The San Francisco Chronicle (I'd call it the "Comical" but that would be insulting to the "Old Chronicle"'s tradition of putting out a joke edition on April 1st) has printed a nifty little piece on the City's plans to fight "GLOBAL WARMING" (dun dun, dun dun dun...duuuunnnnh). Of course it's short on real science and long on political rhetoric (including a completely out of place, blatantly partisan quote:

Hardly the first of its kind, San Francisco's plan is regarded as one of the
more ambitious big-city commitments in the United States -- all of them part of
a coordinated effort by mostly Democratic urban governments to counter the
perceived go-slow approach of the Bush administration.

So there is a collusive anti-business plan amongst Democratic urban governments? Wow. I never would have suspected that.
Anywho, the story lightly touches on what the City plans to due to reduce so-called "greenhouse gas" pollutants. No offense San Francisco, but how about reducing some slightly heavier pollutants first like all the trash on the streets, graffiti and corruption in City spending? Of course I guess the "mostly Democratic urban government" is probably too "big picture" to take those little things into account eh?

A complaint has been filed in San Francisco arguing that a public art installation is "inaccessible to the blind". Personally I see these big hearts as a stupid waste of tax payer money that is nothing more than a copy of other installations in other cities, but to file a complaint because there is not braille plaque to let the blind have an "... experience equivalent to that enjoyed by a person with sight." is just asinine.

What's next?

I was reading this article about protests in Spain over Chinese shoe manufacturers that people are blaming for losses in the Spanish shoe manufacturing sector and immediately thought of that South Park episode with cheap workers coming to South Park from the future...only in Spanish.

¡Tomaron mi trabajo!

It's really disheartening to see Europe not living up to it's espoused beliefs of freedom, tolerance and justice for all by marching through the streets, attacking Chinese owned businesses while carrying signs that say "Chinese Out."

"Only in San Francisco" is the sardonic response most people give when faced with something that in any sane city would be considered a crime or at the very least something to be heavily frowned upon, but not in San Francisco.

Case in point: the "Nude Yoga Guy" story in today's San Francisco Chronicle. Here is an adult male who decides that to advertise his nude lifestyle (and new book!) to do nude Yoga in a public place (a very public place; Fishermans Wharf) and is arrested for creating a "public nuisance"...not being nude ( in California it's not illegal to be nude in public. For someone to be guilty of "indecent exposure" the exposure must be willfull and sexual in nature). The City Attorney's Office in all its wisdom decides to not prosecute on the public nuisance charge since "...[b]eing naked in San Francisco is not a crime...unless the gentleman had lewd conduct or was obstructing traffic.'' Well thank goodness he wasn't obstructing traffic! Heaven forbid that someone might be delayed on their way to purchase an iced coffee and a t-shirt while avoiding looking at this mans "junk". Thank goodness he wasn't being lewd in exposing the central area of a man's sexuality on the street to the men, women and children passing by, I mean, it's only his sexual organ so therefore it has nothing to do with sex right? Or am I not taking a holistic and elightened approach to modern sexuality?

Another "Only in San Francisco" event revolves around the same basic concept. Recently (2002) San Francisco passed it's very first law banning public urination and defecation...after months of haggling and arguements over how it would impact the homeless and others. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that when you gotta go you gotta go. But the City did install all those spiffy new JCDecoux toilets and hands out tokens to the homeless (everyone else has to pay) for their use. I understand that certain people may have medical conditions that, shall we say, force them to relieve themselves in public. Any reasonable person understands these points. But why would it take months to decide that urinating and defecating in public is a "bad thing?"...Only in San Francisco.

Our final "Only in San Francisco" moment for today involves Supervisor Alito-Pier, who wants to ban smoking in all outdoor recreation areas controlled by the City. Her complaint is that there are cigarette butts all over the place and she wants that to end. The proposal calls for a fine of at least $250 per offense.

The fine for public nudity: $0
The minimum fine for urinating or defecating in public: $50
The minimum fine for smoking a cigarette in a City park: $250

Only in San Francisco

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

Fascinating read that points to collusion and connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda via the U.N. "Oil for Food" program.

A very interesting read in today's San Francisco Chronicle. Seems that Governor Schwarzenegger has declined Secretary of State Shelley's request for $25.4 million dollars in federal "voter outreach" funds, which comes about "...as the secretary of state released documents showing that earlier spending on voter outreach efforts using federal funds sometimes took a partisan slant..." and that newspapers have reported "...Shelley awarded some of the money to Democratic Party activists and political allies."

The Florida Supreme Court has decided, much to the angst of Terry McCauliffe et al, to allow Ralph Nader to be the Reform Party candidate in Florida. I applaud the Florida SC for upholding democratic principals and would like for Mr. McCauliffe to answer the question of why the Democrats are so afraid of competition.

It's interesting that Mr. Nader receives so much attention, even being listed as the third candidate in nation wide polling, but let's not forget that he is not the Green Party candidate this year. That distinction belongs to Mr. David Cobb. No one seems to be paying attention to him or to the other candidates that are out there such as the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. While I don't agree with the Libertarian platform, I do give them points for being brave enough to post the results of a poll that show them losing.

What's my point? Good question. Basically I think that the media (and Mr. McCauliffe) are paying too much attention to just Mr. Nader. There are other groups and individuals who can siphon away votes from both parties, but most likely from the Democrats. The Green's, while being whackos, have been staunchly "anti-war" from the beginning, something that John Kerry has not been. The Libertarians are pro-drug use (well, ok, they are pro "freedom" which includes the freedom to use drugs so long as they "...live up to the consequences of their actions..." which I find troubling because it has no guarantees for victims of drug abusers, their families, friends, etc. but that's another subject) these two groups can and will draw a fair percentage of the "ultra left" voters away from Mr. Kerry.

Contrary to popular opinion (especially here behind enemy lines) Republicans don't always listen to Lawrence Welk, Polka music or Country. I picked up a new CD today: Lyrics Born. There's a bunch of great tracks on it; one which you've probably heard (assuming you pay attention to the soundtracks of diet soda television commercials starring Oscar winning actors). They just played at the Art and Soul Festival in Oakland back on Sept. 4th.

Anyway, check them out.

Hmmm, there appear to be other agents present in this area of operations, strangely they don't seem as circumspect in their mission instead choosing a head on approach to dealing with the locals. Perhaps I should investigate this methodology more closely now that I am out of the closet.

I've finally been activated from my long sleep and have begun to take action.

I must announce myself...but not reveal my cover. Over the years I have crafted a persona that blends well in this AO, although I think I may have let slip through some of the base personality. It's very difficult to maintain a sense of detachment here, you want to get involved. I've sat quietly whilst the locals have rallied, marched and chanted...making it well known that those of my group are most definately not welcome here.

I have feared that the locals would not understand (not that they could) nor would they accept me if they knew who and what I really was. A strange thought for a place that is so full of understanding and compassion...but not for me.

For years I have watched and listened, rarely speaking up, regretting when I did. It wasn't time yet, I could wait just a little longer. Listened as some of the locals said the most asinine things...biding my time...not causing trouble...don't let them think about what your beliefs and motivations are...it's not time yet.

The time however is now.

I am a Republican...I live in San Francisco...this is my tale.