Willravel

I addressed this. I'd expect more of other organizations if they were as serious as the military. Quite frankly, the military is in a league of it's own. It's the only profession where you cannot quit once you've discovered you've been lied to. That fact alone means that it's not silly for me to expect they'd act responsibly. One does not need to be a paragon of moral perfection not to willfully lie to recruits. One simply should read the UCMJ, as Tully Mars correctly pointed out.

loquitur

That's true. I was speaking figuratively - that we shouldnt' condemn the military altogether merely because they have the same issues that most large organizations have.

will, what you just said is why we need to keep the number of arms of government to a minimum, precisely because they have coercive power. The military is unique only in that you can get shot at. It's not unique in terms of the govt's ability to impose severe penalties on you if you don't follow its rules, even if it lies to you. I've represented people who were lied to by the govt, will, and the recourse people have isn't what it should be, because the govt gets to make the rules.

As for the contract terms, I addressed that too - it's not all a one-way street.

Willravel

I'm condemning recruiters who purposefully misinform potential recruits. I find their behavior reprehensible and I would hope they'd be penalized. The problem is that the behavior is known to the whole military, but no steps have been taken to avoid it. That is where the broader condemnation comes from. "We see this is wrong, but we're okay with the results so don't expect us to do anything about it."

Cops get shot at, but the can quit. Also, they're not stop-lossed. The military is unique in their contract. Yes, it's not a one way street, but I challenge you to join up tomorrow and leave within a week. I'm sure the people you represented would appreciate the efforts of Berkeley.

loquitur

Will, I don't approve of deception, and I believe I said up above that the military should have procedures in place to get rid of bad apples - just like every other large organization should (and as most do).

That said, I'm sure that if the horror of a terror attack hits the Bay Area tomorrow, Berkeleyans won't refuse the protection of these unwelcome intruders. They should start behaving like adults.

Willravel

Wait, so we're arguing the same point?
We're more likely to be attacked by Bill O'Reilly than terrorists... and the military really didn't do anything to protect New York. The only way I'd need the military is if I were a contractor, and a lot of Berkeley agrees with me.

loquitur

Will, we were never disagreeing that deception is a bad thing. We were disagreeing about whether we should be surprised that this can happen in the military, and whether the military should be singled out for criticism. We both agree that we should strive to have the highest standards for our uniformed services. At least I think we do.

As for Berkeley, well, it's easy to make ostentatious shows about their political positions when they know there's no price to be paid. They can't opt out of being defended. I'm sure they are making themselves feel real good about themselves and their precious moral purity, and at no cost.

Willravel

Look at it this way, though, your solution is to punish the bad apples... but the military has had ample time to do that and it hasn't happened. As DC cited, over 6,660 alleged incidents of recruiter irregularities have occurred and nothing has been done about it.

Speaking on behalf of myself and my friendly, flower loving friends at Berkeley: we'd be overjoyed if the military punished these people. Unfortunately, that just doesn't seem to be happening and it's because there isn't enough pressure on the military. How does one apply pressure? Media coverage. How does one get media coverage? Outrageous behavior. This is Liberalism 101. Does Berkeley expect to win? Of course not. It'd be funny, but it's not legal. What has happened, though is people are talking about it. This will be post #167. The more people talk about the recruiters lying, the more pressure there will be for the military to do the right thing.

dksuddeth

No, it's not responsible. At 18, that 'child' is an adult and the protection and teaching by the parent should have been done BEFORE said person turned 18.

Where does this right exist? I'm sure alot of people that were lied to by cops in order to confess would be seriously interested in this.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

That's true, if one is ever tricked for any reason then the parents obviously failed. Amway is full of em.

loquitur

I didn't mean a legal right - though in certain circumstances there is such a right.

You have a right not to be verbally abused by strangers on the street, too, but you can't do anything about it legally.

dksuddeth

This is not correct either.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

DK, as a proponent of the "right to drive" I'd think that you would be more open minded when it comes to stuff like this. What liq is suggesting is not unreasonable at all. If one is verbally abused by someone on the street and a police car is driving by, it's within the rights of the police officer to pull over and attempt to break it up in the interest of protecting the peace.

dksuddeth

Then you are guilty of not understanding the context of my statement.

If someone is verbally abusing you on the street and there is no police car present, what would you do?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

What my mother taught me to do - ignore them. It's served me well since I learned that lesson in about 7th grade.

What would YOU do? I'm almost afraid of the answer....

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

If they aren't right up in my face or in any other way preventing me from leaving the area, then I ignore them and go on my way.

If I'm being hindered from leaving the area, then I have every right to use the necessary force to move them so that I can leave.

