San Francisco votes to Ban the Blue Angels

Started by Smokey, July 11, 2007, 02:26:46 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Smokey

Although it is "the other team" (Navy) I think this would interest all.......
those looney lefties in San Francisco voted to ban the Blue Angels from flying over the city.........you have to read the entire resolution to see how really wacky these folks are.......

Resolution seeking a permanent halt to the annual
Blue Angels air show over the City of San Francisco.

Whereas, Pursuant to Environmental Code Section 101 of the City and County of San Francisco, all officers, boards, commissions and departments shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County affairs; and

WHEREAS, the Precautionary Principle requires public servants to take anticipatory action to prevent harm and through exploration and careful analysis select courses of action that present the least threat to all; and,

WHEREAS, The Blue Angels is an elite Navy exhibition squadron that tours the United States to perform air shows, involving dare devil maneuvers and tight flight; and,

WHEREAS, Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

WHEREAS, Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities, most recently on April 21, 2007 Beaufort County, South Carolina, when Blue Angel pilot Lt. Cmdr. Kevin J. Davis, crashed with his plane into several neighborhood homes, killing himself and injuring eight people on the ground; and,

WHEREAS, Each October, the Blue Angels performs an air show over the City of San Francisco as part of the Fleet Week; and,

WHEREAS, Based on the recent history and the style of their performance in which the slightest error by a pilot or a mechanical malfunction has been known to have disastrous effects, the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco; and,

WHEREAS, The Blue Angel F/A-18 Hornet jets make a considerable amount of noise pollution with volume rising to levels that exceed legal limits for the civilian community; and,

WHEREAS, When the aircraft fly their simulated strafing runs over the concrete and glass canyons of San Francisco's high-rise buildings, the volume is magnified to ear splitting and nerve shattering levels; and,

WHEREAS, San Francisco is a Sanctuary City for many immigrants from war torn countries and home to thousands of veterans of war who have experienced air bombardment and are at risk of being traumatized when the Blue Angels perform; and,

WHEREAS, The jets also terrorize small children, seniors, pets and local wildlife; and,

WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has taken steps to contribute to the effort to stem global climate change and to avert the catastrophic consequences of air pollution, nevertheless, the Blue Angels spew tons of toxic exhaust during their flyovers; and,

WHEREAS, This is a time of under-supplies of crude oil and its byproducts, the F/A-18 Hornet wastes an inordinate amount of jet fuel; and,

WHEREAS, The Federal deficit and national debt have risen to levels never before imagined, and the people of San Francisco have suffered from Federal cuts to vital programs; and,

WHEREAS, The City pays for additional support from the police and fire departments while waiving the normal $25,000 fee to the military; now, therefore, be it

RESOLved, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco support the permanent halt to flyovers by the Blue Angels; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors call on Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos to use all resources at their disposal to bring a permanent halt to unnecessary flyovers by military aircraft.

Members of the San francisco Board of Supervisors
Below are the people to write

The Honorable Aaron Peskin
President
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7450
Fax: 415-554-7454

Email: Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org

The Honorable Michela Alioto-Pier
Member, District 2
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7752
Fax: 415-554-7843

Email: Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org
The Honorable Tom Ammiano
Member, District 9
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-5144
Fax: 415-554-5163

Email: Tom.Ammiano@sfgov.org

The Honorable Chris Daly
Member, District 6
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7970
Fax: 415-554-7974

Email: Chris.Daly@sfgov.org
The Honorable Bevan Dufty
Member, District 8
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-6968
Fax: 415-554-6909

Email: Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

The Honorable Sean Elsbernd
Member, District 7
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-6516
Fax: 415-554-6546

Email: Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org
The Honorable Ed Jew
Member, District 4
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7460
Fax: 415-554-7432

Email: Ed.Jew@sfgov.org

The Honorable Sophie Maxwell
Member, District 10
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7670
Fax: 415-554-7674

Email: Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org
The Honorable Jake McGoldrick
Member, District 1
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7410
Fax: 415-554-7415

Email: Jake.McGoldrick@sfgov.org

The Honorable Ross Mirkarimi
Member, District 5
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7630
Fax: 415-554-7634

Email: Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org
The Honorable Gerardo Sandoval
Member, District 11
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-6975
Fax: 415-554-6979

Email: Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org



If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To err is human, to blame someone else shows good management skills.

