kabong]

Well, all I can say is that it sounds like I'd better tell my bosses at the oilfield service company I work for that attending a job fair at UC Santa Cruz would probably not be worth the effort. :p

Otherwise, the students were out of line and unfair, IMO, but this is hardly the huge issue that the OP seems to think it is. Regardless of that issue, violence was avoided. What the fuck is wrong with that?

Actually, there is one more thing I can say: that I have rarely seen a poster behaving as such a complete and utter asshole as magellan01 has been in this thread. Sunshine, if you get so angry at a poster on an anonymous message board that you start 'joking' about murdering him with an automatic weapon, it's time to put the keyboard down and walk around for a while.

[El_Kabong]

Oh, sorry, on review, it turns out he was not joking about murdering him, just joking about beating him with the butt end of an automatic weapon. That's very different. Never mind. :rolleyes:

[An Arky]

Yeah, while agree that what the UCSC students did was out of line and misdirected, I am highly disturbed by all the "butt of my M-16" stuff he keeps growling about. I have a feeling he has this opinion of anyone who has views to the left of him. There was a thread about the hostage release a few days ago where a poster displayed similar blood rage vitriol towards pacifists. Scary; and I don't mean I'm scared of them, I mean that having that amount of rage surging through their thoughts is scary.

[BrainGlutton]

"Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country."

George Washington, September 14, 1775

Sometimes a man can serve his country best by fighting its government, and that too is honorable.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

"Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country."

George Washington, September 14, 1775
I don't think he was talking about messageboard posts.

Daniel

[magellan01]

Why? It's called the biathlon.

Unless the camo is to supply cover for an assault on Toon Town, I beg to differ. (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gameslave.co.uk/picstore/Torino2006WinterOlympics/biathalon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gameslave.co.uk/imageviewer.cfm%3Fimg%3D7473%26title%3DTorino%25202006%2520-%2520Winter%2520Olympics&h=768&w=1024&sz=125&tbnid=-Oj-zki7-Gu19M:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150&hl=en&ei=UGk-ROaVE6-QJK63uMYO&sig2=mTV5gexyW_mT1FDdSJ3sjw&start=15&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbiathalon%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)

[Der Trihs]

I will also point out that, for all of the anti-military fervor you point out, two soldiers from Santa Cruz have died in Iraq. Many more, I'm sure, serve with honor. I expect that the war opponents there would point out that if they were serving in Iraq, they cannot be "serving with honor".

"Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country."

George Washington, September 14, 1775 So, say, the KGB guys who rounded up dissenters for execution or exile to the gulags were "honorable" ?

[magellan01]

What's that got to do with it? Starving the Army of recruits -- voluntary or otherwise -- is a pretty good way to stop a war.

You asked what the difference was? And while someone who thinks that starving the Army of recruits is a good idea is perfectly within their rights to hold that opinion and attempt to persuade others through protest, they have no right to prevent others of a different opinion from airing their case. and just because their tactics may be effective, they certainly doesn't make them legal.

As I've pointed out, thatey used intimidation to cause people to leave. Just think if that was done to a minority group? And in Santa Cruz, the military is a minority group.

Also, they are preventing fellow students who might be of a different mind and be interested (the article pointe out one such student) who was unable to learn more about a career in the military.

Beyond that, Mr, Moto makes good points about the $80 miilion dollar responsibility the school has to the government and sedition laws involved in interfering with recruiting during wartime. I was unaware of that.

[BrainGlutton]

Worse than that, the protesters were interfering with military recruitment during wartime, which can be prosecuted under the sedition laws.

Cite?

[Mr. Moto]

I don't think he was talking about messageboard posts.

Daniel

Certainly not. I'm just sick of these chickenhawk arguments. They hold no water with me.

They hold no water with Washington either, from the looks of it.

[Mr. Moto]

Cite?

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388.

Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

[SteveG1]

The students stepped over the line, when they became threatening, and prevented anyone from having a chance to talk with the recruiters. If they can invoke a First Amendment right to say what they want, then that same right extends to the recruiters, doesn't it?
This was just a bunch of people who went way overboard and need to be educated (it IS a school isn't it?) about the startling concept that follows -

They have a right to their opinion.
Others have an equally valid right to have a different opinion.

They would probably be among the first to scream about The Man telling them what to do, what to think etc. Dammit, they were doing the same thing. Stupid.

Mr. Moto - I don't know if the Solomon law would apply, even thought a court case would be interesting - it wasn't the adminstration that kept the recruiters out or told them to leave. The recruiters decided for themselves to leave before things got out of hand (a wise decision maybe). The school administration could probably blame the students and rightly say it wan't their (the administration) fault.

Way to go, students. Fuck with recriuiters at a job fair. I guess y'all were afraid of roving press gangs of something? Moderates and Liberals try to convince "the loyal opposition" that we are logical, tolerant and willing to compromise or work to reach concensus, and you little spoiled assholes do shit like this. Y'all don't like the military? Then just don't sign up. When you interfere with others, and intimidate them, you cross the line.

[Ponder Stibbons]

Unless the camo is to supply cover for an assault on Toon Town, I beg to differ. (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gameslave.co.uk/picstore/Torino2006WinterOlympics/biathalon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gameslave.co.uk/imageviewer.cfm%3Fimg%3D7473%26title%3DTorino%25202006%2520-%2520Winter%2520Olympics&h=768&w=1024&sz=125&tbnid=-Oj-zki7-Gu19M:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150&hl=en&ei=UGk-ROaVE6-QJK63uMYO&sig2=mTV5gexyW_mT1FDdSJ3sjw&start=15&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbiathalon%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)
Uh, you do know the biathlon grew out of a winter exercise for Norwegian soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon#Concise_history), don't you? I don't think it is at all out of the question to associate such a sport with "camos". And while today's olympics uniforms are quite colorful, this was not always the case (http://www.olimpijski.pl/i/fotogaleria/chamonix1924_szwajcaria_1i2place.jpg).

Just as an item of curiosity, note that some modern uniforms (http://www.transweb.org/webcast/winter2001/biath/op_jan19_biathlon_0768.jpg) can be quite "camo" in appearance.

[BrainGlutton]

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388.

Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war . . .

The terms "during war" and "at war" are left undefined. One could make a case this section does not apply absent a formal declaration of war by Congress.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388.

Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

A logical defense to this is that this is a war in name only. Of course, if it looks like war it usually is, but there are all sorts of Constitutional arguments about the necessity of a declaration, the form that declaration takes, and so on, so that argument is pretty specious.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Certainly not. I'm just sick of these chickenhawk arguments. They hold no water with me.

They hold no water with Washington either, from the looks of it.
Fair enough--I was making a funny, that's all.

Okay, maybe that's not all--I was also pointing out that the only sort of post magellan appears to be holding in defense of his country are ones on messageboards. But mostly I was just making a funny.

Daniel

[even sven]

WTF.

You guys got your president. You got your war. Now some smelly hippies in a podunkity town wedged between a mountain and an ocean where they have the political clout of a large potato sack decide they don't like it and yell and scream a lot, and now you want to get them with charges like sedition? Do I detect some nostalgia for the good old days of protests when we had firehoses and tear gas to deal with these things? Can't you see why, for the sake of your own side, things have changed?

And what would you have done if you were in 1930s Germany and the Nazis came recruiting on your campus? Opened an anti-Nazi info booth? I'm not saying the military are Nazis, but to these protesters they are a danger to our country along that level. They are acting precisely how a rational and moral being with that belief would act.

So what do you want to happen next? Threaten to pull federal funding unless a military representative can stand on campus for X amount of time without anyone yelling at him? Force UCSC to change their mascot to "the Patriots" until they can display proper support?

[Mr. Moto]

A logical defense to this is that this is a war in name only. Of course, if it looks like war it usually is, but there are all sorts of Constitutional arguments about the necessity of a declaration, the form that declaration takes, and so on, so that argument is pretty specious.

While that argument could be made, the rejoinder would be that this is covered by the part of the U.S. Code that handles the same activities under peaceful conditions:


§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

[magellan01]

You don't even have anything in your OP-linked news story that says that the students threatened anyone with violence. Of course, I had no idea that we employed psychics in the US Army.

Because of the students actions, vilolence appeared imminent.If you don't get that from the article, I can't help you.

And since you are so incensed about mobs intimidating others, I can only surmise that you are equally upset at how a mob of armed men intimidated a foreign ruler into having to give up his country...

:rolleyes: Was Iraq the right thing to do? I don't know. I looks like not, but what we don't know is what these past 3 years what have held if we didn't go. But Saddam's ass-kicking was a long time over due, ideally by the U.N. The vast majority of the sentient world agree with that. But that's not what we're talking about here at all. A better analogy would be to compare the students to other hateful, self-righteous, closed-minded groups, like the KKK.

And if it isn't okay, what are you doing to try and stop it?

