'San Francisco is a Liberal and Tolerant City, and We Pride Ourselves on That Fact'

Even a city famed for their, ahem, tolerance, has the most basic standards of decency.

The naked truth, it seems, is that San Francisco is once again going to emerge as a city ripe for ridicule -- or a beacon of free expression -- depending on your point of view. The latest issue? Public nudity.

Supervisor Scott Wiener will introduce legislation today intended to get to the bottom of the gross-out factor when it comes to public nudity.

His proposal would require people who bare all for all to see to at the very least place a towel or like item underneath them when they sit down. The proposed restrictions also would require nudists to cover up before they enter a restaurant.

'San Francisco is a liberal and tolerant city, and we pride ourselves on that fact,'' said Wiener. ''Yet, while we have a variety of views about public nudity, we can all agree that when you sit down naked, you should cover the seat, and you should cover up when you go into a food establishment.''

Really? Isn't this an assault on the fundamental human right to act like you're in San Francisco? Why not compromise and get these guys some taxpayer-funded coveralls for those messy times when they have to sit down?

Wiener represents the Castro District, where over the last year it has become increasingly common to see guys au natural (except, perhaps, for donning a pair of sneakers or flip-flops) walking down the street or gathering in the popular plaza at Market and 17th streets.

City officials have, for the most part, kept hands off the naked guys, not wanting to offend those who embrace an anything-goes culture of tolerance that has made San Francisco famous.

Not to mention famously intolerant of conservatives, or, God forbid, people who have no desire to see naked human debris in public.

Circumcision Ban May End Up on San Francisco Ballot

It appears Gavin Newsom's pleasantly surprising veto of the Happy Meal toy ban was but a brief respite from San Francisco's steady march to self-imposed tyranny. Rest assured, that toy ban is happenin' - and it's only the beginning. There are plenty of other things for the kooks out there to consider outlawing.

Like circumcision!

(CBS) The city that will soon outlaw toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals could have a measure banning circumcision on next November’s ballot, reports CBS San Francisco.

“It’s genital mutilation,” said Lloyd Schofield, the author of a San Francisco ballot measure that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18.

Baby boys in San Francisco may be relieved but not everybody agrees with a proposed ban.

“I just had him circumcised 3 weeks ago,” said Heather Wisnicky of Sacramento, mother of Tyler, a 6-week-old baby boy. “It’s a health issue. It’s cleaner,” she said.

Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, a CDC researcher reported a sharp drop in the number of American parents choosing circumcision in hospitals - from 56 percent in 2006 to less than 33 percent last year.

“Most medical groups have not come out with strong opinions regarding pro or con circumcisions,” said CBS 5 medical reporter Dr. Kim Mulvihill. “Most are saying leave it up to the families, let them decide what’s right for their son.”

“Ah, that’s a little much,” said Earl Phillips of San Francisco about the proposed ban. “That goes a little bit too far.”

---

The measure is not on the ballot yet. Schofield needs to collect more than 7,100 signatures.

I have a feeling this guy won't have any problems finding 7,100 like-minded statists in San Francisco to sign his petition.

Cross-posted here.

Return to Happiness? SF Mayor to Veto Ban on Happy Meals

It won't be long until there are marches in the streets protesting this brave move by Gavin Newsom, who's finally done something sane. Of course it's meaningless since the Board of Supervisors are calling the shots.

Mayor Gavin Newsom will veto the city's ban on most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys on Friday.

The mayor has scheduled an event at Fairmount Elementary School at 2:45 p.m. ET, where he will also release a report outlining the city's efforts to combat childhood obesity, his office said.

The San Francisco, California, Board of Supervisors approved the ban on Tuesday.

The ordinance requires McDonald's and other fast-food servings with toys to meet new nutritional standards.

Newsom had indicated he would veto the law. That veto would be meaningless because the board approved the ordinance 8-3, a veto-proof margin. With eight votes, the board could override the veto.

The new law, which San Francisco officials hope other cities will adopt in battling a child obesity epidemic, was a defeat for McDonald's, which led the fight against the measure.