RogueLeader

Shall we start emailing en-mass to reverse this "cultured"- ::) ::) ::) proposal. :angel:
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

SARPilotNY

If I remember, the SF City Council was the location and cause of the death of Harvey Milk, councilmember.  Maybe based on the above, they should prohibit the SF City Council!
Finstein and Boxer...where are you?

Where is Dirty Harry when you need him?
CAP member 30 + years SAR Pilot, GTM, Base staff

JohnKachenmeister

Won't work, Aaron.  San Francisco is the last vestige of Communism.  Eventually, once California is given back to Mexico, SF will be kept open as the Communism Museum to attract tourists.
Another former CAP officer

SARPilotNY

Let's see...
Banned bottle water
Banned Blue Angels
Banned common sense

Have the banned CAP in SF?
They have banned recruiters, what's next?
CAP member 30 + years SAR Pilot, GTM, Base staff

RiverAux

QuoteWHEREAS, Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life
Hmm, to me that reads as if they Blue Angels have never had a show without an incident or loss of life...

jimmydeanno

They've also banned JROTC and the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

O-Rex

Quote from: Smokey on July 11, 2007, 02:26:46 AM
WHEREAS, This is a time of under-supplies of crude oil and its byproducts, the F/A-18 Hornet wastes an inordinate amount of jet fuel;

The same "inordinate amount" is used every day  so that the writers of of this post-hippie-counterculture balderdash can have he luxury of doing so in relative comfort and safety.

Six years ago, the ear-splitting nerve wracking level of noise was that of an American Icon being destroyed by 'enemies of the state.'

To date, SF never has to experience that, and they should thank the Blue Angel for it!!


gallagheria

well, I think the Solomon Amendment needs to be extended to local governments in this case. The Blue Angels are a recruiting tool, and if the city is going to ban them, they need, just like universities, to lose all public funds. Half the city would die just from losing their federally subsidized AIDS drugs. I say go for it. Any city like LA, Houston, SF, Chicago, and others that ignore federal laws or ban the military in any way, cut all federal funds.

I'd like to look at the data--I bet Uncle Sam wastes far more money in these cities from all the welfare and education subsidies than they collect in taxes from the urban population.

Pylon

Watch it with the personal jabs and other references outside of a professional's lexicon.  This is not a thread that should need to be locked.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

SARPilotNY

Now that is the most stupid  thing I have ever heard of!  Just  think of what your saying.  If you cut off all that funding, those folks are going to have to move and some of them may show up in my town.  Than I will have to deal with them!   ;)
CAP member 30 + years SAR Pilot, GTM, Base staff

ZigZag911

More evidence why it is called the "Left Coast"!

RogueLeader

^^ Burn. . . .
seriously, if they lost their funding, and moved elsewhere; I doubt all would move to a single place.  Therefore, they would be more easily out-weighed.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

Eagle400

[sigh]... San Fran Sicko strikes again. 

Mustang

Quote from: SARPilotNY on July 11, 2007, 02:54:18 AMHave the banned CAP in SF?

Haven't, and can't; the CAP squadron in SF resides in a National Guard armory; the host battalion commander is a cadet alumnus of that squadron.

Though the city seems pretty-anti-military, they go to pretty substantial lengths to honor veterans. The War Memorial building across from city hall is host to the various veterans organizations (VFW, AL, even the AFA...and housed the SF CAP squadron for about a year after 9/11, when heightened security kept them from their armory home.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


CAP428

This may be a dumb statement, but can they ban the Blue Angels?  I mean, I can see where air show organizers could choose not to book them, but I thought the Blue Angels' flights were designated military missions, not under the authority of local government?

brasda91

Quote from: Smokey on July 11, 2007, 02:26:46 AM

Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities

the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco

How many people are murdered there every day??
Wade Dillworth, Maj.
Paducah Composite Squadron
www.kywgcap.org/ky011

Eeyore

Quote from: brasda91 on July 11, 2007, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: Smokey on July 11, 2007, 02:26:46 AM

Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities

the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco

How many people are murdered there every day??

