Do you agree with the decision to keep the USS Iowa out of San Francisco?

[WI_DEM]

I just heard about this last night watching a "story" on it on "The Daily Show."

Apparently a couple of weeks ago The SF City Board of Supervisors voted to prevent the battleship USS Iowa from becoming a floating museum on the San Francisco waterfront.

The anti-USS Iowa supervisors say they oppose the military in general, the war in Iraq and the military's discrimination against homosexuals.

On the other end of the spectrum the organizer Merylin Wong said she knows that gay politics influenced the city supervisor's vote, "Many gays here oppose what the Board of Supervisors did."

Do you agree or disagree with the Supervisor's vote?

[Richardo]

1. Wasn't the USS Iowa the ship where the gun turret exploded?

If so, I recall some controversy in the report about a sailor's sexuality being called into question as a factor. I'm sure that would be a consideration in the parties' decisions.

[Kolesar]

5. Yes

We discussed it here a few weeks ago. Don't have the DU link, but try this
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=uss+iowa+hartwig

[FDRLincoln]

2. stupid

This is the kind of stupid crap that gives liberals a bad name.

The Iowa is one of the most important ships in American naval history, the first of the finest class of battleships ever built, a veteran of World War II. It has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

[Beelzebud]

3. Agreed.

I think it's idiotic taht they would turn it down.

[MrModerate]

4. Yeah, I used to live in San Francisco and the board of supes . . .

Often gets itself into an uproar and makes some wacko decision. It's a little embarassing, really. I had high hopes when the new mayor took over a couple of years ago (Gavin Newsome), and he most definitely stepped forward boldly on the same-sex marriage front (even though that may have cost Kerry the little-old-lady-from-Dubuque vote that he needed to prevent Schimpanski's second election theft), but the supervisors are something else entirely.

I have to admit I haven't heard about the Iowa issue or Newsome recently, having only returned to the US last summer after a few years abroad.

[Hobarticus]

7. Hey, I'm from Dubuque...

That little-old-lady is a little more "blue" than you think.

Ten miles west, though, is another story.

[MrModerate]

8. "Little old lady from Dallas," perhaps? n/t

[Hobarticus]

9. LOL!!! Fair 'nuff! n/t

[Leftist_Warrior]

11. Doesn't San Fran...

Doesn't San Fran have a ban on military recruitment centers within city limits? I could have sworn they did... Not really on point, but I was curious if I recalled this correctly.

I think they should allow the Iowa in though. It's an important part of US history.

[Silverhair]

46. I doubt that such a law would stand up.

The military recruitment centers would be part of the Federal gov't. Kind of hard for a state to ban the feds.

[Leftist_Warrior]

52. I remember where I heard it... here's a link

I read it on a news site. I did a Google search looking for the story and all I could find was this Faux News story on it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162214,00.html

Sorry about the source.

[Hobarticus]

6. Nothing like trashing history to make a hollow point...

This is stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Tyler Durden]

10. "Would all jerks opposing a TOURIST TRAP GEM please rise?

Besides the fact that a mothballed warship can draw an extra few HUNDRED THOUSAND tourists per year, WAR MEMORIALS ARE NOT THERE TO GLORIFY THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT OR WAR IN GENERAL.

If anything, they are used to honor the individuals who served and to remind everyone that war involves HUGE FUCKING DANGEROUS MACHINES THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY PEOPLE SHREDDERS.

[firefox]

12. My question

If it is such a great thing to have this ship, why are no other cities asking for it?

[WI_DEM]

14. Other cities are including Milwaukee

[firefox]

15. Then what is the problem?

If Milwaukee wants it, then why should San Francisco rob them of it? But another big question would be if it would take taxpayer money to keep the display afloat?

[sybylla]

17. The problem is that the reason for not having it in San Fran

has nothing to do with reality.

