Berkeley Library RFP Asks For Nuclear Free Vendor 25
beefsprocket writes "RFID tags are not new to libraries. Neither is 3M as one of the larger providers of the Checkpoint circulation and self-checkout system. What is new is a library discarding their current working system used for over 500,000 items because the vendor refuses to submit a required Nuclear Free Disclosure Form (PDF). The specific form is required for anyone wishing to do business with the City of Berkeley per the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act of 1986. This reverses a 2008 exemption that the Library applied for to be able to work with 3M."
This is just as bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
in a different way, as School Boards denying Evolution.
Re:Berkeley (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is just as bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please, some group of foreigners does something you teabaggers don't like, and it immediately because of "anti-Americanism." I suspect you think that New Zealanders are "jealous of our freedom" too don't you.
So they don't want nuclear power or nuclear weapons near them. That's they're right. A lot of people, including Oppenheimer, don't like the idea of nuclear weapons. A lot of people don't like nuclear power because of the issue of long lived waste. But hey, I guess Nevada hates America too because they don't want Yucca Mountain.
Re:This is just as bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking as a New Zealander currently living in the US, I'd like to say how interesting it is that standing up to USians on a matter of principle is 'cowardly'. USians tend to, on the whole, be pretty hypocritical in their dealings with the rest of the world. And yes, the law is largely about ships from nuclear-armed states making port calls. It's not that we won't let any US navy ships make port calls, just the nuclear armed or powered ones. It's not our fault if the USians won't say which of their ships carry nukes. The whole thing wouldn't have happened in the first place if the US and other nuclear states hadn't been so keen on all those open air nuclear weapons tests in our neighborhood back during the cold war. The law probably wouldn't have lasted so long if the US hadn't thrown a hissy fit over it and broken the ANZUS treaty and France hadn't bombed a ship in one of our harbours! The fact that we were obviously dealing with unreasonable bullies who think their military might means they can trample on everyone, friend and foe alike, may have made us a little unreasonable in return.
Re:This is just as bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, when Nevada doesn't want Nuclear waste stored there, that's just NIMBY, and seems to be ok in your opinion, but when New Zealand doesn't want ships carrying nuclear weapons docking in its ports (such as in Auckland, where close to half the population lives), it's 'cowardly'? I think I'm starting to understand your criteria. If USians do it, it's ok, no matter how horrible, hypocritical, or petty it is, whereas, if foreigners do it, even on their own soil, it's subjected to withering criticism if you don't like it in any way. As an example of this, your post which suddenly attacks New Zealands healthcare system out of the blue in a discussion about nuclear regulations. Great Ad Hominum (ok, anthropomorphizing a country, but you should get the idea) attack there. Look, New Zealand isn't perfect, hooray, I guess that makes your country better.
A few questions about the US for you. First of all, what's the US opinion on foreign nuclear-armed or powered ships in its ports, or within its territorial waters? We all know how the US reacted to nukes in Cuba, what if Britain, or France put nukes in the Caribbean, how would the US feel about that? On to healthcare since you brought it up. What problems, specifically did your sister have working in New Zealand as a newly minted doctor? Did she really find it worse than her previous experiences working as a doctor in the US? Oh, right, she hadn't had any. Well, anyway, was her problem that she felt it was worse for her patients than in the US, or did she feel that it was worse for her as a doctor? Important distinction in my opinion. I'm not saying that the New Zealand system is perfect, but the US system just sucks in so many ways. I also wonder how much of the problem she had with the system were from the healthcare system being socialized and how much was from the fact that New Zealand is a small country with a low population density and less wealth per capita than the US?
As to immigration matters. Personally, I don't agree with canceling a temporary resident visa due to pregnancy. I can see why people on temporary visas would be denied certain social services, but canceling their visa seems unnecessary. I don't like xenophobic policies. Of course, your point was to show how much better the US is than New Zealand. So, I have to ask, how does the US feel about pregnant women on temporary visas? I know that they can't use the US universal health care system since there isn't one. There are probably some social services they can use and some that they can't. Will they have their visa's canceled though. I couldn't find a definitive answer with a few minutes of searching, though I did find that an existing pregnancy was a reason to be denied a visa in the first place. Frankly, some NZ policies do seem to me to be too xenophobic and I have a problem with them, but the US is hardly a place I would hold up as an example of a friendly, welcoming approach to immigration
Re:This is just as bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please provide a country that does meet your expectations of a friendly, welcoming approach to immigration. Also, NIMBY is cowardly.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)