On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:42:41 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2005 13:04:43 -0700, wrote:


P. Fritz wrote:
San Francisco city leaders don't want the USS Iowa in the city.

The Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 on Tuesday against a plan to berth
the
World War II era battleship on the city's historic waterfront and turn
it
into a museum and tourist attraction.

In turning away the Iowa, supervisors cited opposition to the war in
Iraq,
the treatment of gay and lesbians in the service and the city's
reputation
for embracing the peace movement.

But while San Francisco officials don't want the battleship, officials
in
Stockton would welcome the Iowa.

The San Joaquin County city supports a bill that would authorize
transferring the Iowa from the Navy to the Port of Stockton.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/4718679/detail.html

I say horse****! The USS Pampanito, a submarine, is there, and also now
I believe that the Jeremiah O'Brian is there, too.
If gays and lesbians are such proponents of the peace movement, why do
they
persist in their demands for access to the military? Maybe some
knowledgeable
liberal could answer that for me.

It didn't say gays and lesbians were necessarily big participants in the
peace movement, silly. It said the military treats gays and lesbians badly,
which is true. Since the city's got a large and politically astute gay
population.......do you need any more of an explanation?




These derelicts typically are financial losers for cities. There was a
move to do the same thing with the carrier Saratoga in Jacksonville
after it was decided to mothball the ship. No matter how the supporters
of the idea spun it, they couldn't come up with a plan that was
financially feasible without taxpayer subsidy.

It's a waste of money.

And a waste of valuable waterfront.

I wonder why the SF folks didn't realize that and just say so?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD