Nevertheless, since the marine recruitment center was only an example I used and not the primary focus of my post, I have the following things to add about that topic:

(1) Funding for the University should not be threatened as a result of the City of Berkeley’s opinions regarding the military (remember, the resolution did not “ban” them, it simply expressed that they were not welcome), nor should students or their representatives be expected to “apologize” or “prove” that they love the military in order to continue receiving their funding.

(2) One central part of the Berkeley City Resolution was that the Marine Recruitment Center discriminates against non-heterosexual individuals. This seems to me to be ignored in most coverage of the issue, which focused on 3 or 4 words of the resolution and failed to capture its actual tone, spirit, or intent.

(3) The MRC is doing a bit more than “expressing” itself. It actually is engaged in something which is supporting this war materially and physically. For the end of impeding the war, targeting the MRC makes sense. I don’t perceive this on an attack on actual individual marines, but on the institution as a whole.

(4) For people who believe in local politics, supposedly, I think it’s funny that Berkeley is being reviled for trying its autonomy.

I think some evidence is in order about tricking minors. That is a serious claim, and since it is a major factor in your piece, it should be supported by some evidence.

You are a passioned and talented writer, and I’m happy to see someone at least responding to the Clog.

My take on these sorts of things is: if you don’t like the way it’s done, change the way it’s done yourself. That’s why I joined the Clog.

(2) “Berkeley activism” of the 60s doesn’t happen anymore. What you have–the lame sit-ins and parades where nobody is willing to actually engage in civil disobedience–is, I agree, not cool anymore. Neither is this war.

(3) I didn’t cite Mario Savio–the Daily Cal did when it chose to accuse Berkeley of “hypocrisy” because of its historic role in the Free Speech Movement. As for gears and machines, there’s a difference between a system that sustains us, and a system that sustains itself on us. A reversal needs to occur.

(4) I am sorry that the price of your Berkeley degree means more to you than the degree of sheer criminality done with your taxes. Nevermind that though, you are confirming what I said about the opposition to these activists; it’s rarely principled, and has more to do with a nervous desire to disassociate yourself from the Berkeley image.

(5) Random rallies on Sproul Plaza against the war don’t get it done. A resolution like the one which Berkeley City Council issued is on the right track–the Daily Cal didn’t support that one. The rally at the Berkeley City Council was not about the war, but about supporting the resolution. The Daily Cal didn’t support that either.

(6) You missed my point. The tone that the Daily Cal/Clog uses towards people of power differs markedly from its tone towards people that are not, even when they are critical of both. I am not saying it should vilify the Chancellor or offer crude commentary, but neither should it offer that for people who are not the Chancellor. It’s juvenile and elitist.

(7) That is not a rebuttal, and I do not disagree.

1. You could paint the protesters as powerless but it isn’t helpful to do so. Berkeley activism has come to a point where it isn’t even effective anymore. Even the old school activists knew that sit-ins and rallies can only do so much. You want power? Get a job, make money, and then voice your opinion because that is the only way to get your voice respected. Can you really say that the 11-year olds present at that protest fully understand the implications (both negative and positive) of having recruiters at the University? Because if they don’t, they’re just gonna learn how to protest without working the system. “If all you do is shout, then you’re gonna look like a fool.”

2. Berkeley activism was tight (and I mean tight in the sense that there were a couple of pioneers and the rest were a bandwagon of followers) in the 60s. It’s just not cool anymore.

3. You can’t really cite Mario Savio on this one. Old school activists even thought that he was becoming more radical in a bad way as time went on. Why place your bodies in the gears of the machine when the machine is sustaining us?

4. The price of my Berkeley degree goes down everytime we get negative media coverage filming crazies.

5. The Iraqi War sucks, but rallying doesn’t get the job done like it used to. That’s probably where the attacks from Daily Cal come from.

6. It doesn’t serve the Daily Cal’s interest to attack anyone in a position of power, especially when the person is as likable as Chancellor Birgeneau. Now that probably does not make for 100% responsible journalism but the Daily Cal is not going to hang itself for stirring up some sh*t that it didn’t have to. Yeah they could exercise their freedom of speech but why risk their existence? You could say “to fight for the ideals of this and that” but it’s really just human nature.

7. You could call the Clog and the Daily Cal cowardly but they are the voice of the students. And the students don’t care that much either way. They’re comfortable just having something to read on their free time. And I am sure they would refer to protesters as crazies these days.