GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

USS Iowa Update from San Fran

May 11, 2006 by Bruce Carroll

Since San Francisco is my destination for today and tomorrow, I thought it would be fitting that I post this item, courtesy of North Dallas Thirty, which updates the deranged SF Board of Supervisors rejecting the docking of the USS Iowa in their fair city.

Why Patience Is A Virtue – North Dallas Thirty (in exile in SF)

Some of you may recall how pissed I was at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for rejecting the mooring of the battleship Iowa for reasons that are, to put it bluntly, stupid.

As the turn of events has revealed, though, karma is far friendlier than one can expect; the oxygen-deprived decision of the BoS has created an even better opportunity.

Vallejo council tosses hat into USS Iowa ring – Examiner.com 

The City’s infighting over having a historic naval battleship docked at one of San Francisco piers has been once again muted as Vallejo’s City Council voted last week in support of bringing the USS Iowa to Mare Island.

The Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to bring the battleship here, citing concerns of costs and placing a military warship in anti-war San Francisco. Supporters rallied state and federal officials in support of docking the Iowa in San Francisco. The debate brought national attention to The City, famous for its anti-war statements.

Vallejo, on the hand, is welcoming the opportunity to incorporate the ship’s military history into its own.

“We’re different [than San Francisco],” Vallejo spokesman Mark Mazzaferro said. “The city has a long naval history, so we think it would be an asset on Mare Island.”

As NDT says,

What better place to put the Iowa than somewhere that would draw tourists away from San Francisco, recognize and reward the long-established naval tradition of a city, be within eyesight of the Board of Supervisors — and be right in the face of the chief anti-military and pro-terrorist harridan who lives nearby?

I don’t know where Vallejo is…. but they can count on my tourist dollar if this historic battleship ends up in their port.

In the meantime, I’m wearing as much RED as I can tomorrow while I troop around the Communist Bay Area.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Filed Under: Liberals, Post 9-11 America

Comments

  1. Calarato says

    May 11, 2006 at 3:15 pm - May 11, 2006

    Vallejo is at the NE end of the Bay, here.

    I think it’s about a half our drive from SF (estimate may vary wildly with traffic conditions).

  2. Peter Hughes says

    May 11, 2006 at 3:32 pm - May 11, 2006

    I say boycott the Libtard City by the Bay!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  3. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    May 11, 2006 at 4:16 pm - May 11, 2006

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Island_Naval_Shipyard

    http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wwIIbayarea/mar.htm

    Mare Island was the home of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, which served the US Navy for nearly 150 years, and was a vital repair facility during WW2. Many ships damaged at Peral Harbor and during the Pacific campaign were quickly returned to active-service at Mare Island. It’s a master-stroke, and would allow both the USS Iowa and Mare Island to be honored.

  4. Scott in CA says

    May 11, 2006 at 4:30 pm - May 11, 2006

    Vallejo is no longer a Navy town, but it’s not a bad place. It’s gentrifying rapidly (and has a tight litle gay scene as well). Good for Vallejo! I hope they have a chance as Stockton wants it as well. Vallejo’s a better choice with the Naval history there and the ship could at least be on the Bay rather than a river port.

  5. North Dallas Thirty says

    May 11, 2006 at 6:28 pm - May 11, 2006

    GP, you’re coming to town, and you didn’t CALL?

    For a state visit such as yours, trust me; I can drift away from work for a bit.

  6. North Dallas Thirty says

    May 11, 2006 at 6:29 pm - May 11, 2006

    Oh, and by the way, I don’t consider this exile…..it’s more like being the vanguard of the Revolution. 🙂

  7. Synova says

    May 11, 2006 at 6:53 pm - May 11, 2006

    My brother lives in Vallejo. If you’re up that way go just a little farther up the freeway and take the tour at the Jelly Belly factory. Lots of fun. 🙂

  8. Patrick (Gryph) says

    May 11, 2006 at 8:47 pm - May 11, 2006

    Even Rush Limbaugh once said that he thought the people in SF were among the friendliest in the nation, (in comparison to New York).
    So I think you will get a warm welcome if you don’t have a chip on your shoulder.

    Just don’t call any phone-sex operators while you are there. You Know Who will be tracking you.

