The Golden Gate

Update and error correction: the original post [just moments ago] stated NYT. The organization with hoaxy sourcing revealed by Rusty and others was the Sunday Times.

–

A response to a lunatic commenter in this post over at the Jawa Report. A good post worth reading for the clarity around what we are dealing with in terms of the character of the enemy AND fact-checking the Sunday Times.

Anyway, on to the time I wasted spraying moonbat repellent:

Not even sure that reasoning is possible with this john fellow, BUT there was too much insanity in this comment for me not to do a hack summary refutation of all things moonbat mentioned:

The colonial occupation forces are responsible of
of the beheading of (IRAQ) and not this journalist!!

You’re not from around here, are you? Heh.

Colonialization requires full or partial political control. We have limited to moderate influence, but no control. Not since the dissolution of the CPA. It also requires settlers and an exploitation of the economy or resources. Our military personnel hardly qualify as settlers. And if we were really in it for the oil, we would have seized the fields and ensured cheap and exclusive export to the US. Hell, all we needed to do was lift the sanctions on Saddam if it was really just for the oil and therefor cheap energy/gas. War and its uncertainties _negatively impacts_ export systems, price stability, production, and a times, gross supply as a result of two of those and other factors. No one with any common sense thinks it is about the oil. Makes a great bumper sticker, though. And the analysis is about as deep as the thickness of one of those stickers.

The fanatics who do the beheading are responsible for their heinous actions. you know–cuz THEY do it, Not the US. They achieved barbarism all on their own. The war is simply intensifying their actions and increasing exposure. All one needs to do is spend some time researching the “justice” systems and culture in Iran and Saudi Arabia to see that Islam and its Sharia=barbarism, except by medieval standards. COme to think of it, Islam is stuck 700 years ago, so the barbarism actually fits. It also needs to be stopped.

The US is not a terrorist organization. Terrorism specifically means _targeting civilians_ for the purpose of creating fear in the populace, instability, and influencing policy, etc. That is simply not something we do. We are more careful with civilians than any military in the history of mankind. By far.

…they invade that country to ensure democracy!!!!who believes them??

Most who are clear about the perhaps hopelessly idealistic, but nevertheless strategic vision of democratizing the Middle East. That’s who. Although I must say, we should have enforced secular constitutions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Separation of Koran and State, a free press, civilian control of the military, free markets, equal rights and universal suffrage, property rights, the rule of law and an independent judiciary…and the protection of the [negative not positive] rights of the individual above any group or organization…these are what is important. Democracy for democracy’s sake can get ugly with a tribal, islamofascist mentality. But yes, I believe them. Not the only reason we went to be sure, but certainly a major strategic element.

where is the mass weapons you came for???

Most who are informed think Bekka Valley and other points in Syria. Possibly Iran, but primarily Syria and the Bekka.

Abu Ghraib is a black spot in the forhead of the violent aggressive terrorists who invaded that country and destroyed it completely.

Abu Ghraib is certainly a black spot. And, in a military of hundreds of thousands of personnel strong, mistakes are made. To point to this and not to balance it with the attrocities of Saddam and other militaries [heck how about the UN Peacekeeping troops globally accused of child molestation?! only demonstrate a lack of clarity and balance [at best].

The larger point is war is always messy and mistakes will be made. What is important within that is to acknowledge our mistakes in a useful and forward fashion: learn and integrate the learning and change policy/standards where necessary.

that is the type of democarcy they want to establish! you can not fool people, these are more intelligent than the chief commander i.e. (Adolph) Bush!!

Ah yes. Bush is Hitler. All this assertion points out is the historical illiteracy of the writer. Bush is no Hitler. Hell, he is not even a Lincoln. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, jailed newspaper editors and judges, etc. In terms of despotism/fascism Bush is a 2 on a Hitler scale of 10. And given we are AT WAR he should probably be a 3.

a simple question: what is the difference betwen
the Nazi actions and what we see now in Iraq?

