Boycott Berkeley

October 22, 2001 2:24 PM

Boycott Berkeley, in the wake of the extreme leftist views expressed by the inhabitants of the California town, some are calling for the boycott of the boycotters. I find this ironic and extremely funny. If Berkeley doesn't want to support the US then the US shouldn't support them. (Via OpinionJournal)
posted by dancu (60 comments total)

I've said this hundreds of times, but here we go again:

People are stupid.™
posted by ColdChef at 2:30 PM on October 22, 2001

I am outraged. I will stop purchasing Berkeley beef, cheese and automotive products immediately!
posted by fleener at 2:32 PM on October 22, 2001

BTW, opposition to the war is hardly left-wing. The further you are away from New York, the less likely you are to call for more violence and more likely to ask "Why did this happen? What part did we play?"
posted by fleener at 2:34 PM on October 22, 2001

Well... Whatever.

I agree with ColdChef here.
posted by delmoi at 2:35 PM on October 22, 2001

We should invade Berkeley and convert them to Christianity.
Or something.

No, seriously, I don't think these people are supporting Osama or cheering after the attacks, Palestinian-style. They're extreme liberals, their position (I personally don't agree with them at all, by the way) is unpleasant, but:
freedom of speech, remember?
Of course if other Americans want to express their dissent with a boycott, it's perfectly right to do so.
But it's not treason, for God's sake. They're just being liberals, and only an extremely small percentage of Americans agree with them so a left-wing coup appears extremely unlikely to me. The Conservative Republican, Raytheon-loving crowd is very much in charge in Washington anyway.
posted by matteo at 2:38 PM on October 22, 2001

Why not send in special forces by night? Catch those suckers up to their immoral goings-on and give 'em what for.
posted by Postroad at 2:38 PM on October 22, 2001

They don't call it the People's Republic of Berkeley for nothin'.
posted by dnash at 2:39 PM on October 22, 2001

Liberals? In Berkeley? mooOOOooo...
posted by gazingus at 2:44 PM on October 22, 2001

Odd, I'm inspired to go out and purchase as many Berkeley products as I can find.

How sad, in the name of "defending American freedoms" the first thing we do is take away as many of them as possible.
posted by Red58 at 2:53 PM on October 22, 2001

moo?
posted by ColdChef at 2:54 PM on October 22, 2001

Why mess around with boycotts? Why not just banish any dissenters to Detroit, or some other suitable hellhole? After all, the people who are calling for more and more war and bloodshed must be right.

Why? Well, duh, because there are more of them, donchagetit? Case closed.

Has anyone considered summary executions?

God Ble$$ America.

(Actually, Berkeley and its leaders seem to be one of the only communities in this country with any testicular function whatsoever. The rest continue to bow and parrot the party line.)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:54 PM on October 22, 2001

Of course no one bothered to link to the actual city council resolution (item #31). If you're going to spout off criticisms, might want to take issue with specific facts. Oooh, there's an idea.

Which positions do you oppose?

1. "Condemn the mass murder of thousands of people"
2. "Ask our representatives to help break the cycle of violence"
3. "Urge our representatives to concentrate all available resources on bringing to justice all of those who were complicit in last month’s violent attack"
4. "Urge our representatives to devote our government’s best efforts in collaboration with governments throughout the world"
5. "Request that we engage in a national campaign to lessen our dependence on oil from the Middle East"

Yeah, you're right, those crazy liberals are at it again!
posted by fleener at 2:56 PM on October 22, 2001

Why fleener, that's just radical and insane! How dare they propose various alternative solutions?

Talk about moo. Damn.
posted by jragon at 2:58 PM on October 22, 2001

gazingus: nice Berkeley Farms reference.
posted by msacheson at 3:00 PM on October 22, 2001

By the way, the vote was five (5) supporting the resolution and four (4) abstaining. The four who abstained from voting on the resolution did so to show that Berkeley, as a city in the US, should not spend it's time voting on US international policy in a foreign country. I agree with them. Throw out my parking tickets first, clean up People's Park second (that'll be tougher than defeating the Taliban), then Berkeley can worry about Afghanistan.
posted by msacheson at 3:06 PM on October 22, 2001

err, aaron, ditto.
posted by msacheson at 3:07 PM on October 22, 2001

matteo,

I had no idea you were Anne Coulter. Goodie. I've always wanted to get that spastic moron on MeFi so I could smack her around a bit! heh.
posted by xochi at 3:09 PM on October 22, 2001

Well, I'd disagree with 2, 4, and 5.
posted by mw at 3:12 PM on October 22, 2001

I find this ironic and extremely funny. If Berkeley doesn't want to support the US then the US shouldn't support them.

