Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jhocking]

flamewar

[negative creep]

That download doesn't work, Mr Hocking.

[jhocking]

Well I'll be damned. I better contact the guys hosting the download to ask what's up.

[Verergoca]

Yeah mr.Hocking! Cant you let is enjoy Khar ripping someone to shreds with Logic and Science in peace?

[negative creep]

Yes, you better do that, Mr Hocking.

[jhocking]

In the classes I teach, most of my students call me Joe, a couple call me Joseph, but I rarely get Mr. Hocking past the first day.

[negative creep]

That just means you fail at being an authority figure, Mr Hocking.

[KharBevNor]

My thoughts on the original topic of this thread have been made clear I think! The tl;dr version would be "elected local government officials have a perfect right to exclude anything they find morally objectionable from their town if they vote for it democratically; turning young people into boot-licking killing machines can be considered morally objectionable."

The whole military history thing I could not resist because I have a tragically low tolerance for untrue bullshit and a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of 20th century history, and especially international politics in the specific context of the first world war, second world war and cold war. I also find it rather sad that there are people who actually believe that there is such a thing as an altruistic war. Altruism is a pretext for war, not a cause for war. Wars are fought to maintain and enhance the power of the nations involved, that is to acquire or defend territory, resources or spheres of political and/or economic influence. The US fought in Korea and Vietnam because they wanted to shore up the geopolitical dominance of the pacific rim they acquired when they defeated Japan. They fought in World War One because it was disrupting transatlantic trade. I could go on.

[Lines]

That just means you fail at being an authority figure, Mr Hocking.

If I remember correctly, Joe teaches electronic art or design and I don't think I've ever called any of my art profs/adjuncts by anything other than their first name. Why? Because they are that cool.

[KharBevNor]

I don't think anyone at university level addresses their tutors formally, do they? Then again, I do myself go to art college.

[Dissy]

Reading back to your first post dissy, it is unclear why you you brought up the pro/anti-war issue other than to pick a fight.

Second post Joe, second post.  I brought it up, because this is the key issue which basically key to the main topic.  Khar misinterreted my questions as to whether or not war is justifiable only if the one country attacks the other.  I put Vietnam and Afghanistan in the list because sometimes, it is wrong to go into another country.  

We went into Vietnam because we had a new enemy, Communism.  Khar is partially right, it was to show our dominance of the area.  But, as I said, Congress fucked it up by not allowing a real war.  Look at what the Communist party did for Vietnam, so we were wrong.  It is a gorgeous place, and the people seem happy.

We went into Afghanistan for one reason, to give the Soviets a bloody nose after they helped the Vietnam rebels and the North Koreans.  That's it.

And then there are cases of where it was good.  Yes, Germany declared war on the US, but they weren't in a very good position to do anything to us at the time.  But, looking back at it, Hitler had ordered the deaths of close to 13 million people.  Same thing with Bosnia.

Patrick:  Kosovo.  Go, Go, Go!

[Storm Rider]

...and your testicles only grew to their current gargantuan size when you were 17?

Yeah dude, he must have been psychic. Why he was working on the behalf of homeless guys when he could see the future, I have no idea.

[Elizzybeth]

You get harassed by the armed forces just by turning 18 if you're male. Recruitment offices don't have to be involved at all. The government wants blood. Still can't be banning people.

When I was taking violin lessons, the walk from my music school to my preferred restaurant was right past a USMC recruiting office.  One evening, there was a recruiter standing outside handing out brochures or something.  I walked past him and on into the restaurant, where I sat down.  A minute later, he came into the restaurant and approached my table, handed me a business card and brochure, and proceeded to extoll the virtues of the Corps (noting my violin, he pointedly mentioned the Marine Corps band).  I was 14 and female.

Though there's probably nothing technically illegal about what he did, it felt very intrusive.  Khar and apackofwolves have both made good arguments in support of Berkeley's decision, but I have to admit that my initial "yay" at reading this was due to my irritation at being hounded by a recruiter.  I agree, though, that the official decision reeks a little bit of favoritism...

[calenlass]

I don't think anyone at university level addresses their tutors formally, do they? Then again, I do myself go to art college.

Some of my science lecture professors demand it. The others go with the first names (or something like Sensei or Mr DoomHammer or something).

I think my English "professor"* would flip a shit if her students started calling her anything other than "Professor Casola".



*I think she is a grad student because she only has one class and I think she is about 27 or 28.

[Lines]

I call all of them Mr. Snuggles. Even the females.

There are some that tell the class they are Prof. SuchandSuch or Mr./Ms. SoandSo, but none of my studio teachers have done this and some of them dislike it. I call them what they say their name is on the first day of class.

