Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
San Francisco: a military-free zone?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, January 30, 2006

With the corner on the tin-foil concession in the US, this probably shouldn't come as a huge surprise:
Everyone knows that San Francisco is a focal point for anti-war sentiment. Protests, civil disobedience and other acts designed to show opposition to the war in Iraq are standard fare in these parts. But now it seems that San Francisco anti-war activists have taken their opposition to the war in Iraq a step further.

Not content with simply protesting the war, they've trained their sights on all things military. In an apparent effort to rid the city of any semblance of its military history, various leftist groups, and even some city officials, are trying to erase the military's presence altogether. In short, San Francisco has declared itself a military-free zone.

Following on the heels of their success in sometimes violently shutting down job fairs that include military recruiters on college campuses, the counterrecruitment movement is now looking to broaden its influence. Instead of merely protesting the existence of military recruiters on campuses, the movement wants to ban them altogether. Proposition I, a measure that will be on the ballot this November, seeks to do just that.
Cool. And if it passes I'd suggest another proposal. When the big earthquake comes, and it will, and San Francisco is a smoking heap of rubble, they shouldn't bother calling the National Guard or the US military. Both will be too busy helping people who appreciate having them around.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, this much is certain; Cindy Sheehan can count on one area for support...
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
When the big earthquake comes, and it will, and San Francisco is a smoking heap of rubble, they shouldn’t bother calling the National Guard or the US military. Both will be too busy helping people who appreciate having them around.
Problem is, we know that won’t happen. If disaster strikes, no one will be holding SF residents responsible for their idiocy. Military personnel will be in there digging out survivors before the echos fade from the hills around the city.

That’s the problem with this kind of gratuitous, incoherent leftism. We treat the leftists as children, who are not really responsible for their actions.

Thus they get a free ride on the American system. They can denigrate the military all they like, and they’ll still be protected from foreign invasion, and they’ll still be helped if disaster comes. And, when the soldiers are in there risking their lives to save people, the leftists will still spit on them.

This kind of leftism is morally repugnant to any thinking person, of any political stripe. One of the serious weaknesses of the current Democratic Party is that they completely accept and excuse such behavior, instead of holding these people to some rational standard of maturity.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Ha ha, as if they would even be available to help with this worthless cheerleading douchebag Bush in office.

 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
In terms of us San Franciscans getting a free ride, we are one of the most affluent cities in the country. We quite literally pay for you half witted jingoistic clowns to pursue your worthless un-American adventures directly out of our overstuffed pocketbooks.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
In one poignant sentence, Matt expresses the entirety of what passes for deep thought in San Francisco.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
One last point.

This post echoes exactly what Bill O’Reilly said on his show, except his wish was that terrorists would attack our fine city. I personally find that expression and the one at the top of this thread to be a far, far clearer statement of treachery against America than anything signalled by San Francisco’s passage of a feel good ballot measure for recovering acid casualties. But then again, I think of America as the sum of all its parts, not just those I happen to agree with politically.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Uh Steverino, you are incredibly pompous, but from your blog it appears what you do with your life is run a Farrell’s.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
And what would someone who ONLY runs a Farrell’s know... I mean thats SOOOOO Plebian. I do WISH that the looooower clahsses would mind their places and betters. Thank you M’luhd Matt. Your postings illustrate why the Left/Progressive Front in this nation is so electorally weak.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Just saying, some guy who runs a Farrell’s surely doesn’t have cause to take such a pompous tone with me, just read what he wrote, he’s dismissing an entire city full of high performing bankers, lawyers, software engineers, geneticists, advertising and media workers, etc. with his puerile blather.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
OK, time is up, just one last point.

San Francisco pays taxes, lots of them, into the federal system. One of the things we get for this is a basic social contract - we receive services of the kind the poster says should be withheld.

He is saying that he doesn’t like the way we run our city, so the federal government should withhold what we already paid for and continue to pay for.