W had this to say:

"The enemy of America is not Dissent. The Enemy is speaking your individual truth.

It is speaking vocally in tones dissonant to the major chords. In short, join in our Chorus for Freedom and Democracy. Of course, we respect the Freedom of Speech, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about defending American Harmony and Unity."

What is laughable is that, as fleener points out, few of our patriots make the time to check out the resolution or the local context.
posted by gomez at 3:14 PM on October 22, 2001

Boycott-Happy Berkeley, Mother Jones April 1997; this is nothing new.
posted by Carol Anne at 3:24 PM on October 22, 2001

BTW, opposition to the war is hardly left-wing. The further you are away from New York, the less likely you are to call for more violence and more likely to ask "Why did this happen? What part did we play?"

Of course, the further you are from New York, the more likely you are to be speaking in clicks, whistles and bi-labial fricatives. By the time you get to California, they sound like native Hottentots.

--

What's really sad about all this is that the businesses that are hurt by this don't get a chance to defend themselves. What if the city council-critters were tossed out on their ear? I know nothing about the city charter, but I feel certain there's something akin to a vote of no-confidence that could be used to remove members. I don't endorse this tact, but if the people in Berkley feel the need, they should be given the chance to rescind the resolution.

Then again, if people actually read the resolution, they probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

And I disagree with the assertion that the council had no business putting forward the resolution. As the closest link to their constituents, they have the duty and privilege of expressing to those in higher governments the views of their community. A city government should have opinions on State and national affairs.
posted by Hexaemeron at 3:40 PM on October 22, 2001

How sad, in the name of "defending American freedoms" the first thing we do is take away as many of them as possible

Actually, Berkeley is free to speak their mind and Americans are free to spend their money any place they want, as they are free to NOT spend their money any place they do NOT want. Why are you equating a freedom with supression?
posted by gunr at 3:43 PM on October 22, 2001

I, for one, find disturbing these calls for boycotting fellow Americans because of their opinions, rather than their actions. Even worse, boycotting an entire city because of the foreign-policy opinions of a slight majority of their city council.

I think Freeman Dyson's commentary (linked earlier, just can't find it) connecting the post-9/11 mood in America to the mood in Austria-Hungary just before the outbreak of World War I were right on target. Is boycotting Berkeley the first step to "liberty cabbage" and jailing pacifists?
posted by skoosh at 3:50 PM on October 22, 2001

aaron:
True, boycotts are a basic right within a democracy. On the other hand, while freedom of speech and freedom of political action means that you don't have to give money to Berkley businesses, it also means that your motives and reasons are open to criticism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:54 PM on October 22, 2001

Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

several e-mails promised to boycott Berkeley businesses, ask Congress to withhold appropriations from Berkeley and urge businesses to withdraw investments from the city.

Witholding government funding froma city because of political views seems like it might have something to do with freedom of speech, huh? But yes, people are free to boycott berkeley businesses as individuals.
posted by jnthnjng at 3:54 PM on October 22, 2001

boycotts aside, there's also the 60's. those fucking hippies.
and look! they don't even want to use the american dollar!


(bush:) It is speaking vocally in tones dissonant to the major chords. In short, join in our Chorus for Freedom and Democracy.

in this statement, there's a jump to the conclusion that the current actions and support of current actions are equivelent to 'singing the chorus of freedom', but he does not state sufficient support for that statement, and there won't be any unless there's a lengthy discourse; we are already in action there's no time. dissent occurs when one's own ideals of freedom are not adderss. most people (who are vocal and in charge) agree that this is in the name of democracy, others are not; it's not so much the issue of freedom of speech as freedom of thought to those vocally dissenting; berkeley doesn't want to sabotage democracy. while berkeley is rash and loud, how much room is there for dissent? i know i feel threatened to voice against strife.


moo?
yummy.
posted by elle at 4:03 PM on October 22, 2001

Time to start bombing berkeley's infrastructure, communications, and military outposts.