[calenlass]

I had this geometry teacher in high school who didn't want to be called Ms Murray because she thought it made her sound Old. So on the first day of class, she told everyone she wanted to go by "Eileen" or "Coach Murray" (she coached the frisbee team, too). Everyone else ended up addressing her just as "Coach", but me, of course, I decided that it would be great to call her Eileen. Except that I didn't just call her Eileen; I would call her EilEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNN and bonus points if my voice cracked in the middle a few times. She told me later that while I was a mediocre student (I was) and a so-so frisbee player (I am), one of the best parts of her day would be when I would happen to walk past her open door on the way to another class and she wouldn't even see me, just hear this "EilEEEEEEN" echoing down the halls.

[jhocking]

One of my students calls me "Teach" because she can't remember my name. As in, several times throughout class she'll scrunch up her face and concentrate, and finally she just sighs and calls out "Teach" because she needs me to come over and help her with something. I don't know why she has so much trouble with "Joe."

[KharBevNor]

So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.

[Patrick]

So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.

COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS

[jhocking]

So, anyway, I basically won that little debate.

Are you trolling today?

[Liz]

[KharBevNor]

Are you trolling today?

Your mother trolls every day IRL.

Because she is a troll.

[KharBevNor]

Interesting tidbit gathered from Snopes:

"On 6 February 2008, six Republican senators introduced companion bills called the Semper Fi Act of 2008. Said act seeks to strip Berkeley of $2.3 million earmarked for it in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill (for school lunches, Bay ferry service, disability organizations, UC Berkeley, and public safety) and give it to the Marine Corps. Similarly, California Assemblyman Guy Houston has announced he will introduce legislation that will strip Berkeley of its transportation funding until it rescinds its anti-military resolution, a move that could cost Berkeley $2.3 million in state funding over the next two years."

What do you guys think of this?

[Ăśde]

What shitdicks!

[ruyi]

comment from some dude in the uc berkeley lj community: (not putting it as a quote because small italics are irritating to read)




Snagged at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327466,00.html

The $2 million of federal funding to be taken away breaks down like so:

    * $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.
      Located at a state public school that happens to be co-located with the City of Berkeley. If this were the University of California El Cerrito, or UC Oakland, this funding wouldn't be withdrawn.

    * $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.
      The Berkeley/Albany ferry service is a proposed ferry route of the Water Transit Authority. The Water Transit Agency is a state-authorized interagency that coordinates Bay Area ferry service.

    * $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.
      A private organization that teaches BUSD kids how to eat well.

    * $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.
      Fair game. Probably augments some program funded by the City of Berkeley Public Safety department.

    * $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.
      Fair game. BUSD is funded by the City of Berkeley.


So of the $2 million of federal funding proposed to be withdrawn, $181,000 would actually have been received by the City of Berkeley. Less than ten percent.

But saying, "Were withdrawing two million dollars from Berkeley!!" sounds so much sexier and impactful. I guess the other 90% is just, um, collateral damage. Sorry.

[Ăśde]

But still, it's a shit reaction and they're taking away stuff for children (nutrition education, no less, which is what a lot of the developed world could do with).

[Storm Rider]

I can say definitively, from years of living in Northern California, that Guy Houston is a massive prick who keeps his seat thanks to the wonderful magic of gerrymandering!

[jimbunny]

So I guess now, when the Chinese finally storm the shores of California...

WHOOPS!

[Ozymandias]

1) I think there should be a band called Berkeley and the Marines.

2) Re-appropriation of funds is one of the federal government's biggest strengths against lesser governments. They pull that kind of shit all the time if they don't have the authority and power to make an actual federal law out of something. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think negatively.

[RedLion]

That bill won't go through. It's just grandstanding. I guess that's true of 99% of politics nowadays, though.

Sad.

[dr.sangaygupta]

Are you trolling today?

Your mother trolls every day IRL.

Because she is a troll.

AWW is someone in a bad mood?

No, but seriously doesn't this decision open up a total can of worms to havimng to allow ANY type of group to protest in the same fashion as the Code Pink protesters? While I don't remember the specific law, this is the same law thatforced Target into banning any soliciting infront of theyre store fronts?

[Lines]

Any time I hear earmark it translates to politicians being stupid and wasting money.

I have yet to hear of a good earmark. All I hear is negative crap about them, so this alters my opinion.

[Alex C]

Tell me about it; like RedLion said, 99% of it is grandstanding. The only thing congress accomplishes efficiently these days is voting themselves in another pay raise and hastily creating poorly devised laws named after young crime victims.

[negative creep]

So I guess now, when the Chinese finally storm the shores of California...

WHOOPS!

that would be fun. I'd be laughing all the time, waving my little red flag. all sipping vodka in front of the TV as BMPs patrol the walk of fame, shooting at Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson.

