Berkley wants to treat Military Recruiters like Porn Dealers

[SirNitram]

OH NO. SOMEONE ISN'T LETTING THE MILITARY DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. TRAITORS! TRAITORS!

Will Americans ever grow out of this?

[Havok]

OH NO. SOMEONE ISN'T LETTING THE MILITARY DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. TRAITORS! TRAITORS!

Will Americans ever grow out of this?

Hey hey hey. I'm an American and I have ZERO problem with this. Not all of us fall into one group.

[Lonestar]

OH NO. SOMEONE ISN'T LETTING THE MILITARY DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. TRAITORS! TRAITORS!

Will Americans ever grow out of this?

Yeah because there is no moral difference, none, between going after miscreants in uniform and not letting the military open a Goddamn recruitment kiosk without public hearings and special licenses.

[SirNitram]

OH NO. SOMEONE ISN'T LETTING THE MILITARY DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. TRAITORS! TRAITORS!

Will Americans ever grow out of this?

Yeah because there is no moral difference, none, between going after miscreants in uniform and not letting the military open a Goddamn recruitment kiosk without public hearings and special licenses.

Do you have something of substance, like why the US military should never have to deal with something as basic as a permit?

[Beowulf]

OH NO. SOMEONE ISN'T LETTING THE MILITARY DO WHATEVER IT WANTS. TRAITORS! TRAITORS!

Will Americans ever grow out of this?

Yeah because there is no moral difference, none, between going after miscreants in uniform and not letting the military open a Goddamn recruitment kiosk without public hearings and special licenses.

Do you have something of substance, like why the US military should never have to deal with something as basic as a permit?

How about, the vast majority of businesses in Berkeley don't have to apply for a special permit, and don't have to have special siting requirements?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Surprise. The Support The Troops brigade just asserts their claims as axioms and hurl faeces like monkeys when people don't silently obey. This is even greater bullshit because most parents I know give an earful to and are very irritated with recruiters who spam the home phone with recruiting kicks; and yet when this desire is manifested at large through the government, its terrible.

[Lonestar]

Do you have something of substance, like why the US military should never have to deal with something as basic as a permit?

Who said anything about "Basic permits"? The way I read the article the military is being given special treatment.

Let's what what a US Military recruitment office entails:

(1)No kitchen
(2)No guns
(3)No smut
(4)No Propane, and propane accessories
(5)No hardware/tools

So, what exactly makes a recruitment office especially unique here, from a business perspective? Well, I suppose you could make the argument that the military can trick you into spending quite a bit of your time and livelihood(although not necessarily your money), in which case they should be given the same criteria as churches, as far as permits go.

[Surlethe]

You could probably make an argument that military recruitment centers and aggressive recruitment reinforce the jingoism and militarism already present in American society, so limiting the options recruiters have will help to mitigate the social consequences and slow the reinforcement of this increasing jingoistic militarism.

[Adrian Laguna]

This is even greater bullshit because most parents I know give an earful to and are very irritated with recruiters who spam the home phone with recruiting kicks; and yet when this desire is manifested at large through the government, its terrible.

I would be in favour of letting the military open a booth wherever the feel like (well not quite anywhere) and in exchange they can't engage in telemarketing. Also, the amount of recruitment brochures and such they send by mail to any given individual should perhaps be limited.

[Havok]

You could probably make an argument that military recruitment centers and aggressive recruitment reinforce the jingoism and militarism already present in American society, so limiting the options recruiters have will help to mitigate the social consequences and slow the reinforcement of this increasing jingoistic militarism.

Well at this point, this shouldn't be something resolved in a city council vote and should be put on the ballot.

[SirNitram]

Do you have something of substance, like why the US military should never have to deal with something as basic as a permit?

Who said anything about "Basic permits"? The way I read the article the military is being given special treatment.

Let's what what a US Military recruitment office entails:

(1)No kitchen
(2)No guns
(3)No smut
(4)No Propane, and propane accessories
(5)No hardware/tools

So, what exactly makes a recruitment office especially unique here, from a business perspective? Well, I suppose you could make the argument that the military can trick you into spending quite a bit of your time and livelihood(although not necessarily your money), in which case they should be given the same criteria as churches, as far as permits go.