Isn’t there something fundamentally authoritarian, non libertarian about that?
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Isn’t there something fundamentally authoritarian, non libertarian about that?
Well, there is something VERY un libertarian about not even letting the military in your city. You are free to protest against the military. The great thing is the military will protect you while you protest. But not even letting them in the city?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Uh, meagain, you are aware that there’s a military base in our city, in the Presidio, right? You need to restate your argument so it’s factually correct before I’ll reply to it.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Isn’t there something fundamentally authoritarian, non libertarian about that?
Well m’Luhd at the risk of puerile blather demeaning high performing bankers, lawyers, software engineers, geneticists, advertising and media workers, etc. of that which epitomizes all that is GOOD, Noble and True in in that fetid wasteland that is otherwise Amerikka, that would be both "Yes" and "no". As Mr Hollis posted:
Thus they get a free ride on the American system. They can denigrate the military all they like, and they’ll still be protected from foreign invasion, and they’ll still be helped if disaster comes.
So Yes Steve’s comment is nonconstitutional, after all, one gets the Federal Government’s services irrespective of one’s opinion of it. But No, it’s not non-Libertarian. San Francisco is saying it desires NOT the US military. So in the Libertarian world, one could make the argument that the US military is not obligated to San Francisco.

Mr. Hollis has it right, though. You and your ilk will suffer NO aversive consequences for your actions, so therefore your actions are childishly safe. There’s no real risk in what you propose, indeed you "free ride." In fact, you betray the antithesis of the Social Contract, which is I do for you, though I may not always approve of what I do, and in turn YOU do for me. Instead, San Francisco says, do for us (Protect us) but we won’t do for YOU. But again, that’s of no concern to the good Progressives of the city by the bay, after all we SHOULD WANT to protect you, our spiritual, moral and intellectual betters.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
...with his puerile blather.

As opposed to your puerile "must-run-a-Farrells- sounds-like-Bill-O’Reilly-what-a-douchebad-Bush-is" blather?

Yeah, right.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
He is saying that he doesn’t like the way we run our city, so the federal government should withhold what we already paid for and continue to pay for.

If you pass a law making your city a military-free zone, how do you expect to take advantage of those services you pay for (in the event of an earthquake)

Is the plan to change the law in the event of an emergency (terrorist or natural disaster) to allow in these services when you need them, and to disdain them the rest of the time?

Isn’t that a tad hypocritical and aelf-centered?


San Francisco’s passage of a feel good ballot measure


Ever notice how these "feel good" measures invariably involve shitting all over someone else?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ever notice how these "feel good" measures invariably involve shitting all over someone else?

That’s ok if its the military ... it’s still PC in SF to crap all over that institution. They absolve you of liberal guilt in that case.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Is the ballot measure banning military, or just recruiters? or is there much of a difference? Military bases bring economic benefit (just ask Germany) so I imagine SF will want to keep those, and just want to ban recruiters, which doesn’t seem like a intellectually honest stance to take.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
IIRC, the Presidio was actually closed in the 1988 round of Base Realignment and Closures.

So, it would seem that while matt is declaiming about accuracy, the reality is that the base was slated for closure in the very first round of BRAC closings.
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
SF has a large number of gays and lesbians. Decent, law-abiding, tax paying citizens. And long before the people of SF ever said get out of our city, the military said that those gays and lesbians weren’t welcome to serve, no matter how much they loved their country.

The military long ago told a large number of San Fransciscans to go to hell. My question is why it took SF to tell the military the same thing.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
SF has a large number of gays and lesbians. Decent, law-abiding, tax paying citizens. And long before the people of SF ever said get out of our city, the military said that those gays and lesbians weren’t welcome to serve, no matter how much they loved their country.

The military long ago told a large number of San Fransciscans to go to hell. My question is why it took SF to tell the military the same thing.
MK, even for you, this is pitiful.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
SF has a large number of gays and lesbians. Decent, law-abiding, tax paying citizens. And long before the people of SF ever said get out of our city, the military said that those gays and lesbians weren’t welcome to serve, no matter how much they loved their country.

Blind people aren’t welcome to serve. Deaf people aren’t welcome to serve. Fat people aren’t welcome to serve. Old people aren’t welcome to serve.

Good thing they are federal tax payers that aren’t being paid by the federal government.

Now that I think about it, MK, wouldn’t they be just as useful (if not more) by working for the border patrol?

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Matt, you sound like a fuzzy thinking philosophy major from that font of socialist/communist* school at Santa Cruz. Remind never to eat at A Cote restaurant in Oakland. I’m retired military and probably wouldn’t be welcomed at your restaurant.**

Professor of Philosophy at Santa Cruz Angela Davis ran for vice president in 1980 & 1984 on the Communist Party ticket.

