The Dems have no balls, organization, or leadership. Seriously, how they could not learn the proper concept of a party whip from the Pubs during the last twenty years . . . it's a frickin' mystery. The Republicans mostly toe a simple party line that's directed by one or two Senators (Crazy Chairman Gingrich, for several notable years), but the Democrats are balkanized and pretty hopeless. One thing that's sad and hilarious is how often ten or twenty of them at any given time will 'cross party lines' in the hopes of 'fostering bipartisan cooperation'. The GOP leadership must laugh and laugh at that every damned time.
The GOP isn't a model of efficiency, either -- they spend WAY too much time and energy courting fringe religious groups, for instance, which wouldn't have any significant power except that the GOP keeps agreeing to give them significant power. Aside from the Mormons, the religious groups actually don't fork over serious lobbying $$$, and they could be ignored safely . . . except that the GOP keeps putting them up at the podium. Enough, already. I mean, what is McCain doing kissing radical evangelical ass? What, are those people going to vote for Hillary, say, if McCain doesn't pucker up? Puh-leeze.
As for the Berkeley situation . . . OK, I'm not at all in favor of military recruiting tactics, which routinely consist of, what do you call it, lies. Not to mention what I personally consider excessive, offensive, anti-American jingoism. And I think it's OK for private non-land-grant universities and other private organizations to ban recruiters.
But . . . a public town, no. I don't know if Berkeley is an incorporated whatnot, or what, but the city certainly seems like a public venue, and I don't see any kosher way to ban recruiters. If you don't like them, and if you think they're bad for kids, the American thing to do is get that message out. Put out your own propaganda, fine. Hell, even make enlistment contracts illegal within city limits, if you can -- I'm not sure what the state would allow.
Banning them entirely seems illegitimately discriminatory. And, yeah, Congress is liable to cut your funding, which is an assholish thing to do but predictable and probably legal.
I do think it's also much more responsible to clearly state what you object to about the military, and about military policy, rather than just using public resources to suggest that you object to the military itself. I am SO not one of those people who takes any criticism of our policies and activities as an attack on the troops themselves, but when you're using a public pulpit . . . it's not just nicer to be clear, but it's also nipping a lot of shit in the bud, which is what responsible official-type people ought to do.
IF you ask me, which, technically, you didn't, but too bad.