[Patrick]

I think there should be a band called Berkeley and the Marines.

THIS

[usmcnavgeek]

The recruiting office wasn't even an enlistment center; it was an officer selection office, so all they were doing was processing college graduates who wanted to be officers, not actively recruiting 17 year old kids from local high schools.

The whole 'Semper Fi' act is probably a little over the top, but let's face it; every OTHER city in the country lets recruiters operate, and they all get federal funding (or could if they lobbied hard enough for it, whatever).  Congress needs to be able to register its displeasure somehow, and from what general opinions I've their displeasure mirrors the majority of their constituents, which is a (admittedly sometimes rare) good thing.

[jhocking]

That download doesn't work, Mr Hocking.

Sorry to dredge up this off-topic bit again, but is the download working now? I just switched it to a new host.

[negative creep]

Yes, it is. Thanks!

[a pack of wolves]

The recruiting office wasn't even an enlistment center; it was an officer selection office, so all they were doing was processing college graduates who wanted to be officers, not actively recruiting 17 year old kids from local high schools.

This isn't really what it's about though. The problem isn't just dodgy tactics being used by the US armed forces to recruit people, it's what they do once they're in the armed forces that people are so against.

The whole 'Semper Fi' act is probably a little over the top, but let's face it; every OTHER city in the country lets recruiters operate, and they all get federal funding (or could if they lobbied hard enough for it, whatever).  Congress needs to be able to register its displeasure somehow, and from what general opinions I've their displeasure mirrors the majority of their constituents, which is a (admittedly sometimes rare) good thing.

Perhaps Congress should look into why people are so appalled with the activities of their own country's armed forces that they wish to remove recruitment centres instead of withdrawing funding from unrelated activities as an act of revenge.

[RedLion]

A lot of their recruiting tactics are underhanded and big on bullshit, though. Two of them more or less burst into my high-school band class two years ago and started talking about how we should all join the army band because "no one in the band gets sent overseas, seriously." My dad's a retired Colonel, and when I went home, I questioned him about that, and his response was "Shit. What? Those are always the first people to go overseas. They're not doing any important work; they're dispensable."

And in the Commons area of my school last year, the marines had some football throwing contest rig set up and would encourage all the kids to come play during our lunch hour--after which the marines would lecture the kids ad nauseum about how awesome they are. (Because throwing a football through a small hole is totally relevant to what the Marines do.)

That actually pissed me off enough that a group of friends and I went to the school Administration and somehow managed to get the principal to agree to stop them from pulling shenanigans like that again.

[JazzyJoe]

On protesting the military/recruiters:
Protesters are people that can't find anything better to do. The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others, just you have the higher chance of dieing while getting what you want. Also it does the little thing of making sure Canada doesn't invade the US (Harder then you think. They train with bears.... BEARS!) People say its a right to be able to protest the military... a cornerstone for EVERY successful country? Then they can fend for themselves. Keep in mind this is coming from a person that is currently loosing weight so he can join the Army, grew up in a town with a air base in it, has MANY military friends and friends that come from military families.
On recruiters:
Yeah some recruiters are underhanded... recruiters are salesmen, they have quotas to fill. Dumber people will be taken advantage of. That never happens in any other walk of life right? Right?...  In fact I was in my recruiters office and another recruiter was trying to pull me away from the branch office I was waiting in. Also the marines there were classic jarheads... dumb as a stump.

[KvP]

A lot of their recruiting tactics are underhanded and big on bullshit, though. Two of them more or less burst into my high-school band class two years ago and started talking about how we should all join the army band because "no one in the band gets sent overseas, seriously." My dad's a retired Colonel, and when I went home, I questioned him about that, and his response was "Shit. What? Those are always the first people to go overseas. They're not doing any important work; they're dispensable."

They don't see much combat, though. My best friend from high school's an official Army bassist (whatever the fuck that is) and he mostly just hooks up with other musicians in the service to play and waits until he gets his money.

[usmcnavgeek]

This isn't really what it's about though. The problem isn't just dodgy tactics being used by the US armed forces to recruit people, it's what they do once they're in the armed forces that people are so against.

Militaries are a necessity in our world.  If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.  This is an unfortunate fact of our global society.  If you find the concept of a military distasteful, then, well, sorry, but this is the world we live in, and protesting a recruitment office is not going to fix it.  I will admit to not being a proponent of the Iraq war.  I don't like to see my friends get killed for what I feel is no good reason.  I, unfortunately, do not get to decide where and when the military gets sent.  But I can vote for people who do have that power, and I can make sure those I vote for know my opinions by communicating with them.  You could make a case for this protesting being communication, but it's not a useful form of it (as can be seen by Congress' reply)

Perhaps Congress should look into why people are so appalled with the activities of their own country's armed forces that they wish to remove recruitment centres instead of withdrawing funding from unrelated activities as an act of revenge.

