Gay Patriot Header Image

Update on the USS Iowa’s Snub in San Fran

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:02 pm - March 10, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,Post 9-11 America

USA Today had an update yesterday on the stupid anti-American antics of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. We have covered this story for a while here and while there is nothing new in this story, it is of note that it was covered by the “nation’s newspaper” yesterday.

San Francisco gives battleship the heave-ho – USA Today

In the two years since the USS Midway found a permanent dock in San Diego Harbor, it has become a major tourist attraction.

Nearly 900,000 people boarded the aircraft carrier in its first year of operation, rejuvenating shops and restaurants on the waterfront. The ship is booked years in advance for functions at up to $30,000 a pop.

Now the Navy has another ship it wants to bestow on a West Coast port: the big World War II battleship USS Iowa. But the ship has run into rough sailing and a harsh political headwind in the city the Navy thought would be an ideal home: San Francisco.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 to spurn the ship. Supervisors who oppose the offer say they don’t want a ship from a military in which openly gay men and women cannot serve. They also say they don’t want it because they oppose the Iraq war, which city voters condemned in a 2004 ballot question.

On Feb. 28, the supervisors passed a resolution urging impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and other activities. Sandoval appeared last month on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes show and said, “The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.”

Supervisor Tom Ammiano says San Francisco, a city where gays make up a significant segment of the population, need not apologize for spurning the battleship.

“You are not allowed to be a gay or lesbian in the military except when there’s a war, and then when the war ends, you are kicked out,” he told The Sacramento Bee.

Some gay veterans want the Iowa in San Francisco.

Mario Benfield is commander of American Legion Post 448, which describes itself as the only post whose membership is predominantly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender honorably discharged veterans.

“It’s a piece of history. There’s nothing better than a big battleship to grace the bay,” he says.

I hope the US military responds to a crisis in San Francisco if they are needed in the future. I know I might think twice of responding to any alarms from the City on the Bay. Perhaps they can just form their own militia of non-gun toting homeless people to take care of the city.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

27 Comments

  1. In other words, Bruce, you would like the US military to be as petty and vindictive as San Francisco’s hardcore leftists. Good job.

    BTW, Ammiano has a point.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 10, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - March 10, 2006

  2. San Fran, much though it may regret the fact, is actually part of America and the military has no choice about defending the ungrateful little wretches.

    HOWEVER- there is nothing in the Constitution that says that San Fran NEEDS Federal tax dollars, most especially law enforcement and antiterrorism dollars and the money that comes in from the military bases there and nearby. They want no part of the War on Terror? Fine. They can pay for their own security.
    Let them put their money-and safety- where their mouths are.

    Comment by DaveP. — March 10, 2006 @ 6:46 pm - March 10, 2006

  3. BTW, Ammiano has a point.

    Yes — on top of his head.

    There’s only a couple bazillion gays and lesbians who not only have managed to be in and stay in the military, but have thrived there and rendered incomparable levels of service to our country. The Iowa, then, is a symbol, not of how gays are repressed, but how gays have lived, thrived, and succeeded, even under difficult circumstances, and have played an essential part in the military that has put an end to tyranny worldwide and protected our country’s freedom, in wartime AND in peacetime.

    But that’s not Ammiano’s concern.

    His is pandering to the leftist hatemongers who loathe and detest the military. As he showed with his unqualified endorsement of John Kerry and his regular cheering of him even as Kerry used his religion as an excuse for supporting legally rendering gays second-class citizens, he has zero concern with discrimination against and repression of gays; he’s more than willing to support both. Especially if the person involved also smears and besmirches the US military as brutal murderers, as Kerry did in his “exaggerated” testimony before Congress.

    If it were within my power, Ammiano and those who support him would be instantly transported to Ba’athist Iraq, to live under the conditions under which they were so willing to perpetuate others. But unfortunately, that’s not an option; so, given that, I like DaveP’s idea.

    Given that I live here, though…….

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - March 10, 2006

  4. Why don’t they just be honest and admit what we know is true.

    Liberals hate America and hate the military possibly even more. Screw San Fran. As Dave said, let them secede and take care of themselves.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 10, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - March 10, 2006

  5. One of the supervisors said on TV that the police should defend the country, and that it would be good if we didn’t even have a military.

    I don’t *think* he meant *tomorrow*, but as a nice goal for the future he thought doing completely without the military would be a doable goal. We shouldn’t be sending troops over seas anywhere and if attacked our police forces… well, that’s what he said.

    And the battleship? Well, those big guns looming over the shoreline wasn’t what he figured was a good image for kids.

    That was a while ago, though.

    I honestly don’t know what to do about San Francisco. I enjoyed living in the Bay Area immensely, and generally people are sane, out to make money like everyone else, and carry on with their lives. There must be something about *politics* that brings out the idiots. Like normal people have better things to do, or something.

    And I *know* that the military can’t ignore a threat to the City just because the supervisors, and newspapers and whomever else are off the deep end, but what *could* they do? Security and prosperity allow all sorts of delusionary thinking to continue without normal checks and balances… and it wouldn’t be right to take away their security just to make a point.