**The young man becomes a philosophy major at the University of California at Santa Cruz and works his way through college as a cook, his skills improving with the quality of each restaurant.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
The military long ago told a large number of San Fransciscans to go to hell. My question is why it took SF to tell the military the same thing.

Go to hell huh? Really when was this? I’m in the Army (3rd Infantry Division) and I don’t recall having heard that one.

"Don’t ask don’t tell" but not "go to hell."

Frankly this kind of logic will make you look stupid in the end when you need the military.

What’s next on the list to go cops?
 
Written By: Ricardo Branch
URL: http://
Blind people aren’t welcome to serve. Deaf people aren’t welcome to serve. Fat people aren’t welcome to serve. Old people aren’t welcome to serve.
Because they are physically unable to do the job. Are you saying the same of gays? Are gays somehow disabled?

My point is this: wanting the military out of ones city is not more irrational than wanting gays out of the military. Remember all those arab translators we canned because they were gay? Was that irrational?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I’m a software engineeer.

I voted against the no military recruiting measure and would vote against this stupid anti military measure.

But we should have the right to govern our own affairs. If we pay for the services we should get them anyway, even if we pass some stupid, likely unconstitutional ballot measure. If you hurt the feelings of someone you contract services with they are still obligated to honor the contract. We would be quite well equipped to handle our own emergency services if released from the burden of supporting them financially for the rest of y’all poor folks.

 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Oh yeah, I’m not the other Matt Colgan, the rising star chef in the city here. He does look kind of like me though, so I understand your confusion.

By the way, that’s a joke.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Yeah, the base is closed but I believe it’s still owned by the military and that they maintain a presence up there. Guess I could be mistaken though, it’s not really in my neighborhood.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
In terms of the O’Reilly material, there was a minor controversy about this, he said that he’d be happy if we were struck by terrorists and experienced Katrina-like lack of response or something like that, it was really eerily similar to what the poster is saying here. I would think that by now people would recognize that spreading ideas that come from a source like Bill O’Reilly is pretty much like smearing yourself with crap and running around and touching people, but some seem to like his brand of spittle-flecked stentorian table-pounding. Good stagecraft or something.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Hey Matt - nice of you to go from
Uh, meagain, you are aware that there’s a military base in our city, in the Presidio, right? You need to restate your argument so it’s factually correct before I’ll reply to it.
to
Yeah, the base is closed but I believe it’s still owned by the military and that they maintain a presence up there. Guess I could be mistaken though, it’s not really in my neighborhood.
I’m feelin’ the love already!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
What, the base is there. No ballot measure will change its ownership. Not sure what kind of ’love’ you’re looking for here, certainly one of those wrong places you hear about people looking for things if there ever was one.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
"Uh Steverino, you are incredibly pompous, but from your blog it appears what you do with your life is run a Farrell’s."
There’s the pot calling the kettle black. What, pray tell, do you do with your life Matt that justifies your pomposity?





 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
What’s pompous about noting that this guy dismissed all of this extremely affluent high functioning city as a bunch of fuzzy headed liberals and that he’s some obvious schlub who runs a Farrell’s? I didn’t base any of my arguments on any kind of great superiority of mine. I’m just a software engineer, but I’m certainly not going to say everyone in say, Houston, is some kind of crap brained Pat Robertson fellating GOP stooge just because the city in aggregate votes that way.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
pompous: having an excessive sense of self-importance, usually displayed through exaggerated seriousness or stateliness in speech or manner

"We quite literally pay for you half witted jingoistic clowns..."

"some guy who runs a Farrell’s surely doesn’t have cause to take such a pompous tone with me..."

"...an entire city full of high performing bankers, lawyers, software engineers, geneticists, advertising and media workers, etc. with his puerile blather."

"...if released from the burden of supporting them financially for the rest of y’all poor folks."

"he’s some obvious schlub who runs a Farrell’s..."


Try those comments on for size.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
- 1, 3 and 4 are from the POV of san francisco as a city. This city is incredibly rich and pays an insane amount of money per capita into the federal coffers. Are you disputing this fact, or does it offend your tender lil sensibilities, or what?

- 2 and 5 are insults to the guy who said, with an exaggerated stateliness in manner ’ In one poignant sentence, Matt expresses the entirety of what passes for deep thought in San Francisco.’

