granted, king, but if you had asked people in both the north and the south about each issue that created the environment for the civil war; asked them if each issue was worth losing hundreds of thousands of lives, they would have laughed off the idea.

I think the idea expressed is stupid, don't get me wrong, but it isn't a sickness, it is a symptom. People do more and more stupid things the more alienated and marginalized they feel. Look at France now.

Can you expect packs of Conservatives burning cars in the streets? Thankfully, no, but every now and then one of them blows up a building housing the ATF, or they get together and pass a really heinous law that makes even moderates shake in their boots.

I don't think we should cater to people's stupidity, not in the least. But you have to judge how much abuse people can take when you abuse them. You might raz the guy at lunch about how his momma wears combat boots, but you aren't catering to "violent tendencies" when you stop before he knocks your block off. You should care that you are upsetting him to that point needlessly.

People should care that fly-over America feels this way. They should care that somehow political cores have become so detatched, on both sides of the aisle, that most people don't have a voice. When people get this annoyed, they get nasty. Expect people to get nastier before things get better.

People should care that fly-over America feels this way

am i missing something here? we're still discussing a local initiative that may or may not be enforceable, right?

why or how would it ignite the kinda rage you're describing?

I just wonder if the folks who want to ban military recruiters are equally as up for banning PETA, Greenpeace, the Animal Liberation Front, Act Up and other militant groups???

reread the first paragraph of post #18, kingbee.

A pinch isn't much, but continual pinches over time constitute torture. Then the pinchers are taken aback and say "What, all this over a pinch?" If you've been pinched enough, you don't even need to be personally pinched, just seeing the fekkers pinch someone else inspires rage.

kay...i just couldnt figure out why the 9th circuit was involved. and i'm still unsure this is that far outta line.

it's a response to the nclb requirement that the recruiters be given access to students' names and contact information--without having to ask parents' approval--in order for school districts to get federal funds.

we've discussed that before, though. All this does is even the playing field, allowing the military the same respect colleges have gotten.

I remember my junior year I started getting tons of information from colleges, and I hadn't requested a bit of it. I'm not sure if my school system sold our names and addresses, or did it out of the kindness of their hearts to get us into college, but they had my information beamed out there nonetheless.

Contact information isn't really "private" anyway, is it? If so, perhaps you woulnd't mind figuring out where the hell these telemarketers keep getting my phone number. I'm unlisted and yet every one that calls knows my name.

re: the 9th circuit and the rest, this article seems to be about the over-response, not the instance of provocation. My point was that when someone in california does something that makes one of us mad, the response isn't just toward that one instance, it is always going to be the product of the sum of all we constantly hear from there.

wouldn't you say? Does the current response to, say, the whole White Phospherous thing reflect how people feel about white phospherous, or the whole, long saga of the Bush administration and Iraq?

people seem to understand that in terms of terrorism, or crime, or poverty. It seems plausible that saudis long-oppressed would strike out at the butt of Islamic propaganda, and yet it doesn't make sense that American conservatives, after years of being marginalized as brutish and irrelavant would wish secretly that california would just slide into the ocean?

We've been told that we aren't smart or moral enough even to make out own decisions, courts on the other side of the nation have to do that for us. Resentment? You bet. You give us way too much credit, kingbee. Of course people make statements like this one, right or not, and Oreilly simply acts as a talking head, spouting what people who watch him want to hear.

All SF did was to restrict recruitment on campuses--hardly revolutionary.

No, not revolutionary at all. Just ignorant

The measure will have no effect on military recruiters as they are allowed on school grounds under federal law, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Defense.

And btw.....their supposed gun ban? It "already" being challenged in court. Must have Adobe Reader to view.
Link

It isn't just San Francisco, it is the "culture" centers of America that have slowly created their own culture and forgotten that they are just a fraction of the whole.

You realize, of course, that the extreme right has its share of nut cases as well, and O'Reilly is one of them.

" You realize, of course, that the extreme right has its share of nut cases as well, and O'Reilly is one of them."

I differ, in a way. I think O'reilly is a talking head who is very perceptive at homing in on the middle, where the "hell yeah" ratings are. If you look at the hate mail the man gets, he gets a ton from people further to the right as well.

I think people should see O'Reilly for what he is, a big thermometer hanging out of the behind of the US. He isn't an originator, or a leader, he's channeling a huge percent of the population for ratings. I don't believe we should cater to nutcases, but as more people are driven to this kind of a blind frenzy, we should at least look at why.

It isn't like Chruchill's "Roosting Chickens". People in the middle east aren't angry at us because of what we do to them, they are angry because they are abused by oppressive governments and greed, and their leaders sit above them making us the scapegoats religiously.

If everyone in the WTC had turned into a saint devoting their life to Middle Eastern charity, not a single person in the middle East would have been bettered, and they still would have hated us. What is happening in California and other "hotspots" is different. They are purposely thwarting the will of the people of their own nation, and daring them to do something about it. People get nasty when they have a target for their angst, and frankly the people most are angry with have legitimately earned it.

The relevant fact remains that because of Iraq--and I might add voluntary service--recruiters face a tough challenge and resort to overly aggressive sales pitch. 

How has recruiting been overly agressive, steve? Don't you have to show abuse before you start stifling someone's work? If this addressed abuses by recruiters I'd agree with you, but to me this seems more like singling out one career and saying that all other careers can recruit on campus.

The relevant fact remains that because of Iraq--and I might add voluntary service--recruiters face a tough challenge and resort to overly aggressive sales pitch.

I agree with Baker.  You address the abuse, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The relevant fact remains that because of Iraq--and I might add voluntary service--recruiters face a tough challenge and resort to overly aggressive sales pitch.

No.....the "relevant" fact is that this is a non-issue and "will-be" stuck down!

The measure will have no effect on military recruiters as they are allowed on school grounds under federal law, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Defense.

Get that? "Federal law".

You address the abuse

Okay, quit school and join the army, or sustain good grades and become an officer, or be patriotic and join the war you don't believe in. I'd ban Wal-mart too--join us in a career of low-life.

but to me this seems more like singling out one career and saying that all other careers can recruit on campus.

Excellent point. But still has nothing to do with O'Reilly's unmitigated wrath upon a city. HJe should have simply used your argument.

Get that? "Federal law".

So much for state's and rights.