Centerfield

And this is news, Tully?

I would dearly love to see San Francisco live under the laws and control of any of the countries or regimes that America has waged war against over the past century. I believe Saddam and Mullah Omar were particularly tolerant of gay people.

Do they not understand that it is precisely America's tolerance for, well, San Francisco, that causes the militant Islamofascists like Bin Laden to hate us?

Posted by: PatHMV at August 20, 2005 12:48 PM

Whereas, if American women all put on burkas and American gays were stoned to death, then the terrorists would love us, right? ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 20, 2005 02:15 PM

Pretty much, yes, as long as we converted to Islam at the same time. From the 9-11 Commission's report:

Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."15

Posted by: PatHMV at August 20, 2005 02:47 PM

I believe Saddam and Mullah Omar were particularly tolerant of gay people.

It is well known that Sharia Law is highly tolerant of affection between the same gender. But, Sodomy is punishable by death. And in fact, in Mullah Omar's Afghanistan there was only one punishment proscribed for sodomy: Execution by live burial via having a wall toppled ontop of the accused.

As practiced it appears that anyone who survived 30 minutes of live burial was allowed to live... apparently having payed for their sins during that 30 minutes. Presumably they believed that Allah determined who died and who survived 30 minutes of live burial, and thus the Taliban officials weren't going to quibble with who Allah chose to be merciful towards.

Posted by: Kevin at August 20, 2005 06:34 PM

Of course, I should not have omitted Iran from my list of "San Francisco-friendly" nations.

Lest anybody mistake my sarcasm, I think the attitude of the Islamic world toward homosexuality (or any sexuality, frankly) is a terrible, terrible thing. My point is that for all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth of activists like the San Francisco city council, America has been one of the greatest forces for tolerance and openness the world has ever seen. That they refuse to honor the heroes who have given their lives to help bring that freedom and tolerance to others around the world is sad and short sighted.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 20, 2005 06:42 PM

Lest anybody mistake my sarcasm, I think the attitude of the Islamic world toward homosexuality (or any sexuality, frankly) is a terrible, terrible thing.

Our very own religious conservative's attitude towards homosexuality, especially that between men, differs with Jihadists mostly in terms of the degree of severity.

My point is that for all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth of activists like the San Francisco city council, America has been one of the greatest forces for tolerance and openness the world has ever seen.

Definitely a valid point. But, does anyone dispute that American toleration of homosexuality is a direct reflection of liberal/progressive ideology?

I find it interesting how American conservatives like to hold up historical stances of American society such as toleration of homosexuality, which they themselves oppose, as examples of why the Jihadists need to be opposed. Bush et al have frequently talked about their desire to see liberal democracies in the Middle East while steadfastly promoting a decidedly conservative brand of democracy right here at home. It's a patently hypocritical stance.

Posted by: Kevin at August 20, 2005 08:00 PM

"It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind."

No, no, I won't have it! The Nazis were worse!

Whoops! I made a Nazi reference, so that means I'm out of the game. (though I should get partial credit for throwing in a Fawlty Towers joke.

Though if the truth be told, if we did execute all gays and bar women from employment outside the home, that would mean the complete and total collapse of Hollywood, the fashion industry, and the arts, not to mention the partial and semi-complete collapse of business, manufacturing and services. We would then be as poor as Bin Laden's country, and therefore they would have no further reason to envy us, which is the real bone of convention.

If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."

I say--give the people what they want! ;-o

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 20, 2005 11:27 PM

Last week, I posted that Evan Bayh had figured it out:

"Unless the American people know that we will be good stewards of the nation's security, they're unlikely to trust us with anything else," said the two-term Indiana senator. "That's a very important threshold we have to get over."

San Francisco evidently has a different strategy. I'm sure they think they're being all principled and tough, but you know what it reminds me of? Transformers the Movie, when Megatron tries to be all tough guy and dictate terms to Unicron, and Unicron shrugs and tells him to "proceed on your way to oblivion". If the democrats don't follow Bayh's advice, they are over. They are regarded as an amoral mess who are weak on national security; this will help neither. Fix it or die.