Not sure what your point is here. Yeah, I’m gonna stand up for the city I live in and contrast it with some dickweed who runs a Farrell’s who thinks that our whole city is beneath his gigantic brain’s notion of deep thought. No, that’s not itself pompous. It’s mean, sure. But so what?

 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Heh, well, another Matt Colgan. San Francisco. How many Matt Colgans you suppose there are in that town?

Anyway, Matt... it doesn’t really help you out when you use the words "worthless cheerleading douchebag" shortly before calling someone else’s words "puerile blather."

It never ever helps your case to charge in, guns blazing, when visiting a blog that clearly runs along different ideological lines than your own. There are diplomatic, reasonable ways of making an argument — you didn’t even try.

That said, I’d prefer you stay and argue reasonably (and keep everyone honest) rather than go down in flames. If you choose to stay at this point — and I guarantee that keeping an insulting tone around here is a great way to waste your time and accomplish nothing, even though you might feel terribly righteous about it — then I’d ask that you answer this:

By what right do the majority in San Francisco declare they can limit the choices of those San Franciscans who disagree with them? Clearly, recruiters wouldn’t be there if some SF’ans didn’t think the military was a good way to improve their position in life or serve their country. Are SF’ans not essentialy saying to everyone, regardless of their station in life, "We know what’s good for you, and joining military service is not it!"?

If that’s what they’re saying, then on any libertarian-type site, you’re naturally going to run into strident opposition to that kind of paternalizing, nanny attitude toward your own fellow citizens. No doubt, if I pressed you, you’d say you practiced a fairly tolerant lifestyle — live and let live, right?
Well, why not let military recruiters do their job, and let anyone who might have something to gain from military service decide for themselves what they’re going to do with their life?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
In case you don’t get it Matt, your sense of self-importance is expressed in your baseless, pointless denegration of others. It’s relative.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I’m just a software engineer, but I’m certainly not going to say everyone in say, Houston, is some kind of crap brained Pat Robertson fellating GOP stooge just because the city in aggregate votes that way.
That would be a particularly poor choice of a city to make fun of, considering how much of that city is run by software engineers.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
You don’t pay for me Matt, not you or any of those high performing people in SF. I pay my own way, and then some.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I think the measure will fail. Like I said, I’d vote against it as I voted against the recruiting measure.

I think it’s a dumb idea, and that it will do nothing to address the problems those behind it want to address. It’s a piece of feel good political theater.

Sorry if my tone upset people here, sort of. But the tone of the OP is incredibly offensive to me as a person who lives in this city. Even suggesting that people deserve to be left to die in the wake of disaster flat out isn’t funny. And the tone wasn’t that of a joke anyway, it was deadly serious.

On the recruiting measure, the fact that it passed, well, you’d have to show me a single person who was harmed by having to go somewhere to get the info they need, or who had to fire up a web browser or write a letter in the absence of a recruiter. I don’t really think such a person exists. Is it really the libertarian position that local democracy has no legitimacy but that federal level democracy does? That seems strained and weird, but maybe I’m just not getting what you’re saying, or projecting it up incorrectly into broad principles.

I’ll be leaving soon and not returning, since my time on this earth is limited and I try to focus on things that do some good, advance my goals. But thanks for your hospitality.

 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Military recruiters are agents of the central government. ’Live and let live’ has no meaning when discussing their official acts.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Military recruiters are agents of the central government. ’Live and let live’ has no meaning when discussing their official acts.
But joining the military is a voluntary choice, isn’t it?

Since when are democracy and freedom served by limiting someone’s choice of job or service opportunities?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Everyone is aware of the US military. I’m not going to buy that limiting their sales efforts restricts options for anybody. I could see cases where it would, but military recruiting isn’t one of them. You could argue that it’s illegitimate to pick between types of speech to restrict, but you have to argue at that level, not at this level of downstream harm that you haven’t shown.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
You’re the one that brought up democracy. Why don’t you just answer the questions instead of engaging in all this inane bloviation? What you buy or don’t buy isn’t the question. I asked how freedom and democracy were served by limiting someone’s choice of job or service opportunities.

It doesn’t have to be the military. It could be any job. And, if they get away with this, it could be any job. You up for that?


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
McQ’s point - if any Leftist city adopts a symbollic anti-military motion it’s citizens should be left to die under piles of rubble.