  9. North Dallas Thirty says

    May 11, 2006 at 9:41 pm - May 11, 2006

    wow…and nary a mention that the government has been collecting the phone records of millions of americans….

    Here’s a news flash, Kevin……..the phone companies have been doing it for decades. Your telephone records are hardly “private”.

  10. Calarato says

    May 11, 2006 at 10:04 pm - May 11, 2006

    Google the Clinton Administration’s ECHELON program while you’re at it, Kev. You might be shocked by what the Clintons started, pre-9/11. (I was.)

  11. Kevin says

    May 11, 2006 at 10:19 pm - May 11, 2006

    11: Ah yes, the the true test of the Bush defense strategy: blame Clinton. “Well, they were doing it before us”. And where do you get your sources, from a blog? The news reports I read today indicated that billions of records on phone calls were obtained from 3 large phone companies *after* 9/11.

  12. andophiroxia says

    May 11, 2006 at 10:59 pm - May 11, 2006

    Actually, if you look at Osama’s ascention to where he was up till 9-11 and Clinton’s policies, you’ll see that he enabled terrorism and really did little or nothing to stop it.

  13. Don says

    May 12, 2006 at 12:46 am - May 12, 2006

    Kevin does sound a wee bit young to be up so late. Wounder if his Mom shouldn’t tell him it’s past his bed time?

  14. ThatGayConservative says

    May 12, 2006 at 1:20 am - May 12, 2006

    wow…and nary a mention that the government has been collecting the phone records of millions of americans….

    Name ONE.

    Don’t you think that the libtards would vote to impeach Roosevelt? He had phone calls monitored, mail opened, imprisoned Japanese-Americans etc. etc. etc. Add to that the fact that he asked for permission, was denied and then turned right around and did it anyway.

    BTW, how’s the SMUG level in S.F. these days?

  15. ThatGayConservative says

    May 12, 2006 at 1:37 am - May 12, 2006

    #14

    Furthermore, Kevin, what makes you think that anybody gives enough of a damn about you to listen to your phone calls? Seriously. I’d like to know.

    Furthermore, why are the liberals hell bent on covering up their treasonous leak of national security information to their media ho’s?

  16. Synova says

    May 12, 2006 at 2:15 am - May 12, 2006

    #15 That’s actually our best protection for our privacy. I’m libertarian, but I’ve also dealt with having a security clearance which means that I have been investigated by the US government. The only reason that the details of our life are safe is that NO ONE CARES. Even when they *do* care, they are limited by time and resources for the investigation. They have to really care a *lot* to spend any time on you at all.

  17. ThatGayConservative says

    May 12, 2006 at 4:59 am - May 12, 2006

    #11

    11: Ah yes, the the true test of the Bush defense strategy: blame Clinton.

    Did it ever occur to you, team killing fucktard, that your sweet, precious lord BJ is to blame for some of the SHIT Bush dug us out of? Of course not. You’ve got your fat lips firmly planted on his cock and you’ll die to protect the BJ legacy, won’t you? You won’t let down your personal jesus. You were jealous of Monica, weren’t you? Hell, history started on innaugaration day 2001, right?
    Nobody ever worried about terrorism or Hussein’s (the other cock you suck) WMDs until Bush came along. If only you believed it Hesus Christ. Then you could blame Bush for his crucifixion.

    Face it, Kevin. You’re a sorry team killing fucktard. You suck floppy Clinton dick and you gladly take a tea bag and a facial. We see you for what you are. A complete whore.

  18. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 10:01 am - May 12, 2006

    #11 – Kevin, it is fascinating that you took my point as “blame Clinton”.

    All I did was bring up a certain fact about Clinton. That’s it.

    I didn’t supply any interpretation. I haven’t drawn any conclusions or made any effort to excuse Bush. All I did was bring up something you didn’t know. And you immediately discounted it. Hmm, maybe because you felt embarassed that you didn’t know it?

    As to the Bush Administration having to obtain further phone records after 9-11: Obviously. I mean, if they were going to look for patterns of terrorist cell activity leading to possible attacks – something the Clinton Administration NOTABLY FAILED to do with ECHELON – then the Bush people would indeed have to get a batch of new phone records, right?

    All this is “neither here nor there” as to the question of how far the U.S. government should go in trying to protect its citizens from terrorism. That’s the question to discuss. But you, Kevin, aren’t much interested in that, are you?