Crime rates for 2006 from fbi.gov

Population 746,085
Violent Crime 6,533
Murder 86
Forcible rape 154
Robbery 3,858
Aggravated assault 2,435
Property crime 36,992
Burglary 6,465
Larceny- theft 23,891
Motor vehicle theft 6,636
Arson 226

SARMedTech

Im working without a net here, but Im guessing that the Blue Angels are responsible for fewer air crash fatalities than the airline industry. Are they going to take the airport out of SF? Less pollution I would suppose, too? Ridi-frickin-diculous! I say we pass a CAP reg banning San Francisco. Even so, lets ease up on the comments about AIDS patients (says the CAP member working on a masters degree which includes infectious disease and pandemics).
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

mdickinson

#19
I can see how some of the language in the resolution could be construed as "leftist": the parts about San Francisco being a sanctuary city for immigrants from war-torn lands; the concern about the amount of fuel used at a Blue Angels show and its effects on global warming; and the worry about how the noise will affect local pets ( ??? ). So let's assume some of the various reasons given were intended to provoke. (The gibes about the federal deficit and national debt - would those would be considered conservative, or liberal?)

But let's ignore the partisan stuff for the moment and look for the real reasons that this body of eleven civic leaders chose to make this rule. Because in a politically diverse city such as SF, you don't get eleven people to agree on anything that's purely partisan - it has to have some real reasons behind it in order to get consensus. I think that for this resolution to have passed, local residents must have been lobbying for this for a long time. And not for partisan reasons, but for legitimate concerns.

I think there may be food for thought in this for those of us who feel strongly about protecting general aviation by stopping the closure of urban airports. (In my area, we've been losing about two airports per year for the past ten years. Part of the problem is rising property values, and part is the declining amount of GA operations, but a large part is the concern of local authorities over perceived noise and safety issues at airports located in thickly settled areas.


So if we ignore the partisan language, it looks like there are two "real" reasons for the resolution, both related to the Board of Supervisors' job description, which is to "take anticipatory action to prevent harm" to the city's residents.

1. Airshows featuring jet fighters doing formation flying are incredibly loud! So much that they probably shouldn't be conducted right over a major city, thereby turning the city's residents into a captive audience. They should probably be held in less populated areas, where the majority of the people who will hear the noise will be willing participants. (Can you imagine the guy who lives right next to an Air Force Base calling up his town councilman and complaining about the noise from the F-16s? Me neither. :) )

2. Airshow flying is, well, risky. It sometimes, though rarely, results in crashes. We've all seen the videos that get passed around - videos taken at airshows, where something goes wrong and a plane goes down. Thankfully, the pilots usually eject in time... and the broken airplane ends up hitting the ground with an explosion. No harm done, except to some insurance company's budget.  That seems like a reasonable risk to me... but is it really wise to hold an airshow right over a city? If something hits the ground, the possibility of collateral damage is infinitely higher than at a typical airshow location (sparsely populated area).

Don't get me wrong, I love going to airshows! - but WOW are they are loud! When I first read this, I thought "they hold an airshow right over a densely populated urban area? You've got to be kidding me!" But reading further, I gather this has been a regular part of SF's Fleet Week for years.

The lesson here may be: "if you make insane amounts of noise right over people's homes, year after year, they will eventually complain so hard to their local government that you'll lose your right to fly there."

O-Rex

I live in Ft. Lauderdale: every year we have a big Air & Sea show, alternating between T-birds and Blue Angels.  Each year there are noise abatement concerns, but nonetheless the show goes on to a crowd of literally millions on the beach.

There is an agenda here, and it's not safety, nor noise, not fuel economy. . .

I am sure others cities have declined the Blue Angels' offer to visit, and I'm also sure they did so politely, without great fanfare or rhetoric.