At most the proposal promotes an anti-military feelgood agenda. To punish such an agenda, by having people dig for their dead families with bare hands and gardening equipment, is barbaric.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
McQ’s point - if any Leftist city adopts a symbollic anti-military motion it’s citizens should be left to die under piles of rubble.
Actually that’s not what I said at all.

I said that if they pass their proposal, I suggest another proposal. We’ll put it to the same test as theirs was put ... a vote. SF can vote on kicking the miilitary out and we’ll let the military vote on whether they want to step foot in SF ever again for any reason.

What’s your problem with that? Seems fair to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
In terms of us San Franciscans getting a free ride, we are one of the most affluent cities in the country. We quite literally pay for you half witted jingoistic clowns to pursue your worthless un-American adventures directly out of our overstuffed pocketbooks.
If you don’t like that state of affairs, then you ought to be a libertarian, or at least a big supporter of states rights. We’re all about reducing the redistribution of wealth and forcing states, localities and individuals to pull their own weight, fund their own projects and pay for their own interests.
The military long ago told a large number of San Fransciscans to go to hell. My question is why it took SF to tell the military the same thing.
When you put it that way, it’s fairly amusing. There’s a certain cosmic justice in that formulation.

That’s not the way our government works, though — again — I’d be more than happy to have you agitating for increased states rights so it could run more like that.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What’s your problem with that?
If the SFs vote is positive you propose that no military rescue response should be sent to a major earthquake.

I got no problem with votes, democracy and all that, I got a problem with your proposal - it is barbaric.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
If the SFs vote is positive you propose that no military rescue response should be sent to a major earthquake.
No.

I propose we then let the military vote if they ever want to go into SF again.

I mean if SF can vote to keep the military out of their city, why shouldn’t we give the military the same right to vote and see if they ever want to go back in the city?

Seems fair to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
What I like is he assumes he pays more Federal Taxes than the rest of us in other cities....after all, there aren’t any wealthy folks anywhere else right?
And God knows there’s no smart bankers, engineers, etc, in New York, for example.
But Last time I checked I don’t get a hell of a lot of a Federal tax discount for NOT living in San Francisco.

I do notice though that every time the earth moves, or burns, or slides somewhere in California the rest of us have to pony up for relief. Cumulatively speaking, New Orleans should be so lucky.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I mean if SF can vote to keep the military out of their city, why shouldn’t we give the military the same right to vote and see if they ever want to go back in the city?
A. It’ll be a novel approach to let your military vote on what they want to do.

B. The proposal which you suggest they vote on is inherently barbaric.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Uh Steverino, you are incredibly pompous, but from your blog it appears what you do with your life is run a Farrell’s.
Actually, matt, I don’t run a Farrell’s, so your reading comprehension skills are woefully lacking. I am a member of a limited partnership that has provided the funding to open a Farrell’s in Orange County, but I’m not going to work there. Rather, I’ll be working at a second restaurant (not a Farrell’s), here in Reno, that will open in a couple of months. Before I started all that, I was a software engineer and retired at 44. I can’t believe you read my journal and didn’t pick up on that.

As to the rest of your writings, you aren’t worth my time or effort. Have a nice life in the home of the nuts.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Matt,

So, what you guys are saying is that you pay the money, you get the troops, but you’d rather not have them actually located there until needed, and please don’t recruit any from the local area.

Sounds like what you want is a mercenary force, not a national army made up of citizens. Maybe you guys should just hire Blackwater or KBR?


 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Steve, I only gave your journal about 30 seconds because, well, you’re a pompous blowhard with nothing to say. Congrats on your Farrell’s stuff, sounds like an appropriate venue for your skillset.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
I said I think the measure is dumb.

And that anyone who thinks that our city should be withheld services it’s paying for on the basis of such a thing is much more of a traitor to America than anyone I can see in San Francisco. That’s actively supporting the death of fellow citizens, and I find it revolting that anyone even in the grips of a malignant form of army worshipping patriotism would think such a thing.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
In terms of letting the members of the military vote, they already have the option of not enlisting, why should they have the right to not do what they’re paid to do just because some customers hurt their feelings? SF pays big for federal government services, I find it hypocritical and all too typical that libertarians are willing to gyp San Franciscans out of the services they are paying for because they disagree on policy.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
McQ, my answer to your hypothetical on restricting choice was that I don’t believe choice is restricted by the action on recruiters. Sorry if that wasn’t clear from what I wrote.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
The proposal which you suggest they vote on is inherently barbaric.
Not really. It’s simply a way of pointing out that actions have consequences, even one’s we may not want or appreciate.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Congrats on your Farrell’s stuff, sounds like an appropriate venue for your skillset.
Yeah Steve you big jerk - all you are going to do is start a business where people can earn a living. I mean, who retires at 44 and then opens two or more businesses to further their gains and give others the chance to succeed?

