The 36th District Democrats in Seattle have resolved to support free speech for campus groups AND the banning of military recruitment at Seattle Central Community College, where students shamefully chased off a recruiter during presidential Inauguration Day anti-festivities earlier this year. The text of the resolution, sent out by the 36th Dist. Democrats Chair Peter House, is below. (NOTE: "whereas" deleted from each graf, for scrolling purposes). Be forewarned. The resolution contains the spurious claim of 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the U.S. and allies, which Brian Crouch debunked here yesterday. It also declares, "Military recruitment during an illegal war is morally repellent, inasmuch as it aids and abets 'the supreme international crime.'" After the resolution comes a revealing post about House at the organization's web site.
(Mac Safari users click on time stamp).
The 36th District Democrats recognize that our colleges and universities are highly valued by the entire community;The 36th District Democrats uphold our nation's traditional value of free intellectual discourse;
The 36th District Democrats abhor and reject extremist groups who would suppress the freedom of student groups to assemble and petition their government;
The 36th District Democrats encourage student groups to organize public forums in which to debate the vital issues of our time;
The 36th District Democrats oppose the deceitful tactics of targeted military recruiting on college campuses;
The 36th District Democrats reject the option of preventive war and make nonviolence the primary organizing principle of foreign policy;
The Iraq war was undertaken as a preventive war, which is considered a war of aggression in violation of international law under provisions of the Kellogg-Briand pact, the Nuremberg Charter, the United Nations Charter, and the International Criminal Court;
The Nuremberg Tribunal stated that "to initiate a war of aggression. . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole";
The United States has repeatedly and unrepentantly violated the Third Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in its treatment of prisoners;
The US-led invasion of Iraq, according to an international study published in the British medical journal Lancet, resulted in an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths during just the first eighteen months of the war;
During just the first two months of the 2003 Iraq war the US-led coalition used, according to Pentagon and United Nations estimates, 1.1-2.2 thousand tons of munitions hardened with depleted uranium, which, in its aerosolized form, is a known radioactive and heavy metal toxin associated with cancers and grotesque congenital malformations; and
Military recruitment during an illegal war is morally repellent, inasmuch as it aids and abets "the supreme international crime";
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the 36th District Democrats declare solidarity with Students Against War (SAW); support their peaceful civic engagement; defend their right to object to military recruiting on their campus; applaud their efforts to organize affiliated groups on other college campuses; and exhort Chancellor Mitchell and President Ollee to permit SAW to exercise theright of free speech and assembly on the campus of Seattle Central Community College.
Free speech for me, but not thee, in other words.
At the 36th's Web site, at least one member expressed grave reservations about House's "progressive" zealotry, upon his elevation to the organization's chairmanship.
At least this in-house critic gets free speech, even if the 36th Dist. Ds believe the military shouldn't.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 19, 2005 10:49 AM | Email ThisMatt- can you help get something in the works, I say we march on Capitol Hill, right across SCCC, and on UW, in addition to going downtown.
I was thinking about getting some flags together, the CR Activists from the southsound, a few brass trumpeters, and a snare drummer, and sidewalk doing a parade in Tacoma. We are going to visit all of the main liberal campuses, as well as take this downtown. Want to help us get the word out?
Posted by: Chairman Bell on March 19, 2005 11:21 AMPudster.
Posted by: Puddybud on March 19, 2005 11:40 AMThis is all about liberals who are afraid they are losing power. They have ample reason to fear because the more of this bu**$hit they invent, the more they marginalize themselves.
I wonder, what do you suppose Headless Lucy or Unkl Witz would have to say about this?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 19, 2005 12:49 PMKeep an eye on our blog, "RESPECTFULLY REPUBLICAN" , for updates on what is REALLY happening on Washington's college campuses.
Posted by: Chairman Bell on March 19, 2005 01:17 PMSo is anyone interested in the parade idea or what? We could even have some of the returning troops riding in convertibles! Come on people, get it together!
Posted by: Chairman Bell on March 19, 2005 02:36 PMDISCOURSE--- Means talking with others, not just yourself.
DEBATE--- That means people are disagreeing; opinions not shared by you will also be discussed.