Just kidding.

Have we lost the freedom to disagree?
posted by entropy at 4:15 PM on October 22, 2001

There is no one "government" in the US. There is a federal government, which exists because the individual states agreed to band together and give certain powers to said federal level, and then there are the individual state governments themselves. ALL powers not specifically delegated to the federal government remain in the hands of the states, and the states are NOT mere subsets of the federal government.

I did say "higher governments". I know that the system is not designed for "passing the word up the line" and I never intended to imply that it was. But the resolution as passed - the intitial resolution was somewhat more Berkleyesque - is hardly more than many cities did in the days following the attacks.

What I meant by expressing their views to higher governments was an expression by acts, (e.g. a majority of city and county goverments in a State enacting helmet laws.) The average man can make his opinion most quickly and strongly felt at the local level. A man may write his congress-critter, but most have no national forum to make other citizens aware. At the local level though, you can make yourself heard and sway opinion if you are so inclined.
posted by Hexaemeron at 4:19 PM on October 22, 2001

don't you people understand? The good people of Berkeley just want to save the world and protect it from Evil. Listen to them. Little Osama wasn't hugged enough when he was a baby. We need to start hugging all the good little Osamas of the world before they grow up into big bad Osamas, that's all their saying....

As for me, I say we send all the Berkeleyites over to Afghanistan to give the little Osamas hugs themselves....
posted by mattpfeff at 4:31 PM on October 22, 2001

I had some acquaintence with a number of the Berkeley City Council members who perpetrated this mess from back in my days as a conservative agitator in student politics at Cal. The left wing in Berkeley is worse than useless, but I despair that they will ever learn.

A couple of interesting links, though:

Dump Barbara Lee.com dedicated to the former state legislator campaigning to get rid of Berkeley's pro-terrorist congresswoman.

Berkeley United Students for America the Yahoo! Groups site for the pro-war / anti-terror student group at Cal, which is organizing highly conspicuous pro-American protests. I have great hopes that they help be a rallying point against surrender and terrorism.
posted by MattD at 4:52 PM on October 22, 2001

Well, I'd disagree with 2, 4, and 5.

Wait a minute. Who the hell could possibly object to #5?!? Explain, please.
posted by rushmc at 4:56 PM on October 22, 2001

Wait a minute. Who the hell could possibly object to #5?!? Explain, please.


The same person who has issues with 2 and 4. Change is a scary thing isn't it, mw?
posted by skallas at 5:07 PM on October 22, 2001

I respect dissenter's rights to their opinions, and respect their right to voice said opinions. Their speech is as protected as mine. I do not, however, respect their thinking, their conclusions, or their cause. They are idiots. But I respect their rights to be idiots.
posted by davidmsc at 5:10 PM on October 22, 2001

MattD: portraying Barbara Lee as pro-terrorist does much more harm to your credibility than it does to hers.
posted by theMargin at 5:12 PM on October 22, 2001

Let's just cut their hands off, they'll get the message, eh? Call in the local wise guys...
posted by aflakete at 5:17 PM on October 22, 2001

"What people are overlooking here is that the Berkeley City Council has no business sticking its nose into US foreign policy issues. To make any statement on such matters at all is a sad waste of taxpayer funds for the purpose of pure partisan politics."

Aaron, if anything is occurring here it is outside business owners publicly intefering with the traditional politics of Berkeley. It appears that they are seeking to paint themselves as patriots for attempting to sanction the public officials and business owners of a city that they are not located in.
posted by Sqwerty at 5:20 PM on October 22, 2001

Barbara Lee's case is quite interesting. She is actually being hated for asking for peaceful negotiation and civilized discourse. That dastardly conniving liberal! Truly all she wants is that all Free Democratic people die at the hands of terrorists! Why else would she vote against an act of useless violence that accomplishes little more than killing thousands of innocent Afghanis and fueling hatred.