/sarcasm alert/


 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Oh my, matt called me a pompous blowhard. I am cut to the quick by his scalpel-sharp wit.

My initial post was in response to this:
Ha ha, as if they would even be available to help with this worthless cheerleading douchebag Bush in office.
So let’s not talk about having nothing to say, when you start with an idiotic, content-free, lightweight statement like that.

How many businesses have you run, matt? How many have you raised capital for? How many payrolls have you met? How many people are employed because of you? Once you do all that, then you can call me "some schlub".

I’m not saying much here because, frankly, you’re not worth debating. I’ve beaten far better debaters than you.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Retiring at 44 is nice, good for Stevie. I bet his mother is even prouder of him than you are. Doesn’t make his puffery any more persuasive though.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Steve, if you aren’t going to debate on this thread, as you haven’t yet, then what purpose are you here for? To satisfy your sense of self-importance? Frankly I find it a little shocking that someone with all your great accomplishments would have the need, but I can generally find something in human nature to be shocked by every single day, it’s a fascinating subject.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
In terms of my opening one liner, I guess I should have made the reference to Hurricane Katrina and the worthless response by Bush and his campaign help a little clearer. I figured that reference was clear in my scoffing at the availability of Guard and Army to help out, but sometimes people are fairly thick and have to be led by the nose.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
Sorry if my tone upset people here, sort of. But the tone of the OP is incredibly offensive to me as a person who lives in this city. Even suggesting that people deserve to be left to die in the wake of disaster flat out isn’t funny. And the tone wasn’t that of a joke anyway, it was deadly serious

Nobody said anything about deserving to die. You just deserve to stay true to yourselves to the end and refuse all military help, even in the event that you’re trapped under a pile of rubble and really, really need it.

Everyone is aware of the US military. I’m not going to buy that limiting their sales efforts restricts options for anybody

apply that logic to abortion, or even a pharmacist refusing to sell the morning after pill- something tells me you’ll change your tune real quickly

In terms of us San Franciscans getting a free ride, we are one of the most affluent cities in the country. We quite literally pay for you half witted jingoistic clowns to pursue your worthless un-American adventures directly out of our overstuffed pocketbooks

THANKS FOOL! Of course, I live in NYC so you’re not quite paying for me, but hell, the world revolves around you doesn’t it?

Steve, I only gave your journal about 30 seconds because, well, you’re a pompous blowhard with nothing to say

Dude, you should NOT call this kettle black. You come off like the sterotype who uses $10 words constantly when not quite appropriate.

And that anyone who thinks that our city should be withheld services it’s paying for on the basis of such a thing is much more of a traitor to America than anyone I can see in San Francisco. That’s actively supporting the death of fellow citizens, and I find it revolting that anyone even in the grips of a malignant form of army worshipping patriotism would think such a thing.

We’re only looking out for you all....die as you have lived! I’d personally hate to think that all your high-minded blather would be thrown away in a single monent of fear-induced hypocracy. STAND STRONG BROTHA!
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Oh my, matt called me a pompous blowhard. I am cut to the quick by his scalpel-sharp wit.
The same guy who has repeatedly said he really didn’t have the time to waste on us?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I figured that reference was clear in my scoffing at the availability of Guard and Army to help out, but sometimes people are fairly thick and have to be led by the nose.

Thank goodness for our intellectual betters from the City by the Bay!

Please learn us something, oh wise one.
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Yeah I said that military recruiters were a somewhat special case due to the fairly universal knowledge of them in the marketplace.

OK, I think we’ve exhausted the limits of discourse here. You guys have been swell, thanks for helping me avoid working on this stupid thing for a couple of hours. Good luck.
 
Written By: matt
URL: http://
For fuck’s sake Matt, I thought you had goal advancing things to do. Are you still screwing around here pretending that you’re the epitome of humility?