Posted by: Simon at August 21, 2005 12:06 AM

Whoops! I made a Nazi reference, so that means I'm out of the game. (though I should get partial credit for throwing in a Fawlty Towers joke.

I always thought that Godwin's Law was silly. Sometimes nazi comparisons are ntirely valid, and it seems somehow reductive to treat that event as if it was some inconceivable aberation that dropped uot of the clear blue sky onto an unsuspecting mankind. The people that perpetrated those horrors were people, the people who stood by and let it happen were people, and I think we do ourselves a disservice if we think it could never happen again. Politics which treats people as aggregates and groups, rathr than individuals - identity politics, if you will - is only a stepping stone to losing sight of the humanity of individuals. Posted by: Simon at August 21, 2005 12:15 AM

Hiya, Jean! I'm afraid you've got one up on me with the Fawlty Towers reference. I can't place it... =(

P.S. You forgot to add that all our women would be walking around with horrible, un-styled hair! Maybe that's why the burkas? They executed all the hair stylists?

P.P.S. I sent you an e-mail the other day; if you haven't gotten it yet, you may want to peek in your spam folder in case it got sent there again.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 21, 2005 12:20 AM

You did? I'll go see! :-)

The Fawlty Towers joke comes from the "Waldorf Salad episode, where the...uh...forthright American, Mr. Hamilton, orders the innkeeper Basil Fawlty to listen to all of the guests' complaints. When Mr. Hamilton accuses Basil of running "the worst hotel in Western Europe", an elderly guest objects, saying "No, no, I won't have it: there's a place in Eastbourne..."

Yeah, yeah...like a lot of British humor, it's hard to translate to American. (though that hasn't stopped at least one producer from trying. There was a brief attempt to make an American version of Fawlty Towers starring John Larroquette in the Basil Fawlty role. This was a mistake, of course. The only American actor who could fill John Cleese's role is John Lithgow. :-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 21, 2005 12:52 AM

Oh, I love Fawlty Towers (and most other BBC comedies... if only their news writing wasn't done by the same people who do the comedy writing... ;) I just didn't remember that particular episode. Surely I've seen it (weren't there only like a dozen or so?), but just didn't remember the Eastbourne line. Thanks to your link I now recall the episode, but it's been some time since I last saw it. I need to go by the DVD of all the episodes!

Posted by: PatHMV at August 21, 2005 01:01 AM

Godwin's Law applies to the obviously gratuitous and hyperbolic use of Nazi/Hitler comparitives as ad hominem. The mere mention of Nazis or Hitler does not invoke it, it is context-sensitive. There are times when Nazi/Stalin/Pol Pot/Taliban mentions are quite valid, of course. Particularly when discussing REAL genocide, pogroms, fascism, etc. If they weren't, this paragraph would have racked me up quite a score, no?

Without women and gays in the workforce, our nation would implode economically. Our schools and health-care systems would disintegrate. Those employers who are foolish enough to discriminate against women and/or minorities and/or gays cut themselves off from over half the best employees available--which doesn't help their bottom line. Stupid move even before considering the moral issues, eh? I wonder if the sharia crowd ever stops to consider that their economic backwardness is due at least in part to such things.

(Fawlty Towers is awesome half the time, tedious the other half, yet still rocks after all these years. Which gives it about a 10-1 lead over most US sitcoms. Agreed on Lithgow. Americans don' do tongue-in-cheek subtle camp well at all, so you need to go for sincere inspired camp as a filler...of which Lithgow is a master.)

Posted by: Tully at August 21, 2005 12:11 PM

Well, wouldn't it make more sense for this boat to be moored somewhere it'll be enjoyed and appreciated. No one seems to be arguing that the vote doesn't represent the majority. So all that's left is is a left-bashing op.