I wouldn't quite call it a "defeat" for McDonalds. More like a defeat for sanity.

The new law addresses how toys and other marketing freebies entice kids to buy fast-food meals that are high in fat and calories, said Supervisor Eric Mar. He initiated the proposal because his fifth-grade daughter is in the 6-to-11 age group that has seen obesity rates quadruple over the past 30 years, the same time that the Happy Meal has been on the market.

"This is a simple and modest policy that holds fast food accountable," Mar said.

This is what's it's come to. These clowns re-elect Nancy Pelosi by overwhelming margins yet they hold food accountable.

Heh: SF Airport Now Selling Carbon Credit Offsets

Well, they picked the perfect place to pull off a scam like this. Where else could you find a bunch of guilty liberals who think because they're flying they're somehow destroying the planet? I wouldn't be surprised to find out Al Gore is getting a cut.

Travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport can be the first in the nation to wipe away some of the damage their flights wreak on the planet by swiping their credit cards.

On Thursday, the Bay Area's largest airport unveiled three Climate Passport kiosks with touch screens that determine how many pounds of carbon dioxide a trip will produce, calculate the sum an environmentally conscious traveler should contribute to projects in San Francisco and California that help reduce greenhouse gases, then allow fliers to purchase certified carbon offsets.

"We realize people are going to fly," said Steve McDougal, executive vice president of 3Degrees, a San Francisco company that helped SFO develop the program. "This gives them something they can do to reduce their impact. This is just one of many small things people need to do."

The kiosks are located near the entrances to Terminal 3 and international terminals A and G - behind security checkpoints and perched in front of large signs reading, "Keep our skies blue. Purchase your air travel carbon offset here."

Setting up the Climate Passport program cost $190,000 in airport funds, said Kandace Bender, deputy airport director.

Judging from the reaction of the first two travelers to take a test spin of the touch screens, it's not clear whether the program will fly.

Soon after a press conference to unveil the kiosk in Terminal 3 concluded, Shane Johnson, 39, a traveling salesman from Vancouver, B.C., strolled up to take a look.

"What is it?" he asked.

Johnson punched in his starting airport and his destination - Vancouver to SFO and back - entered the number of passengers in his party - one - and hit the "add flight" button and the "calculate my flights" button.

His round trip would produce 1,186 pounds of carbon dioxide, which could be offset with a contribution of $7.26, the computer said. Johnson chose not to tap the "purchase now" button and slide his credit card into the kiosk.

"I don't live here, so I prefer to make my donations at home," he said.

A few minutes later, Bostonian Ari Peskoe, catching a flight home after a job interview, stopped by the machine and became the first person to purchase a carbon offset at SFO.

"My flight was free, so I thought buying some greenhouse gas reduction was the least I could do," he said.

His one-way trip home, the computer concluded, would produce 1,999 pounds of carbon dioxide, which could be offset for $12.24.

Despite his purchase, Peskoe said he's a bit skeptical about the concept of carbon offsets.

He's skeptical, yet still forks over some cash. Geez, these liberals are such easy marks.

Maybe I can set up a kiosk there and call it Stupidity Credits and make some money off these gullible morons.

Newsom: Bottled Water for Me, But Not For Thee

Another hypocrite who, by his own standards, is an environmental criminal.

Is the Green Mayor holding out on us?

This week, the City Insider spotted an almost empty case of bottled water in the back of Mayor Gavin Newsom's hybrid sport utility vehicle as it was parked in front of City Hall. At least one full bottle of Crystal Geyser Alpine Spring Water remained under the plastic covering.

This from the mayor who in June 2007 issued an executive order directing city government to no longer purchase bottled water, saying the containers clog landfills while the city owns a pristine reservoir in the Sierra Nevada that produces some of the country's best-rated tap water.

Newsom, a former restaurateur, last year called on the restaurant industry to stop selling bottled water to customers and start serving local tap water instead.

Because of that, the mayor generally declines bottled water at any event or meeting, lest he be photographed with an offending bottle.