Ummmm…it is less popular to kill Jews? Well, not really. Less organized/effective at same? Short answer: A Lot. Do a little research and get a grip.

they invaded that country for stealing the oil
and getting revenge for Sept. 11, and for the sake of Israel…

Not even gonna to waste more time on this tired tripe.

They will lose, in deed they lost the war: morally
(Abu Ghraib and Pucca), and militarilly (great
losses of the occupation forces every day…
the will of people can not be defeated!!??

Good. Cuz the “will of the people” is what Iraqi’s now get to exercise rather than the will of a person in Saddam. And they get to experience and evolve that process thanks to US intervention. There are many great reasons to have gone in that are still valid. But let’s just take one that is often not mentioned. Saddam violated DOZENS of U.N. Resolutions. The US military is [like it or not] the de facto enforcement body for the UN. No one else has the logistical capabilities, the precision, the skill, the will, and the volume of ordinance to do it. Even our allies have trouble communicating with us in the battle-space due to technology gaps we are closing with our anglo-shphere [you know, the credible countries] allies. The bottom line is that “mandatory” resolutions only mean something if they are back with swift and resounding force [or at least the credible threat of it]. Dude was makin’ a mockery of the UN Sec Council [and WMD's AND ties to training, supporting, funding [Palestinian suicide bomber families] terror. Plus, if we can get the Iraqis to be self-sustaining, Iraq makes a great staging ground for point East [Iran] and Northwest [Syria. Best point of entry in the longer war.

It would be great if our "allies" were wiling to do the peacekeeping/post major ops role to leave us free to do the heavy lifting elsewhere, but now I am really dreaming big.

/moonbat repellant

I am beginning to think that BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome] is not a new ailment. Rather a renaming of one that existed already, and under recent events [including being out of the majority] just exposed the lunacy of many in the fevered left.

A-fucking-men. Hear here. And all that. What? you’ve no idea what I am aligning with?

Read THIS. Sample:

I did not see every second of it, but my wife did, and she joins me in noting that there was not one word of tribute, not one breath, to our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan or to their families or their widows or orphans. There were pitifully dishonest calls for peace — as if the people we are fighting were interested in any peace for us but the peace of the grave. But not one word for the hundreds of thousands who have served and are serving, not one prayer or moment of silence for the dead and maimed.

Basically, the sad truth is that Hollywood does not think of itself as part of America, and so, to Hollywood, the war to save freedom from Islamic terrorists is happening to someone else. It does not concern them except insofar as it offers occasion to mock or criticize George Bush. They live in dreamland and cannot be gracious enough to thank the men and women who pay with their lives for the stars’ ability to live in dreamland. This is shameful.

The idea that it is brave to stand up for gays in Hollywood, to stand up against Joe McCarthy in Hollywood (fifty years after his death), to say that rich white people are bad, that oil companies are evil — this is nonsense. All of these are mainstream ideas in Hollywood, always have been, always will be. For the people who made movies denouncing Big Oil, worshiping gays, mocking the rich to think of themselves as brave — this is pathetic, childish narcissism.

The brave guy in Hollywood will be the one who says that this is a fabulously great country where we treat gays, blacks, and everyone else as equal. The courageous writer in Hollywood will be the one who says the oil companies do their best in a very hostile world to bring us energy cheaply and efficiently and with a minimum of corruption. The producer who really has guts will be the one who says that Wall Street, despite its flaws, has done the best job of democratizing wealth ever in the history of mankind.

A match made in liberal heaven. Bill Nienhuis over at the The Pundit Guy has a great post picking apart the lastest NYT hit piece on Wal-Mart:

NYT Lobs Another Airball at Wal-Mart.

Here’s a sample:

The New York Times doesn’t like Wal-Mart, and over the years, the Old Gray Lady has taken shots at America’s Store in hopes of crippling it’s leadership and slowing its success. Goaded by the labor unions, the NYT goes to great lengths to splatter mud on Wal-Mart’s corporate practices.

