Saw this and thought I am sooooo glad I don’t live in San Francisco. Maybe Mattinsf can shed some light on it.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/08/24/cstillwell.DTL
That was a pretty well written article…Of course, I read it as I sit here in my uniform. Do they for one minute realize where their rights to promulgate their opinions comes from? I know, I don’t expect an answer, it’s a rhetorical question.
Take off the rose colored glasses people.
There are a lot of nuts in SF. That being said it does not accurately reflect the feelings of the Bay Area. SF only represents a small segment of the population of the region. Most of the people who work in SF don’t live there so their votes aren’t counted.
I go further and say that the nuts don’t always speak for the majority of San Franciscans either - they just tend to be the loudest. Right now the nuts have a majority on the Board of Supervisors… i wouldnt be suprised if there’s a backlash against some of them.
Fleet Week kicks ass.
Chirs Daly and Matt Gonzalez are a pair of trust fund children of privilge masquerading as working class heroes. Daly is a thug and a bully and Gonzalez is a mealy mouthed corrupt litigator turned green party “activist” and former mayoral candidate…I’m glad to say I walked my precinct for the guy who beat him and Gonzalez only polled at 21% in my hood. Medea Benjamin is a media whore and another failed politician.
There are kookoo crazy politicians on the left here in SF but fortunately their political careers and powerbases are short and small. The kookoos on the right get elected to Congress and the Whitehouse. Thats the really scary thing about politics in this country…suddenly people who think Adam and Eve should be taught in public school science class rooms are now mainstream politicians.
The right wing kookoos have taken over Congress, the Whitehouse yet they aren’t satisfied so they’re coming after public education, the public airwaves, and most sinister of all they are attacking the impartiality of our Judiciary. Pretty soon we’ll be Iran west with the Southern Baptist Church running the state.
I’m very glad I live in the Bay Area, we have our share of kooks, but they don’t run the place.
You want really sickening? Try this:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1571027_comment.php
Don’t know how popular this particular org is, but this is really disgusting.
Spot
I went in the Army in 1983 and the whole nation hated us. We were told on leave and weekend pass to leave the uniforms behind. The Vietnam war left alot of mistrust and hatred, as we were all baby killers. I always wore my uniform and for the most part people wouldn’t smile or even talk to you, so I had no real confrontations. It wasn’t until of all movies and tv shows on Vietnam like Rambo, Platoon and Born on the 4th of July, did sentiment towards soldiers change in this country. I’m glad to see the yellow ribbons and what not as no matter your opions it’s the guys in the field who pay for any bad decisions.
Hey, it’s San Fran ain’t it. The city has always been the hub of American counter culture.
This is mild. You should have seen it when I did for the first time back in 1970 during the hippy/anti-Vietnam era. I was 19 yrs old then and right into it.
Damn I’m old.
“we have our share of kooks, but they don’t run the place.”…
“Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco’s anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city’s Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year.”
These two quotes seem to contradict themselves.
~Matt
Thanks for the input Matt. Somehow I wasn’t surprised you added in your 2 cents about the conservatives. Sheesh can you ever give it a break?
“we have our share of kooks, but they don’t run the place.”…
“Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco’s anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city’s Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year.”
These two quotes seem to contradict themselves.
~Matt
That was partly the kooks and partly the budget conscious supervisors who didn’t think it would be smart to shut down schools to pay for bringing in a battleship. The $3 million congress promised foots only half the berthing costs and the city, much like many others, is in the midst of a budget crunch and cutbacks.
It was just a very hard sell to make and it didn’t pass. Personalli I agree with the decision, on both budget grounds and the fact that the site chosen to berth the ship was totall inappropriate and would have ruined many bay vistas.
Remember we the USS Pampatino and SS Jeremiah O Brien are two of the biggest attractions in the city, not to mention the Presidio, Fort Point, and Fleet Week.
To call SF an anti military city because the Board of Supervisors decided not to bid for the Iowa is a little disingenuous.
I have no problem with budget desicions being the reason, however this.
"Supervisors who voted against the resolution based their decision on opposition to the war in Iraq and the military’s enforcement of the federal “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Once again, these issues are simply being used as excuses to cover up anti-military and anti-American sympathies across the board.
As Supervisor Chris Daly so forthrightly put it, “I am sad to say I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s.” That’s an awful lot of ground to write off, but there you have it. "
Doesn’t say anything about budget descisions. Of course I’m also painfully aware that everything you read, here, see is biased in some fashion and this article may be as well.
None the less I’d say it’s a bit “disengenuos” saying we liberals don’t allow cooks to run teh place…only you conservatives do. It’s all a matter of perspective.
I also don’t really by the budget issue even if as you claim the 3 mil only covers half the berthing cost. If you’re bringing in an additional 500,000 people a year. and each of those people spends a mere 170$ and assuming 3.5% tax the city gets it cash back in a year. This doesn’t include income from admission charges etc.