  19. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 10:37 am - May 12, 2006

    Interesting in relation to any mature discussion of how far the government should go in protecting us – if anyone should be interested in such a discussion:

    Phone-Records Surveillance Is Broadly Acceptable to Public

    Hat tip Powerline.

    Personally, I think it’s clear that everything the Bush Administration has done, they have done to protect the country and no innocent individuals have been harmed. (To state it exactly: At least no one in the liberal media has yet been able to come up with a single instance of either a domestic Bush political opponent or an ordinary American suffering any harm or injustice as a result of the Bush Administration’s terrorist-monitoring and search-for-terrorist programs.)

    Now having said that: these programs, which at present have been used well to protect us from terrorists, could be abused IN THE FUTURE by an unscrupulous President who wanted to monitor (or quash) her domestic political opponents.

    I say “her” because I am, of course, thinking of Hillary Clinton – based on the way the Clintons already mis-used the IRS to intimidate people, when they had the Presidency in the 1990s.

    So, yes, the programs do indeed give me pause. They aren’t being abused as we speak, but – especially with the protection of the liberal media – they could be mis-used by a future President. As a civil libertarian that gives me great concern.

  20. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 10:50 am - May 12, 2006

    Hat tip Hugh Hewitt:

    A list of 10 al Qaeda plots that have been foiled.

    Just to remind the clueless that America does, indeed, face an ongoing terrorist threat. The Bush Administration has done a great job in protecting us.

  21. Patrick (Gryph) says

    May 12, 2006 at 11:16 am - May 12, 2006

    Face it, Kevin. You’re a sorry team killing fucktard. You suck floppy Clinton dick and you gladly take a tea bag and a facial. We see you for what you are. A complete whore.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative —

    What’s nice about “thatgayconservative” is that he always makes the looniest of the Left look sane by comparison.

  22. Michigan-Matt says

    May 12, 2006 at 11:30 am - May 12, 2006

    Bruce, thanks for signaling NDXXX’s post on this issue. He’s got a fascinating and insightful blog too.

    Visiting SF has always been a dilemma for this gay Republican –no, a real dilemma (Dan). I see the kind of hostility the leadership of SF has toward our military, toward conservatism, toward mainstream American values and wonder how thinking people ever let SF get this bad. When I go there, I see chaos in the public transit, disdain for tourists, dirt in the streets, and reminders everywhere that the city is a testament to dysfunctional governance –and yet it continues! The nonsense about making a political statement against war, against American military history in favor of anti-imperialistic principles underscores how far SF has fallen into the abyss of decay. Why spend a dime there helping to indirectly prop-up the failure?

    From a distance, the city is beautiful –on a rare sunny day, something akin to RR’s shining city on the hill. But when I get there, tranverse the city, open the newspaper, listen to the news… it is so depressing that something with such potential is allowed to wallow in inferiority and neglect and failed vision. Is civic pride in such short supply?

    I wish the guns on the Iowa could fire off a broadside while passing by SF and make it heard at City Hall and the County Courthouse and the Federal Bldgs. I wish the silent majority of decent people would rise up and throw off the bondage of corruption and failure that characterizes SF.

    Maybe when we get done with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and NKorea… we ought to turn American military assets on SF… and Hollywood.

  23. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 11:47 am - May 12, 2006

    #20 – Yeah Gryph – As one of those loonies (at least on some issues), any scrap of relief you can cling to must be really nice for you, huh?

  24. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 11:58 am - May 12, 2006

    By the way, TGC:

    Your basic viewpoint is right on and I admire your clarity… and, at the same time, I do have to agree that you undermine your arguments if/when you present them in hateful language.

    The name-calling based on F-words, scatological functions, etc. in particular makes me cringe when I see it, and sometimes less inclined to read you.

    I don’t run things so do what you want… subject to Bruce and Dan who do run things… I only wanted to mention the effect that the hateful language can have on me, who would otherwise agree with you much of the time. Peace!

  25. Patrick (Gryph) says

    May 12, 2006 at 2:04 pm - May 12, 2006

    #20 – Yeah Gryph – As one of those loonies (at least on some issues), any scrap of relief you can cling to must be really nice for you, huh?

    At least when I insult people its with more originality, style, and verve.