They demonize Wal-Mart and characterize its management as dictators controlling an evil empire from the bridge of the death star in Bentonville, Arkansas. Why? It’s simple really. The New York Times is run by liberals living in a bubble who oppose good old fashioned capitalism. They don’t believe in an American Dream that enables a family owned business to build itself up to become the worlds largest retailer, employing 1.6 MILLION people in 3,800 stores in the US alone.

The liberals at the NYT and their ACLU brethren truly believe that Wal-Mart’s goal is to victimize and enslave their workforce. In a nutshell, they believe a Wal-Mart store is no different than a sweatshop in a third world country, and they must be stopped.

Be sure to read all of it.

San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval went on the “Hannity and Colmes” TV program yesterday and called for the disbanding of the US Military. And yes, he was (apparently) being sincere. His remarks came in a discussion about the proposal to bring the historic WWII battleship the USS Iowa to San Francisco as a permanent public exhibition.

People who do not live in the San Francisco area may be amazed that an elected official would actually say such a thing. People who live in San Francisco will not be amazed that an elected official would say such a thing.
Hat tip to SFSOS.

The transcript is below, or you can watch the video here. Oy.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue “Hannity & Colmes” from San Francisco tonight, the board of supervisors here overwhelmingly voted to reject a plan last year that would bring the historic World War II Iowa battleship right here to San Francisco harbor, as a museum and tourist center.

We’re now joined by one of the supervisors that voted against that plan, Gerardo Sandoval is with us.

Welcome to the show. You just said something to me as we were coming on the air. You don’t want a symbol of war in the harbor. Is what you said to me.

GERARDO SANDOVAL, MEMBER OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: That’s right.

HANNITY: I guess this is just a difference in philosophy. That symbol of war that beat back the forces of fascism in imperial Japan and Nazism, that’s really a symbol of peace. Why would you see it as a symbol of war when it defended liberty and freedom?

SANDOVAL: Well, it did do that. But also, it’s a warship and it’s got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can’t deny what it is.

San Francisco is where we signed the United Nations charter, the original charter, created the United Nations. There are many, many ways to honor veterans and their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I understand that. But you don’t have liberty and freedom unless we win that war.

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: So in that scene — well, then why would you dishonor the men that fought on that ship and preserved your freedom? To say what you want to say?

SANDOVAL: We don’t want to dishonor them.

HANNITY: Well, you are dishonoring them.

SANDOVAL: We just don’t want to put a 10-story gun on the waterfront where everybody is going to be looking at it every single day.

HANNITY: That gun gives you freedom. That gun ensures your liberty. That gun made this world a safer place.

SANDOVAL: But it could be a flag. It could be a statue. It could be many, many different things.

HANNITY: But is war against the Nazis a good thing? Is war against imperial Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, is that a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Well, sometimes you have to resort to violence.

HANNITY: No, no, no. Is war — was war against the Nazis a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Was war against imperial Japan a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely. We don’t have to put a bomb or a warship right on the waterfront. It’s going to be 10 stories tall. You know how tall that is? It’s half as big as some of the biggest buildings in San Francisco.

HANNITY: You know something? I guess this is just a philosophical difference. Because you know what? I define peace as the ability to defend ourselves. And you seem to look at that as ship as something negative, not something to be proud of. Not something that gave you a great gift. I don’t understand that mentality. Can you explain it to our audience?

SANDOVAL: Well, it’s also a fiscal issue not just a symbolic or philosophical.

HANNITY: Yes, hurt that’s not the reason. Because a lot of people say it’s about money. If I told you the money would be there tomorrow, you would still be against it, wouldn’t you?

SANDOVAL: We would still be against it. That’s right.

HANNITY: So it’s not about money, but you’re using it as an excuse.