My condolences to those enthusiastic San Franciscans who will miss the show.

smj58501

Does anyone remember when were they scheduled to fall in the Pacific Ocean?

Seriously, if they don't want the Blue Angels, or any other demonstration team, I am sure there are several cities in this great nation (mine included) that would be proud to host them during San Francisco's timeslot. What is the number to their scheduling desk?
Sean M. Johnson
Lt Col, CAP
Chief of Staff
ND Wing CAP

Smokey

They don't actually perform the demo over the city......The Blues  follow FAA rules about where it can be flown (distance from the crowd, etc).

This is political grandstanding by that wacko city's political folks...

I tried to see if Al-Qaeda would attack City Hall but they said something about  "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"  !!!!

If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To err is human, to blame someone else shows good management skills.

flynd94

I will throw my .02 cents in considering I live in the SF Bay Area (Fremont).  The Blue's/Navy have skipped SF Fleet Week before.  If memory serves me correct, they weren't there 2 years ago.  It was funny, the Thunderbirds performed.  The reason behind the Blue's absence was the previous year they had a problem landing.  One of the F-18's blew a tire landing at SFO.  It shut down the runway for awhile.  The city went to the Navy asking for loss of revenue.  Of course the Navy didn't pay and, they said "no" to the Fleet Week organizers.

San Francisco is a weird place, a country to their own.  When I mention I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, I make sure I let folks know that I don't live in SF.
Keith Stason, Maj, CAP
IC3, AOBD, GBD, PSC, OSC, MP, MO, MS, GTL, GTM3, UDF, MRO
Mission Check Pilot, Check Pilot

flyguy06

Now why do you guys have to go and start a political debate? Just protest being against SF from baning the Blue Angels (As I would be) But you dont have to go around saying things like Lefties, and Communist. Those words spark heated unneccesary debate. Everyone who is liberal is not against the military as the media and certain others would have you believe.

SO PLESE LETS NOT GO THERE

SarDragon

Quote from: mdickinson on July 11, 2007, 11:43:08 AM[portions redacted] So if we ignore the partisan language, it looks like there are two "real" reasons for the resolution, both related to the Board of Supervisors' job description, which is to "take anticipatory action to prevent harm" to the city's residents.

1. Airshows featuring jet fighters doing formation flying are incredibly loud! So much that they probably shouldn't be conducted right over a major city, thereby turning the city's residents into a captive audience. They should probably be held in less populated areas, where the majority of the people who will hear the noise will be willing participants. (Can you imagine the guy who lives right next to an Air Force Base calling up his town councilman and complaining about the noise from the F-16s? Me neither. :) )

Incredibly loud!  ??? I beg to differ. I lived 4 miles from Miramar Air Station for 6 years, and my house was directly in the path of the cross-show flying. The sound was noticeable, but never loud enough to suggest ear plugs, or not ignore. Takeoff and landing traffic at a regular airport is much noiser, and for longer duration.

Quote2. Airshow flying is, well, risky. It sometimes, though rarely, results in crashes. We've all seen the videos that get passed around - videos taken at airshows, where something goes wrong and a plane goes down. Thankfully, the pilots usually eject in time... and the broken airplane ends up hitting the ground with an explosion. No harm done, except to some insurance company's budget.  That seems like a reasonable risk to me... but is it really wise to hold an airshow right over a city? If something hits the ground, the possibility of collateral damage is infinitely higher than at a typical airshow location (sparsely populated area).

right over a city  ??? I am not clear on the exact flight path of the SF airshow, but, based on seeing BA shows at several other venues, it is not directly over the city. Show center and the primary flight path are usually along a runway to facilitate lineup. I don't know of too many runways right in the middle of a city, particularly San Francisco.

QuoteDon't get me wrong, I love going to airshows! - but WOW are they are loud! When I first read this, I thought "they hold an airshow right over a densely populated urban area? You've got to be kidding me!" But reading further, I gather this has been a regular part of SF's Fleet Week for years.

The lesson here may be: "if you make insane amounts of noise right over people's homes, year after year, they will eventually complain so hard to their local government that you'll lose your right to fly there."

