Berkley wants to treat Military Recruiters like Porn Dealers

[SirNitram]

What's the big deal? Do you really need more than two recruiting centers in the state anyways? Some Provinces in Canada only have one or two, meaning that if you live in Northern BC or the Interior you have to drive or fly into Vancouver (could take over a day) but they will pay for your expenses.

One to two per state? Indiana alone has about 40 military recruitment centers according to ServiceLocator.

I can't help but notice that, as per usual, you don't answer the damn question: Do you really need that many? You just spout off a statistic that's unrelated.

[Jadeite]

What's the big deal? Do you really need more than two recruiting centers in the state anyways? Some Provinces in Canada only have one or two, meaning that if you live in Northern BC or the Interior you have to drive or fly into Vancouver (could take over a day) but they will pay for your expenses.

One to two per state? Indiana alone has about 40 military recruitment centers according to ServiceLocator.

I can't help but notice that, as per usual, you don't answer the damn question: Do you really need that many? You just spout off a statistic that's unrelated.

But I wasn't arguing it, I just found the disparity amusing.

[Beowulf]

What's the big deal? Do you really need more than two recruiting centers in the state anyways? Some Provinces in Canada only have one or two, meaning that if you live in Northern BC or the Interior you have to drive or fly into Vancouver (could take over a day) but they will pay for your expenses.

One to two per state? Indiana alone has about 40 military recruitment centers according to ServiceLocator.

I can't help but notice that, as per usual, you don't answer the damn question: Do you really need that many? You just spout off a statistic that's unrelated.

Approximate number in the US military: 2.8 million, active and reserve
Approximate number in the Canadian Forces: 75k, active and reserve

So there's about 40k times more people in the us military than the in CF. Setting aside the issue of whether we need than many, since that's an issue of Congress and the President (in large part), we do need significantly more recruiters to maintain the size of our force compared to Canada, which implies more recruiter offices.

[Terralthra]

Look, I know I'm not the biggest expert on California's education system, but last time I checked, Berkeley was a college town. Shouldn't that mean that it has an elevated probability of residents being either college educated or in the process of becoming college educated?

Not just Berkeley. The entire SF Bay Area is a huge college town. There aren't breaks between the various college towns, you go straight from one to another. Within an hour's drive from UC Berkeley, there are three CSU schools, at least a dozen community colleges, and at least two highly-regarded private universities. Lengthening the metro area to two hour's drive adds at least another 2 CSUs and 2 UCs, and probably triples the amount of community colleges. Attempting to make the argument CmdrWilkens made about 'economic opportunity' in the area to which it's applying is doomed to faillure.

[Aaron]

One to two per state? Indiana alone has about 40 military recruitment centers according to ServiceLocator.

There's a significantly different attitude up here regarding the military though. Add that in plus our size and the fact that our centers are an all-in-one deal (I didn't actully clue in that yours may only be for one service) means that we can get away with less. Note though that provinces with larger populations or with a history of residents joining in large numbers (Ontario, Quebec and the Newfies) have more.

People applying also get their travel expenses paid back, so it's not a big requirement to have one in every town.

[Tsyroc]

A little update on the situation.

Nothing about changing the licensing of the Marines' office but they are sticking it to them other ways.

Berkeley Wants Marines Out of Town

BERKELEY, Calif. - Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 8-1 Jan. 29 to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines, and officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate council item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Councilman Gordon Wozniak voted no on both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

Personally I think they are being a little too overtly hostile but I do think their idea of going after them for violation of the city's anti-discrimnation law is a pretty good idea.

[Glocksman]

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines, and officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

So far it's constitutional.

In a separate council item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

This is not.
Unless the City of Berkeley is willing to grant all political groups such perks, then they are violating the Equal Protection clause.

I look for some group like Protest Warrior to apply for similar relaxation of city rules in order to protest at Code Pink HQ, and when it's denied, to haul the city into court.

[Darth Wong]

Unless the City of Berkeley is willing to grant all political groups such perks, then they are violating the Equal Protection clause.

Why? This particular organization they're protesting is actually violating the state constitution. Surely that's not the sort of situation where you say that it's special treatment to let the group which is aggrieved by that violation protest, or is the law really that retarded? If the state gave Jews a license to protest in front of a neo-Nazi party office, would that be considered unconstitutional special treatment too? Would we then argue that some group like Protest Warrior should be able to picket synagogues in retaliation?