SANDOVAL: No, no, no. But it’s a very real reason. In Oakland right across the bay here, where they brought in the USS — one of the wood…

HANNITY: Would you have the freedom to vote this way, had we not used that ship, that symbol of war as you call it, if we had not won that war? Would you have the ability to even make this vote without that ship?

SANDOVAL: Things would be very, very different. No doubt. But that does not mean we have to put a warship on our waterfront.

HANNITY: Warship? Why don’t you call it a peace ship? The peace ship gave you the liberty to be who you are today?

SANDOVAL: Why don’t we paint war symbols on all schools if that’s the way you feel? So we can honor their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I rarely agree with Dianne Feinstein. And she even says this is not the San Francisco that I know. This is — and I guess this is the mentality. Do you think America should unilaterally disarm? Should we give up our weaponry and our war — our tools of war?

SANDOVAL: You know, that’s a very complicated question. But I would say yes, we should. We should invest our money in our kids.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is Alan in New York. Should we not have military?

SANDOVAL: I don’t think we should have a military. Absolutely.

COLMES: We shouldn’t have a military? Wait a minute. Hold on. The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: What good has it done for us in the last five years? That’s right. What good has it done us…

HANNITY: Good grief.

SANDOVAL: … in the last five years.

COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.

SANDOVAL: We think about the billions that we’re spending in Iraq right now, if we spend it on schools. We should not…

COLMES: The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: That’s correct.

COLMES: Are you kidding me?

SANDOVAL: The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.

COLMES: You’ve got to be kidding me. We should have no military, we should have no ability to defend ourselves, we should have no armed forces in this country?

SANDOVAL: Well, we shouldn’t have a military that goes abroad and starts wars.

COLMES: You just said we shouldn’t have a military. I don’t want to give — I’m speaking out very forcefully to you, because I don’t want to give the impression that Democrats hate the military or don’t want a military. We may disagree with certain wars, like the ones fought now.

SANDOVAL: No, but you said should we give up.

COLMES: But to say that we shouldn’t have a military is absolutely absurd. It’s incredible. That’s a ridiculous fringe point of view.

HANNITY: That’s exactly what I was thinking, Alan. Welcome to San Francisco.

SANDOVAL: If you’re saying that we don’t have a right to defend ourselves that’s different from we shouldn’t have a military.

COLMES: What do you want to defend ourselves — what do you want to defend ourselves with?

SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It’s called the Coast Guard. There’s lots of things different.

COLMES: You want to send cops to defend our shores if we’re attacked? You want to send cops overseas if we’re attacked? Cops?

SANDOVAL: You want to send people abroad to start these wars.

COLMES: I don’t. Actually, Gerardo, you don’t know anything about what I stand for if you can say that. I’ve been one of the most outspoken people against this administration and the war in Iraq.

But that doesn’t mean we as Democrats hate the military or don’t want to defend this country. And I’m amaze you could get on national television and say we shouldn’t have a military in America?

SANDOVAL: Well, that’s the way I think a lot of people feel here in San Francisco.

HANNITY: I’ve got to tell you, this is a first. You made look Alan look like a hawk.

I’m going to tell you something. If America is attacked, you have no defenses. You have no liberty. You have no freedom. You can’t think in such a shallow way. You’ve got to tell me that this is a joke.

SANDOVAL: No, no. Not at all. I think that what you look at where you want America to go, I mean America has got hundreds of years, maybe thousands of years to go.

HANNITY: Without a military, there is no America. Without — it’s not a disagreement. It’s a fact.

SANDOVAL: We can imagine an America that someday will not have a military. It might take 1,000 years.

HANNITY: OK. And then when Iran bombs you…

SANDOVAL: But that’s what you’ve got to hope for.

HANNITY: Or when al Qaeda attacks you, what are you going to do?