Personally, I'd much prefer to have it in Milwaukee, being from Wisconsin. I took my kids to tour the battleship USS Wisconsin when it opened in Norfolk, VA in April of 2001. It was a wonderful and absolutely impressive bit of history to see.

Tourists filled the ajacent naval history museum. Trust me, I have no problem with San Fran missing out on that.

[frictionlessO]

21. Are you sure about that?

What do you think of BehindtheAeigis post further down thread. I think its a good idea.

I think there is just a wee bit of reality involved here myself. Sounds ot me like whoever originated this plan either didn't do their research or were heartless enough to want to rub the largest and most well established gay community in the country noses in it.

[sybylla]

28. It is a rather tenuous thread

that connects something, by all accounts intended to be a "memorial" and a museum, to centuries of institutionalized homophobia. It's a bit of a leap, let's say, to claim that the presence of a battleship in and of itself automatically constitutes oppression of homosexuals.

And I think it would be wonderful for it to have been approved conditionally provided it offer a fair and critical review of the history the ban on homosexuals, as it would serve a community famed for its homosexual population.

But instead this bit of history, this opportunity to teach, has been tied illogically to anti-war and anti-military sentiment and banished.

[blondeatlast]

39. Phoenix asked but was politely turned down; I'm not sure why.

Sorry for the note of levity, I just couldn't resist!

[Behind the Aegis]

13. One condition...

Make part of the memorial for gays and lesbians who have served honorably in the military and a big Mea Culpa for the Navy's trashing the gay community with the disaster that took place on the U.S.S. Iowa! Otherwise, let it moor elsewhere!

[MADem]

16. That is a very good idea--politically astute, triangulating the issue

And it gives something to the city, and something to the vets.

Of course, the challenge is to convince the powers that be that it is a good idea--but it IS, in fact, it is a great idea!

[readmoreoften]

18. great idea BTA! (nt)

[frictionlessO]

20. Smart and compassionate!

Love this idea... really really love it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. Great Idea!

[Greyhound]

19. Just typical of the NoCal Bay area. They give us all a black eye

with the rest of the country.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. How so?

Standing up for what they believe to be a representation of intolerance to a major population of their city is giving everyone a black eye? Perhaps, they should just "shut up" and not voice their opinions? :shrug:

[Greyhound]

25. They just don't get it. Remember that song/poem "Sunscreen"

that got lots of airplay in the 90's? "Everybody should live in SF, but leave before it makes you too soft". There are many ways for them to voice their opinion of intolerance, but this will not be seen as that. It will, once again be turned into media fodder about those looney bay area freaks, and no one will hear the real message. If you make a stand, and nobody sees or hears it, what will be accomplished? What about letting them dock it there and controlling, or at least influencing, the content?

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Messages..

Just because your view is unpopular or may not be received is no reason to stay silent. If this were any other ship, I might have a different opinion, but this vessel has a very anti-gay past and is wanting to dock in a very gay city. If they, the ones wanting to make this a floating museum, then I feel they should highlight the accomplishments of gay and lesbian sailors, as well as, highlight the Navy's own disgrace at gay-baiting. If they are not willing to do that, then I would also vote against this particular ship being allowed to be moored in San Francisco.

[Greyhound]

33. But that's exactly what I'm talking about. The message of supporting gays

will never be heard because of the way they handled it. I have spent many years of my life living and working in the bay area and, no matter how many times they fail, they (city counsel & the powers that be) just keep doing the same thing over and over. Again, what good is a message that nobody hears?

[damntexdem]

22. How idiotic! When I lived in SF, the Supes had more important things ...

to do. Like fight for rent control.

[bee]

27. Does anyone know why they chose SF in the first place?

The spirit of the city doesnt seem at all compatible with this war ship.. imho. I'd have been surprised if they allowed it, actually. All things considered... I respect thier decision. This war ship in SF is just... well... wrong.

edit for clarity

[rinsd]

30. The city of SF is incompatiable with a fascism fighting instrument? (nt)

[hogwyld]

29. I'm suprised

That S.F. hasn't banned military people from actually entering the city yet! Diane Feinstein actually secured federal funding for this so it wouldn't have cost the city anything. I guess they'll next eliminate anything remotely connected to the military in their delirious zeal to be different.