Do we even know for sure whether the stated reasons are the only ones? I have desire to disparage the service of this ship, but mooring and maintaining an old ship costs money and space. And you know what, we can't save every old thing that has sentimental value.

Posted by: bk at August 21, 2005 12:35 PM

I agree on both John Cleese and John Lithgow. Two of the most brilliant sitcom actors ever, IMHO. They both combine physical comedy and subtle inuendo in a way that makes it rise above the level of either art form on it's own.

I was just sitting here thinking of other brillain physical actors like Dick VanDyke. He was brilliant too. But, what separates him from Cleese and Lithgow is that with Cleese and Lithgow you have to pay attention to what they say as well as what they do. VanDyke, as brilliant a physical comedian as he was, was really just a goofball comedian. You could turn the sound off and get the vast majority of his humor.

Third Rock from the Sun is hand's down my favorite American sitcom ever. And really it's because of Lithgow. The supporting cast played off of him brilliantly. But, he made it what it was.

Posted by: Kevin at August 21, 2005 03:20 PM

Do we even know for sure whether the stated reasons are the only ones?

There are always piles of potential reasons, but the stated ones are what we have to go on. From the minutes of the meeting, it seems that 5 of the 11 commissioners approved of urging their Congressional delegation to designate SF as the home port location, but after the shouting was all done the vote went 3 to 8 against. The financial concerns are mostly bluster--as Feinstein has noted, the US Dept. of the Interior and the SF Maritime National Park Association would be happy to have her at the SF Maritime National Historical Park along with the Pampanito and the Balclutha, and the bills would be theirs. Best estimate for likely visitor numbers is around 150-200K/yr at tour ticket price of $10 per.

Posted by: Tully at August 21, 2005 05:07 PM

Well, wouldn't it make more sense for this boat to be moored somewhere it'll be enjoyed and appreciated.

I suggest Fall River, Ma. Right now, in Battleship Cove, they have a battleship, a destroyer, and half a dozen other boats and military craft.

On the other hand, Providence, RI has a Russian Sub. Perhaps we could trade the Juliett 484 to San Francisco for the Iowa.

Posted by: Henry Woodbury at August 22, 2005 09:50 AM

LOL, Henry. That makes sense in all too many weird ways.

Posted by: Tully at August 22, 2005 09:51 AM

Somehow I missed this discussion, but I enjoyed reading the posts...it's entertaining. In my personal observations, I have discovered that quite typically the very people who are allowed the freedom to openly exist (i.e. relgious conservatives, gays, etc) are often the most intolerant of points of view that differ with their own. Try being a Southern Baptist Democrat (who actually votes Democrat) or a gay Republican.

Posted by: AR at August 22, 2005 10:17 AM

The funny thing about San Francisco's rejection of the USS Iowa is that historically, such rejection of influence over a locality by the military-industrial complex, or any remnant thereof, is a strictly Republican ideal, originally put forth by President Eisenhower, a proponent of de-centralization, who warned the public against the increase of defense spending and the subsequent direct and undue influence of the military economy over local governments. Eisenhower believed that the growth of federal power posed a serious threat to the ability of a local government to control its own security. He warned against the centralization of issues such as national security under federal policies which increased defense-spending, such as was called for by Democrats like Adlai Stevenson, citing its resultant negative impact taking shape as a dependency by localities on the federal government to use such spending increases to solve national problems, a big Republican no-no. So, San Fran, looks like you couldn't have expressed a more Republican viewpoint in your rejection of the USS Iowa. You would think that most Democrats would say " Yes! Wheel that sucker in! " in response to the tax revenues that would be generated by an increase in tourism spending, however the people of S.F. apparently no longer agree and have expressed themselves as largely Republican in their view of an unnecessary military presence in their area. Good Job!

Posted by: NYM at August 30, 2005 10:12 AM