I think we're getting some "Chicken Little" reaction here. The first thing in the minds of the Blue Angels, and other flight demonstration teams, is safety. First and foremost. The flight path is selected with that in mind - safe for the participants, and the spectators.

As for the noise, it bothers people because they want it to bother them. It is easy to ignore if you really want to. These folks should try living on an aircraft carrier for three years. You learn to ignore the noise, or life gets even more stressful.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

RogueLeader

Quote from: flyguy06 on July 11, 2007, 08:34:59 PM
Now why do you guys have to go and start a political debate? Just protest being against SF from baning the Blue Angels (As I would be) But you dont have to go around saying things like Lefties, and Communist. Those words spark heated unneccesary debate. Everyone who is liberal is not against the military as the media and certain others would have you believe.

SO PLESE LETS NOT GO THERE

While what you say about not all liberals-leftists/communists are against the military, is true; it is also true that this stance is very much anti-militrary.  Being anti-military IS leftist.  It may not include you, but it is on that side of the fence.
Another example is that I am very conservative, but I do not  want to start hanging Blacks or bring the KKK back.  Are those Right wing, yes; but that does not mean all right wingers want that.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

O-Rex

One can sea beauty even within squalor: the fact that the elected officials of San Francisco can waste time and ink on such rot, and the fact that we can debate about it without fear of ending up in a gulag is a testament to our system of government, our freedom and the Blue Angel's, as well as their brethren's ability to protect it.

If the fine folks at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are still in office 3 to 5 years down the road, then the people of that city deserve what they get.

I for one am going to boycott sourdough bread, rice-a-roni, and hope that the Blue Angels do a double show in my town  ;D

(I though a little levity was in order. . . )

JohnKachenmeister

The USS Hornet is in Alameda, and is being turned into a museum on the lines of the USS Intrepid museum in New York.  My uncle served on the Hornet during World War II and I have his old cruise book.  I considered flying out to SF on vacation to visit the Hornet, since my son works for an airline and I get to fly for free.

But after the Supervisor of San Francisco called the United States military an "Evil institution" that is not needed, and after San Francisco banned military recruiters, and after San Francisco banned ROTC from its schools, I decided that San Francisco is a left-wing festering sore that I do not need to support with even one tourist dollar.
Another former CAP officer

alice

Ummm..... I live in the SF Bay Area.  Haven't heard anything in the news about an actual final vote on this evergreen issue. Ever since housing costs went through the roof in the 1980s and thanks to that more than any other reason the military pulled out of the SF Bay Area en masse from Hamilton AFB, Hunters Point, The Presidio, Mare Island, Yerba Buena and Treasure islands, Alameda NAS and Moffett NAS with the extra kickers from Flower Power hereabouts plus lots of locals and their politicians like to bash any remaining hint of US military.  It's like a religious sport for many.

But.... when the chips are down.... like the week after 9/11, the military was very popular here, Combat Air Patrols overhead, National Guard at the big commercial airports and all.

The SF Fleet Week website still says the Blue Angles are coming and the local press last said the proposed we-hate-the-Navy-zoomers resolution was just going to a committee.  SF City Council knows jolly well one of the town's key tax earners is the tourism industry of which Fleet Week is a part and I doubt they would jeopardize that by going along withe Supervisor Daly's resolution.

http://fleetweek.us/fleetweek
Alice Mansell, LtCol CAP

acarlson

Quote from: SARMedTech on July 11, 2007, 11:21:25 AM
Im working without a net here, but Im guessing that the Blue Angels are responsible for fewer air crash fatalities than the airline industry. ...

I agree... and my initial thoughts was:   How much training do the B.A. pilots get?  answer: LOTS!
How often do the B.A. fly over S.F.? answer:  not as often as commercial aircraft... and what about private aircraft?   and let's not forget those pesky TV news station helicopters!



Quote from: edmo1 on July 11, 2007, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: brasda91 on July 11, 2007, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: Smokey on July 11, 2007, 02:26:46 AM
...Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities

the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco


Crime rates for 2006 from fbi.gov

Population 746,085
Violent Crime 6,533
Murder 86
Forcible rape 154
Robbery 3,858
Aggravated assault 2,435
Property crime 36,992
Burglary 6,465
Larceny- theft 23,891
Motor vehicle theft 6,636
Arson 226

sooo that means the score is...
B.A. 26/60 = .433333 fatalities per year on average.
S.F. population = 86 "fatalities" in 2006 alone

Conclusion:
B.A. has 85.567 FEWER fatalities per year on average. 
Hey S.F. ... do the math!



Annette Carlson, 1Lt CAP
PDO, PAO, Pers, & Historian
Doylestown Composite Squadron 907
Doylestown PA

gallagheria

You can't be serious about the noise actually being harmful?!

I live in Savannah, Georgia, and Hunter Army Airfield is literally in the middle of the city. You can see the landing strip just a few hundred feet from the main road. One of the two main malls is straight under the flight path. So that is just a generic argument.

I still say strip them of federal funds just like colleges would lose if they did the same with ROTC.

PHall

So, what exactly in this proposed resolution required all of the wisecracks and insults aimed at San Francisco, California and the West Coast in general?


ZigZag911

Quote from: flyguy06 on July 11, 2007, 08:34:59 PM
Everyone who is liberal is not against the military as the media and certain others would have you believe.

This is quite true.

It is also true that some states/cities/areas of the country are more radically liberal than others.....the Pacific Northwest, Minnesota, Massachusetts and yes, California, are viewed as demonstrating such trends by many observers.

Certainly not everyone in the state....nor is every idea such citizens express absurd.

However, it often strikes me as ridiculous for a city council to start passing resolutions about global, international, or national situations.

If they want to turn down the Blue Angels because of noise, traffic, congestion, or other local concerns, that is their business -- literally.

The rest of it strikes me as posturing.

PA Guy

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 11, 2007, 09:56:48 PM
The USS Hornet is in Alameda, and is being turned into a museum on the lines of the USS Intrepid museum in New York.  My uncle served on the Hornet during World War II and I have his old cruise book.  I considered flying out to SF on vacation to visit the Hornet, since my son works for an airline and I get to fly for free.

But after the Supervisor of San Francisco called the United States military an "Evil institution" that is not needed, and after San Francisco banned military recruiters, and after San Francisco banned ROTC from its schools, I decided that San Francisco is a left-wing festering sore that I do not need to support with even one tourist dollar.

Since the Hornet is in Alameda, across the Bay, you can still visit the Hornet and stay and spend your money in Alameda, Oakland and the rest of the East Bay and never drop a dime in the city of San Francisco.  You could even fly in and out of Oakland, Sacramento or San Jose. ;D

Eagle400

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2007, 05:16:05 AM
So, what exactly in this proposed resolution required all of the wisecracks and insults aimed at San Francisco, California and the West Coast in general?

Because some people are too lazy to do the research and see for themselves.  It's so much easier to say "I believe this because I heard it somewhere" than it is to go and find out for sure. 

Generalization is a substitute for analysis. 

DHollywood

ok... speaking legally now.....  this is a Resolution.

Nothing has been banned and "San Francisco" did not vote on anything.

Resolutions are passed everyday by local governments but they carry no force of law.

Only the federal government can regulate aviation and any attempt by a state or a subordinate government to a state to regulate a federally occupied area is violative of the Constitution... unless the feds allow some minimal state involvement.

Cities and counties in California pass goofy and stupid resolutions all the time ... it makes them feel better about themselves I suppose.  But its not law.....

Even if the people of SF did vote to ban the Blue Angels, they still have no way to enforce the ban.

It does however generate enourmous amounts of free press for these goofy politicians.

IMHAO
account deleted by member

flyguy06

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 11, 2007, 09:07:21 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on July 11, 2007, 08:34:59 PM
Now why do you guys have to go and start a political debate? Just protest being against SF from baning the Blue Angels (As I would be) But you dont have to go around saying things like Lefties, and Communist. Those words spark heated unneccesary debate. Everyone who is liberal is not against the military as the media and certain others would have you believe.