PUBLIC--- That means all members of society.
INTELLECTUAL--- That means gathering facts and ideas from ALL aspects of the question in order to come to a reasoned CONSENSUAL conclusion.
If there's no forum for "others" there is necessarily no public, no discourse, no debate, no diversity, no tolerance, no democracy, and no republic.
This resolution lacks intelligence for Dems, proposes lack of freedom for others.
Why do Dems seem to revile free speech when they hear it, and oppose free speech before it is even spoken?
Are they afraid they don't have the intelligence to debate a bad idea? Do they consider the opposition so bad that they won't listen to a good idea?
If the latter is true, as I do hear claimed, then the dems and libs don't support free speech. Just free speech for their own opinions.
Kinda like masters felt about their slaves, and tyrants their populace.
Posted by: singer on March 19, 2005 03:19 PMFirst off, I don’t live in the 36th District, so what the Dem’s do there (or for the that matter the R’s) doesn’t concern me much. I suspect they are taking this sort of position because they feel it will play well with their constituency. I’d have to lump into the same category of pointless political statements as Toby Nixon's bill to split off a new county from King County.
I’m sure that sounds like a great idea in certain parts of my district, but strikes me as unrealistic. But both Toby and the Dem’s of the 36th are entitled to take these kinds of positions. If the polity wants to punish them (or reward them) later at the polls, so be it.
Second, as some of you may have discerned, I am against the war in Iraq. I believe it was ill-conceived, poorly planned, deceptively sold to both Congress and the American Public, and will cause us untold grief for years, if not decades to come. I’ve no doubt some good things will come of it, but overall, it looks like a catastrophe to this writer.
Someone suggested that the Dem’s and liberals (and presumably myself) be forced to stare into the open trenches of dead bodies, murdered at the hands of Saddam’s regime. I can honestly say it wouldn’t change much in my case. I’ve looked at an awful lot of dead bodies in my time and not once has it made me inclined to go out and produce tens of thousands more.
I would respectfully point out that Saddam Hussein received considerable support from the United States prior to his invasion of Kuwait. This was well after he had conclusively demonstrated his willingness to brutally murder people in huge numbers.
I would also point out there are open trenches of dead bodies all over the world. Would we use them to justify further aggression just because we were so inclined?
Finally, I would like to remind you all, on both sides of the aisle, that what the Dem’s in the 36th are doing and Toby Nixons efforts are free political speech and protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Calling me names or referring to me as a homosexual, as one writer in another string indicated, is not.
That my good friends is libel. And it is actionable under the civil laws of our state. Don’t take my word for it, check with your attorney. You might also check your homeowners insurance policy as well for your liability coverage and limits. Pay particular attention to the exclusion for intentional acts. It may be something you want to learn a lot more about.
As always, thanks for listening.
Uncle
Your sexual preference is irrelevant to me!
Put your real name on it and we'll find out.
Sarge:
I don't really know, you'll need to talk to them.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 19, 2005 07:58 PMSo where were all the protesters then? Why were you not in the streets protesting this?
Posted by: mesmero on March 19, 2005 08:15 PMYour Honor...Here is the case:
An anonymous poster called another poster (who goes by the username of *Unkl Witz*), a Homosexual - while posting in an open internet forum. *Unkl Witz* would like to sue for libel....
Oh Yeah! I can see a case here! snicker......
Unkl Witz? Have you completely lost your mind?
I have seen where threats of legal action, in private forums, was used as grounds for banning...
I believe you are a potential liability here in the blog - as you are demonstrating the typical liberal litigation ploy to oppress freedom of speech! Threatening to sue the good posters of Sound Politics is enough to have you and your IP kicked from access...
I'm not sure you have left Sound Politics any choice but to ban your libel butt!..
Adios!
Posted by: Deborah on March 20, 2005 12:10 AMAs we learned from Ronald Regan, those who walk in lock step, no matter the nationality, are allies!
Posted by: Arky on March 20, 2005 06:54 AMHaven't heard from you in a while. I am pleased that you are reading and somewhat understanding my posts.