I honestly wish I could see the pro-war point of view but I am afraid of hemmoraging from the amount of brain-damage required to be that way.
posted by samishah at 5:29 PM on October 22, 2001

Terrorists have declared out-and-out war upon American civilians on American soil.

Terrorists regard negotiation, compromise, or sympathy as signs of weakness to be exploited. Read the transcripts of Osama bin Laden's speaches. He does not ask for America to moderate itself in exercise of its strengths; rather, he claims that America is weak and cowardly and will inevitably be defeated.

Failing to treat terrorists and those who support, tolerate or sympathize with them or their aims as anything other than vermin to be exterminated is the same as supporting terrorists. Constitutionally immune actions, such as pure speach, or the vote of a Congresswoman, cannot be treated as treason under the law, but they are moral treason and no means of redress is too harsh.
posted by MattD at 5:48 PM on October 22, 2001

Actually, Berkeley and its leaders seem to be one of the only communities in this country with any testicular function whatsoever. The rest continue to bow and parrot the party line.

what a load of crap. yeah, that's it, fold_and_mutiliate. those of us that support military action all agree because we're so interested in towing the party line. *not because we honestly think it's the right thing to do.* we're all just bloodthirsty anyway, right? we *like* war and it's as simple as that. we disagree with you - the vocal minority - and it's because we're all just conformists and don't have minds of our own.

how arrogant are you? does it really not occur to you that a *majority* of the American population could disagree with you on perfectly legitimate grounds? it's one thing to say you don't like our position and don't agree with it, but unless you personally and can speak for the 78% of the American population that support military action in Afghanistan, don't presume to judge our motives. i could call you a coward and a traitor for assuming a pacifist position, but i don't, because i consider it entirely possible that you're a conscienteous objector on totally legitimate and rational grounds (different assessment of available information, different moral framework, whatever...)

the people in Berkeley certainly have a right to dissent, but what you're conveniently overlooking is that those of us that disagree have a reciprocal right to dissent to their point of view as well. funny how when the extreme lefties dissent they're exercising their freedom of speech, yet when someone dissents against their point of view, it's called "silencing." the hypocrisy is disgusting.
posted by lizs at 5:49 PM on October 22, 2001

Forgive me for reposting this: but I do have to add: Barbara Lee in her long and infamous career has made clear that the only people she hates more than unabashed capitalists (the workforce of the World Trade Center) are white male police officers and firefighters proud of their family and ethnic traditions of service, and military men and women laboring in the Pentagon ... I doubt she wept a tear over the deaths of people she'd spent her whole life defaming.

She is scum and God willing she will be kicked to the curb.
posted by MattD at 5:51 PM on October 22, 2001

Who the hell could possibly object to #5 ["Request that we engage in a national campaign to lessen our dependence on oil from the Middle East"]?!? Explain, please.

I can think of at least a couple of reasons.

• It strongly implies unwarranted governmental interference in private business. I can see it being used to have taxpayers funding every crackpot "alternative energy source" you can imagine. If they didn't intend that, then it's way too vague.
• It's a form of giving in to the terrorists by changing our lifestyle in response to the attacks. Any resolution made in light of the attacks should not advocate in any way stepping back from the US's legitimate commercial involvement in the Middle East.

posted by mw at 6:23 PM on October 22, 2001

fleener & matteo: I'm so far in the west that my feet are in the pacific as write this, I'm also a liberal, AND I want osama & co. whipped. Really, true liberals have no problem in opposing the Taliban, Bin Laden and equivocators who start with a cursory side-of-the-cigarette-pack homily that says September 11 was atrocious before piling on the "buts" that imply the US had it coming. True liberals have always been very tough on the moral failings of the USA at home and abroad - without blurring distinctions between the Taliban and America. Hard liberals hold basic human rights to be non-negotiable and worth fighting for. They do not turn the other cheek, understand the other guy's point of view or respect his culture when it comes to universal rights. Promoting liberal values everywhere from Burma to Saudi Arabia, Iraq to Chechnya is not neo-colonialism, but respect for a universal right to freedom from oppression.
posted by semmi at 6:34 PM on October 22, 2001

i liken dancu to a pair of fetid moldy underoos
posted by efullerton at 6:50 PM on October 22, 2001

Failing to treat terrorists and those who support, tolerate or sympathize with them or their aims as anything other than vermin to be exterminated is the same as supporting terrorists.

