This is asinine beyond words. Nevertheless, we have this from the Marine spokeswoman:
My sentiments exactly.
There’s no question who is going to “win” this fight, but from my perspective, even if the Marines get zero recruits in the next quarter from Berkeley, with an attitude like that they’ve already won.
Berkeley is going to pay dearly for this. The Marines might not even notice the loss of recruits. Of course, they may have unintentionally helped the Marines in another way, which is both intended and unintended:
Thus we prove that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
As silly as the Berkeley City Council is, I don’t think it would be right to punish the city by rescinding funding. That whole freedom of speech thing, and all. I’m glad the Marines aren’t leaving, but I don’t think there should be federal repercussions. (My husband is sitting here disagreeing with me.)
Anybody have a link to a picture of little old ladies doing yoga on the street?
That’s a classy statement from the Marine Corps. Good on them. Now if they could just inject a similar amount of class into their recruitment policies, we’d all be happy.
My original thought about the funding fight was that it was asinine too - and then it was revealed that these involved airdropped earmarks (you know, the ones the Democrats promised to reform but instead hid). Whatever happens to this money, it will be a $2 million dollar hit, mostly affecting a ferry service, the papers of Robert Matsui, and organic school lunches cooked by Chez Panisse.
I don’t think most people will lose sleep if Berkeley loses these little treats.
Politicians and activists in the Bay Area have just been ratcheting up the antimilitary rhetoric every chance possible, even on matters where it makes them look stupid. The USS Iowa incident, the Blue Angels nonsense, the decision to remove JROTC from the schools, the recruitment disruption at UC Santa Cruz - and now this. I suppose they have a right to do it - but I can’t believe how tone deaf they are to the rest of the country. Even most Democrats are disgusted with this behavior - it wouldn’t fly at all in a place like Pittsburgh or Chicago.
You can’t very well criticize Berkeley for being out of step with America when you’ve got General Pace saying that it’s evil to be gay. Both the Corps and Berkeley are clearly out of step.
Hence, my comment. It would be nice if both sides had showed a little more class.
Why, no actually i didn’t. Heard something quite different.
No! Really? Even the party devoted to undermining our troops and slandering their service, even* they* are disgusted? Are you sure this isn’t wild hyperbole?
Boy, Moto, you slip in your agenda with such subtlety, one hardly notices the smack across the chops.
Um, I don’t know what the Marines can do on their own. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is federal law (Pub. L. 103-160, section 574.) passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
Pinning all this on one branch of the service, or even the DoD, misses the mark.
Oh god, the Iowa…that was the stupidest goddamn thing. You don’t want to have the ship cause you think it would signify supporting the Navy’s gay policy, and the war in Iraq. Fine, great…cause, y’know, those are both going to be the same in 150 years, when the ship’s still pulling in tourist dollars and the occasional film crew.
You don’t know what the Marines can do on their own? Really? Well, I’d say not condemning all gay people as evil would be a start. The notion that Congress is somehow holding down the progressive impulses of the Marines is pretty absurd.
If the Commandant of the Marines came forward today and said, “let’s get rid of this asinine policy,” then it would be toast in a matter of weeks. Bush might veto the change, but then it would be on him. Even short of that, the Marines could begin to exercise their discretion according to exception to the statute: “A member shall be separated…unless…under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale.”
They don’t do so not because they are constrained by law or because gay marines are bad for morale. They don’t do so because they don’t want to, as in General Pace’s case, because he is a religious whackjob.
We need to stop framing this as “Berkley vs. the Marines.” It’s Berkely vs. some scumbag recruiters out looking for innocent kids to throw on top of roadside bombs. Fuck those assholes. Regardless of the legal issues involved (and I don’t really give a shit one way or the other), it’s bullshit to say it has anything to do with hostility towards the troops. It’s irritation at being harrassed by assholes looking for bullet sponges.
