As a Berkeley native of 10 years, I feel like I'm part of the community, and that my City Government should reflect the aggregate views of its constituents, especially when purporting to send a message to the nation and the world on our behalf.

This is why shit like this pisses me off so much. The people of Berkeley as a whole don't support the City Council's condemnation of US attacks on the Taliban, but the vocal minority, along with the Berkeley City Council's self-declared mission to 'be as Berkeley as we can be,' gets in the way of what a democracy should be.

It's ironic that one of the leftmost cities in the country has become a true republic, and not a democracy. In a democracy, official acts mirror the majority will of the people as closely as possible. In a republic, people just elect officials, and from there, the officials do whatever they want, because at least we got to choose who's up on the pedestal. In the US, the elected officials usually try to keep their votes in line with their constituencies, but apparently not in Berkeley.

Sadly, Berkeley is interested in profit more than democracy. The City Council's actions are attempts to differentiate Berkeley from the mainstream, cashing in on the 60s hippyism legacy to maintain a fading individuality because it's good for tourism.

The trouble is twofold. As if I wasn't offended enough that my elected representatives have decided to sell themselves out under the guise of an altruistic purpose, their ill-conceived and politically dishonest tactic backfired, with companies and individuals boycotting Berkeley businesses, and unthinking journalists projecting the will of city council members onto the citizens of Berkeley.

Not to be a linkwhore, but I hope that some of you with weblogs might point out that the People of Berkeley and the City Council of Berkeley are two separate realms that, sadly, only seem to touch one day every few years, when elections roll around.