UPDATE: If you’d like to let Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval know how you feel about his expressed viewpoint, here’s how to get in touch with him:

Gerardo Sandoval - Supervisor, District 11
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-6975 - voice
(415) 554-6979 - fax
Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org

Personal website: http://www.gerardosandoval.org/

Official website: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=4643

San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee:

(415) 626-1161
1390 Market Street, Suite 818,
San Francisco, CA 94102
email: info@sfdemocrats.org

website:  http://www.sfdemocrats.org

UPDATE: Able Dart over at the SF Wall is mad as hell. He’s calling for all San Francisco Democrats to stay the hell off of any and all Fox News shows. I respect Able and I usually agree with where he’s coming from. But personally, I’d like to see MORE SF Politicians on these national news shows for the basic reason that our local media does SUCH a poor job of really challenging these folks on some of the more outrageous foolery and ideology that passes for “public policy” in these parts. Able’s larger point seems to be that Fox News is “out to get the Democrats.” “Any Democrat worth their salt knows that Fox News – the bastard baby of Reagan era GOP operative Roger Ailes – is out to discredit the Democratic Party [...] is not an impartial organization…” says the Dart.

The obvious counterpoint is, of course, that other Mainstream Media outlets are hardly “impartial organizations,” either — despite all their high-sounding protestations to the contrary. I think it’s actually healthy for the US to have a national media outlet that owns its viewpoint. Now, if only the NY Times, and CBS and CNN et. al. would have the guts to do the same. Because, let’s get real: one is hard pressed to find even-handed coverage of the Republicans (or the Libertarians) on any of the (mesaurably lefty-biased) Mainstream Media outlets.

Furthermore, Fox does do good reporting in their straight news segments. They’ve scooped other providers from time to time. As for the opinion shows, whatever — they’re opinion shows. Again, I’m glad Fox is on the scene and basically owning that they’re coming from a point of view, if only as a counter-balance.

What’s more troubling, to me, is the transparently bogus pretense of “objectivity” foisted on us by other networks and news outlets.

All in all, I am ALL FOR SF politicos “outing” themselves and shooting themselves in the foot when faced with folks who hasn’t been ideologically browbeaten into accepting some of the silly lefty tropes that so many in this City just accept as “received wisdom.”

So I say: More SF Democrats on Fox! Please! And, bring on the GREENS!

After weeks of harping on the emerging Jack Abramoff scandal as an example of the Republican “culture of corruption” and debating for the last day about the proximity to George Bush that Abramoff had, Democrats may find the investigation hits too close to home to continue celebrating. The AP reported earlier today that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid intervened on four separate occasions on behalf of Abramoff clients and that Reid coordinated on legislative efforts with the lobbyist’s office

Oops.

Read the rest from the Captain.

The cause of the tsunami has been discovered.

Glad they figured that out.

Over at the inestimable jewel’s place you can check out this round up of all things anti-globalization today.

The round up is good, but go for the picture of Mama Moonbat at the bottom of the post. I think this woman has milked it for about all it is worth. Someone please let her know she is embarrassing herself at this point. Sheehan–not Malkin. Just to be clear.

On the Democratic Implosion

Contrast the Democratic reactions to respective advice offered by Congressman Murtha and Senator Joe Lieberman. The former is a respected but not nationally known Democratic figure; the latter ran for the vice presidency of the United States. The Democrats gushed over Murtha’s bleak Dean-like assessment that the war is essentially lost and that we must leave as soon as possible. But then when a vote was called on the issue, they voted overwhelmingly not to follow the congressman’s prescription.

In contrast, when Lieberman returned from Iraq and gave a cautiously optimistically appraisal that our plan of encouraging elections, training Iraqis, and improving the Iraqi economy is working both inside Iraq and in the wider neighboring region, he was shunned by Democrats — who nevertheless by their inaction essentially agreed with Lieberman and so made no move to demand an immediate withdrawal. How odd to be effusive over the Democrat whose advice you reject while ignoring the spokesman whose advice you actually follow.