[Duncan Grant]

34. "delirious zeal"? What *are* you rattling on about?

There's really no other way to say this, so here goes:

You don't know what you're talking about.

Where did you get such a ridiculous notion?

[Moochy]

42. Didnt you read ?

We all in Nocal are giving the good red-blooded moderates a black eye with our silly "lefty" shit.

At least thats what this thread is telling me. :sarcasm:

[Guaranteed]

49. I'm from Sonoma County, and I'm not pleased with the SF Board, either.

Of course, they don't represent me.

[Moochy]

50. It does seem to be a hollow symbolic action

I was only posting to point out the "This gives us a black eye" comment from upthread.

[Duncan Grant]

51. It's the San Franciscans who are coming for your guns and bibles!

Look out America! Lefty Northern California Heterosexuals and Pinko Commie Gays will be the ruination of the Democratic Party (cough- PRAGMATISM-cough). :sarcasm: :hi:

[frictionlessO]

40. My entire family is military, we are from the Bay Area and have spent

as much time in the City as just about anyone, I feel that your post is quite insulting to all of us and to the gay community in general and DiFi is about a useless fucking shill as CA has had in a long time.

Your lack of compassion and empathy is noted.

I personally would like to see you say that to the face of some my loved ones.

[Moochy]

44. Hey, your region and favorite band sucks

[rppper]

31. MY .02 HERE.....

i remember the explosion that killed all those sailors on the iowa....i was fresh out of boot camp and going through my "a" schools in san diego when that ridiculous finding by the naval board of inquiry was released blaming the 2 sailors for the explosion(what an independent board later found was the powder bags used to propel the 16 inch shell were at fault, being unstable after laying up on a barge in new jersey, exposed to the elements, for 30+ years)years later the navy recanted their story, but never apologized nor paid survivor benefits to the two sailors family in question. when it comes down to it, it was a group of reagan era admirals who wanted their big toys kept in the budget.

this does not deter the historical significance of the iowa...it was one of the finest dreadnoughts ever built...the last class of american battleship produced. it was recalled to service no less than 3 times, for 3 different wars, along with her 3 sister ships. to my knowledge, 2 of the iowa class battleships are kept in a 90 day reserve status...meaning they can be called up and fitted out within 90 days and be a front line warship again...that is why you are not allowed below decks on the missouri and wisconson..the fighting gear is still in them. the iowa was being used as a parts ship and the new jersey is a museum as well.

san francisco was a major embark/reception point in ww2, as well as being home to a major production and repair facility in mare island...all of the ships damaged at pearl harbor were repaired there. fleet week is held there. apparently that bit of historical significance was lost on the council.

it is a slap in the face not only to the vets, but to the region which would benefit from the tourism it produces. look at the other battleship parks in america....the uss north Carolina in Wilmington, the uss texas in san Jacinta, the uss alabama in mobile...and all the other maritime museum parks, like the nautilus museum in groton, the carrier in new york, patriots point in charleston....all of them attract hundreds of thousands of tourist each year. their reasoning, while being well intended, is shallow in the big picture....the museum isn't about bush, iraq, republicans or democrats...it is about preserving a piece of history so we can learn from it. this is akin to book burning IMHO, and the people opposing it no less extreme than the book burners.

i have no problem with the council members expressing an opinion, but there is clearly a lack of seeing the bigger picture here. they have fallen victim to tunnel vision i feel...how sad for the rest of us.

[marions ghost]

35. consider that some people don't like to see

battleship museums on a downtown waterfront, especially if it is a small waterfront where everywhere you go you see the ship. They can be in maritime parks where people can choose to see them. Battleships are instruments of war. People are very sensitive to how much of our tax dollars go to the defense industry these days. Weapons and ships and planes, even if historically significant (which they certainly are)-- should not be displayed in multi-use public settings.

