City of Berkeley, CA vs. United States Marine Corps

[Rogue 9]

Link 1 [quote] City Lets Protesters Have Their Own (Parking) Space
By Judith Scherr

The question of dedicating space—a parking space—for Code Pink’s weekly demonstrations in front of the downtown Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center (MRC) raised hackles at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, when Councilmember Gordon Wozniak likened the demonstrations there to protests at abortion clinics.

“There’s a line between protesting and harassing,â€

[frigidmagi]

[quote]
Olds added, “The Marines ought to have had the sense not to come here.â€

[Cpl Kendall]

Oh crap, Berkely doesn't support the troops. That means their traitors, right?

That aside, I'll never understand the US having recruiting centers in such numbers or why they aren't combined. Seems like they would save money by having the five services in one building and could cut down on the number of centers. Someone on SDN pointed out that Indiana has 40 centers, a state with 6.3 million residents has more centers than the CF does for the entire country. I realise that there are significant differences between Canada and the US but couldn't you have two combined centers and reimburse people for travel?

Mind you after seeing the recruiting practices in Sicko, I'd want them out to.

[SirNitram]

I'm kinda wondering what the Marines thought they'd gain with another office there. It's Berkley. Not a hotbed of 'Fight for your country'.

Still, the only case brought against them I see having merit is the one on discrimination grounds. Sadly, lawyers may be the only way to kill off DADT.

[Rogue 9]

What I'm wondering about is giving Code Pink their own private parking space on a public street; apparently it is the only such designated parking space in the whole of the city, including for city officials.

[SirNitram]

What I'm wondering about is giving Code Pink their own private parking space on a public street; apparently it is the only such designated parking space in the whole of the city, including for city officials.

Nothing illegal about it as far as I can tell. In bad taste, but this is Berkley. Bad taste is encoded on the city's self.

[LadyTevar]

What I'm wondering about is giving Code Pink their own private parking space on a public street; apparently it is the only such designated parking space in the whole of the city, including for city officials.

Nothing illegal about it as far as I can tell. In bad taste, but this is Berkley. Bad taste is encoded on the city's self.

*whaps Nitram* The SCA started in Berkley.

*WHAPS BERKLEY* This is like giving Anti-Abortionists a place in front of Family Planning! Are You NUTS?!

[Cpl Kendall]

*whaps Nitram* The SCA started in Berkley.

*WHAPS BERKLEY* This is like giving Anti-Abortionists a place in front of Family Planning! Are You NUTS?!

Now that they've done this, I fully expect that will be next. After all you did it for one, you've set a precedent.

[frigidmagi]

That aside, I'll never understand the US having recruiting centers in such numbers or why they aren't combined.

I'll explain. First the combination part, as it is the easiest to handle.

They aren't combined because it would cause infighting over costs and recruits. Seriously, who pays for the building cost and how much of it? Second there is a great deal of overlap between what each service wants in a recruit. For example, I had to deal with army and air force recruiters as well has my marine recruiter after I took the test. The ASVAB test is a test that a recruit must take to measure and ensure his ability to function usefully in the military. Yes, people have failed it. The test is entirely volunteer, it is not given as a part of school or anything like that. You can take it without signing any contracts or expressing interest in a military career. Someone who scores high is a person that would be useful to any of the 4 branches and the Coast Guard. Therefore fighting occurs over those who get high test scores and haven't already committed. While recruitment centers for different services are often very close to one another (in the same mall or strip for example) they are not in single deciated buildings for one reason, the services don't want to be that close to competition.

Has to letting people travel to the centers and giving them money to make up for the expense, do you honestly think that would work at all given the performance you've seen form the military bureaucracy? The same one that decry's the idea of giving us expanded GI Bill's and created the Walter Reed disaster? Also alot of people sign up because they happen to see the center locally, very few seem willing to travel long distances.

How long? Let's go to the map.

We shall do Canada first.

Your population as given by the CIA is 30,390,141 has of July 2007 (I pray to God they are at least good enough to give me the population of a friendly, allied neighbor without screwing up to badly). Note that the majority of your population is centered around two concentrations meaning fewer recruitment centers are needed to reach more people.

Let's try the United States.

The US Census Bureau gives the US a population of 303,484,567 which we can see here is scattered across a larger area although there are most defiantly noticeable concentrations. Mostly in the Eastern half of the US and the west coast. This means you need more centers to reach any part of the population.

Finally there is the size of the militaries themselves. According toCBC News you have 60,000 active troops and 20,000 reserves. This means (and I rounded up here) that one out of 380 Canadian citizens is under arms.

Meanwhile the US has 1,426,700 active duty troops and 1,458,500 reservist troops for a grand total of 2,885,200 troops total. This means that one out of (again rounding) 105 citizens of the US are under arms. For anyone freaking out, this is just under 1% of the population.

The two services have radically different needs and environments in regards to recruits and recruiting so it simply natural that they have chosen two different systems. This is not to say that one is better then the other mind, just that they developed to meet different needs.

*Also note, I do not at any time desire to insult the Canadian military or it's troops or the nation it serves. Canada, with no overseas possessions, no overseas treaty commitments and a friendly powerful neighbor has no real reason or need to develop the same massive military the US has post WWII. This poster would suggest that any comments on the US's military need deserve to be in a thread devoted to that topic. Thank you.

Special thanks go to the Blues Brothers Soul Man.