Read it all. And you would do well to read Hanson on a regular basis. His logic and clarity are hard to refute regardless of your political leanings.

Hat Tip: LGF

For a couple of years now, I’ve been hanging around “The Wall” — a local EZ Board message board dedicated to San Francisco Politics which is run by a gent who goes by the handle Able Dart. I’ve gotten grist for more than one Golden Gate item from hanging around that place, I’ll tell you.

Well, look out, because now The Wall has entered the blogosphere. I’d encourage anybody with even a passing interest in San Francisco politics and/or culture to go give it a look right now.

Able Dart’s most recent post on the new Wall blog concerns the puerile San Francisco Police Video Scandal that’s the obsession of the moment for our local media outlets. Local pols, journalists and “activists” are foaming at the mouth and spinning around in frantic little circles, while prognosticators are taking odds on which heads will roll and when. Here’s the lead from The Wall:

It seems that this city has to have a police scandal of some kind every few years, which is then used to try and pry some changes inside a hidebound department, but usually only ends up with the replacement of a politically hapless police chief.

The newest scandal, of course, is about a series of blue humor videos produced for a Christmas party at Bayview station. The videos feature a number of sociocultural stereotypes reinforced by the basic nature of police work. The police officer/videographer made the mistake of putting some of the more humorous clips on a website, and then the leaks to the press and Mayor’s Office came-a-flowing.

There is nothing new about this phenomenon, nor about political bluenoses making a scandal out of it. What is truly unfortunate about this particular case is the timing, which seems rather deliberate.

Many people who are not police officers will find some of the imagery in these videos offensive. The question comes however, whether it should even be judged by standards outside the environment of what police work has become…

So check out The Wall and read the rest of this excellent piece, which has a lot to say about “Community Policing” and what gets noticed by the media. You’ll probably want to make The Wall a regular stop. I can see myself linking to them on a fairly regular basis — if their first few days of operation are any indication, The Wall will soon be essential reading for any SF observer.

Plus, you gotta love a guy who uses the term “hidebound” in the very first sentence one of his inaugural posts.

Oh Man. I read this story a couple of days ago, but Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom hits it out of the park on exposing the hearts and minds of the Moonbat Brigade. Funniest thing I have read in a long time. I wonder if the loony left gets just how badly out of touch with the reality of this enemy they are. Is it just Bush Derangement Syndrome? Or do they really think we can take Islamists and “hug ‘em and squeeze ‘em and call ‘em George”?

Jeez.

Oh man. Go read this. All of it.

VIA: Glenn Reynolds

Some call it racial profiling. To me it is simply more efficient screening in the War on Terror. And as Charles Krauthammer says, we do not need to pat down elderly women from Poughkeepsie. And I’ll be damned if I want to see my liberty slip away to make one sector of our population more comfortable with a PC approach. We know who the enemy is:

–

The American response to tightening up after London has been reflexive and idiotic: random bag checks in the New York subways. Random meaning that the people stopped are to be chosen numerically. One in every 5 or 10 or 20.

This is an obvious absurdity and everyone knows it. It recapitulates the appalling waste of effort and resources we see at airports every day when, for reasons of political correctness, 83-year-old grandmothers from Poughkeepsie are required to remove their shoes in the search for jihadists hungering for paradise.

The only good thing to be said for this ridiculous policy is that it testifies to the tolerance and good will of Americans, so intent on assuaging the feelings of minority fellow citizens that they are willing to undergo useless indignities and tolerate massive public waste.

Assuaging feelings is a good thing, but hunting for terrorists in this way is simply nuts. The fact is that jihadist terrorism has been carried out from Bali to Casablanca to Madrid to London to New York City to Washington by young Islamic men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin.

This is not a stereotype. It is a simple statistical fact. Yes, you have your shoe-bomber, a mixed-race Muslim convert, who would not fit the profile. But the overwhelming odds are that the guy bent on blowing up your train traces his origins to the Islamic belt stretching from Mauritania to Indonesia.