This is water we're talking about here folks. Water.

These PC clowns are so out of control they make it as if taking a sip of water is some sort of crime. Which before long I'm sure it will be.

"The mayor will be the first to admit that he occassionally [sic] indulges in bottled water," Ballard said. "It's not something he's proud of."

The folks in San Francisco should be more concerned whether he's still sleeping with the wife of an aide and drinking too much instead of worrying about whether he's drinking bottled water. Then again, he's the hypocrite for not practicing what he preaches.

H/T Charles.

Liberal Tolerance in San Francisco: Tensions Heightened as Blacks Move In

Just imagine if a largely white conservative enclave reacted with indignity to blacks moving into their neighborhood. Why, the tut-tutting from the left would be unbearable. We'd have endless media accounts about rampant racism, hate-mongering and holier-than-thou lectures on the joys of tolerance and diversity.

But when blacks begin moving into San Francisco-area neghborhoods, the paragons of virtue on the left just aren't as tolerant as they like to portray themselves.

As more and more black renters began moving into this mostly white San Francisco Bay Area suburb a few years ago, neighbors started complaining about loud parties, mean pit bulls, blaring car radios, prostitution, drug dealing and muggings of schoolchildren.

In 2006, as the influx reached its peak, the police department formed a special crime-fighting unit to deal with the complaints, and authorities began cracking down on tenants in federally subsidized housing.

Now that police unit is the focus of lawsuits by black families who allege the city of 100,000 is orchestrating a campaign to drive them out.

"A lot of people are moving out here looking for a better place to live," said Karen Coleman, a mother of three who came here five years ago from a blighted neighborhood in nearby Pittsburg. "We are trying to raise our kids like everyone else. But they don't want us here."

City officials deny the allegations in the lawsuits, which were filed last spring and seek unspecified damages.

Across the country, similar tensions have simmered when federally subsidized renters escaped run-down housing projects and violent neighborhoods by moving to nicer communities in suburban Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles.

So here you have people looking to escape the miserable conditions resulting from liberal social engineering and the first ones complaining are the liberals themselves.

You've got to love the hypocrisy.

More from Sister Toldjah and Right Wing News.

Update: Thanks to Instapundit, Hot Air, Ace and Tammy Bruce for the links!

Glenn Reynolds also notes this USA Today item about blacks fleeing San Francisco.

African-Americans are abandoning this famously progressive city at a rate that has alarmed San Francisco officials, who vow to stop the exodus and develop a strategy to win blacks back to the city. In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed a task force to study how to reverse decades of policies — and neglect — that black leaders say have fueled the flight.

Black flight can alter a city's character. "It's important for a city's future that it be a diverse place, and San Francisco is drifting toward being an upper-middle-class city," says Ed Blakely, director of Katrina recovery for New Orleans.

According to Census estimates, the number of blacks here shrank from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to just 6.5% in 2005 — the biggest percentage decline in any major American city.

They just can't handle all the progressive tolerance, not to mention the sky-high cost of living. They're probably also sick of all the bums homeless laying about on the streets.

Thanks also to Michelle Malkin for the link.

San Francisco: The American Calcutta

Ralph Peters takes a look at the mess that is San Francisco.

ONE of the best ways to see a city's bones is to take a long jog in the hour before dawn. That's what I did in San Francisco this week.

The city reminded me of Calcutta.

By day, the camouflage of color and crowds makes the multitudes of homeless less apparent. At the chilly end of the night, though, they lie strewn on the sidewalks like plague victims, wrapped in filthy blankets and abandoned.

New Yorkers have no idea how bad a homeless crisis can be.

I didn't even run in the rougher sections, where old garbage fills the alleys and druggies prowl. My course ran from the slopes of Nob Hill, south of Union Square, down to the Embarcadero, up to North Beach and back. That's the better part of downtown.

My new symbol of San Francisco is a man with ulcerous calves exposed, head and torso thrust into a cardboard box in front of a Prada boutique.