Nothing. Because right now it shouldn't be stopped. Even if going over there was the dumbest thing on earth, and it may have been, we can't just cut and run. I'd like to see us out as soon as practical. But this is fodder for another thread.

At least these protesters, who we have no evidence to show that they threatened anyone, were acting with the goal of putting an end to the killing which they do not like or want to continue.

As is their right. And just as it would be wrong for a group to shut them up through intimidation, what they did is wrong, too. As for their threatening someone, their actions made violence imminent to the point that a group had to shut up and leave. That is intimidation.

All you are doing, on this anonymous internet board, is expressing your desire for others to endure pain and death, because you don't think they agree with you, or because you think, with no evidence, that they acted in a manner you don't approve of.

No. Read the article. The evidence is that the recruiters had to leave before someone got hurt. Do you honestly think you'd have the same take on this if the intimidated group was a protected minority. These are the tactics of the KKK. And anyone who uses them is just as big an asshole. Have you ever heard of hyperbole?

Seek professional help.

Maybe. Do you think the training is better with the Seals or the Rangers?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

While that argument could be made, the rejoinder would be that this is covered by the part of the U.S. Code that handles the same activities under peaceful conditions:


§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

...except that the people going to see the recruiters aren't members of the Armed Forces yet, so none of the above qualifies. The recruiters were not affected by this either, because they left of their own volition.

Man, I'm with you that the sudents were largely in the wrong here, but none of the statutes that you're citing are really applicable in this case.

[Mr. Moto]

So what do you want to happen next? Threaten to pull federal funding unless a military representative can stand on campus for X amount of time without anyone yelling at him? Force UCSC to change their mascot to "the Patriots" until they can display proper support?

I want those smelly hippies and the school administration to follow the law, same as I do and you do every day.

If they willfully don't do that, that's civil disobedience, I guess, which is admirable in its own way. But part of civil disobedience is taking the consequences for your actions, which nobody here has been tested on yet.

Nobody would remember Martin Luther King much today if he was given a traffic ticket and sent along his way.

BTW, you have now successfully Godwinized this thread. Thanks.

[Miller]

And what would you have done if you were in 1930s Germany and the Nazis came recruiting on your campus? Opened an anti-Nazi info booth? I'm not saying the military are Nazis, but to these protesters they are a danger to our country along that level. They are acting precisely how a rational and moral being with that belief would act.

I'm not sure that someone who holds that particular belief can be accurately described as "rational."

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]Classic magellan. Shaky analogies,...

Until you learn what a Slippery Slope arguemnt is, you are not allowed to comment on anyone else's logic. And if you see a flaw in my logic in this thread, point it out. No doubt you will be as wrong as you were in the other thread. Slippery Slope: go do some reading. And to say that you actually did a lesson plan on it?! Some parents are due some money back.

[Ponder Stibbons]

BTW, you have now successfully Godwinized this thread. Thanks.
Who said you get to determine when a thread has been Godwinized? What are you, some sort of Godwin Nazi?



;) :cool:

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

When was the last time anyone was charged with sedition under the parts of the code Mr. Moto is quoting?

When was the last time anyone was convicted?

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]Classic magellan. Shaky analogies,...

Until you learn what a Slippery Slope arguemnt is, you are not allowed to comment on anyone else's logic. And if you see a flaw in my logic in this thread, point it out. No doubt you will be as wrong as you were in the other thread. Slippery Slope: go do some reading. And to say that you actually did a lesson plan on it?! Some parents are due some money back.
Classic magellan:
1) Backtracking on something he already admitted he'd gotten wrong;
2) Misunderstanding what I was saying in a previous thread;
3) Misunderstanding basic concepts.

He's a worthless fool--or at least, that's his Internet persona.

Daniel

[magellan01]

I'm not saying the military are Nazis, but to these protesters they are a danger to our country along that level. They are acting precisely how a rational and moral being with that belief would act.

Yes, but their belief is not rational.

So what do you want to happen next? Threaten to pull federal funding unless a military representative can stand on campus for X amount of time without anyone yelling at him?

You go to far. There is lpenty of room in which the military can communicate their message AND the protestors can communicate theirs. And it is the schools responsibility to mae sure that any student protest does not interfere with someone else who has a right to be o the campus.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Classic magellan:
1) Backtracking on something he already admitted he'd gotten wrong;

If you admitted when you were wrong, you might be a lot better off. Although, you'd be doing quite a bit of admitting.

2) Misunderstanding what I was saying in a previous thread;

You clarified what you thought a Slippery slope was several times. Never got it right,
though.

3) Misunderstanding basic concepts.

Ah, the nice vague accusation. That's you all over.

Now how about sticking to this thread. If you want to continue elsewhere, just let me know. It's a cheap tactic to attempt to poison the well with these references to other discussions, not to mention distracting to all. Go start a pit thread if you'd like. Then we can show everyone your great command of logical fallacies.

[BobLibDem]

I think SteveG1 came as close to any to my opinion. I say let the military have their little booth. Given what was said about the community, it sounds as fruitful as casting your fishing line in Death Valley. There's a whole lot of students that weren't being out of line and the university administration had nothing to do with it. To punish all of them for one incident by a few is ludicrous.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I could accept your invitation to take it somewhere else; but:
1) You're too much of a tool ever to realize what a tool you are; and
2) It's immediately obvious to everyone else.

No reason to waste my time; there are other folks here with whom I can carry on an interesting conversation.

Daniel

[Miller]

Is there a link to where Left Hand of Dorkness showed this devastating lack of knowledge about what a slippery slope argument is?

[Revenant Threshold]

This is entirely confusing to me. How can the protestors be supported in their actions? They stopped anyone from signing up, which in my book makes it just as bad as conscription, but on the other side.

Let the protestors protest, fine. Let them give a leaflet decrying the actions of the military to anyone who goes near the Army booth, fine. But once they get to the point where they're actively stopping people from signing up, or not allowing the recruiters to do their job, then you've lost the moral (and possibly legal) battle, and that's going to lose you more rational people from your camp than anything else (though of course I'm sure there are smug lefties sitting around laughing about the "evil military", just as there've been smug righties sitting around laughing about "dirty hippies").

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Is there a link to where Left Hand of Dorkness showed this devastating lack of knowledge about what a slippery slope argument is?
You're gonna regret asking.


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366587&page=2
Start at post 76; follow through 77, 78, 122 (here I acknowledge that his wasn't a slippery slope argument, just an idiotic analogy), 129 (where he misses that), 159, 161, 165 (where he still misses it), 166, 167 (where he admits that I know what a slippery slope argument is, but somehow takes credit for my knowledge), 168, 169 (where he backtracks), and 170, where I finally recognized that I was dealing with a dumbshit.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This is entirely confusing to me. How can the protestors be supported in their actions? They stopped anyone from signing up, which in my book makes it just as bad as conscription, but on the other side.
"Just as bad"? That only works if signing up for the military is morally neutral. If signing up for the military is a morally positive act, similar to donating food to Katrina victims, then stopping people from doing so is worse than requiring people to do so. If signing up for the military is a morally negative act, similar to defrauding little old ladies of their life savings, then stopping people from doing so is better than requiring people to do so.

The question is, which is it? The protestors clearly think it's morally negative.

Daniel

[Mr. Moto]

To punish all of them for one incident by a few is ludicrous.

I'd agree with you, except that I don't think that any of the students directly involved will be punished at all.

And I don't find that acceptable. Not one little bit.

People talk about a culture that permits people to commit acts of violence and intimidation. Here is a prime example of one. And if the specific acts of intimidation can't or won't be punished, then the overall permissive culture there ought to be addressed.

Again, taxpayers in the rest of the country have a right to ask if UC Santa Cruz really needs that 80 million dollars. Is this overly punitive? Perhaps. Would it punish people who had no part in a protest? Sure.

But the acts of those students were similarly punitive, and similarly punished people who had no part in the protest. And unless those acts are punished appropriately, we really ought to question how committed the administration of UCSC is to following the law here.

[magellan01]

Is there a link to where Left Hand of Dorkness showed this devastating lack of knowledge about what a slippery slope argument is?

Oh, I see LHoD has already supplied the link. Here it is (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366587&page=4) again for the hell of it. It started out okay then turned into a mess, partially because of his refusal to learn what a slippery slope is, but unrelated to that, more due to my misreading something which I argued about for pages until clairobsur helped me see the error of my ways.

Don't miss me eating crow in post 156.

And how LHod ran away at the end when the discussion finally got more substantive.

My apologies for the OP for this distraction. I won't mention it again.

[Revenant Threshold]

"Just as bad"? That only works if signing up for the military is morally neutral. If signing up for the military is a morally positive act, similar to donating food to Katrina victims, then stopping people from doing so is worse than requiring people to do so. If signing up for the military is a morally negative act, similar to defrauding little old ladies of their life savings, then stopping people from doing so is better than requiring people to do so.