I look for some group like Protest Warrior to apply for similar relaxation of city rules in order to protest at Code Pink HQ, and when it's denied, to haul the city into court.

Protest Warrior is a pack of assholes.

[Glocksman]

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the Equal Protection clause is that if a government entity grants exemptions to laws and/or rules to one political group, then they have to grant exemptions to the same rules to all political groups.

Why? This particular organization they're protesting is actually violating the state constitution.

The Federal constitution trumps state constitutions, especially when it comes to 'incorporated' rights such as free speech.

[Darth Wong]

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the Equal Protection clause is that if a government entity grants exemptions to laws and/or rules to one political group, then they have to grant exemptions to the same rules to all political groups.

It's an exemption to some law to let people protest in front of a government office?

[Glocksman]

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the Equal Protection clause is that if a government entity grants exemptions to laws and/or rules to one political group, then they have to grant exemptions to the same rules to all political groups.

It's an exemption to some law to let people protest in front of a government office?

No.
Its granting them the free parking space and free sound permit that makes it a constitutional issue.
If Berkeley doesn't charge any other groups for parking spaces and sound permits, then there is no 1st amendment issue involved.

But if they normally charge for such permits and parking while granting them free to a particular political group, it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.

[Darth Wong]

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the Equal Protection clause is that if a government entity grants exemptions to laws and/or rules to one political group, then they have to grant exemptions to the same rules to all political groups.

It's an exemption to some law to let people protest in front of a government office?

No.
Its granting them the free parking space and free sound permit that makes it a constitutional issue.
If Berkeley doesn't charge any other groups for parking spaces and sound permits, then there is no 1st amendment issue involved.

So why can't they just pass a blanket ordnance stating that you can get free permits and parking spaces in order to protest any group which is violating the state constitution with impunity, as the Marines are doing?

[Glocksman]

It's an exemption to some law to let people protest in front of a government office?

No.
Its granting them the free parking space and free sound permit that makes it a constitutional issue.
If Berkeley doesn't charge any other groups for parking spaces and sound permits, then there is no 1st amendment issue involved.

So why can't they just pass a blanket ordnance stating that you can get free permits and parking spaces in order to protest any group which is violating the state constitution with impunity, as the Marines are doing?

That still violates the 14th amendment as it has been recognized by SCOTUS to apply to the states since the late 19th century.

The point is to to prevent a governmental body from silencing political speech by means of waiving rules for 'approved' speech while enforcing them WRT 'disapproved' speech.

If Berkeley dropped parking and permitting requirements altogether for such protests, then it'd be 100% legal.
However, saying 'We'll give Code Pink an exception to our permitting and fee requirements' while charging everyone else is granting CP an illegal preference under the Federal 1st and 14th amendments.

And like I said previously, it's been longstanding precedent that the Federal constitution trumps state ones, especially when it comes to civil rights.

[Beowulf]

It's an exemption to some law to let people protest in front of a government office?

No.
Its granting them the free parking space and free sound permit that makes it a constitutional issue.
If Berkeley doesn't charge any other groups for parking spaces and sound permits, then there is no 1st amendment issue involved.

So why can't they just pass a blanket ordnance stating that you can get free permits and parking spaces in order to protest any group which is violating the state constitution with impunity, as the Marines are doing?

Federal law explicitly trumps that section of the state constitution:

EC. 31

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.

(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.

(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Ergo, the Marines' use of discrimination is perfectly legal under state law, since it's legal under federal law.

[Darth Wong]

Ergo, the Marines' use of discrimination is perfectly legal under state law, since it's legal under federal law.

There's a slight difference between saying "you can't stop us" and "this is legal under your law", isn't there?

[CloudStrife433]

They're really calling kids dumb, like they don't know what could happen to them in the military. If you join and go to war, you could die. Its common sense.

[Darth Wong]

They're really calling kids dumb ...

Kids are dumb.

[CmdrWilkens]

Ergo, the Marines' use of discrimination is perfectly legal under state law, since it's legal under federal law.

There's a slight difference between saying "you can't stop us" and "this is legal under your law", isn't there?

No the last portion about "Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section." Thus any portion which cannot apply due to federal law no longer exists or rather is no longer actually the law.

[CmdrWilkens]

Really? In a prosperous university town?