But that doesn't cover the issue of somebody having the 'right' to not be verbally abused'. If we actually had that right, then we'd also have a legal defense to prosecution if we took violent measures to stop that abuse, would we not? Therefore, nobody actually has a 'right' to not be verbally abused, just like nobody has a 'right' not to be lied to.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Sorry, but I've been sitting on this smiley for weeks. I couldn't wait any longer and I don't think it would have been appropriate in addressing McCain's policy on Iran. To be clear, this post is made in jest.

allaboutmusic

Of course it's reasonable. Not many people would want to join if they knew the truth.

Whether it's ethical is of course a completely different question.

loquitur

people have the legal right to be assholes, guys. you can't sue people for being jerks. I have gotten lawsuits like that thrown out.

dk, why do you assume that it's reasonable to respond to disagreeable words with physical violence?

dc_dux

assholes are in the eye of the beholder.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Seaver

Really?... I don't know what to say to that. I never thought it would be reasonable to willingly destruct government property because there is a 2.5% error. Can I go burn a police car because there are a few dirty cops?

So how about this Wil, can I as a 25 year old get out of a mortgage because I claim they promised me a free massage every friday even though nothing appeared on the contract? How about at 18, could I?

Sorry, they're adults. If we trust them enough to get a full job, live on their own terms, smoke, and GOD FORBID VOTE; we should trust them enough to read a freaking contract which effects their entire life.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

dc_dux

What property was destroyed?

And you error margin is way off.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

destruct? wtf?

I'm not asking for the soldiers to be let out of their contracts, so it's a false comparison. Besides, if the mortgage companies lied to clients faces, they could be held responsible even though it wasn't in the mortgage agreement.

dc_dux

I have to say its really shocking to me to see so much animosity towards citizens who are simply expressing their right to petition their (local) government for redress of grievances (remember the 1st amendment? )....and for the city to respond, if only in a symbolic manner, which is the case in Berkeley.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

I did not say that it is. I said that if the verbal abuse is also accompanied by a proximity of intimidation, then it is.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

sprocket

Wow, just saw this video....

Trying to inform recruits of deceptive practices is one thing... this is entirely a whole new level of stupid. These morons chained themselves to the door, and are refusing citizens entry into the recruiting office.

<div><object width="420" height="339"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x49wnb" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x49wnb" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="339" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x49wnb">Code pink</a></b><br /><i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/krs601">krs601</a></i></div>

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

I appreciate non-violent protest, but I can't condone that.

Baraka_Guru

You consider this violent? If not, why can't you condone it?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

sprocket

I dont think he was calling it violent.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

I'm saying that despite the fact that it's violent, I can't support it. Why? They don't know the first thing about protesting. You don't protest to make yourself feel better by doing something active. That's for idiots. You protest to get things done. All they're going to do is piss people off and probably get attacked a lot.

Seaver

Because it's stupid.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, they should have had a better plan, been more organized.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

loquitur

I'm proud of you, Will. That's very perceptive. A huge percentage of the public posturing that people do is to make themselves feel better, even though it has next to zero chance of changing anything.

Willravel

I've been protesting for over 8 years. It's something I'm deeply proud of. When I see knobs "protesting" in a way that won't do anything but make them feel like they're as cool as me I get perturbed. They won't be as cool as me until they get something done.

allaboutmusic

Actually, I think stupid protests make it harder for authentic protesters to do their thing.

loquitur

Actually, a large percentage of EVERYTHING people do is done to make themselves feel better.

echo5delta

I'm going to try to play catch-up in this thread a bit, which means it'll be a huge post. Probably not a good idea for my first venture into the politics forum, but I bet a mod will let me know either way real quick.

Anyway, topic:

Not to nitpick too much, but the "Moment of Truth" that USMC recruiters play up so much is not really a good comparison. As one of the other posts pointed out, a recruiter at MEPS will usually verify that the station or sub-station recruiters didn't promise you anything extra or tell you to hide pre-existing medical conditions. Those in charge at boot camp/basic training usually ask the same thing about the MEPS guys.

But yeah, the same exact thing happened to me.

I don't see many regular citizens, much less political figures, falling into that mindset at all. Especially not after we all re-elected Bush and he continued fuckin' up. Hell, I have a tough time finding folks who are patriotic at all, most days.

You could have called it "Berkeley City Council Opposes Marine Recruiters".

I don't wanna get off on the wrong foot with you, host, but honestly - just the tone of the title pissed me off and drew me in here. I've since calmed down and seen a lot of good discussion in the thread - from other posters.


That's gotta be a quote of the year or something. Seriously, that just cracks my shit up, no matter who you're talking about.