The question is, which is it? The protestors clearly think it's morally negative.
I partially agree. You're right in that the morality of joining the military itself is important, but not when you bring up the opinions of the forcers. In both cases, the forcers though they were in the right, and while that's better morally speaking than if they thought they were forcing the students to do something wrong, it does make them equal.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I partially agree. You're right in that the morality of joining the military itself is important, but not when you bring up the opinions of the forcers. In both cases, the forcers though they were in the right, and while that's better morally speaking than if they thought they were forcing the students to do something wrong, it does make them equal.
I don't understand. Are you saying that as long as people believe they're doing the right thing, that's all it takes for their actions to be moral?

Daniel

[magellan01]

"Just as bad"? That only works if signing up for the military is morally neutral. If signing up for the military is a morally positive act, similar to donating food to Katrina victims, then stopping people from doing so is worse than requiring people to do so. If signing up for the military is a morally negative act, similar to defrauding little old ladies of their life savings, then stopping people from doing so is better than requiring people to do so.

The question is, which is it? The protestors clearly think it's morally negative.

Yes. And they are entitled to their opinion. But for them to act on it and interfere with the actions of others, they need more than their opinion.

There's a difference in the acts you describe above. Helping Katrina victims: morally positive. Okay. Defrauding little old ladies: morally negative. Okay again. It would be hard to find anyone who disagreed with those opinions. Society as a whole would be on the same page.

As far as the military, I will admit that there is a range of opinion. Even with the war in Iraq aside, there are people (few) who think that the military is a bad thing. But it is a far more extreme position to take that the military is bad than defrauding old ladies is bad. As I said, while they, even if they are a small minority, are entitled to their opinion and have the right to express it, they do not have the right to shut up those who disagree with them.

Initimidation, especially that as exhibited by a mob, is thuggery plain and simple.

[Revenant Threshold]

I don't understand. Are you saying that as long as people believe they're doing the right thing, that's all it takes for their actions to be moral?

No, but I am saying it's an important factor. Say if an action was objectively good; a person who believed it was actually bad, and forced another do commit that action, is more morally wrong than a person who thinks that action is good, and forces someone to do it. Same for if that action is actually bad; the person who believes it is bad and forces another to do it is more wrong than one who mistakenly believes it's right and forces another.

[Revenant Threshold]

Whoops. That second example should have been "actually good".

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

No, but I am saying it's an important factor. Say if an action was objectively good; a person who believed it was actually bad, and forced another do commit that action, is more morally wrong than a person who thinks that action is good, and forces someone to do it. Same for if that action is actually bad; the person who believes it is bad and forces another to do it is more wrong than one who mistakenly believes it's right and forces another.
That establishes the outside limits. But what we're discussing here is someone who believes that joining the military is bad. How should they evaluate these two situations?
1) Person A forbids someone from joining the military, correctly* believing it's a bad thing;
2) Person B forces someone to join the military, incorrectly* believing it's a good thing.

The asterisked adverbs are, of course, according to the moral compass of the evaluator. I maintain that the evaluator in this situation should see person A as acting more appropriately. Reverse the adverbs, and they should see person B as acting more appropriately.

Note that this is not always broadly applicable--in many cases, freedom of choice is the greatest good.

Daniel

[Revenant Threshold]

The asterisked adverbs are, of course, according to the moral compass of the evaluator. I maintain that the evaluator in this situation should see person A as acting more appropriately. Reverse the adverbs, and they should see person B as acting more appropriately.

Yep, I agree. That was the gist of my post.

Note that this is not always broadly applicable--in many cases, freedom of choice is the greatest good.
Definetly. Which is why, of course, the protestors were in the wrong to stop people from seeking recruitment/recruiters to talk to students, as they took it upon themselves to curtail other people's freedom of choice.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Definetly. Which is why, of course, the protestors were in the wrong to stop people from seeking recruitment/recruiters to talk to students, as they took it upon themselves to curtail other people's freedom of choice.
I'm not sure. Freedom of choice is not necessarily the greatest good when it's a matter of life and death, or when there's further coercion happening down the line. Military recruitment qualifies for both exceptions, I think.

Daniel

[Voyager]

No.


The Solomon Amendment specifies that recruiters be allowed onto campus with the same access as other employers, and other employers wouldn't have to contend with protesters at the next table at a job fair.
When I was in college, in the late '60s early '70s, Dow Chemical sure did have to contend with protesters.
I believe the SC decision on the Solomon Amendment case specifically did not rule out protests. If the Administration had provided no security at all, you might have a point, but I do not believe the lack of head bashing counts as lack of access. Not that it even got to that point, since the recruiters did the wise thing and left.

Maybe you think the Administration should have brought in the Ohio National Guard just to teach those kids a lesson.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Maybe you think the Administration should have brought in the Ohio National Guard just to teach those kids a lesson.
I strenuously disagree that UCSC's federal funding ought to be called into question for this incident, but I think it's unfair to insinuate that Mr. Moto wants students to be killed over it, or to compare this situation in any fashion to the Nazis. He's specifically called for the students involved to be punished; while I think references to the sedition laws are far overblown, they're not calls for anyone to suffer injury, much less death.

Daniel

[Voyager]

This is entirely confusing to me. How can the protestors be supported in their actions? They stopped anyone from signing up, which in my book makes it just as bad as conscription, but on the other side.

Let the protestors protest, fine. Let them give a leaflet decrying the actions of the military to anyone who goes near the Army booth, fine. But once they get to the point where they're actively stopping people from signing up, or not allowing the recruiters to do their job, then you've lost the moral (and possibly legal) battle, and that's going to lose you more rational people from your camp than anything else (though of course I'm sure there are smug lefties sitting around laughing about the "evil military", just as there've been smug righties sitting around laughing about "dirty hippies").
If this was a job fair, I think it was very unlikely that anyone would sign up right there - even if UCSC was a right wing school. As mentioned, Santa Cruz is a small place, and anyone who wished to sign up could. The protest probably gave the military a lot more pr (for those who might be interested) than if everything went quietly.

You people really don't want to relive the '60s. I assure you that having heads cracked would not have made the recruiters job easier the next time. If that had happened, want to bet on the size of the next protest? The cops, recruiters and the administration did the right thing, and I bet the protesters were disappointed.

[Revenant Threshold]

I'm not sure. Freedom of choice is not necessarily the greatest good when it's a matter of life and death, or when there's further coercion happening down the line. Military recruitment qualifies for both exceptions, I think.

I would agree that the military involves both of those (of course, the second is a matter of opinion). I don't agree that therefore forcing other to not take part is acceptable.

To resort to actual physical force (meaning forced non-recruiting, not attacks) suggests that the students did not believe that they could stop recruitment by other means; using arguments and relevant information. I'm sure you'd agree that if the students were certain in their ability to convert others to their cause via words, they'd do that rather than physical resistance.

So if the students believed they had to use force, there are two possibilities; that they thought they had good arguments, but knew (or had reason to believe) the recruiters would lie and distort the truth in order to recruit; or that they thought that had poor arguments. If they had poor arguments, it logically follows then that the immorality of joining the Army is not clear-cut.

So then we have the recruiters lying and distorting. I for one wouldn't be surprised by this behaviour, but again, that's a matter of opinion. I would suggest that if the students had good reason to suspect the recruiters would do this, that they should do several things; first, protest the recruitment. Second, video the recruitment and talks given by the recruiters, and ask them questions (politely) to which they'd expect a lie or distortion for an answer. Third, go through the tape and look for distortions of the truth; if they don't find any, then the recruiters have made a good case, again suggesting the immorality of the Army is not clear-cut. If they do find some, send the tape, along with their notes on the lies, to the press, to "get the story out", and to other universities, so that other students can benefit from learning what lies/distortions are commonly told.

That way, they have not committed any immorality themselves, bolstering their position. They'd have evidence of any misleading statements by recruiters, making the Army look bad. Students in other universities would have a good source of what lies are told in recruitment, which thanks to free speech can be played on TV near a recruitment booth, if necessary. A propaganda win.

So even I can come up with a way of stopping recruitment, which also has the benefits of above. Arguably (you'll probably disagree) it's superior to forcing others not to sign up. And freedom of choice is preserved. Thus, I think freedom of choice is still the "greatest good" in this situation.