    Comment by Synova — March 10, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - March 10, 2006

  6. “I don’t *think* he meant *tomorrow*…”

    He did. Sean Hannity pressed him, on the radio. I believe he admitted thinking that if the military were disbanded immediately, that would be a good thing, and we should get our terrorism protection from police, firefighters and (presumably) Interpol.

    Comment by Calarato — March 11, 2006 @ 1:50 am - March 11, 2006

  7. “I honestly don’t know what to do about San Francisco. I enjoyed living in the Bay Area immensely, and generally people are sane…”

    As a four-decade resident, I can tell you that the people here secretly (and sometimes openly) look down on the rest of the country for not being smart enough to move here, or to afford this place if they had wanted to move here.

    Opposition to Bush here may be read as a form of prejudice against Red Staters or so-called “rednecks”. Bush is from Texas, he’s a Christian, his Vice President likes hunting, he supports capital punishment, he opposes abortion, and (even though he is hardly anti-gay in practice) he opposes gay marriage. To the Bay Area mindset, that’s six strikes – twice as many as needed to be “out”.

    Comment by Calarato — March 11, 2006 @ 1:58 am - March 11, 2006

  8. And the City of San Francisco is sort of “the Bay Area of the Bay Area”, so to speak. Even within the Bay Area, which is already a separate world, SF is its own separate world, radiating smugness and blithe, oblivious parochialism into the rest of the Bay Area (along with surplus street people).

    SF is physically bothersome to drive into or out of. Some residents pride themselves on how they never leave, except by boat or airplane.

    Comment by Calarato — March 11, 2006 @ 2:05 am - March 11, 2006

  9. One of the supervisors said on TV that the police should defend the country, and that it would be good if we didn’t even have a military.

    This is insane, and tends to show a distinct lack of understanding of history.

    Half the reason we ended up dumping the articles of confederation was because there was a lot of strife over who was in charge of what, and defense was also a part of that equation.

    Just who would be in charge of all these policeman defending the country? When exactly would they have time to train for the defense of the nation part, amongs all the traffic ticket and crime investigation parts?

    Comment by just me — March 11, 2006 @ 9:29 am - March 11, 2006

  10. Well, I agree with all of the above posts, especially my compadre North Texas 30. He hit the nail right on the head.

    Girls, we should immediately use the power of the purse – and I don’t just mean slugging Sandoval over the head, much as he deserves it.

    In other words, BOYCOTT SAN FRANCISCO.

    Don’t give them Red State money. Don’t visit them. Don’t endorse their views or politicians. Let them fend for themselves.

    So they think they’re better than us? Well, we don’t need that kind of hostility and arrogance. And we sure as hell don’t need to spend our hard-earned dollars there.

    Personally, I’d rather visit cities like New Orleans, where our tourist dollars would be welcome in their rebuilding efforts, or Ft. Lauderdale, which has friendlier people, nice beaches and a Bush in the governor’s mansion.

    Let San Fran-sick-o starve!

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 11, 2006 @ 11:47 am - March 11, 2006

  11. San Francisco may well be exercising the greatest level of urban arrogance in our country today. I was an urbanite for 11 years. Having grown up in a suburb and attended college in a rural town I was constantly reminded of the disdain city people had for non-city people while I lived there. Not surprisingly these typically liberal individuals prided themselves on being city-dwellers while also ridiculing their own places of origin in the suburbs or rural communities. I never felt comfortable with this hypocrisy. Eventually I moved back to the suburbs where I’ve been quite happy. I doubt I will ever move back. I don’t miss the crime, the homelessness, the attitude, the congestion, the corruption, or the smell. But like residents of every other big city, San Francisco’s people and elected reps wear these negatives as some sort of demented badge of honor. If you don’t then there’s something wrong with you according to them. But hell, I don’t care how many nice restaurants, theaters, and galleries there are – tripping over homeless people passed out in their own filth in between destinations really tarnishes the urban experience. There’s plenty for urban-dwellers to be ashamed of. But they ignore it. Instead the energy is funneled to detesting non-city people. The Battleship Iowa must be not only a symbol of the US military to San Franciscan liberals, but also a symbol on non-city, non-urban Red America. The battleships name could not be any more appropriate to this point. Perhaps San Franciscans don’t hate all America. Maybe they don’t even really hate the military. Perhaps the truth is that Blue San Franciscans simply hate Red America, the non-urban dwelling American, the American who is more likely to serve in our military, the American – without whom – Blue America could not survive. They are reminded of this truth every time they see a military icon. And they can’t stand it.

    Comment by Dave — March 11, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - March 11, 2006

  12. As I’ve said before, yes, boycott SF.

    And if you want to learn about how the Iowa is not only military history but a part of gay and lesbian history, look at one of my old posts:

    http://www.gryphmon.com/2005/07/boycott_san_fra.html

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 11, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - March 11, 2006

  13. Why?! Stephen, your buddy in making truly outrageous false statements about proper and necessary U.S. defense efforts, hails from SF.