[rppper]

38. moor it at Alcatraz island then.....

that way they can have everything they are supposed to be ideologically opposed to in one spot....weapons of war, brutal prisons....and it's right dead center in the middle of the bay where it can effect no ones view....really...why not put it there, add it as part of the prison tour....

that was a stab at humor...sorry if it sounds a little snarky. i think there are two good reasons to put the iowa there. i'm just surprised the council in san francisco can not see the trees through the forest. i explained the first one already...everything going to the pacific in WW2...troops, ships, supplies, etc, etc...went through san francisco. mare island repaired and built half of our WW2 fleet. that significance should not be so easily brushed aside by a city councils opposition to the war.

ultimately, the voters of the bay area should have the final say so......

the other reason, and one of some historical significance as well, is the iowa's turret explosion and the subsequent findings in the review of it. that ship, having san francisco as it's final berth, is a slap to the face of an institution who reviled homosexuals. i see it as a victory for those who were put upon, harassed and discharged for their orientation while serving their country. one could argue the same argument if the ship were to be moored in, say, key west.

and lastly, you don't have to berth the ship at cannery row...there are plenty of unused docks and mooring spaces in the bay area to park the ship at.

again though, battleship parks are a good investment from a tourism stance. it is a WW2 battleship and thus ties in the city's historical WW2 roots, and lastly, a ship so tied to the oppression of homosexuals moored and used as a museum in a city with arguably the most colorful gay population in the US kind of rights the wrongs, or at least can be seen as a starting point. i am sure that fact was lost on no one trying to get the ship there.

[marions ghost]

41. to some it may be seen as a symbol of that oppression ...

rather than righting any wrongs. But it seems like maybe there should be more public debate in SF about this and maybe an acceptable place to dock it. Personally I like public waterfronts for recreation. Not everyone considers vehicles used for warfare to be fun and recreational (to say the least), nor do they want their children to have those associations with it. As you said, there would be other places to put it in SF where it could still attract tourists and keep the history alive. I just object to putting it front and center as has been done in many East Coast cities. There should be a way to compromise.

[cynatnite]

32. It's up to the city no matter their reasons...

If they don't want it there, then it's not going to be there. I respect the decision not because of politics or the war, but because they have that right.

If the residents disagree strongly, they can make their voice known and perhaps minds will be changed. Hard to say.

[Duncan Grant]

36. WTF DU? Are you this easy to manipulate?

Read the OP with a critical eye.

I expected people to fall for this "gay politics" shit during the election but not now. Not after you've seen what a ruse it is.

Shame on you. You deserve the pain of your ignorance.

[Moochy]

43. Well Yes, they are recently

It seems like the knee jerks have taken over.

[TahitiNut]

47. Yep. The average DU IQ seems to have plummeted.

Appalling. I guess it shows a summer on Kool-Aid. I think most folks are totally clueless about San Francisco and buy into the fundie/right bullshit.

I *LOVE* the city. I've lived all over the US and never felt so much at home as I did in the Bay Area. I'm hopelessly straight but always got a huge kick out of the Bay-to-Breakers, the Exotic-Erotic Ball, the Gay Pride Parades, and EVERYTHING the Bay Area has to offer.

They can take the Iowa and shove it up their Sandi Ego. Park the thing in the lobby of the Hot el Del for all I care. :silly:

[Moochy]

48. Kool Aid Drinkers

Kool-Aid krypo-fascist military boosters steeped in jingoisitc nationalistic punch!

Oh Yeah!!

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. IMO its really damn fucked up, Warships some like the Iowa protected...

the US, and the western coast of the US in particular from futher Japanese agression during WWII.

[msongs]

45. why not put it in IOWA....IOWA does not even want it evidently nt