Wait, no, let me guess: you lifted that quote entire from a bin Laden anti-US rant, right? No, you did, right?
posted by rushmc at 6:58 PM on October 22, 2001

I can think of at least a couple of reasons.

Thanks for your response, mw. I think I'll just let it stand as is....
posted by rushmc at 6:59 PM on October 22, 2001

good call rushmc. what I find lately in online discourse is not so much conversation as just chatter. The attempt to engage in debate all too often breaks down when the participants cast each other as "knee jerk x/y/z" and it ends. It seems when people feel things passionately enough, they lose the capacity for rational thought. And issues are complex, so in serial debate it's difficult to extract the separate issues here. Here we have uh - sheesh - does Berkeley have any business making opinions? does stating that opinion constitute divorcing from the rest of the usa? do we agree or disagree with the 5 points themselves? do we agree or disagree with the characterization of "liberal" as being anti-bombing or pro bombing? do we agree that the "rest of the usa" feels the bombing is just fine?

I've been turned off lately by all online discourse because of the devolvement of discussion. I feel like I'm not *learning* from the discussion - I'm just getting lectured to by people who, for every 1 good idea, throw in phrases like "vermin" or "knee-jerk" or "warmonger" etc etc.

As far as this thread, Berkeley has a right to make a statement like this. After all, local jurisdictions do thing like declare National Lakes Appreciation Week - so why can't they say something about how they feel about something for which people are fighting and dying? As far as the boycott, well, considering it was a slim majority to approve this, this hardly characterizes all of Berkeley, does it? Looks like those botcotting didn't actually read the resolution, but rather listened to the media reports about it.

Seems like we're reacting more, and thinking less, I think. This is not something which is going to improve our great nation - whatever your political persuasion.
posted by artlung at 8:28 PM on October 22, 2001

"well i for one am going to stop buying glass bongs, big floppy hats, and painfully loud shirts!

"that'll show those fuckers on the ave!"
posted by fishfucker at 10:22 PM on October 22, 2001

"Seems like we're reacting more, and thinking less, I think." A sentence worthy of deconstruction, But anyways, reacting is an active form of thinking, which seems more appropriate in a situation where one is actively threatened, I think.
posted by semmi at 10:38 PM on October 22, 2001

Failing to treat terrorists and those who support, tolerate or sympathize with them or their aims as anything other than vermin to be exterminated is the same as supporting terrorists.

In a nutshell, what MattD is saying is: Either You're With Us Or You're Against Us.

*yawn*
posted by lia at 11:38 PM on October 22, 2001

I think the assumption that no one in New York supports introspection and temperance as part of any reasonable response is preposterous. I had occasion to talk to a fellow who was dragged out of one of the last few elevators to make it to the ground floor of WTC #2, and his opinion (while, granted, a little to the left of my own) is that we shouldn't be bombing anyone. At all.

For those of you making moronic assumptions, gung-ho on blowin' up the world real good like, please know: there are still fires burning in downtown Manhattan. It's been 42 days. Maybe you can temper your bloodlust, just a bit, with some empathy.
posted by anildash at 11:47 PM on October 22, 2001

I missed the part where anyone connected "Berkeley businesses" or U.C. Berkeley (named as boycott targets) to the city council majority.

Oh, I see. You can hurt the City of Berkeley because...if you drive local businesses to extinction it'll lose a little in property taxes? Not too likely anyway, given that most of the people who make Berkeley tick are from there or nearby, and generally feel pretty well-represented by Lee.

Are you sure the point isn't to come after the good people of Berkeley themselves?
posted by Zurishaddai at 1:33 AM on October 23, 2001

Wait a minute. Who the hell could possibly object to #5?!? Explain, please.

Maybe it's the "within 5 years" part. Want to refit every car (don't bother to post links to alternative-powered cars -- they're outnumbered about a million to one) to accept the new forms of energy? The cost of such an abrupt conversion would be enormous.