Spot-on. As much as the Berkeley CC has been beating the Corps over the head with the 'recruiting lies argument', I'd imagine there's plenty of other immoral and unethical (possibly even ecologically unsound) activity perpetrated daily by other organizations/leaseholders in that city (as with any other). Of course, anything involving the war in Iraq is a guaranteed draw for media regardless of bias, which may or may not have anything to do with the Council's course of action.

I have to disagree with loq on this one. Those standards should be imposed on the military from within. As a career military man - and much, much more so as a Marine - it seriously upsets me when <STRIKE>those</STRIKE> our standards are called into question, justly or otherwise. It hurts a lot worse when there's not something I can personally do to correct it. This is the standard that every American should expect from the Marine Corps, if not all military members.

I might be a brainwashed, torture-promulgatin' lifer, but I sincerely do believe that with all my heart.


Just an aside, but, um... it's within the assigned, sworn duties of the police officer to intervene - moreso if the rights of someone else are being infringed. I'm not a law-ttorney, but I think that one might be called "battery".

That's about the best summation of this whole topic that I've seen to date.

Now that I've provided some observations on this thread, I think I'll use a separate post for thoughts on the issue itself... and also provide an opportunity for Halx (or another mod) to lay a gigantic slap on my pee-pee, if needed.

__________________
"Peace" is when nobody's shooting. A "Just Peace" is when we get what we want. - Bill Mauldin

Willravel

Verbal abuse isn't battery. Battery is physical.

Plan9

Stop offer-type assaulting him.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

echo5delta

When this first hit the news and more or less ever since, there are a few key points that, really, just bug the crap out of me.

The fact that the Berkeley CC is beating the Corps over the head with the 'recruiting lies' argument in order to grant some special privileges to Code Pink is pretty flawed from the start. I've had to look completely outside Berkeley media (and dig pretty deep in any other coverage) to find mention of the fact that this is an OFFICER SELECTION OFFICE, which means that you either have a college degree or are well on your way to completing one before you can even get the proverbial foot in the door. Well, that, and apparently bring some bolt cutters, Ben & Jerry's, and chronic to get past the protestors.

I'm pretty certain that the "dumbass 18-year-old" used for argument's sake will not be an issue in the Berkeley OSO. However, since there are many more recruiting stations than OSOs in the country (much like there are many more enlisted than officers in the military), it's a valid debate - if a bit out of place in this thread and grossly overused in Berkeley.

I am upset at the inflammatory language used by the City Council in their original recommendations. I believe one or two of the Council members, who later came forward in interviews saying they felt the wording was wrong, even before they went home that night. Not so much Mayor Tom Bates, though.

I find it amusing, if predictable, that within a few days of approving their recommendations with but one dissenting vote, members of the Council and the Mayor himself tried to make half-assed apologies for the language they used, and stated more than once that they support the troops, just not the war or our government. Mayor Bates and the Council last week even decided not to send their "Hans Blix Very Angry Letter" to the Commandant, which is a shame.

If you're gonna stand up for something, stand up for it, stick with it, and don't bullshit anybody. Right or wrong, it builds character and generally earns respect from friend and foe alike... but I digress.

My gut feelings, without the nice language: The fact that leadership of any city would enact resolutions KNOWING that they would result in the over-the-top bullshit that Code Pink has pulled - just during this series of events - is mind-boggling. I've long, long since given up the notion that our Federal government doesn't have its own interests and organizations that it's in bed with. But at a local level, I'd really hope that some modicum of objectivity would be present.

Don't even get me started on the prior military service of the Mayor, who claims to "support our troops". Coming from him, after what's happened, is even worse bullshit than hearing it from anyone else in that zip code. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that he's bangin' one of the Code Pink chicks, but whatever. He can kiss my ass.

I'm not losing sleep over this, but I am frustrated that actions by an ignorant and noisy group of citizens on one extreme end of the political spectrum (City Council, Code Pink, etc.) will likely be met by further action by the most ignorant and noisy representatives of a different point of view (that dumbass SC Senator, for one).

It's a great way to start your own circus, but it makes rational solutions to the situation very, very unlikely.

I did have some serious questions about the legality of physically blocking the office, chaining yourself to property that isn't yours, and noise ordnances that aren't mentioned (but would probably be enforced in a heartbeat if I drove down that street blasting some Mudvayne or Jay-Z).

But it all subsided, and I sort of shrugged my shoulders thinking "It's fuckin' Berkeley, dude. Whatcha gonna do?"

__________________
"Peace" is when nobody's shooting. A "Just Peace" is when we get what we want. - Bill Mauldin

debaser

One of my good friends is a recruiting commander. In the past year he has canned 5 recruiters for unethical practice (lying). Check yourself.

__________________