What I saw as I sidestepped bodies wasn't just the failure of social policies, but a collective flight from responsibility. Shrugging our shoulders and declaiming The homeless deserve the right to make their own choices! just lets us all off the hook.

I refuse to romanticize the homeless - unlike those who live in San Francisco's multimillion-dollar Victorians and idealize the homeless from a distance, then cross the street to avoid giving a deranged beggar a quarter.

I haven't been in San Francisco in ten years now, but even back in 1998 I was appalled by the free reign the bums were given.

Read the rest of the piece, as Peters is spot on in his observations.

Just one thing, though. Imagine his reaction if he were to have seen this display?

'This is Why San Francisco is Considered Wacky'

These immature twits wonder why people laugh at them. But when you're the epicenter for Bush Derangement Syndrome, expect nothing less than such childish antics.

A citizens group in San Francisco wants to pay an ironic tribute to President George W Bush when he leaves office - by naming a sewage plant after him.

The group, calling itself the Presidential Memorial Committee of San Francisco, wants the issue voted on at this November's election.

"It's important to remember our leaders in the right historical context," said petition organiser Brian McConnell.

The Republican Party thinks the plan stinks, and it will fight the measure.

Mr McConnell's group has submitted more than 12,000 signatures on a petition to the San Francisco Department of Elections.

If at least 7,168 of those signatures are found to be valid, the question of whether to rename Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant after the outgoing president will be added to the ballot papers in November.

"In President Bush's case, we think that we will be cleaning up a substantial mess for the next 10 or 20 years," said Mr McConnell.

"The sewage treatment facility's job is to clean up a mess, so we think it's a fitting tribute."

But one Californian Republican, Patrick Dorinson, said the plan was "a horrible idea".

"This is why San Francisco is considered wacky," the former California Republican Party spokesman told the Associated Press.

"It makes me ashamed to be a San Franciscan if this is all they've got time to do."

Day Care for Google Employees

First off I am sure a lot of people think that Google employees need full time adult supervision, but in this case it is the company provided day care for the children of Google employees. However in reading the article I was left to ask, just how damn much money does Google pay it's employees?

Under price changes to be phased in over the next five quarters, parents of a preschooler can expect to pay $1,116 a month by October of this year and $1,710 by October 2009. Furman said the prices, while eye-popping in many regions, are competitive with top-notch day care pricing in San Francisco.

You have got to love liberals with all of their high priced touchy feely stuff. How many other people find this statement disturbing?

He denied reports the company is seeking to adhere to a specific philosophy of child-raising and said multiple approaches would be offered.

Silly old me. I always thought it was the parents responsibility to raise their kids, not the company they worked for. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy they they say multiple approaches will be offered. I would really love to see the menu of kid rearing entrees. Can you mix and match your child rearing options?
I wonder what these people are going to do when Google loses market share and people finally wake up and burst Google's bubble. I wonder if the employees in their Chinese office has the same options, or in keeping with the spirit of Google's contract with the communist regime, is that information also not returned on search of the web?
The New York Times, never known for citing their sources, and therefore leaves us to believe that they make this stuff up, just like they do with their stories involving top secret information that they just have to spill there guts about, has this quote in a story about this.

At a T.G.I.F. in June, the Google co-founder Sergey Brin said he had no sympathy for the parents, and that he was tired of “Googlers” who felt entitled to perks like “bottled water and M&Ms,” according to several people in the meeting. (A Google spokesman denies that Mr. Brin made that comment.) On Monday, Google began the first phase of its new day care plan, letting go of the outside day care firm it had been using.

Due to Rampant Violence, City of Peace and Love Cancels Halloween Bash

Maybe if these violent liberals just cleaned up their act and behaved like civilized human beings, everyone could enjoy Halloween.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - City officials want the hundreds of thousands of people who usually flock to an annual Halloween street party here to stay home or go elsewhere after several episodes of violence in recent years.

Officials have advised would-be revelers through fliers, public service announcements and juvenile probation officers that they won't find many treats in the Castro District, home in past years to the largest Halloween happening in the San Francisco Bay area.