If this was a job fair, I think it was very unlikely that anyone would sign up right there - even if UCSC was a right wing school. As mentioned, Santa Cruz is a small place, and anyone who wished to sign up could. The protest probably gave the military a lot more pr (for those who might be interested) than if everything went quietly.
Ah, thanks for the info. I thought people would be able to just sign up there and then. And I agree about the PR.
You people...
What group of people am I in?
...really don't want to relive the '60s. I assure you that having heads cracked would not have made the recruiters job easier the next time. If that had happened, want to bet on the size of the next protest? The cops, recruiters and the administration did the right thing, and I bet the protesters were disappointed.
I agree with all that, except I think only some of the protesters were disappointed. There's a fine line between sticking it to the man and waking up with a lump the size of a orange on your head. ;)

[Mr. Moto]

Listen, do I want these students to face jail time? Not necessarily, though they certainly deserve a fine or some probation. They might even deserve a reconsideration of their status as UC Santa Cruz students, if they won't contribute to a campus of openness and tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

That's what they deserve, surely, especially since in the broader sense they're guilty of far greater things.

I fear, though, that the little darlings won't be punished at all, like I said above. And I don't really like that outcome.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I would agree that the military involves both of those (of course, the second is a matter of opinion). I don't agree that therefore forcing other to not take part is acceptable.
I don't think the part about later coercion is acceptable: the military in Iraq isn't sitting down with insurgents and debating issues politely. Whether their coercion is justified or not, the military is one gigantic coercive organization.

To resort to actual physical force (meaning forced non-recruiting, not attacks) suggests that the students did not believe that they could stop recruitment by other means
Sure--but the military's actions in Iraq suggest exactly the same thing, that the soldiers don't think they can stop insurgent actions by other means.

I'm not trying to equate the students with soldiers; I'm just trying to demonstrate that in some cases--specifically, cases in which people might die if someone chooses poorly--it's appropriate to force someone to make the "correct" choice. If you accept the idea that joining the military is a morally negative act, then it's probably because you believe joining the military involves engaging in unnecessary killing; at that point, preventing someone from making that choice is the lesser evil, compared to allowing them to make that choice.

Of course, trying and failing to prevent someone from making that choice, or preventing them through means that have other, worse consequences, makes the situation even worse. That's why I think these protestors were wrong.

Daniel

[An Arky]

Yeah, the fact that it's a job fair for what I presume to be prospective college graduates is a whole different animal in terms of military recruiting. When I was in school, the military was at the job fair; they sat at a table/booth just like any other company. These are prospective college graduates; the recruiters are presumably looking for officer candidates. They want people who would have the attitude and ability to make good officers, and they treat people like that fairly professionally. That's way different from the bottom-feedsing recruiters that go around dangling cash and empty promises in trailer parks, just looking for some front line cannon fodder to fill their quotas.

Like I basically said upthread; the military is just doing its job and doing it well. If someone has a beef with the Iraq war (I certainly have issues with it), take it up with the jerks in the Executive Branch; they're the ones who got us into this crap.

[Voyager]

I strenuously disagree that UCSC's federal funding ought to be called into question for this incident, but I think it's unfair to insinuate that Mr. Moto wants students to be killed over it, or to compare this situation in any fashion to the Nazis. He's specifically called for the students involved to be punished; while I think references to the sedition laws are far overblown, they're not calls for anyone to suffer injury, much less death.

Daniel
The Guard did not go into Kent State intending to shoot anyone. They did represent a show of force, just as our friends wanted in UCSC. Shows of force often have unintended consequences.
I've been in a riot, where the police response got totally out of hand. It spilled onto our campus though our students had nothing to do with it, and the protesters were long gone when the police tear gassed the girl's dorm. It is reckless, and oh so Bush-like, to want to show them hippies a lesson.
It's encouraging to realize that the UCSC administration, the cops, and the military recruiters did not over-react. Like I said above, doing what Magellan and Moto want would be the biggest gift possible to the protesters.
35 years ago, being young and stupid, I was actually pro-War - but I found that tear gas does not check political affiliation.

[Voyager]

What group of people am I in?

Sorry, I don't lump you in with those people.

I agree with all that, except I think only some of the protesters were disappointed. There's a fine line between sticking it to the man and waking up with a lump the size of a orange on your head. ;)
I don't know if they make protesters the way they used to, but I went to school with a bunch of chicken-shit radicals who would have loved to get a lump on the head for the cause. It would have done wonders for their sex life. :D

[BwanaBob]

So let' s see.....

"Bad" military wants to recruit - "noble" students intimidate prospective "enlistees".

Students say this is good.

"Bad" abortion doctors want to do their job - "noble" pro-lifers intimidate prospective "abortees".

Students say this is bad.

I smell hypocrites on the UCSC campus.
Seems like freedom to protest is only for those who agree with their agenda.


PS. I am pro-choice and believe the military has all the right in the world to recruit on campuses.

[Revenant Threshold]

I don't think the part about later coercion is acceptable: the military in Iraq isn't sitting down with insurgents and debating issues politely. Whether their coercion is justified or not, the military is one gigantic coercive organization.
Ah, ok. I apologise for thinking you did find that acceptable.
Sure--but the military's actions in Iraq suggest exactly the same thing, that the soldiers don't think they can stop insurgent actions by other means.

I'm not trying to equate the students with soldiers; I'm just trying to demonstrate that in some cases--specifically, cases in which people might die if someone chooses poorly--it's appropriate to force someone to make the "correct" choice. If you accept the idea that joining the military is a morally negative act, then it's probably because you believe joining the military involves engaging in unnecessary killing; at that point, preventing someone from making that choice is the lesser evil, compared to allowing them to make that choice.
I disagree. When you prevent someone from being recruited (or seeking recruitment), then you're taking that decision out of their hands. If someone wants to join the military, chances are their opinion is going to be "killing is bad, but necessary in some circumstances" (or of course, "killing isn't bad at all", a minority view). So when you're not allowing them to make that decision for themselves, you're valuing your own opinion above theirs; you're disregarding their ability to make rational choices (or placing your decision-making as superior to theirs). I think you can see what this attitude leads to.

Of course, trying and failing to prevent someone from making that choice, or preventing them through means that have other, worse consequences, makes the situation even worse. That's why I think these protestors were wrong.
Fair enough. If I agreed with your prior reasoning, this would likely be my sticking point, too.

[Revenant Threshold]

Damn. Helpful mods?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I disagree. When you prevent someone from being recruited (or seeking recruitment), then you're taking that decision out of their hands. If someone wants to join the military, chances are their opinion is going to be "killing is bad, but necessary in some circumstances" (or of course, "killing isn't bad at all", a minority view). So when you're not allowing them to make that decision for themselves, you're valuing your own opinion above theirs; you're disregarding their ability to make rational choices (or placing your decision-making as superior to theirs). I think you can see what this attitude leads to.
The problem is that when you join the military, you're agreeing to (if so ordered) kill other people--which really takes the choice out of their hands. If someone's going to have a choice denied to them, the reasoning would go, better to deny them the single choice of joining the military than to have someone else's opportunities denied forever.

In other words, someone's gonna be coerced here; which is the lesser of two evils?

Daniel

[Syntropy]

So let' s see.....

"Bad" military wants to recruit - "noble" students intimidate prospective "enlistees".

Students say this is good.

"Bad" abortion doctors want to do their job - "noble" pro-lifers intimidate prospective "abortees".

Students say this is bad.

I smell hypocrites on the UCSC campus.
Seems like freedom to protest is only for those who agree with their agenda.


PS. I am pro-choice and believe the military has all the right in the world to recruit on campuses.
Eh, I don't think anyone is characterizing the students' actions as "noble" or the recruiters as "evil." The recruiters want to recruit on campus. That's their job, and they're allowed to do it, thanks to some strong arming by the federal government. The students disagree with their being there and protested. They shouldn't have blocked access for people who wanted to hear what the recruiters had to say, but aside from that, this protest wasn't really all that unremarkable from any other. It doesn't matter if their cause is "just and noble," all that matters is they be allowed to assemble peaceably and voice their dissent.

[Revenant Threshold]

Sorry, LHoD, but I don't understand your post. Surely agreeing to join the army in the first place is agreeing to kill other people? It's not like it's an additional agreement that must be made; you sign up, you're expected to follow orders, and those orders likely will include killing people. It's not a choice being taken away, the choice in the first place is to submit to following orders for however many years.

[Wygtya]

This is probably not going to help, but I just talked to my son. He is a student at UCSC and former military (kinda, whole 'nother story). He told me that what the protests were supposed to be about (until crashed by general "war is bad" protesters) was the fact that the military is a discriminatory employer. UCSC has a non-discrimination policy for age, gender and sexual orientation. What the organizers of the protest were apparently objecting to was the military forcing people to lie about their sexual orientation or be banned from employment by the military. The policy for any other employer who recruits at UCSC is that they must not discriminate. The students wanted that policy respected.

My son's take is that they should leave recruiters alone 'cause if they don't get enough volunteers they'll start the draft but he thought they had a point about the discrimination thing.

[kaylasdad99]

My apologies for the OP for this distraction. I won't mention it again.Dude, did you just apologize to yourself?

Wow. From expressing a desire to assault people with a rifle stock to apologizing to yourself, all in one thread.