Maybe it's the "...such as solar and fuel cells" part. While there are some interesting technologies out there, nothing has shown itself to be as efficient as oil in terms of the ratio of input/output energy. (I.e., it's got the best bang for the buck.) The technology that comes closest is nuclear; I don't see the Berkeley City Council proposing THAT any time in the near future.
posted by joaquim at 10:22 AM on October 23, 2001

Maybe it's the "within 5 years" part. Want to refit every car (don't bother to post links to alternative-powered cars -- they're outnumbered about a million to one) to accept the new forms of energy? The cost of such an abrupt conversion would be enormous.

Yeah, even as a tree-hugging environmentalist I find that part of the proposal to be both overly ambitious, and overly naive. I would be happy if fossil fuel use were to level out rather than increase by huge ammounts every year.

I think that alternative energy and efficiency technology could be the for the 21st century what the space race was in the 60s and the internet was in the 70s and 80s. In fact, I think that the market dominance of the U.S. depends on becoming a leader in these technologies rather than a follower.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:55 AM on October 23, 2001

"Lessening dependance on foreign oil." Hmm lets see where have I heard that exact phrase before? Oh ya, Bush's campaign platform and energy plan. Of course he meant drill and spill not spend money on unworkable technologies but at least they agree on something.
posted by euphorb at 1:02 PM on October 23, 2001

If the public has finally had enough of Berkeley's outbursts, their right to pull financial support from Berkeley businesses is absolute.

Too bad we can't do the same thing with the Federal government. I sure would like to stop paying taxes for things which I don't wish to support. The so-called War on Drugs comes to mind.
posted by terrapin at 2:21 PM on October 23, 2001

They had a Berkeley complex and spent half their time passing meaningless "resolutions" bloviating about whatever heinous acts the Reagan Administration had committed that week, to the point where it was seriously impeding the ability of the city to carry out its legally-defined functions. And the city council lost. But I can't find a link to such a case anywhere. Anyone else remember this?

Are you sure you aren't talking about Congress between 1994 and 2001? You know, when Congress did everything it could to investigate Bill and Hill until they finally caught him doing something as heinously traitorous as getting a blow job? You know. Real high crimes and misdemeanors ;)
posted by terrapin at 2:29 PM on October 23, 2001

Real high crimes and misdemeanors ;)

Ahh, Miss Demeanor...
posted by rushmc at 3:13 PM on October 23, 2001

The Berkeley Boycott, like the 9/11 attack, is a Rorschach Test: what you see in it says more about you than about the event. Here on MeFi, as elsewhere, I see 100 people and 100 different perspectives, none intersecting on what I consider the core issues.

As I understand the Berkeley Boycott, it does not say: Shut your mouth and toe the line, let alone You have no right to dissent.

I understand the Boycott to say: Our security is collective; only through our membership in a community can we feel secure. When one member of that community starts behaving irresponsibly in the opinion of other members, then those members have a right to send a respectful but clear message.

Or, Berkeley, we're all in this together. Tough times lie ahead, and we need to know that we can rely on each other. Your latest actions are part of a pattern that suggests that you cannot be relied on. It's not that you're pro-terrorist, it's that you're capricious and spoiled, self-indulgent and unrealistic and in love with the sound of your own voice, and that your priorities are backwards. In the past we've overlooked these problems, even rewarded you for them, but this time it's serious and we can no longer accept your behavior.

Examples:
Your priorities are backwards: "...the [original] resolution [did] not pay tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington." [source] (Fleener take note.)

Self-indulgent (also insulting to non-Berkeley Americans): "'Berkeley has always been an island of sanity in terms of the war madness that has prevailed in this country,' Spring said. 'The U.S. is now a terrorist. According to the Taliban these are terrorist attacks.'"

Rewarded you for past problems: "'...the "Berserkeley" image ... attracts national attention to the city and benefits the economy. Tourists come to Berkeley because of all the attention the bastion of liberalism generates,' [Councilmember] Worthington said."

Other parts of the pattern: (1) Rep. Barbara Lee's vote not to authorize the use of military force. Now she's very defensive about the whole affair. (2) Banning US flags on fire trucks

Given these provocations, I can understand the desire to send a gentle, respectful message to Berkeley. A boycott is especially appropriate, given Berkeley's love of boycotts as a tool for punishing/correcting misbehavior in others.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 3:39 PM on October 23, 2001