  26. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 2:25 pm - May 12, 2006

    Oh, please. 🙂

    Dear readers: show of hands – anyone who has ever found a Gryph insult to have originality or wit?

  27. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 2:48 pm - May 12, 2006

    (Or “style”, “verve” – Let’s stick with his strict criteria)

    (it’s easy to search Gryph insults showing his hypocrisy, like this TGC-toned one, or that time he pretended not to read us… but, hypocrisy isn’t one of his listed criteria 😉 )

  28. Patrick (Gryph) says

    May 12, 2006 at 4:56 pm - May 12, 2006

    Dear readers: show of hands – anyone who has ever found a Gryph insult to have originality or wit?

    …..Gryphmon raises hand.

    Motion carried.

  29. Michigan-Matt says

    May 12, 2006 at 5:09 pm - May 12, 2006

    The Nation of Gryph has spoken. It shall be law.

  30. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 5:37 pm - May 12, 2006

    Isn’t solipsism grand? 🙂

    But one way to understand hypocrisy is that, in essence, the person votes for themselves – regardless of evidence or standards.

  31. Calarato says

    May 12, 2006 at 5:46 pm - May 12, 2006

    And with that, Gryph has bored me enough for one day. Until tomorrow!

  32. John in IL says

    May 12, 2006 at 11:59 pm - May 12, 2006

    In defense of TGC, he says the things I want to say but never would. I think he is following in a grand gay tradition and I like it.

  33. Patrick (Gryph) says

    May 13, 2006 at 12:33 pm - May 13, 2006

    In defense of TGC, he says the things I want to say but never would. I think he is following in a grand gay tradition and I like it.

    So basically, he a bitter aging queen. I can appreciate that.

  34. Lucas says

    May 13, 2006 at 1:44 pm - May 13, 2006

    I’m confident that San Fran is reeling and shaking in their boots at the idea that Vallejo (wherever this is as you yourself said) will challenge them as a tourist draw.

    *note sarcasm*

  35. raj says

    May 14, 2006 at 9:19 am - May 14, 2006

    #8 Patrick (Gryph) — May 11, 2006 @ 8:47 pm – May 11, 2006

    Even Rush Limbaugh once said that he thought the people in SF were among the friendliest in the nation…

    Was that before or after he started his allegedly illicit drug regimine? 😉

    #9 North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2006 @ 9:41 pm – May 11, 2006

    Your telephone records are hardly “private”.

    Shockers, we agree again. No, telephone records point to point (number calling, number called, even addresses) are not private. The contents of the call generally are, however, and it is access to and use of the contents that may require some sort of a court order.

    #10 Calarato — May 11, 2006 @ 10:04 pm – May 11, 2006

    I read about Echelon in the newspapers here Germany a number of years before it apparently made its way into the American media. Apparently, it didn’t go very far in some reason because the Europeans refused to cooperate, and the Ami government needed European cooperation in order to make it work. At least, that’s what was reported here.

    #13 ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2006 @ 1:20 am – May 12, 2006

    Roosevelt? He had phone calls monitored, mail opened, imprisoned Japanese-Americans etc. etc. etc. Add to that the fact that he asked for permission, was denied and then turned right around and did it anyway.

    I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to express, but, regarding the imprisoned Japanese Americans, Roosevelt didn’t ask for permission to imprison them. His commanding general for the western US region took it upon himself to do that. Ultimately, of course, Roosevelt was responsible and probably agreed with it. The issue went up to the US SupCt at least once, and in the most famous case, Korematsu vs. US (spelling of Korematsu my be in error), the Court, in what was probably the worst decision since the Dred Scot Decision, approved the gov’ts action. The one opinion that I found interesting (I forget who wrote it), the justice wrote, basically, you (the gov’t) are going to do this anyway, regardless of what we say, but I disapprove that you are asking us (the SupCt) to give our approval to what you are going to do.

    #18 Calarato — May 12, 2006 @ 10:37 am – May 12, 2006

    …based on the way the Clintons already mis-used the IRS to intimidate people, when they had the Presidency in the 1990s…

    I’m sure that you would not seriously contest the fact that use of the IRS to intimidate people long preceded the Clintons. Nixon was certainly doing that, and it was probably done long before.

Categories

Archives