And some folks think that hanging out here can't make better people of us all.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Sorry, LHoD, but I don't understand your post. Surely agreeing to join the army in the first place is agreeing to kill other people? It's not like it's an additional agreement that must be made; you sign up, you're expected to follow orders, and those orders likely will include killing people. It's not a choice being taken away, the choice in the first place is to submit to following orders for however many years.
I'm not talking about taking the choice away for the recruit; I'm talking about taking the choice away for the person whom the recruit is ordered to kill.

Daniel

[Revenant Threshold]

I'm not talking about taking the choice away for the recruit; I'm talking about taking the choice away for the person whom the recruit is ordered to kill.

Ah, I see. Sorry, I got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

I don't see it as an either-or situation, though. Can you honestly say without that recruit, that or other people will not be killed? By the same logic you're using, I could say that it would take away the choice from another recruit who is killed by the person the initial recruit could have killed (Apologies as that's badly put).

[magellan01]

Dude, did you just apologize to yourself?
Oops. Make that: "My apologies to the participants for this distraction. I won't mention it again."

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I don't see it as an either-or situation, though. Can you honestly say without that recruit, that or other people will not be killed? By the same logic you're using, I could say that it would take away the choice from another recruit who is killed by the person the initial recruit could have killed (Apologies as that's badly put).
I'm not trying to be snarky, but I really am not sure what that's supposed to say; could you repost it?

Daniel

[Revenant Threshold]

Sure. I realised myself it was very badly put, but I couldn't think of an easier way off the top of my head. Hmm...

Ok, how about this. The first guy is Person A. Under your argument, A is recruited, follows orders and kills Person B, an enemy, thereby forcibly taking away B's freedom of choice. This makes sense.

But can you honestly say that without A, no other recruit, like Person C, will shoot and kill B? Or, because A isn't there, that B might kill C?

That's what I meant by it not being an either-or situation. A being there or not doesn't have a significant effect on whether a person will be killed.

[Shagnasty]

What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?

1) Disband the entire U.S. military
2) Pull out of Iraq right now and let it collapse into civil war
3) Acknowledge that way need a military but make people feel feel shame for wanting to be in it.
4) Have no idea but raise hell for the world being imperfect
5) Some military is Ok as long as "people like us" are noble enough to avoid service

The follow-through on thinking seems to be a little lacking here (and with most protests of this type). Real goals and action points seem to be absent other than just general thuggery.

[Revenant Threshold]

Shagnasty; so you're saying they have foolish goals but no plans to reach them? Sounds good to me.

Although I think your extreme view of these people is pretty off. Now, i've no doubt there are people who think that, but i'd certainly say they aren't a minority.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Sure. I realised myself it was very badly put, but I couldn't think of an easier way off the top of my head. Hmm...

Ok, how about this. The first guy is Person A. Under your argument, A is recruited, follows orders and kills Person B, an enemy, thereby forcibly taking away B's freedom of choice. This makes sense.

But can you honestly say that without A, no other recruit, like Person C, will shoot and kill B? Or, because A isn't there, that B might kill C?
First off, if I'm guaranteed that person B is a combatant, then I've got a lot less problem with the whole situation: anyone who chooses to join an army doesn't worry me nearly as much when they die by the sword. It's still upsetting, but it's not a travesty.

Unfortunately, a lot of noncombatant Bs get killed under our current setup. That really concerns me.

Second, even if C (another recruit) gets killed by B, remember that you said that recruits made their choice when they signed up. I somewhat agree with that. If C doesn't want to face that choice, he shouldn't sign up.

That's what I meant by it not being an either-or situation. A being there or not doesn't have a significant effect on whether a person will be killed.
I strongly disagree with this idea. When someone is killed in a war, they're almost always killed by another person. Hypotheticals are difficult, but there's a very good chance that, had the killer not been there, the killee would still be alive.

This sort of thinking--that a person needn't worry about the consequences of their actions, because if they don't do the bad thing, someone else will--is extremely dangerous, and I don't think you'll find any ethical philosophers that support it.

Daniel

[even sven]

First off, they aren't preventing anyone from recruiting. The recruiting offices in town are rather prominent and everyone passes by them quite often. These offices don't get any special amount of protest attention. Plus all graduates receive TONS of recruitment mail spam after they graduate. They may have prevented them from recruiting at this one specific event, but I doubt that would have any effect on the actual number of recruits.

Secondly, UCSC isn't set up to handle volatile situations like this. It's a small town. The campus police spend their time breaking up the occasional kegger in the woods. I doubt the entire SC police department even has riot gear. Usually the administration's (who get six figure salaries from the government and aren't anywhere near aligned with the student body) attitude towards controversial events on campus is to not permit them. Even controversial academic senate votes are held in the summer when students can't protest (which is another reason why student's didn't seek more officially approved means of getting their message across- they have very little power within the system and are usually just told "no"). But thanks to federal law, the campus didn't have the discretion to not allow the military at this event. All the could have done was closed down the entire event and deprived a lot of students of a opportunities.

So they did the best they could- hoped for rain and mustered up whatever security they could.

[Mr. Moto]

Secondly, UCSC isn't set up to handle volatile situations like this. It's a small town. The campus police spend their time breaking up the occasional kegger in the woods. I doubt the entire SC police department even has riot gear. Usually the administration's (who get six figure salaries from the government and aren't anywhere near aligned with the student body) attitude towards controversial events on campus is to not permit them. Even controversial academic senate votes are held in the summer when students can't protest (which is another reason why student's didn't seek more officially approved means of getting their message across- they have very little power within the system and are usually just told "no"). But thanks to federal law, the campus didn't have the discretion to not allow the military at this event. All the could have done was closed down the entire event and deprived a lot of students of a opportunities.

So they did the best they could- hoped for rain and mustered up whatever security they could.

Okay. Let's concede for a moment that you're right here.

If those students are so out of hand that they can't be constrained by campus security, then they have no business on campus in the first place.

For the sake of the rest of the student body, they ought to be expelled.

[Revenant Threshold]

First off, if I'm guaranteed that person B is a combatant, then I've got a lot less problem with the whole situation: anyone who chooses to join an army doesn't worry me nearly as much when they die by the sword. It's still upsetting, but it's not a travesty.

Ok, but see my objection to your point about C.

Unfortunately, a lot of noncombatant Bs get killed under our current setup. That really concerns me.
It concerns me, too. But that's a matter to do with military and political policy, not individual soldiers.

Second, even if C (another recruit) gets killed by B, remember that you said that recruits made their choice when they signed up. I somewhat agree with that. If C doesn't want to face that choice, he shouldn't sign up.

Yes, I know. My point was that someone is going to lose their freedom of choice regardless, but I was under the impression you were talking about the person A killed as an enemy combatant, not a noncombatant.

I strongly disagree with this idea. When someone is killed in a war, they're almost always killed by another person. Hypotheticals are difficult, but there's a very good chance that, had the killer not been there, the killee would still be alive.
I disagree. Yes, people are almost always killed by another person, but my point is there is someone to take that place. With A not there, C will instead be that G.I, helicopter pilot, armoured car gunner. It's not as if there's simply no person there; that role is filled by another. An different individual, certainly, who is likely to react in different ways to situations - but not so different that they won't follow the same orders.

This sort of thinking--that a person needn't worry about the consequences of their actions, because if they don't do the bad thing, someone else will--is extremely dangerous, and I don't think you'll find any ethical philosophers that support it.

Lucky for me that I don't think that, then. At what point have I said you needn't worry about the consequences of your actions? I think you're assuming facts not in evidence. Regardless of whether a person would be killed by another "in another life", or if you weren't there, you still accept the legal and moral responsibilities of what you've done. You had the choice, you made a decision, you live with the consequences.

[Syntropy]

If those students are so out of hand that they can't be constrained by campus security, then they have no business on campus in the first place.
Sure they do. That's what football teams are for. Seriously, are you suggesting that any student, based on one instance of disorderly conduct, regardless of academic record and/or lack of prior arrest/disciplinary record, should be bounced because they argued with campus security? Really?

[Revenant Threshold]

Dammit! It's not my day, apparently. :smack:

Okay. Let's concede for a moment that you're right here.

If those students are so out of hand that they can't be constrained by campus security, then they have no business on campus in the first place.

For the sake of the rest of the student body, they ought to be expelled.
The security team not being able to cope does not necessarily mean that the students were out of hand. It's possible that there were simply too many students for the team to handle. I don't know what security is like at American universities, but I doubt it would be capable of controlling even a totally peaceful protest (which i'm not saying the students were) without aid.

[Mr. Moto]

Sure they do. That's what football teams are for. Seriously, are you suggesting that any student, based on one instance of disorderly conduct, regardless of academic record and/or lack of prior arrest/disciplinary record, should be bounced because they argued with campus security? Really?

No, you're right. I'm not a zero tolerance nut.

