San Francisco Says "No" To Marines

[realtraveller]

Who wanted to film a commercial using one lane of California Street.

They were permitted to film so long as no Marines appeared. "Traffic" was the stated reason.

abc7news.com: Marines Denied Permission To Film Commercial


Recently the city also blocked the USS Iowa from docking (as a tourist attraction) and they tried to stop a Blue Angels air show.

[erik_kosberg]

{{{{Shudder}}}}

[AuntieEmma[$]]

they tried to stop a Blue Angels air show.

Since the Blue Angels show is, in fact, going on as usual, who is it that came along and forced "them" to allow it?

You say that "they" tried to stop it. Who came in to defeat these "theys" and restore goodness and light to the Evil City? Was it, perhaps, Superman?

[realtraveller]

So much for "We Support the Troops" in a city that permits all sorts of other traffic disrupting demonstrations.

S. F. has a bad rep on this sort of thing. The city film commission doesn't have a clue about PR.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

realtraveller said

So much for "We Support the Troops" in a city that permits all sorts of other traffic disrupting demonstrations.

S. F. has a bad rep on this sort of thing. The city film commission doesn't have a clue about PR.

Thanks for answering my question!

I guess it was Superman who came in and forced "the city" to allow the Blue Angels to perform, after "the city" tried to stop them! Thank you, Superman, for kicking "the city's" butt!

[realtraveller]

You didn't address the topic of not permitting the Marines to film.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Here's the Fleet Week schedule. You all are welcome to come down, and don't forget your Liberal Repellent Spray!

San Francisco Fleet Week 2007

In other news, San Francisco has been renamed "Chris Daly City," in recognition of the fact that one member of the board of supervisors represents the entire city to the world. Chris Daly City should not be confused with Daly City, the small city directly south of The-City-Formerly-Known-As-San-Francisco, so be careful when you're typing into Mapquest.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

realtraveller said

You didn't address the topic of not permitting the Marines to film.

I don't know much about it, but I'm sure that it proves, somehow, that only Superman would be able to wrest power from "the city" and allow the Blue Angels to return! Yay, Superman!

[AuntieEmma[$]]

In breaking news, Chris Daly, who despises San Franciscans almost as much as Kathy does, though for very different reasons, has objected to the city being renamed in his honor. "I spit on Mayor Newsom," Daly told reporters, exhibiting his trademark charm. "How dare he insult me by trying to put my name on this f***ing city. Why don't you go snort another line of coke, Mr. Mayor!"

[realtraveller]

I don't hate San Francisco. I used to live there. It's a beautiful place to visit.

But why deny the Marines permission to film? Especially to allow filming only if no actual Marines were there. It's just another stupid episode that shows the rest of the country that certain San Franciscans anyway, prominent ones given positions of power, do not like the sons and daughters of this country who serve in the military.

Unless the city and/or its film commission never permits filming or any other disruptions or demonstrations on city streets during rush hour.

[erik_kosberg]

It's just another stupid episode that shows the rest of the country that certain San Franciscans anyway, prominent ones given positions of power, do not like the sons and daughters of this country who serve in the military.

Just another sleigh ride through Faulty Logic Land.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I don't know anything about the Marines film, and I'm not going to discuss it based on the "facts" as presented by the conservative media, because I know, from long experience, that when the conservative media tells one of its "San Francisco outrage of the day" stories, it gets the facts wrong far more often then it gets them right.

What I do know a little about is the Blue Angels appearance.

San Francisco government consist of an 11-member Board of Supervisors and a Mayor. The Board of Supervisors voted 7-3 to approve the Blue Angels. The Mayor also supported the Blue Angels making their usual appearance.

The person who brought the motion to cancel the Blue Angels was a Supervisor named Chris Daly. He in no way represents the city as a whole, or the city government as a whole. He is not exactly what you call a team player. Recently, right in the middle of a Board of Supervisors meeting, he got mad at the mayor for opposing some policy that he supported, so he accused the mayor of being a cokehead. (That's what I was joking about above.)

Since the way you describe the Blue Angel incident is so distorted, why should I believe (much less discuss, as presented) what you say about the Marines film or anything else in the "S.F. outrage of the day" category?

[conradd]

Well, it's not like San Francisco doesn't have a track record here.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

conradd said

Well, it's not like San Francisco doesn't have a track record here.

But those aren't the same things.

[conradd]

It shows a long-standing anti-military bias. And I think that's what Kathy was trying to get across but instead of that discussion, she got snarky comments about Superman and a straw man argument about distorted media reports. Just sayin'.

[drmomentum[$]]

I don't get how the first link applies. Is wanting to teach peaceful conflict resolution evidence of anti-military bias?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

If I posted a story that I heard which said that a teacher was fired in Kansas for teaching evolution, and if I said that the school district's stated reason for firing the teacher -- because she came to work falling-down drunk -- must be a lie because Kansas is a state that hates science, and therefore they must have fired her because they don't allow science-lovers in Kansas -- and, if in the very same post I also told another story about Kansas that someone who lived in Kansas and who was familiar with the actual story would instantly recognize as false -- and if I supported it all by links to articles about school districts in Kansas that had tried to mandate teaching intelligent design in the past (none having any connection to this particular teacher except that they were in the same state) .... How convincing would this be? Would my assumption that the teacher was fired for teaching evolution be a fair one? Would it be useful to argue about whether it's a bad thing to fire teachers because they love science? Or would this all be one big straw man, the focus for a lot of moral indignation about something which may not have even happened?

[hadassahchana[$]]

[eris esoteric]

conradd said

what Kathy was trying to get across but instead of that discussion, she got snarky comments

OK, here's the thing. It's not Judy, it's not Deb, it's not Slick, it's not Republicans and it's not conservatives.

It's Kathy. The reason people respond to Kathy in the negative way that we do is because of her presentation to begin with.

Period.

Perhaps there needs to be a change in how people respond to Kathy, but I really don't think that that's going to happen until Kathy changes how she interacts here.

I'm sure some of the more eloquent folks here can clinically explain why Kathy's behavior is so provocative. Me, I'll be blunt.

Kathy often complains that people who object to her behavior are "shooting the messenger." Well, if I were a king, and a messenger were to walk up to me, spit in my eye, call me a baby-murdering polygamist pedophile, and THEN deliver her message, yes I would have her shot.

Is she the only one on the board? No. Is she the worst? Depends on the day. But Kathy gets the responses she gets because of the way that she treats people who disagree with her. Because you happen to agree with her on points does not mean that you are less respected or listened to. You have your baggage here, I have mine, and Kathy has hers.

And, quite frankly, and quite bluntly, we each have to bear the burden that our behavior has created for us.

[hadassahchana[$]]

Other people have done things like that yet no one batted an eye. There have been some pretty awful name-calling bouts on the board, but now, even if Kathy were to show up today and say,"It's Friday, I read it in the newspaper", some of you would be posting links to Kos apropos of absolutely nothing while including snarky smilies, others would start with the,"Oh, you always try to blame San Francisco for Fridays" and others would just join in and heckle.

Guess why that's a problem? I was interested in that link Kathy posted. I think it's pretty sucky that it happened. I would have enjoyed talking about it with you guys- but I didn't post, because I know by now that it won't go in the direction of a reasonable debate. So, by calling Kathy names and making fun of her opinion, y'all have shut me up as well. That doesn't work well in a forum dedicated to discussion and debate.

[phoenixx]

Eris has a valid point, I think. Because Kathy has become known for a certain type of post, ALL of her posts elicit that response now.

Think of it as the Boy Who Cried Wolf, Cindy. When he really had something to say, no one listened, because he had cried wolf so many times before.

Kathy has become, through her posting, an icon of anger who tends to seem prejudiced in various ways because of the language she chooses (against illegals, or against liberals, or against other things). So people respond accordingly.

I have no idea how Kathy is in person. I don't know her at all outside of this forum. I try not to respond to her posts as much as possible, not because I don't want to talk about the issues she brings up, but because I don't want to respond in the way her posts tend to make me want to respond. I don't want to argue a side argument she injects, I want to discuss the link, but the link is presented in a way that the focus is the underlying side argument.

And Kathy, I apologize for talking about you in the third person when you are "standing right there", so to speak. I'd love to engage in conversations online with you about the issues that concern you, I just don't want to have to wade through a bunch of mud and misdirection to do it.

And guys, to be fair, Kathy isn't the only one that elicits a certain response. There are other people on the board who tend to get a certain kind of reaction from people to their posts because they present their passion for an argument in a way that has become standard for them. This means the argument gets lost as people back away from the discussion to avoid a snarkout.

The way I see it is that we all get consumed by our strong beliefs, to a point where we can't hear how we sound when we present our argument to be heard.