You'd be amazed how OK I am with applying this to churches. In fact, I'd prefer it. It might stop what appears to be institutionalized rot where you can't lob a stone without hitting holy ground in this country.

So the military is required to have a permit because it wants a second recruitment office. I'm not seeing what's so outrageous. The military is an organization that has a ridiculous amount of pressure it can bring to bear to encourage people to join, and let's face it, it's pretty damn dangerous. What should exempt the military? I tire of not getting an answer. Why should the military not be held to higher standards? Aren't we expected to think they're better, hence all the kafuffle when people accuse the troops of acting like regular jackasses?

[Darth Raptor]

Or you know, only use the military for national defense and disaster relief? So as not to garner such well-deserved animosity? Shit. Did I just lose my Iowa National Guard coverage for suggesting that?

[Havok]

Do you have something of substance, like why the US military should never have to deal with something as basic as a permit?

Who said anything about "Basic permits"? The way I read the article the military is being given special treatment.

Let's what what a US Military recruitment office entails:

(1)No kitchen
(2)No guns
(3)No smut
(4)No Propane, and propane accessories
(5)No hardware/tools

So, what exactly makes a recruitment office especially unique here, from a business perspective? Well, I suppose you could make the argument that the military can trick you into spending quite a bit of your time and livelihood(although not necessarily your money), in which case they should be given the same criteria as churches, as far as permits go.

You'd be amazed how OK I am with applying this to churches. In fact, I'd prefer it. It might stop what appears to be institutionalized rot where you can't lob a stone without hitting holy ground in this country.

So the military is required to have a permit because it wants a second recruitment office. I'm not seeing what's so outrageous. The military is an organization that has a ridiculous amount of pressure it can bring to bear to encourage people to join, and let's face it, it's pretty damn dangerous. What should exempt the military? I tire of not getting an answer. Why should the military not be held to higher standards? Aren't we expected to think they're better, hence all the kafuffle when people accuse the troops of acting like regular jackasses?

Wait, wanting them held to higher standards is fine, but they want to hold them to the standards of an adult video store. Is that higher, or just more restrictive?

[Darth Wong]

Who said anything about "Basic permits"? The way I read the article the military is being given special treatment.

Why shouldn't they be? They're trying to convince the citizens of your municipality to sign up for a reduction in their civil rights.

So, what exactly makes a recruitment office especially unique here, from a business perspective?

The fact that recruitment of young, able-bodied men and women harms the local economy by reducing the available labour pool?

Do you really find it so hard to understand why anybody would have a problem with recruiters coming in and trying to harvest a region's young people? This is a simple matter of economic incentive. They're already being taxed to pay for the military; why should they make it easy for the feds to extract more?

[Darth Wong]

Wait, wanting them held to higher standards is fine, but they want to hold them to the standards of an adult video store. Is that higher, or just more restrictive?

Why the fuck would you think that an adult video store is more harmful to the local economy than a military recruiting office? An adult video store is probably a net contributor to the local economy.

[SirNitram]

Wait, wanting them held to higher standards is fine, but they want to hold them to the standards of an adult video store. Is that higher, or just more restrictive?

This is hardly Bumfuck Nowhere, where Adult Video Store means you get regular protests. It probably just governs how far you can be from the nearest other ones. OH NO THEY CAN'T MARKET SATURATE.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I bet you their tax revenue can be mostly made up with the sweet contract that UC Berkeley got to run some of the National Labs, for example.

1) Your statement has sweet fuck-all to do with what I said, which is that even by the completely perverse standard of "you must support the military to get services", you were wrong.
2) The government did not give UC Berkeley a sweet contract for the good of UC Berkeley and the City of Berkeley--it gave them the contract because they are an excellent university that will return good results for the investment. If the DOD feels all broken up about what the City of Berkeley is doing to recruiters, they can sure pull the contract. But they won't, because that's not the point.

So what is your point?

So, what exactly makes a recruitment office especially unique here, from a business perspective?