However, this sort of thing is getting way out of hand at colleges. And I don't care if a student riots over a Final Four victory or an antiwar protest.

I like things nice and peaceful, and i think students ought to face some sort of sanction if their disturbance of that peace goes beyond normal college hijinks.

The real test here for me will be whether any of these students are disciplined over this protest. If they're not, the school itself ought to be.

[Syntropy]

No, you're right. I'm not a zero tolerance nut.

However, this sort of thing is getting way out of hand at colleges. And I don't care if a student riots over a Final Four victory or an antiwar protest.

I like things nice and peaceful, and i think students ought to face some sort of sanction if their disturbance of that peace goes beyond normal college hijinks.

The real test here for me will be whether any of these students are disciplined over this protest. If they're not, the school itself ought to be.
Okay. I'll go along with that.

[Der Trihs]

What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?

1) Disband the entire U.S. military
2) Pull out of Iraq right now and let it collapse into civil war
3) Acknowledge that way need a military but make people feel feel shame for wanting to be in it.
4) Have no idea but raise hell for the world being imperfect
5) Some military is Ok as long as "people like us" are noble enough to avoid serviceHow about # 6 : Stop conquering, raping and torturing people ?

I disagree. Yes, people are almost always killed by another person, but my point is there is someone to take that place. With A not there, C will instead be that G.I, helicopter pilot, armoured car gunner. It's not as if there's simply no person there; that role is filled by another. An different individual, certainly, who is likely to react in different ways to situations - but not so different that they won't follow the same orders. Unless so few people join that the military is forced to pull back, or start a draft ( which would be a victory for the antiwar folks, of course ).

[Shagnasty]

How about # 6 : Stop conquering, raping and torturing people.

How does that mission fit in with the current topic at hand? All I see is an adolescent hissy fit that generates a ton of negative public backlash. From an intellectual standpoint, I would love to see colleges encourage or even mildly force students through classroom exercises follow their emotions to a logical end with clear goals and next steps. That is just effective training from both an intellectual standpoint and a practical one. Young protesters usually get an F on both of these measures and the people that could influence them fail to call them on it. I guess that is why conservative thought seems to be much more tactically successful these days in the U.S. for better or for worse. Thuggish intellectual circle-jerks may make young immature and sheltered young adults feel effective but they do just the opposite and I wish they would realize that for their own sake.

[DanBlather]

What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?

1) Disband the entire U.S. military
2) Pull out of Iraq right now and let it collapse into civil war
3) Acknowledge that way need a military but make people feel feel shame for wanting to be in it.
4) Have no idea but raise hell for the world being imperfect
5) Some military is Ok as long as "people like us" are noble enough to avoid service

The follow-through on thinking seems to be a little lacking here (and with most protests of this type). Real goals and action points seem to be absent other than just general thuggery.Here are my thoughts:

The US is the most militarized industrialized country. This is despite the fact that we have no credible enemy country that likely to attack us. Fighting domestic terrorism is better served by improving intelligence, border security, and police.

Our presence overseas is making us less secure rather than more secure. A major grievance of Bin Laden is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.

I'd suggest ramping back military spending to match that of Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. Keeping shipping lanes open is a burden that should not be completely borne by the US. The mess in Iraq needs to be cleaned up. I'd suggest that the rich Arab countries can foot the bill and a UN force can be deployed.

The draft should be reinstated so that Jenna and Barbara Bush can be put in harms way and we don't have the burden of defending the country fall on the backs of the poor as we do now. Then we can haul W back into the National Guard after he is impeached to make up for the time he lost when he deserted during wartime.

But, there is still no excuse for threats of violence during protests. A sit-in would have been more effective.

[Mr. Moto]

Here are my thoughts:

The US is the most militarized industrialized country. This is despite the fact that we have no credible enemy country that likely to attack us.

This is worng, actually. Measured in terms of % of GDP spent on defense, the winner hands down is Israel, for obvious reasons.

Most of the Gulf states also outspend us on defense.

As to your assertion that there is no credible enemy that can attack us, that is wrong as well. There are many that can do so, especially if you count an attack on American interests or American allies as an attack against us.

Fighting domestic terrorism is better served by improving intelligence, border security, and police.

You're presuming we can't do both. I don't presume that.

Our presence overseas is making us less secure rather than more secure. A major grievance of Bin Laden is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.

Well, the bases are being removed from Saudi soil. Do you think that will have any impact on bin Laden's hatred of us? Or was that just rhetoric on his part, just one more bit of meat for his troops to chew on?

I'd suggest ramping back military spending to match that of Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. Keeping shipping lanes open is a burden that should not be completely borne by the US.

The answer to this isn't ramping back our spending, but for other countries to spend more. Already some have shown signs of not being able to handle well their allied commitments.

The draft should be reinstated so that Jenna and Barbara Bush can be put in harms way and we don't have the burden of defending the country fall on the backs of the poor as we do now.

No way.


Then we can haul W back into the National Guard after he is impeached to make up for the time he lost when he deserted during wartime.

That would be a neat trick. He has an honorable discharge, and I don't know of too many cases where those qere ever questioned after they were granted.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

It concerns me, too. But that's a matter to do with military and political policy, not individual soldiers.
This is, I believe, a fundamental difference between us. I can't sign away my own moral responsibility: if I agree to follow your orders, and you order me to do something that's legal but immoral, I am morally obligated to disobey your order. If that means breaking my previous agreement, then that means I put myself in a sucky, no-win situation; I have to figure out whether the immorality of breaking my word is worse than the immorality of committing the act you've ordered me to commit.

It is a matter of individual soldiers.

I disagree. Yes, people are almost always killed by another person, but my point is there is someone to take that place. With A not there, C will instead be that G.I, helicopter pilot, armoured car gunner. It's not as if there's simply no person there; that role is filled by another. An different individual, certainly, who is likely to react in different ways to situations - but not so different that they won't follow the same orders.
If that's the case, then there's precious little reason to require any individual soldier to follow an order, is there? If the soldier doesn't want to do so, allow a different individual to fill the same role.

That just isn't how the world works. Soldiers are not fungible.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

What would these people want if they were given complete control of the military?

* * *

2) Pull out of Iraq right now and let it collapse into civil war

There really is no better way, at this point. There is no way a civil war can be prevented by prolonging our presence.

[RTA]

The lowest, stoned-est, most dirtiest hippie in Santa Cruz is ten times a better person than someone who says that a person who exercises his First Amendment rights should be beaten, or prosecuted, or have his educational opportunity terminated.

Why do all these right-wingers hate America so?

[Mr. Moto]

The lowest, stoned-est, most dirtiest hippie in Santa Cruz is ten times a better person than someone who says that a person who exercises his First Amendment rights should be beaten, or prosecuted, or have his educational opportunity terminated.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of peaceable assembly. This display wasn't one of those. Therefore, it isn't protected.

And you know that.

[RTA]

Sorry, but no. "Raucous chanting" is not violence, and is not the equivalent of violence.

[Mr. Moto]

It is a disturbance of the peace at something like a job fair.

Some of the protesters were wearing masks, which is in violation of California state code.

The last protest by this group resulted in injuries and property damage.

Yep, sounds really peaceful to me.

[RTA]

So to review: this protest wasn't peaceful beacuse it was a "disturbance of the peace" (Orwell's on line 1), because some people were "wearing masks" (rubber masks of Bush, I imagine), and because, an entire year before, one person had suffered one unspecified injury due to an incident that the article does not describe.

Oh, and the recruiters allege that some of their tires were "slashed", presumably by a mob of drugged out, knife wielding peace protestors.

Therefore, this was a violent protest .... Am I correct in understanding this train of thought?

[Mr. Moto]

Not violent, but certainly not peaceful. Since they were preventing other students from getting to the recruiters, they were infringing on their rights.

Would you consider Operation Rescue to be conducting a peaceful protest if they blocked the clinic door?

[Revenant Threshold]

This is, I believe, a fundamental difference between us. I can't sign away my own moral responsibility: if I agree to follow your orders, and you order me to do something that's legal but immoral, I am morally obligated to disobey your order. If that means breaking my previous agreement, then that means I put myself in a sucky, no-win situation; I have to figure out whether the immorality of breaking my word is worse than the immorality of committing the act you've ordered me to commit.

It is a matter of individual soldiers.
Allow me to be more specific. When you talked about deaths of noncombatants, that is certainly a matter of military or political policy. It's the result of overarching military goals (as set by the government) and individual policy on when and when not to shoot, what training recruits receive, etc. as set by military policy. Do you not agree?

Having said that, I agree in that I would be unable to sign away my own moral responsibility. I don't see however how joining the army would be; I may be wrong, but you can at any time refuse to take an order. Depending on that order and the situation, yes, you're in a no-win situation. So? You've still taken moral responsibility, otherwise the order would not have seemed repugnant to you. To figure out which of the two is less immoral is again to take responsibility. And you are left with the freedom of choice, within the confines of the army to which you made a ( free ) commitment.