Sure,

Again per census statistics while there are only 6.2% of households below the poverty line (against a national average of 9.8%) the city has 20.5% of individuals below the poverty line (against the national average of 13.3%). Now I cetainly could be misinterpreting this but it suggests to me a small number of large poor families are offset against a large number of small families with higher income. The town also suffers from a 7.3% unemployement rate against a 6.4% national average (at the time the data was gathered). So yes it may not be for everyone but there is a noticeable segment of the population (20.5%) for whom the Military would not be a bad option. In pure dollar terms there were more than 11,000 households (including 2,200 families) whose earnings are below what a 2 year Lance Corporal can pull in.

If you take someone with no college experience the Census Bureau puts their median income at $26,123 per annum. Living in civlian housing, and drawing some of the allowances tax free, a 2 year E-3 is bringin in just over 28000 per annum of which almost 10,000 is non taxable allowances for housing and food so the effective income level is much higher. Since they get 100% of the 10k and then between 70 and 80% of the remaining 18k wheras the median individual takes home 70-80% of 26k.

Look, I know I'm not the biggest expert on California's education system, but last time I checked, Berkeley was a college town. Shouldn't that mean that it has an elevated probability of residents being either college educated or in the process of becoming college educated?

Yup, but that sure as hell doesn't change the fact that 20.5% of the people residing in Berkely are still considered in poverty nor does it change the number who are earning less than what a 2 year lance corporal takes home in salary and cash benefits (hell I didn't even factor in the value of completely free medical care for the entire family).

For those in or just out of college (2/3rds of the residents have a bachelor's degree or more and there were 33,000 individuals residing in Berkeley attending college) you can look at officer pay rates as a comparison. A 2 year O-2 (and you make O-2 after 18mos unless you fuck the general's daughter) by himself brings in roughly 50k in salary and benefits of which approx 11k is tax free thus the effective income level is higher. Anyway the median household income for Berkeley is 51k so going Officer basically puts you right at the median for the city. Moreover it puts you above the US median for individuals with a Bachelor's Degree (43k for individuals, 51k for males, and 69k for households but since I placed the hypothetical officer as an individual I'm comparing against the individual numbers).

So again before all the fringe benefits (free medical care again, actual pension plan, one of the highest rated retirement investment funds, etc) a female officer would be doing noticeably better than her peers even with a degree and a male graduate would be right in the middle of the pack.

Yes it makes sense on for the local economy but it doesn't make sense for the indivdual economy. For this city in paticular it does not appear that they are in any need of paticularly young economic strength. Their median age is three years under the US average, their workforce comprises 65% of the populace with almot as many residents under 18 as over 65. Simply put the community is doing fine as is. In the meantime for those in lower education rungs, and in paticular for the 32% of residents who don't speak English as their primary language at home, the military is a quality economic choice.

Then any such destitute individuals who seek military enlistment can seek out a recruiter on their own, can't they? Why should the city encourage this?

They don't need to encourage but what they are doing is placing an additional burden on the military which it does not require of any other employer. Remember I am not advocating that the city should roll out the red carpet. The city can do whatever it so well pleases BUT their choice restrict and stigmatize a viable individual economic option.



General notes. As I mentioned by way of link I've been getting the data from the US Census "factfinder" site while the data for military compensation comes from DFAS. The factfinder data is for 2006 as is the pay rates for the Armed Forces. I don't know what has changed in the intervening two years except that the US military has gotten successive 3.5% pay raises across the board both years so you can up the figures correspondingly. Moreover I am still not including any calculation as to the value of free medical/dental insurance (which is virtually unheard of in the US, you will have to spend money on it if you are employed anywhere other than the military). I also cannot find the effective income calculator that can show how the size of tax free income you can earn just from certain military allowances actually means that you take home as much as someone earning noticeably more in base salary after taxes.

[CaptainChewbacca]

And it passed

Berkeley council tells Marines to leave

Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.

A Marines representative did not respond to requests for comment.

The resolution telling the Marines they are unwelcome and directing the city attorney to explore issues of sexual orientation discrimination was brought to the council by the city's Peace and Justice commission.

The recommendation to give Code Pink a parking space for protesting and a free sound permit was brought by council members Linda Maio and Max Anderson.

Code Pink on Wednesday started circulating petitions to put a measure on the November ballot in Berkeley that would make it more difficult to open military recruiting offices near homes, parks, schools, churches libraries or health clinics. The group needs 5,000 signatures to make the ballot.

Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.

Wozniak said he was opposed to giving Code Pink a parking space because it favors free speech rights of one group over another.

"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."

Ninety-year-old Fran Rachel, a Code Pink protester who spoke at the council meeting, said the group's request for a parking space and noise permit was especially important because the Marines are recruiting soldiers who may die in an unjust war.

"This is very serious," Rachel said. "This isn't a game; it's mass murder. There's a sickness of silence of people not speaking out against the war. We have to do this."

Anderson, a former Marine who said he was "drummed out" of the corps when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, said he'd love to see the Marines high tale it out of town.

"We are confronted with an organization that can spend billions of dollars on propaganda," Anderson said. "This is not Okinawa here; we're involved in a naked act of aggression. If we can provide a space for ordinary people to express themselves against this kind of barbarity, then we should be doing it."

Aside from the fact that the writer misspelled 'High-tail', this is a bit disconcerting in the precedent it sets. Under this sort of mindset, conservative towns could force abortion clinics to make concessions to right-to-life protestors. Or for large corporations to accomodate environmentalists. Its pretty obvious they don't like the marines, but what happens if a city somewhere decides they don't want a homosexual activism association in their downtown?

Don't say its a slippery slope fallacy, because in this case it really isn't.

[Keevan_Colton]

.....students tight on cash perhaps?

[SirNitram]

Don't say its a slippery slope fallacy, because in this case it really isn't.

No, it fucking is. You can shriek and whine all you damn well please, but you just gave the textbook slippery slope fallacy. 'If this happens, all these things that you wouldn't like will inevitably follow'. Learn what the fuck the fallacy is before you try to claim something isn't.

[Darth Wong]

Aside from the fact that the writer misspelled 'High-tail', this is a bit disconcerting in the precedent it sets. Under this sort of mindset, conservative towns could force abortion clinics to make concessions to right-to-life protestors. Or for large corporations to accomodate environmentalists. Its pretty obvious they don't like the marines, but what happens if a city somewhere decides they don't want a homosexual activism association in their downtown?

So if a Neo-Nazi group set up shop in Berkeley, you would be similarly outraged if the anti-defamation league got to protest there for free?

Don't say its a slippery slope fallacy, because in this case it really isn't.

Show how the logic behind this would be directly applicable to those other situations you cited.

[Glocksman]

So if a Neo-Nazi group set up shop in Berkeley, you would be similarly outraged if the anti-defamation league got to protest there for free?

If the neo-Nazis were being charged fees for the same type of protests while the ADL wasn't charged a thing, yes.
I base this on the fact that under the 1st amendment, government entities aren't supposed to show any preference WRT the content of speech.
In other words, a neutral blanket restriction *may* pass the 'strict scrutiny' test SCOTUS applies in 1st amendment cases, but restrictions based upon the content almost never do.

The exceptions are mainly when the speaker advocates violence against a particular person and the well known 'shouting Fire in a crowded theatre' rules.

And before anyone brings it up, upon reflection I am uncomfortable with the 'funeral protest' laws many states have passed as a result of the WBC assholes disrupting the funerals of gays, veterans, and so on.
On an emotional level, I'm all for banning them.
But on the other hand, I can't comfortably reconcile that position with the 1st amendment's guarantee of free speech.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So if a Neo-Nazi group set up shop in Berkeley, you would be similarly outraged if the anti-defamation league got to protest there for free?

Show how the logic behind this would be directly applicable to those other situations you cited.

I'm not talking about Neo-Nazis. I'm talking about a town passing laws to get rid of people they don't like. Would I be disgusted if neo-nazis set up shop in my town and started recruiting? Yes. I'd probably go protest them myself. But, enforcing additional penalties on a group you don't like which is abiding by the law is legislating morality.

Turn it on its' head: Should planned parenthood be required to set aside parking for pro-life picketers? Its not a slippery slope, because we aren't talking about something worse, or something down the line, we're talking about the same kind of protests.

Don't want a church in your area? Force them to let atheists protest outside. Maybe someone hates blacks, or another race. That's ok, you can make them give you parking so you'll be sure to be on-time for your monthly hate meeting.

Do you really not see the broader rammifications of this law if it gets into the notions of people who REALLY know how to hate? The WBC could sue to get parking in front of gay nightclubs to set up shop. Its the same EXACT THING.

Tell me how any of my above scenarios are different from the one in Berkley.