    Comment by Calarato — March 11, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - March 11, 2006

  14. (in case anyone is just tuning in, that reference is to this thread among others)

    Comment by Calarato — March 11, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - March 11, 2006

  15. Time to play devil’s advocate with Synova and “just me.”

    Just who would be in charge of all these policeman [sic] defending the country?

    Local and state governments would be in charge of the police, just as they are now.

    You don’t have to be a leftist to object to the idea of a standing army: Libertarians do it all the time. They would claim that state militias could handle the defense of the nation, without the need of a centralized military force. I don’t think this idea is practical (the nature of warfare has changed since 1776), but for about two-thirds of our nation’s history, it’s how we handled war and defense.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 11, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - March 11, 2006

  16. Tim, most (I’ll be generous here) “Big-L” Libertarians that I have met are almost as ignorant about the actual requirements of national defense as leftists are.
    Ask one to explain how the State Naval Militia of Wisconsin is supposed to crew and finance a carrier, or how the Elite All-Volunteer Special Forces of Vermont would manage to spring into life and get the training and preperation needed to overthrow the Taliban…

    Comment by DaveP. — March 11, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - March 11, 2006

  17. #15 In order to function as a military the police would have to become a military. Once they were a military… we’d have a military.

    As much as anything else it has to do with logistics… which is what the military is. Anyone can learn to operate a weapons platform or shoot a gun. That police have guns isn’t any more meaningful in this context than that street gangs have guns (and street gangs might do quite well in a fight on our soil, when it comes down to it.) All the marching in formation is about getting troops and weapons and support where it is needed when it is needed. Every larger function of the military is exactly the same thing in other forms… moving people and stuff. The few soldiers on the sharp end, are involved in killing people and breaking things but they wouldn’t be *able* to do that without the function of everyone else that makes that possible.

    Yes, street gangs would do well in a resistance war on our soil. The police would do about the same. Armed citizens would be hard to subdue.

    None of those groups are equipt or prepared to fight anything other than a guerrilla war… they *aren’t* an army.

    Comment by Synova — March 11, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - March 11, 2006

  18. I don’t think this idea is practical (the nature of warfare has changed since 1776), but for about two-thirds of our nation’s history, it’s how we handled war and defense.

    It wasn’t all that practical back in 1776 either, which is why the constitution expressly made it a function of the Federal government.

    Comment by just me — March 11, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - March 11, 2006

  19. In order to function as a military the police would have to become a military.

    This is ironic, given that liberals hate the police as much as they hate the military.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 12, 2006 @ 9:36 am - March 12, 2006

  20. Well, they “love” the police temporarily, when they think they can somehow advance the police as an alternative to the military, which they hate the most. But yeah, as soon as the coast clears so to speak, they go back to hating the police as well.

    Comment by Calarato — March 12, 2006 @ 10:06 pm - March 12, 2006

  21. And there are darned good reasons to have entirely separate police and military.

    I honestly don’t think that people who say things similar to that SF supervisior have ever thought about it.

    Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 1:08 am - March 13, 2006

  22. A policeman and solider are two fundamentally different jobs. The supervisor just betrays his own stupidity and ignorance.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 13, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - March 13, 2006

  23. Gee, there’s a surprise. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2006 @ 4:17 pm - March 13, 2006

  24. #22 – Yes Gryph, you’re quite right.

    Kind of like, you know, – defense intelligence gathering – and – investigations of criminal behavior– being 2 fundamentally different jobs? Right?

    Where, you know, the first one the government has always been able to do under Article 2 of the Constitution, provided that the (inherently) warrantless searches involved were “reasonable” as specified by Amendment 4?

    While the second one is the thing that would require full-blown warrants and stuff (under Amendment 4)?

    Ya think?

    Comment by Calarato — March 13, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - March 13, 2006

  25. So San Francisco turns down a donation for a tourist attraction and you make a big deal out of it?

    It’s funny that you think the military is there to defend everyone’s freedoms, and yet you attack anyone who exercises those freedoms.

    Let’s face it, you’d prefer the military only defended everyone like you, because your hatred for everyone who isn’t a conservative is obvious. Thus, you’d find any reason to want the military to ignore San Francisco and other areas who choose their own cultural paths instead of kowtowing to the average, the static and the “normal”.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 15, 2006 @ 10:30 pm - March 15, 2006

  26. God of Biscuits, I’ve been reading Patrick(gryph)’s and hank’s statements for a while –so I think I can comprehend just about anything that’s written in English, but your post is just… just…. lunacy.

    The last time I checked even the ACLU’s website, not even they were claiming the military should defend a free press, the right of free speech, the right to assemble and petition the govt, nor any other right.

    Where are you coming from? Wherever it is, it’s sheer lunacy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - March 16, 2006

  27. Move the Iowa to another port on the West coast and let that city benefit from the miliions from visitors. Let the SF gays, lesbiens, and/or liberals have their own gay rights parades,etc. See which city bebefits the most!

    Comment by Bob Ives — April 13, 2006 @ 11:07 am - April 13, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.