I'm getting slightly annoyed that you're jumping to the conclusion i'm horribly immoral in some way every post. I understand where you're coming from, but I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt.


If that's the case, then there's precious little reason to require any individual soldier to follow an order, is there? If the soldier doesn't want to do so, allow a different individual to fill the same role.

Not at all. As in my last post, where I explained why soldiers are morally responsible despite someone else being able to "take your place", soldiers are also legally and contractually obligated. One reason for a soldier to follow an order; they're contractually obliged. They signed forms, they agreed to take orders, and to accept punishment for not following those orders. Another; it sets a precedent, showing other soldiers that not following orders will get you punishment. Third; It may just be that the soldier wants to follow that order.

That just isn't how the world works. Soldiers are not fungible.
I had to look that word up. Learning already! ;)

In practice, given the same training and experience, yes, soldiers are fungible. One helicopter pilot can be exchanged for another, one G.I, etc. with little significant change. What makes you think otherwise?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Having said that, I agree in that I would be unable to sign away my own moral responsibility. I don't see however how joining the army would be; I may be wrong, but you can at any time refuse to take an order. Depending on that order and the situation, yes, you're in a no-win situation. So? You've still taken moral responsibility, otherwise the order would not have seemed repugnant to you. To figure out which of the two is less immoral is again to take responsibility. And you are left with the freedom of choice, within the confines of the army to which you made a ( free ) commitment.
Okay, this reads differently to me from the matter as you originally stated it: you said that "That's" (referring to killing civilians) "a matter to do with military and political policy, not individual soldiers." If you're saying that it's the individual soldier's responsibility to make these moral decisions, then I think we're in agreement.

I'm getting slightly annoyed that you're jumping to the conclusion i'm horribly immoral in some way every post. I understand where you're coming from, but I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt. :confused: I'm in no way trying to imply that you're the least bit immoral; I'm confused how I've given that impression. My apologies, in any case.

I had to look that word up. Learning already! ;)

In practice, given the same training and experience, yes, soldiers are fungible. One helicopter pilot can be exchanged for another, one G.I, etc. with little significant change. What makes you think otherwise?
Well, yes, in the same sense that guns are fungible: but if I don't have a gun in my hand, another gun doesn't magically appear to take the spot.

Do you agree that, because someone else will take the place of a drug seller who chooses to stop selling drugs, the drug seller is under no obligation to stop selling drugs? I believe it's a similar situation: there are many cases in which plenty of people are willing to take an action that you don't take, but if the action is immoral, this is not a reason to take the action.

Daniel

[RTA]

Would you consider Operation Rescue to be conducting a peaceful protest if they blocked the clinic door?

The day that the first anti-war protestor cuts down a military recruiter with a shotgun, or shoots one through his kitchen window with a hunting rifle, that is the day I think it would be reasonable to draw a correlation between the death-cult terror organization you just named, and a group of college students demonstrating - non-violently, as you attest - against the military's policy of open discrimination.

I would agree that anyone who says that Operation Rescue has every right to block clinics and intimidate women in crisis doesn't have a leg to stand on when condemning a rabble of UC Santa Cruz undergrads.

[Mr. Moto]

But you would give anti-abortion protesters that right, to block others from going about their business, if you endorse what protesters in Santa Cruz did.

We can't endorse specific tactics if they're wielded by one group, and condemn them when they are wielded by another.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

But you would give anti-abortion protesters that right, to block others from going about their business, if you endorse what protesters in Santa Cruz did.

We can't endorse specific tactics if they're wielded by one group, and condemn them when they are wielded by another.Sure we can--we do it all the time. We do it when we allow cops to arrest people but don't allow me to arrest people, when we praise our soldiers and condemn their soldiers; when we praise someone using violence to defend a child from harm but condemn a person using violence to subdue a parent in order to harm the child.

The only time we can't do this is when the tactics used by bother groups are in service of morally neutral ends.

Daniel

[Mr. Moto]

I disagree, obviously. As I said, the First Amendment protects free assembly only to the point where it infringes on the free assembly and commerce rights of others.

Therefore, Operation Rescue may protest, but not block the clinic door. And this group may protest as well, but not block the table or prevent students from going there.

Fair is fair.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I disagree, obviously. As I said, the First Amendment protects free assembly only to the point where it infringes on the free assembly and commerce rights of others.

Therefore, Operation Rescue may protest, but not block the clinic door. And this group may protest as well, but not block the table or prevent students from going there.

Fair is fair.
I should have said, "The only time we can't do this is when the tactics used by bother groups are in service of morally neutral ends, OR when the harm done by the discrimination outweighs the good of the discrimination." As I've said earlier, I don't support the students' actions; it's the added clause that's the reason for my lack of support.

However, I think that it's an important difference from what you've said.

Daniel

[Revenant Threshold]

Okay, this reads differently to me from the matter as you originally stated it: you said that "That's" (referring to killing civilians) "a matter to do with military and political policy, not individual soldiers." If you're saying that it's the individual soldier's responsibility to make these moral decisions, then I think we're in agreement.

Ah, I think I see where I wasn't clear. Killing civilians is, of course, on the heads of the soldiers who do it, and it's for those individual soldiers to make that decision. However, military and political policy is what makes the killing of noncoms more likely; for example, if the government decides to invade a country at all, that raises the chances noncoms will be killed. And military policy dictates tactics; do we carpet bomb an area, or send in the G.I.s? And both government and the military work on the definition of who counts as an enemy combatant, and the rules as to who may be killed and who may not. A soldier may be in a situation where they have the choice of shooting a noncombatant, but for the large part it's policy that puts them in that situation in the first place.

:confused: I'm in no way trying to imply that you're the least bit immoral; I'm confused how I've given that impression.

Well, there was this as a more direct example;
This sort of thinking--that a person needn't worry about the consequences of their actions, because if they don't do the bad thing, someone else will--is extremely dangerous, and I don't think you'll find any ethical philosophers that support it.
And I generally got the idea that you were arguing against me not just because you think i'm wrong, but also because my view of things is immoral.

My apologies, in any case.
No worries. If you weren't doing it on purpose, then I have no complaints. I was probably reading into things that weren't really there.


Well, yes, in the same sense that guns are fungible: but if I don't have a gun in my hand, another gun doesn't magically appear to take the spot.

True. But if a soldier disobeys an order, then his C.O. will order the arrest of that soldier (if possible) and then give the order to a different soldier under his command. And if that recruit never signed up in the first place, a different recruit would have been assigned to that unit.

Do you agree that, because someone else will take the place of a drug seller who chooses to stop selling drugs, the drug seller is under no obligation to stop selling drugs?

Not at all. As i've said before, regardless of whether or not your position of immorality will be taken up by someone who'll do the same job, it is your decision. In the greater scheme of things, no, nothing will change; there's still a drug dealer, and people will still get their drugs of choice. But there being no change doesn't give you a moral act; you are responsible for your choices. If your choice is to be a drug dealer, then you're acting immorally (and illegally).

I believe it's a similar situation: there are many cases in which plenty of people are willing to take an action that you don't take, but if the action is immoral, this is not a reason to take the action.
I agree that it's a similar situation (well, not that troops are similar to drug dealers, but I don't think you meant that either), but I just don't take what you are out of the situation. Your choices are your choices, regardless of whether they'll be performed anyway by someone else. That's why "I was only following orders!" is no defense in law; because you're responsible for the choices you make, and unless you have no choice at all you are responsible both morally and legally for what you do.

[RTA]

But you would give anti-abortion protesters that right, to block others from going about their business, if you endorse what protesters in Santa Cruz did.

Words in my mouth! Hack-ptooie!

I say again: the anti abortion protest movement has a legacy of violence, intimidation, coercion & murder. They have forever revoked the luxury of ever claiming that they are a non-violent bunch. We even had to execute one of those guys.

Also, the supposed plight of the young Cody James notwithstanding, the booth at that job fair is not the only way available to find out about the military. The military will eagerly send you a free hat and a video game if you call them on the phone or e-mail them. Then they drive out to your house to spend the day with you. Then they call you all the time on the phone and barrage you with printed material in the mail. All they need is your name, one time, and soon you will be hearing every BS promise the recruiter can think of to get you to sign up. (In fact I would venture to say that talking to a recruiter is about the worst way to really find out about a career in the armed forces.)

Compare this with a person trying to get into what might be the only clinic in the state they live in, or within 500 miles, only to find a sketchy crowd of religious extremists waiting to harass you personally.

[Mr. Moto]

I say again: the anti abortion protest movement has a legacy of violence, intimidation, coercion & murder. They have forever revoked the luxury of ever claiming that they are a non-violent bunch. We even had to execute one of those guys.