SO PLESE LETS NOT GO THERE

While what you say about not all liberals-leftists/communists are against the military, is true; it is also true that this stance is very much anti-militrary.  Being anti-military IS leftist.  It may not include you, but it is on that side of the fence.
Another example is that I am very conservative, but I do not  want to start hanging Blacks or bring the KKK back.  Are those Right wing, yes; but that does not mean all right wingers want that.

And so who makes these "rules" As to what a person beileives or puts them in categories as "left" and "right"?

SARMedTech

When I was younger (ie in college) I just automatically considered myself liberal no matter what the situation. As i grow older, I find myself more guided by the mandates set down in the Constitution. I think whether you consider yourself liberal (which I am on many points) and conservative (which I am on issues like crime, economy, etc) the guiding principle is that piece of paper that says what and who we are as Americans. I have many college friends that say that I gave up my liberal status when I joined CAP because of its military affiliation. I tell them that the military is what gives us the right to be liberal or conservative, left of right and to voice our opinions. And regardless of what my personal social and political beliefs are, when I put on my CAP uniform, I check my politics at the door and serve at the pleasure the Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force and the President of the United States. Whether I am out shutting of an ELT or looking for a lost person after a crash, my politics have no bearing. The only thing that matters is that I follow orders (and unlike some I have encountered in CAP, an order from officer of high rank or position is just that...an ORDER) and perform my duties to the best of my abilities. The only place I stray from that is that when I take any oath, I affirm, rather than swear  "so help me God" since I am a Buddhist and not a Christian and feel that it would be hypocritical not to mention meaningless for me to swear to a God who is not part of my religion. (Steps off soap box).
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

RiverAux

Who exactly is in charge of "hiring" the Blue Angels for the show?  If the city is involved directly in this, they can certainly decide not to invite the Blue Angels.  If they need a city permit to have the event, the city also certainly has some sway in what happens.  You're right that they're not in charge of the airspace, but there are still ways that they may have input into this particular event.

ZigZag911

SarMedTech, isn't it interesting how your college friends (and they are not alone in this) assume all military personnel share a single opinion.

Of course this is not so, any more than all Democrats, Republicans, Texans or Californians all think the same!

The military defends the freedom that enables each to hold his or her own opinion (no matter how silly it may be!)

Skyray

When I came home from beautiful french Indo-china in December 1967 San Francisco was a veritable gauntlet for returning veterans with soldiers in uniform being spat upon and otherwise baited.  I managed to come through in civilian clothes, one of the privileges of commissioned service, and when I arrived home in Mississippi I was asked by a friendly reporter what I thought of the demonstrations.  My answer was that their right to protest was pretty much the sum and substance of what I was fighting for.  I suspect, however, that if one of them had spat on me, you would have seen the Kent State headlines a few years early.
Doug Johnson - Miami

Always Active-Sometimes a Member

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: Skyray on July 12, 2007, 11:46:37 PM
When I came home from beautiful french Indo-china in December 1967 San Francisco was a veritable gauntlet for returning veterans with soldiers in uniform being spat upon and otherwise baited.  I managed to come through in civilian clothes, one of the privileges of commissioned service, and when I arrived home in Mississippi I was asked by a friendly reporter what I thought of the demonstrations.  My answer was that their right to protest was pretty much the sum and substance of what I was fighting for.  I suspect, however, that if one of them had spat on me, you would have seen the Kent State headlines a few years early.

Skyray:

I know the feeling.  I came into Travis AFB from Sunny South Vietnam (via Japan) and was on a bus leaving the main gate through a crowd of protesters.  We were ordered to keep the bus windows closed, and not to talk to, confront, gesture at, moon, or otherwise acknowledge the protesters.  One "Citizen expressing his first amendment rights" laid a hocker on my bus window.  I looked at that hocker all the way to Treasure Island.  Welcome home, Hero! 

The dude that spit at me is probably Nancy Pelosi's campaign manager now.  Or a member of the Board of Supervisors.
Another former CAP officer