Actually, it’s self-evident what the Marines can do on their own-part of the law is “Don’t Tell”. Nevertheless, some people make it their business to know everybody else’s business, and due to the existence of the law they have a statutory right to out people. I’m of the mind that it makes no difference what your orientation is, but until the law is repealed, it gives bigots (who exist everywhere, not just in the military) a way to eliminate people they see as undesirable.
It’s a stretch to blame the Marines. As an entity they probably couldn’t care less because it costs them people, money, experience, and resources (although even that number is the smallest of the “major” services, with only the Coast Guard being lower). They simply have no choice but to obey the law in most cases, the oath being what it is.
Regardless, this is an issue entirely separate from what prompted this thread, and not even the protesters are pushing this as part of their agenda. It’s curious that you are. Any particular reason for your hijack? If you’d like to air general grievances about the military and how much we all suck, by all means, now is the time, and I suppose this is as good a place as any since we’re already off the rails.
If these “Republican lawmakers” are so pumped full of pious patriotism, maybe they might come up with a plan so that a youngster recruited anyhwere, in any service, is not likely to be ordered to kill for a futile and ignoble cause.
Did you read my post at all? I cited the provision of law they could use as an exception, which is aside from the fact that if the Marine leadership wanted the policy changed it would change.
Did you even read the resolution you’re criticizing in your OP? It is directly about this issue.
And how you got “the military sucks” from my criticism of the Marine brass is beyond me. I would have thought my earlier praise of the Marines would have stopped your knee from jerking for at least long enough to actually read what I’ve said.
I don’t agree that it would be as simple as you believe it would be. And I got “the military sucks” from… oh, never mind. Just disregard my entire last post and call me a putz or something.
Apology accepted, and you’re right on this point. It wouldn’t be simple. But I do think it would be extremely difficult to continue to justify the policy if the military leadership came forward and said that the policy was no longer needed. Something like three quarters of Americans now believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military, and my guess is that number would be even higher if the leadership stepped up.
Like I said at first, I think the Marines handled the situation in Berkeley very well from what I’ve seen. The statement you quoted is the perfect response. They should be commended. If they showed the same sense with one of the root causes of Berkeley’s ire, we’d all be better off.
People in Berkeley exercise their right to speak and protest the Marines. In response, Retardican lawmakers want to take away money from the city and give it to the Marines.
Why gosh, that sure sounds like freedom of speech to me. You have the right to say what you want, but we’ll use our citizen bestowed powers to punish you by taking away money. The very definition of free speech, eh? Say what we like to hear, no problem. Say what we disagree with and we’ll do what we can to fuck you legally.
As a former Army recruiter, thats true. The office I recruited out was right next to the Marine recruiting office. (and the Air Force and Navy, for that matter). Other than friendly rivalry though, we all got along. If one of the marines found a guy that really wanted a particular job in the military they’d bring them by our office. If we met a person that was interested in the corps we’d bring them to the USMC recruiter. One team, one fight and all that.
As far as “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, when I was a recruiter I had met a lot of recruits that I’m pretty sure were gay. To be honest, we (recruiters) didn’t actually care as long as they met the requirements to enlist. (Hell, I know 2 officers that are gay and one USAF NCO that is bi here.)
I almost joined the corps, but I wanted a particular job they couldn’t garauntee in my contract when I enlisted. I have a lot of respect for the corps though…every marine I’ve ever worked with (I’ve worked in a lot of joint commands) has been professsional and disciplined. I could say a lot of bad things about the Army’s recruiting command, and I’m sure a marine recruiter may have simlar things to say, though. Unfortunately in my experience what makes a difficult job harder, is that people opposed to the War in Iraq take it out on the recruiters instead of the elected officials that give the military the orders. Its a point that I’ve grown weary of arguing about.
I’m not sure, but I believe that if an institution refuses recruiters access the government can withdraw federal funding. I’ve never seen it happen, but then, I’m extremely happy to NOT be a recruiter anymore.