You might want to be careful here, since the actions of some antiwar protesters could easily be used to taint the whole group, under your reasoning.

After all, violence, intimidation, coercion and murder were committed by some antiwar activists, weren't they?

[RTA]

Oh really, and who is that then.

Surely you aren't still going on about those union guys who took your sign away?

[Mr. Moto]

You don't recall Weatherman or the Symbionese Liberation Army?

You have a mighty short historical memory.

[crowmanyclouds]

...the Symbionese Liberation Army?...Um, antiwar activists :confused:

CMC fnord!

[Der Trihs]

How does that mission fit in with the current topic at hand? All I see is an adolescent hissy fit that generates a ton of negative public backlash.Has it occured to you our savage behavior in Iraq is a major source of hostility towards the military ?

I guess that is why conservative thought seems to be much more tactically successful these days in the U.S. for better or for worse. Thuggish intellectual circle-jerks may make young immature and sheltered young adults feel effective but they do just the opposite and I wish they would realize that for their own sake.Considering that American conservatives live in their own fantasy world unconnected to the "reality based community", I'd say it's not the left engaging in "intellectual circle-jerks ". The prevalence of conservative thought is due to several factors IMHO :

The degeneration of America into a nation of near-sociopathic predators, who hate compassion and cooperation, unless it's to hurt others.

Widespread ignorance and a screwed up education system.

Widespread religious fanaticism.

A high level of bigotry.

Widespread detachment from reality.

But if a soldier disobeys an order, then his C.O. will order the arrest of that soldier (if possible) and then give the order to a different soldier under his command. And if that recruit never signed up in the first place, a different recruit would have been assigned to that unit. That assumes there is a limitless pool of soldiers and recruits; there isn't. If enough soldiers disobey or too few people join, those orders can't be performed.

[Revenant Threshold]

That assumes there is a limitless pool of soldiers and recruits; there isn't. If enough soldiers disobey or too few people join, those orders can't be performed.
That last quote was from me, btw. And you're correct; one thing to keep in mind, though. If there was such a crisis in recruitment, the chances of the country going to war are decreased due to lack of manpower. If to remedy that conscription is brought in, then i'm as fully against that as I am the protesters disallowing recruitment to take place.

[Shagnasty]

Has it occured to you our savage behavior in Iraq is a major source of hostility towards the military ?

Considering that American conservatives live in their own fantasy world unconnected to the "reality based community", I'd say it's not the left engaging in "intellectual circle-jerks ". The prevalence of conservative thought is due to several factors IMHO :

The degeneration of America into a nation of near-sociopathic predators, who hate compassion and cooperation, unless it's to hurt others.

Widespread ignorance and a screwed up education system.

Widespread religious fanaticism.

A high level of bigotry.

Widespread detachment from reality.

You are conflating cause and effect here badly. Conservatives are just much more effective strategically and tactically in the U.S. than liberals and have been for some time. That isn't a value judgement and I am not a traditional conservation, it is just true.

You seem to be falling into the same old trap of "our ideas are good and are tactics are effective yet people are just to stupid/evil to see it". The more likely explanation is that either your ideas are unsound and people know it or that your ideas are good but the way of getting the message out just doesn't play well. If I were you, I would choose to believe the latter and maybe alter some behavior. Protesting like that simply does not play well in the U.S. these days and tends to be counterproductive to a cause especially when it takes places in a liberal-leaning California university.

Now I am not one to criticize someone else's approach without offering better alternative. One great example an an effective lobbying organization is the NRA (doesn't matter if you like them. they are very effective). The gun rights movement could have slowly sputtered out over decades like it did in other countries except we have the NRA and it is one of the top 3 most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington. Gun rights people don't hold signs and hold silly little protests. They fund the NRA who has this mini-skyscraper full of analysts and media people and lobbyists and they hit the power centers and media every day. Gun rights would have been a fringe issue at this point but they are tactically strong. Silly little college protesters are not tactically strong.

Another example is conservative talk radio. It is wildly successful and serves as a unifying force to get the message out to every area of the country all day, every day. Liberals can't seem to put together even one liberal talk radio station let alone blanket the whole country with their message.

Liberal need to reevaluate their strategy if they want to be very successful in this country. The shag rugs were pulled up out of most houses long ago and liberal strategy needs a remodel as well.

[Mr. Moto]

Um, antiwar activists :confused:

They were an outgrowth of the Venceremos Brigade, which did oppose the Vietnam War.

[Monty]

Sure we can--we do it all the time. We do it when we allow cops to arrest people but don't allow me to arrest people,
Aren't you allowed to make a citizen's arrest?

[sinjin]

How about option #7:

Stop discriminating against gay people. If GenericDrugCompany announced that it's new corporate policy was to fire all the gay chemists and not hire any more gay chemists, then GenericDrugCompany would not be allowed to have a table at the UCSC career fair. Even if the head of GenericDrugCompany said "it's ok if you're a gay chemist, I don't want to know. As long as you don't tell anybody about your predilections everyone can be happy. 'Cuz if you do, it's the boot," the poor recruiters for GenericDrugCompany would be turned away at the gates of the UCSC career fair.

Luckily the US Military doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing. The Supreme Court said so.

[even sven]

Liberal need to reevaluate their strategy if they want to be very successful in this country. The shag rugs were pulled up out of most houses long ago and liberal strategy needs a remodel as well.

I agree with this completely. Protests can work- but only if you have a sense of what you want to achieve with one. One of the first things liberals need to do is work out some goals and FOCUS on them. No anti-GTO signs at an anti-war protest. No diffusing a single message or scaring off moderates by presenting every concievable cause at every oppertunity.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that many student groups (and presumably various sundry dissident groups) have been infilterated, by the government's own admission. The government has a lot of experience turning effective organizations in to ineffective ones.

[Mr. Moto]

Update:

This won't come as a news flash to most people, but the Students Against War group at Santa Cruz is a bunch of fucking pantywaists.

On their website, they're currently bitching about the fact that they've received hate mail over this incident, as if that is at all surprising.

They're also whining over the fact that some members of their group have been suspended from school for a few days, where a real radical would see this as just a necessary consequence to take for needed action.

These guys want to do what they wish and face no sanction at all, which isn't the way the world works. I'd call them typical spoiled college kids, but most college kids I meet are more grounded than this.

In any case, they should get far more than a 7 to 10 day suspension, needless to say. Nonetheless, I was expecting them to get off with nothing, so this outcome pleases me somewhat. Kudos to the UC Santa Cruz administration for sending these brats a badly needed message.

Link. (http://saw.revolt.org/)

[Revenant Threshold]

Ha. I love this;
After our successfull counter recruitment action on Tuesday, the right wing decided to resort to personal threats and intimidation. SAW Press team members received hundreds of threatening emails and phone calls, after inflammatory blogger Michelle Malkin put the students' personal information on her blog.
Oh no! Threats! Well, i'm glad the student group isn't taking the low road in this wa.....
Call or email President Corrigan and demand that the 10 students suspended today be allowed back on campus!
...Nevermind. ;)

[Snowboarder Bo]

On their website, they're currently bitching about the fact that they've received hate mail over this incident, as if that is at all surprising.
Actually, it's not just hate mail, Mr. Moto. There are death threats and wishes that they come to harm, as a result of Michelle Malkin posting the students personal information on her blog. I'm sure most people can deal with email that says "You're a jerk; I hate you" but I think it becomes something else when the emails contain things like:

We are retired military snipers & we are watching you...My sincere hope is that a couple hundred of the local patriots take a day off work for your next anarchist event, and come down to your little shithole with some axe handles and bust your fucking heads.very, very soon puts his shiny gun barrel up to your left temple and pulls the trigger. Now THAT will make America a much, much better place to live for the rest of us, you utterly disgusting piece of shit...cite (http://saw.revolt.org/node/51)

These people sound like magellan01: dangerous deranged lunatics.

Perhaps you think the students shouldn't be concerned about the people who sent these emails? Like magellan01 claimed, it's just a "joke", right? :dubious:

[Mr. Moto]

Hey, if you get involved in political matters, nutcases will send you mail.

I found that out quite well when I was an intern in a congressional office. I'm sure others will attest to similar experiences.

If you can't stand this, maybe it would be a good idea not to get involved at all. Or, better idea, maybe you should have the good sense not to post your personal information in the first place.

The original press release, reposted on this page, shows that these students brought this on themselves. (http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/36508/print)

(Please note, I don't condone sending anyone nutty messages. Given that nuts are a permanent part of the American landscape, what I condone is protecting yourself from them.)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Hey, if you get involved in political matters, nutcases will send you mail.
Indeed. And if you're fighting a war of public opinion, smearing all your opponents with the actions of the nutcases on their side appears to be an effective tactic. That's what the UCSC students are doing by putting the violent hate mail on their website. I have no idea where they got the idea from.

Daniel