I think Congress is well aware of the growing public distaste of the Iraq war.  You'd have to be an idiot not to be, by now (but I suppose some of them...).  Still, I stand by my opinion.

Also the marines there were classic jarheads... dumb as a stump.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

As for recruiters...I could never do that job.  I agree that some recruiters resort to 'underhanded' tactics.  But not nearly all; for every 'underhanded' recruiter you have ten who go exactly by the book.  You just have to realize that 'the book' says to keep trying to contact potential applicants until you've been explicitly told no, I do not now or ever want to join the armed services.  And all those cheesy football tosses, chin up bars, or whatever?  All that is for is visibility; to get the Marines out and seen.  Recruiting is half advertisement, half salesmanship.

Heck, the Blue Angels' sole purpose?  Recruiting.  The Navy has an entire precision flight demo team at the cost of umpteen million dollars in training and equipment, and the Marines have their show C-130 and crew, and why?  To get seen, and get the idea that 'hey, that's cool, maybe I might want to do something like that' into the heads of people.

[JazzyJoe]

Sorry usmcnavgeek, but I have run into too many USMC grunts that were unbearably dumb or annoying to respect the current generation of grunts. However a few ex-marines I have talked to were really cool.

[negative creep]

I'm so glad I'm not a country.

[usmcnavgeek]

Sorry usmcnavgeek, but I have run into too many USMC grunts that were unbearably dumb or annoying to respect the current generation of grunts. However a few ex-marines I have talked to were really cool.

Hey, I know I'm the exception to the rule, it's cool. 

[supersheep]

On protesting the military/recruiters:
Protesters are people that can't find anything better to do.

You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...

The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.

There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.

If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.

There are plenty of countries that have a military and end up getting rolled in on anyways. Also, if a military is for defence against enemies who want to take your stuff, why does the US need such a big one? Democratic Peace Theory implies that Canada will never attack, and Mexico probably not, so who do you have to fear? Apart from the Aleutians and Hawaii, no part of US soil has been touched by a war since the nineteenth century.

[a pack of wolves]

Militaries are a necessity in our world.  If you are a country, you need a military, lest other countries go 'hey I like your stuff' and roll on in.  This is an unfortunate fact of our global society.  If you find the concept of a military distasteful, then, well, sorry, but this is the world we live in, and protesting a recruitment office is not going to fix it.  I will admit to not being a proponent of the Iraq war.  I don't like to see my friends get killed for what I feel is no good reason.  I, unfortunately, do not get to decide where and when the military gets sent.  But I can vote for people who do have that power, and I can make sure those I vote for know my opinions by communicating with them.  You could make a case for this protesting being communication, but it's not a useful form of it (as can be seen by Congress' reply)

Personally, I have no faith in governments ever listening to me, which is why I don't vote. I see why you think protesting doesn't change anything but I think it has more chance of doing so than voting does. Congress' reply is to stamp down which is the usual reaction of the body in a position of authority that's being protested against. As for a military being necessary for a country you have a point, but I'm not much of a fan of countries as a system of organising the world. I'm very much in favour of the free movement of people with disregard to borders. Then again, my viewpoint is very much a marginal one since I have little interest in reform, only change. Besides there's a big difference from just a military and the US military as it currently exists.

I think Congress is well aware of the growing public distaste of the Iraq war.  You'd have to be an idiot not to be, by now (but I suppose some of them...).  Still, I stand by my opinion.

Iraq isn't the only reason to be against the actions of the US military. There's Afghanistan, the use of cluster bombs, Guantanamo Bay...

People say its a right to be able to protest the military... a cornerstone for EVERY successful country? Then they can fend for themselves.

I'd love to, but there isn't a world handy without governments and their armed forces. If you find one let me know, I'll be off like a shot. Until then, the right to protest is one of the few bits of a truly democratic society that exist around the world so yes, I'd say it is a cornerstone of any decent society.

[onewheelwizzard]

Personally, I have no faith in governments ever listening to me, which is why I don't vote.

I fully understand this sentiment, trust me, but ... self-fulfilling prophecy much?

[a pack of wolves]

Not really, I think they'd be less inclined to listen if I did vote for them. That way I'd be saying that I approved of the party I voted for, which I don't, so why should they ever pay any attention to me? They already have the only thing they will ever be interested in me for which is my assistance in gaining or retaining power, so any complaints I might have would be irrelevant to them. I live in the UK and I can't see the system of parliamentary democracy we have here ever creating any useful change so I decided a long time ago to give up, since meaningful alteration can only come from instituting a new system of running the society rather than reform of the present one.