What they will find are hundreds of extra police officers, shuttered restaurants, stepped up sobriety checks and no bus or train service after 8:30 p.m.

"This is really a public safety decision," said Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who represents the Castro and spent the better part of a year trying to arrange an alternative city-sanctioned gathering. "I'm disappointed my message is one of, 'Please don't come.'"

The festivities started decades ago as a homegrown celebration for San Francisco's gay and lesbian community, but has drawn a scarier element in recent years. In 2002, five people were stabbed. Three years ago, someone wandered the crowds wielding a chain saw.

Liberalism: A failure wherever it's tried.

Of course, I'm sure the vile Folsom Street Fair will always go on.

Famously 'Tolerant' People No Longer Very Tolerant

Of course, they're only tolerant to a certain degree. If you're a Republican or a member of the military, they hate you with ever fiber of their being, so my sympathy meter just isn't registering on this one.

Of course, in reality, they're the most intolerant kind of people--leftwingers.

After years of using the homeless as mascots and pretending it was Ronald Reagan's fault rather than assorted pathologies that caused people to live out in the street, San Franciscans have grown tired of the homeless.

Wonder what took so long?

Last time I visited in 1998, certain parts of the city were virtual no-go zones, infested and overrun by every type of human debris imaginable.

Residents of a famously liberal city appear to be changing views

San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.

"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."

Nice attitude. The difference between you and George W. Bush is he'd like to help these people. You idiots would prefer using them as political pawns.

Such compassion.

Consider the case of David Kiely, who has lived in the South of Market area for 18 years. He bought a home when prices were low and now lives there with his wife, Jenny, and their three boys, ages 7, 4 and 1. Kiely insists "we're not some white, yuppie parents saying we can't take this." In fact, he says, they donate to programs for homeless people at Glide Memorial Methodist Church and the food bank at St. Anthony Dining Room. But he's finally saying "enough is enough."

"I don't expect it to be Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights," he says. "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."

Hey man, that's just diversity in action? Who are you to judge. If a guy wants to puke on himself, who are you to say it's not his right?

Trent Rhorer, executive director of San Francisco's Human Services Agency, is at ground zero for homelessness concerns. He's heard it from local residents at meetings, he's read the polls, and he noted the huge response to Chronicle columns about the homeless people and intravenous drug users in Golden Gate park. Like others, he thinks there's been a change in the way San Franciscans think the homelessness problem should be approached.

"I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing," he says. "This is quality of life for everyone. What research has shown and what we have seen from visits to cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and New York is that you need to combine good social outreach with law enforcement."

Tell that to the ACLU. I recall when former New York Mayor Ed Koch tried to help the degenerate Billie Boggs out and get her to stop sleeping on subway grates, before you knew it, the clowns from the ACLU had her delivering speeches at Harvard.

So, as usual, the liberals are about 25 years late in coming around to where sane people stand on the issues.

That means something more than an offer of help, which often is declined anyhow. (One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached.)

"Maybe," Rhorer says, "you just need a guy with a badge standing over them and saying, you can't stay there any more."

That's tough talk for a city that's been known as a friendly place for those down on their luck. And in previous years it would have been a political non-starter. When Mayor Frank Jordan tried to push homeless people off the street with his "Matrix" program, the crackdown got much of the blame for his failure to win a second term.

But this has the feel of a new day in San Francisco.

"Homelessness, and quality of life issues, are dividing the liberals and the progressives in this city," says David Binder, a statistical analyst and founder of David Binder Research. "The liberals will say we've got to get tough on the homeless and the progressives are more old-line liberal."

Have at it folks. You've brought this mess on yourselves.

Read the rest.My solution for the problem is every self-professed compassionate progressive out there volunteers to each take in a homeless person, fedd them, clothe them and help get them back on their feet.

C'mon folks, man up and show how much you really care. Otherwise, you'll prove what we've known all along.

You don't care about these people at all.

Via Hot Air. More from Jules Crittenden, Five Feet of Fury, Moonbattery.