Read the whole thing.

San Francisco _Chronicle_ columnist Jon Carroll weighs in on the San Francisco Supervisors’ USS _Iowa_ vote:

I love these people, but they drive me crazy. I had a girlfriend like that once; I think we’ve all had girlfriends like that once. Aren’t all girlfriends like that?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors — well-meaning folks, but they make me nuts. Just this week, they rejected a plan to bring the battleship Iowa to San Francisco and turn it into a tourist attraction and museum. Why? Cecilia M. Vega of this very newspaper summed up the reasons given for the decision: “the widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, the unequal treatment of gay and lesbian enlisted men and women, and the city’s reputation as a home of the peace movement.”

The music tinkles, the picture ripples, and we take you into the near future for some more resolutions by the supes:

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to tear down Mission Dolores. “Indigenous American people were kept there in near slave conditions and forcibly recruited to a nonnative religion,” said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. “We need to tear it down ancient adobe brick by ancient adobe brick.” He added: “History just sucks, and now we have a chance to do something about it.”

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to tear down Fort Point after it was brought to its attention that the fort had once had a military purpose. “The people of San Francisco do not want a part of the 19th century war machine within their city limits,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. “Researchers tell me that, at one time, guns actually protruded from those cute little holes in the side of the building. The fort should be replaced by a nice new dog run.”

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors decided to turn the War Memorial Veterans Building, home of Herbst Theatre, into an indoor farmers’ market. “I was shocked to learn,” said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, “that some of the veterans who use this building killed foreign citizens as part of an invading army. Additionally, the armed forces in which they served virtually criminalized gay and lesbian behavior. Shame, I say, shame.

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to disband itself. “The board is steeped in the culture of sexism, racism and homophobia, ” said Supervisor Bevan Dufty. “For a long time, it was just a bunch of old white guys making decisions for the entire city. I feel personally soiled by being a member of this group, and ask that my colleagues to join me in ritual self-mutilation directly after the meeting.”

Yes, it’s a sick, sick city. Given the amount of bad behavior that has taken place in its various apartments and public spaces, we should probably raze the whole joint and start over. And then, because humans are imperfect and often idiotic, there’d be more sexism and racism and murder and extortion and nonmedical marijuana being sold to people who just want to get high, and .. . life is a cesspool. Let’s give up and not think about it anymore.

As usual, Carroll is poignant and funny. Treat yourself — go read the entire thing.

…gets beat over the head like a mushy headed idiot by Cassandra at Villainous Company.

She quotes the Bi-Partisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report:

Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.

AND, there’s a lot more. Go and read it all.

I would also say that critical thinking courses should be _required_ in schools of journalism. Probably way too much to ask. Way.

They reject the USS Iowa. Check it here…

From Cox and Forkum:

One particular passage reveals the Times blindness to the real issue. They write that if Governor Pataki attempts to “appease one small, vocal group of protesters,” “he runs the risk of turning ground zero into a place where we bury the freedoms that define this nation.”

“Bury”? The Times has the gall to use the word “bury”? There are actual Americans buried at Ground Zero, murdered because they lived in a free county, and the Times’ main concern is not the victims but that Ground Zero have an art gallery able to exhibit “controversial images of 9/11 and America’s role in the world,” all in the name of “free speech.”

The real issues are how to properly use the hallowed ground of the WTC site to memorialize 9/11 victims and to historically document the attacks, and whether or not the IFC “freedom museum” and “arts center” are distractions from (and potentially even desecrations of) that memorial. As currently planned, the WTC memorial is already buried beneath the International Freedom Center building. With left-leaning individuals deeply involved in the IFC, it’s not difficult to imagine how much worse it can get.

And there’s more. Go read it. Here is the cartoon:

You can read and sign the Take Back the Memorial petition here.