~Matt
You want really sickening? Try this:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1571027_comment.php
Don’t know how popular this particular org is, but this is really disgusting.
Spot
Never heard of them.
And what Matt said, the far left/right make the noise. The more normal of us don’t, but we vote. And we vote a lot.Any yahoo can get a Proposition on the ballot. The SF vote takes forever since we usually have 10 or more SF-specific Props. to vote on.
clm, registered voter in sf
Last time I was in Honolulu went to see the USS Missouri. You should have seen the lines to get on the thing. They had WWII vets there to answer questions. It was an awsome experience. Sf really blew it.
Matt it just keeps getting better for your city;)
 ** Friday, October 07, 2005 **
October 6, 2005
Rhymes with Di-Fi
By Debra Saunders
San Francisco truly is The Special City. Not only has Mayor Gavin Newsom announced his plan for the city to provide free or cheap access to high-speed wireless Internet for all San Franciscans, he also has proclaimed wi-fi access a “fundamental right.”
A fundamental right? I’m impressed. About one-quarter of students at San Francisco Unified School District score at “below basic” or “far below basic” on state reading tests. Those poor kids may not be able to read a book, they might not be able to afford a computer, but Newsom thinks they have a fundamental right to wi-fi. At least they can access free porn.
I presume a “fundamental right” to wi-fi means every San Franciscan has a right to a laptop computer and the chip that hooks laptops up to wi-fi
Credit His Slickness with having the gift of the good stunt. Same-sex marriage? Ignore the law, and tell everyone that City Hall will approve them. The marriages won’t be legal and the courts will be bound to invalidate them, but newlyweds won’t blame the love-boat mayor.
Besides, I must admit, the Right to Wi-Fi isn’t as embarrassing as other S.F. political fiascos, such as: the supervisors’ vote to reject bringing the battleship Iowa to San Francisco. Then the whacko idea of making the battleship acceptable by turning it into a museum to the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy on gays in the military.
Or the city ordinance that bans smoking outdoors on city property, including parks – with a kindly exemption for golf courses.
Or the attempt by former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to allow non-citizens to vote in school-board elections. Or the resolution by Supervisor Tom Ammiano praising protesters of a 2004 biotech conference “for their concern for the health, safety and well-being of the public and the environment.” Or the vote to redesignate S.F. pet owners as “owners or guardians.”
At least this stunt puts San Francisco not in the '50s or '60s or Stone Age, but in the future-looking pro-technology camp.
As Tim Cavanaugh, editor of the libertarian online voice Reason.com, noted, not too long ago city pols rejected adding new antennas to improve cell-phone reception “out of hysterical concerns that cell-phone towers would give brain cancer to children.” In a sense, you could say the wi-fi scheme is progress in Luddite-town.
Google issued a statement that it submitted a proposal “to offer free wireless Internet access to the entire city of San Francisco.” No doubt, many voters will believe there is such a thing as a free byte. After all, Google said so.
Except there is a price to be paid for the megabytes. Communications savant Tom Hazlette of the Manhattan Institute noted in a telephone interview that faster, better wireless Internet is being developed all the time. Cavanaugh sees the Newsom wi-fi scheme as a potential “digital white elephant.”
S.F. Public Utilities Commissioner Adam Werbach wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle that TechConnect – as Newsom calls his plan – “challenges the existing monopolies and will foster competition necessary to provide universal high-speech, low-cost access.” I doubt it. If it fostered competition, it wouldn’t have a chance in this town.
As Hazlette sagely noted, “Why would anybody build any telecommunications facility if the government is going to step in and provide people a government right to it?” So rather than fostering competition, the Newsom scheme likely will hamper it.
Hazlette dismissed TechConnect as “vaporware.” To wit: “There’ll be a lot of publicity, and when it’s over, there will be scattered service across the city. People who want reliable service will continue to buy it” – from the private sector.
I tried to reach the mayor to find out how his philosophy guides him to believe that the city should get into the wi-fi business. I sent Newsom’s communications director, Peter Ragone, a message on his Blackberry. I went on the city website and sent from there a request to the Newsom aide mentioned under the handy heading, “Schedule an Interview.”
Ragone returned my call once, when I wasn’t at my desk. The net result: Over two days, I didn’t hear from Newsom before my deadline. Maybe it was one of those techno-glitches. Or maybe it was a taste of City Hall’s vaporware.
I don’t see the issue.
I don’t see the issue.
Of course you don’t. The idea of fundamental rights is a term thats been abused and bastardized by those on the left. Can you say with a straight face that wireless internet is a fundamental right?
The guy is a politician and publicity hound. Of course there is no fundamental right to wi-fi. The question is whether you are opposed to the city offering free wi-fi. They wouldn’t be the first city to offer free wi-fi, although I don’t think anything has been done on nearly that scale.
Hmm, a politician using giveaways to gain influence. We’ve never seen that before cough prescription drug plan cough.
For the record yes entirely against it as it ain’t free. Someones paying for it.
~Matt