Well, the people they employ are young males who will be removed from the community for a period of years and a small but statistically significant proportion will die or become disabled in the course of their employment. They are also infamous for using high-pressure sales techniques and outright dishonesty to reach quotas.

In fact you're going about this backwards. Let us ask the question, why is it right that porno shops are already in this system? Porno shops are actually businesses which provide goods and/or services to the community, and which have taxable revenue. These things can't be said of military recruitment centers, unless you want to argue that recruiting young men into the military is a service for the community, which I think can go either way. Obviously, the reason that porno shops have these limits imposed on them is they are taken to offend "community values." This accepted, one is faced with another question. If every community has different values, and the Berkeley community happens to find adult bookstores and military recruitment equally offensive, well, why shouldn't they deal with the recruiters in this way?

Personally, I think that young people of recruitment age should have access to clear and accurate information about joining the military, because for some people it is a good decision and works out well. Of course, even you have recognized in this very thread that recruiters sometimes use dishonest tactics appropriate to con artists to get people to sign on the dotted line. So it cuts both ways.

[Havok]

Wait, wanting them held to higher standards is fine, but they want to hold them to the standards of an adult video store. Is that higher, or just more restrictive?

Why the fuck would you think that an adult video store is more harmful to the local economy than a military recruiting office? An adult video store is probably a net contributor to the local economy.

I don't and I agree.

[Havok]

Wait, wanting them held to higher standards is fine, but they want to hold them to the standards of an adult video store. Is that higher, or just more restrictive?

This is hardly Bumfuck Nowhere, where Adult Video Store means you get regular protests. It probably just governs how far you can be from the nearest other ones. OH NO THEY CAN'T MARKET SATURATE.

No it means... "If the initiative passes, recruitment offices could not be opened within 600 feet of residential districts, public parks, public health clinics, public libraries, schools or churches." Which is what new adult oriented stores in Berkeley have to adhere to.

I don't know if you've been to Berkeley, but that narrows down, to almost no where, a place where a business in this category can set up shop.

This is almost an effective ban.

But again, I have ZERO problem with it, with the exception of the last remark in the article about just voting on it and not putting it on the ballot.

[Darth Wong]

I think it's far more scandalous that Berkeley has such restrictive rules about where an adult video shop can open up. The military wankers have no case; there is far more objective and economical reason to be opposed to military recruiters than porn shops.

[Enforcer Talen]

I visited a friend in UCBerekely in Jan of 07. This was 2 months after I left Iraq, and she told me that she didnt care when marines died over seas. I met a national guard guy working at a resturant there, and we stopped to just tell war stories for a few minutes. She became rather peeved.

Anecdotal evidence, admittedly, but I think it allows a certain understanding of the atmosphere down there. I dont really expect the military to get many recruits there, and I think it would almost be more hassle then its worth.

[Havok]

I think it's far more scandalous that Berkeley has such restrictive rules about where an adult video shop can open up. The military wankers have no case; there is far more objective and economical reason to be opposed to military recruiters than porn shops.

Again I agree, but this should be something for the city as a whole to decide, not just the city council.

[Havok]

Enforcer Talen
I've spent countless time in Berkeley growing up, (I try to avoid it now, except for the comic book shops) and believe me, she is not alone in her feelings. It has received it's well deserved reputation for a reason.

[Darth Raptor]

Again I agree, but this should be something for the city as a whole to decide, not just the city council.

Why? You realize we live in a representative democracy and not ancient Athens, right? Not everything needs to be a referendum. If the voters hate the law that much (which you seem to think is unlikely), they'll elect city council members who will reverse it. I don't know what you're so worked up about. I personally hate voting on specific initiatives, because you can bet the question will be printed in legalese and worded in the most confusing way imaginable. Even when I know about the initiative and what it entails beforehand; chances are minimal that information is on the ballot.

[Master of Ossus]

Isn't this act unconstitutional underMcCulloch v. Maryland? I mean, didn't that case hold that local governments could not institute especially restrictive regulations on buildings run by the Federal government? I mean, forget the moral issues: aren't there legal issues involved in trying something like this?