Unfortunately you remind me of several other software engineers I’ve worked with (I work in the industry too) - convinced they are smarter than everyone else and haughtily making sure everyone else knows it. I wonder how many times you’ve complained about the ignorance of your product’s users (except, of course, those in SF)?
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Not really. It’s simply a way of pointing out that actions have consequences, even one’s we may not want or appreciate.
Action: a city puts forward an unenforceable request that consideration be given to barring military recruiters from campuses. Response: propose military be barred from entering said city to carry out any task (for example: bars military from assisting rescue of children from earthquake levelled school).

I call that response barbaric. IMHO such a response would only be justified if San Francisco ceded from America and targetted major population centres with sarin filled cruise missiles. The response would still be barbaric, but the barbarism would be justified.

 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
I call that response barbaric.
Yeah, I know, and I’m still not impressed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
McQ, my answer to your hypothetical on restricting choice was that I don’t believe choice is restricted by the action on recruiters. Sorry if that wasn’t clear from what I wrote.
Well actually you’ve given an unsupported opinion that doesn’t even come close to addressing the question, much less answering it.

But that’s ok, I didn’t really expect anything better.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
What the hell is a Farrells?? Please share with us peasants from the more rustic areas of our great land.

"the military said that those gays and lesbians weren’t welcome to serve, no matter how much they loved their country."
I’m getting a little tired of this nonsense about "don’t ask don’t tell", or whatever the hell it is. This has been the unwritten, tacit policy of the armed forces for many years. I knew a fair number of gays during my four years in the army(of course I am not 100% sure), and that was 30 years ago. They were treated just like anyone else, as long as they didn’t engage excessively in what now is called sexual harassment. I use the qualifier ’excessively’ advisedly, as there was a certain amount that took place, as there is in any group of people. If a polite ’no thank you, but I appreciate the offer’ was insufficient to bring an end to unwanted advances, then there could be unpleasant consequences, just as there are now. In spite of all the brouhaha, I doubt is anything has actually changed; if you keep it zipped, there is no problem, just like any other job.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Yeah, I know, and I’m still not impressed.
Well I am. The willingness to ensure that thousands of civillian die needless and quite probably painful deaths because they think disagreeably shows ruthless character, I’m quite impressed.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
because they think disagreeably
You have misrepresented their "thinking." It’s not that their thinking is disagreeable; it’s that their thinking is the military is not welcome in their city. The response being argued is to carry that specific request a little further and not send the military to their city.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Are you regularly impressed w/ Swift and his "A Modest Proposal"?

Unahasp, the reality is that the military (at least in the US):

1. Will not actually be asked to vote on what it participates in; and
2. The military will be employed if/when "the Big One" hits California.

The point is that, IF one is going to actually debate and enact a law such as SF is proposing, then a logical corollary (which will never occur) would be to have SF live w/ the consequences of said act.

BTW, it is amusing to me that the Left regularly calls upon members of the military to desert, go AWOL, or declare themselves CO-status, yet forget that the same people whom they blithely hope won’t be at reveille are the ones who are expected to help out in disaster.

Thus, that one sailor who deserted missed his ship’s deployment—-to Indonesia, for tsunami relief.

One wonders whether SF would appreciate the irony, if the same people whom they call upon to desert, or hope don’t join up, aren’t there when they actually have their moment of need?
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
Damn, I’m both a Software Engineer and former Military. I’m so glad Matt pays for everything for me being that I don’t live in SF.

Unaha-closp, I think the point you are missing is this - Should San Francisco be able to vote out all the firemen out of the city yet still expect said firemen to come to their rescue? Replace firemen with doctors, police, dental assistance, or the military. Doesn’t matter.

And this is a hypothetical anyway. SF could pass the ban, spit on children of former military, wipe their asses with the Eagle Globe & Anchor, and when the big one hits the military wouldn’t even think twice about it and show up to help. Basically, because a bunch of San Franciscans want to be fucktards (matt, you are very much included in this description) doesn’t mean the military will be.

And that, my friends, is why I consider myself morally superior to entities like matt.

Now if you’ll pardon me, I’ve got code to write and a personal business to tend to. One of those half witted jingoistic worthless un-American to pursuits I guess.
 
Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
Gee a poster from SF is self-centered. What a shock!!!

And the "tolerant" left can’t tolerate the military being among them, or having a WWII memorial in their midst. How perfectly ironic...

And the "pro-choice" left can’t possibly let students choose for themselves whether they want to join the military.