How's your "foreign sounding names on the voter rolls" purge going?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 20, 2005 08:06 AMOk, NOW you are concerned about the law. When you find a reason to use the laws of the State of Washington to benefit you. In this case, it would appear that you wish to stifle the comments of others. (For the record, I haven't seen the referenced comment, and if the reported comment is accurate I can't see how such a charge would be relevant, provable, or supportable in this forum(
But hey, now that we've established that you support, obey, and expect adherence to the laws of the State of Washington, we can now expect a clear and definitive statement supporting the exclusion of ballots from those who voted illegally, who were dead, whose votes can't be tied to voters, even if it means that CG becomes an ex-governor in a very short time. Right?
Or, in the far more likely prospect, would it be safe to say that you only support the laws that you like, and ignore the ones that don't fit your agenda?
Posted by: Patches Pal on March 20, 2005 08:09 AM
As for SCCC, let's leave them to their own devices, remove the military recruiters, and cut off all Federal funding. If they thrive, who cares? If they dry and die, who cares?
I guess the point is this: Who really gives a flying f*** about SCCC. It is what it is, and it ain't pretty, or all that important.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 20, 2005 09:58 AMI'm not sure where you ever got the notion I was not concerned about the law. Actually, I'm kind of a stickler about it. It has a good deal to do with how I make a living.
I really don't "wish to stifle the comments of others", only the defamation of me personally. I'm all for free speech and political comment. That's what makes us a great country, that we are free to dissent without fear of government retribution.
But I just don't see much value in the personal insults or name-calling. That's not free speech, it's defamation. And it's not particularly effective beyond the 5th or 6th grade.
Note the rude language and hostile posture of 'Selfish Repugs' post above. Do you think that opened any conservative minds to his way of thinking? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
I post on this forum because I have some things I'd like to say to it's audience. If I am an idiot, then I am an idiot. But don't my comments speak for themselves? Does it add weight to the conclusion to have someone sign on and call me an idiot?
So, all that being said, let me surprise you by saying conclusively: Yes, I support "the exclusion of ballots from those who voted illegally, who were dead, whose votes can't be tied to voters." I support it even if it means Dino becomes governor (hardly the end of the world in my book).
Domestic tranquillity is a precious, but fragile thing. The glue that holds it together is respect for the law, and respect for each other, regardless of our dissenting opinions.
I will be happy to abide by the law, even if I don't like the political outcome. Can we ask the gentle posters in this forum (on both sides) to provide a little more mutual respect for each other?
Get back to work. By the way, nobody really cares what you feel, because most of them have already listened to Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 21, 2005 09:39 AMI’m always just a little bit puzzled by folks who sign on to tell me “they don’t care.” If ya don’t care, why bother to tell me about it.
Frankly, I’m more than a little surprised any one in Collin County TX would give a rip about Washington politics period, much less what a few local politicos in a rather heavily Democratic district are endorsing.
But we do enjoy the extended audience. If you have something pertinent to say, I would encourage you to continue to do so.
Weren't you the one who said: "I wonder, what do you suppose Headless Lucy or Unkl Witz would have to say about this?"
Do I really sound like Ted Kennedy? I'm sure neither of us are flattered by that.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 21, 2005 09:55 AMI also agree that ALL insults are totally unproductive (understatement!). This lack of civility adds nothing and certainly convinces no one.
As for the Iraq war, there are valid arguments on both sides, but attempting to say that anyone that believes the opposite point of view are mindless followers of corrupt people doesn't add anything. For all the people trying to find the appropriate "-ist" in the war, white males have taken a disproportionate number of casualties. I would be interested to hear from all the anti-war people if they were equally against and equally vocal when we went into Bosnia? The outcry seemed far less, which makes some think that they are against Bush not war. This country should be run on principled policy not personality.
I listen to NPR and to FOX News. To me NPR is a subset of what is reported on FOX. In other words there is almost nothing I hear on NPR that isn't reported on FOX, I can't say the opposite is true. But the insults attacking anyone that listens to FOX news as well as FOX itself - to put it in the style stated - seems to be following another drummer blindly.
Posted by: Fred on March 21, 2005 10:45 AM