Last I heard gay people were perfectly able to enter the Armed Services. Seeing as how the barracks and combat are supposed to be SEX FREE ZONES for all makes and models, it seems all one needs to do is keep ones mouth closed and their hands and other parts to themselves. And those rules apply equally to all members of the military.

But, I guess, that’s just not enough equality for the authortarian left. Everyone in the military must be free to do what exactly???

Must be pile on the troll day or something. :)
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Unahasp, the reality is that the military (at least in the US):

1. Will not actually be asked to vote on what it participates in; and
2. The military will be employed if/when "the Big One" hits California.

The point is that, IF one is going to actually debate and enact a law such as SF is proposing, then a logical corollary (which will never occur) would be to have SF live w/ the consequences of said act.
Lurking,
It’ll never happen?! Oh. I can assume therefore that McQs proposal is a hyperbole type joke - he doesn’t actually mean he wants to see thousands of San Franciscans die for slurring the military. And most everyone here shares his sense of humor and find this also funny.


matt,
The whole your family should starve to death under your collapsed house is just a joke. These people don’t really want to watch your family die. You should be less self-centered and see past the image of lying crushed in the basement and appreciate the humor, (like keith, indy does).


PS - to everyone when you call killing someones family justified (even in jest), do not be surprised when they call you half witted jingoistic clowns who do worthless un-American things and most likely vote for a cheerleading douchebag.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
U-C:

NO, it’s not a joke, but rather a somewhat extreme comment to point out a conclusion. In this case, that the logical corollary to rejecting military recruitment is to turn it down (or have it turned down) when you need it.

Satire is not necessarily humorous, as this dictionary definition notes, it can be as much derision, irony, or wit.

In this case, I think derision and irony are paramount.

And, no, it will never happen.

But feel free to mount your high horse, be in high dudgeon, and caper about on how morally superior you are. Because that is funny.

 
Written By: Lurking observer
URL: http://
I trust Matt and Una DO appreciate the irony involved in asking the military to
bugger off unless SF is in trouble.....and then be expected to be there
pretty much before the dust settles or suffer the slings and arrows for their
’tardy’ response?

Can you handle that concept without the need to picture a rubble strewn city boys?

Ironic, right?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
But feel free to mount your high horse, be in high dudgeon, and caper about on how morally superior you are. Because that is funny.
How to pick a satire? If someone says Israel will be wiped out in a nuclear attack, are they being ironic in portraying the regional nuclear power as also the most likely victim? If someone says that your family needs killing, should that someone be called a satirist or some other term?


 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Yes, and who knows if Jonathan Swift wasn’t actually advocating the consumption of children?

And, you know? It wasn’t even funny!
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
This satire has been a really dumb way to make any point to San Franciscans. It is written as a factual response to a quite restrained anti-military measure and essentially calls for the deaths of San Franciscans. Unsurprisingly the only San Franciscan comments it has elicited are insults for the author and the horse he rode in on.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Quite restrained....
Sure....."piss off you military bastards, go get your cannon fodder somewhere else, but we reserve the right to call on you for anything we might need, for any reason you might be of use to us, at any time in the future..."

Change the nation in the following, but the sentiments the same.
Rudyard Kipling

Tommy
I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’beer,
The publican ’e up an’ sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:

O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ "Tommy, go away";
But it’s ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,’’ when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,’’ when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ’adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!

For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ "Tommy, wait outside";
But it’s "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper’s on the tide,
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper’s on the tide.

Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.

Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ "Tommy how’s yer soul?"
But it’s "Thin red line of ’eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s "Thin red line of ’eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren’t no thin red ’eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;

While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ "Tommy, fall be’ind,"
But it’s "Please to walk in front, sir," when there’s trouble in the wind,
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s "Please to walk in front, sir," when there’s trouble in the wind.

You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.

For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it’s "Saviour of ’is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
But Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Unaha - they are mearly using a debating technique to point out the folly of San Franciscans desires to banish the military from their city...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd", traceable back to the Greek ἡ εις άτοπον απαγωγη (hi eis átopon apagogi), "reduction to the impossible", often used by Aristotle), also known as an apagogical argument or reductio ad impossibile, is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result. This is also known as proof by contradiction. It makes use of the law of non-contradiction — a statement cannot be both true and false. In some cases it may also make use of the law of excluded middle — a statement which cannot be false, must then be true.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider