Focus!

All of these women who are so up in arms about rotund blowhard Rush Limbaugh calling some chick a slut really need to calm down and set some priorities. Do you really want to give the guy any more attention that he already has on a daily basis with his incredibly large radio show audience? (Who are you people who can listen to this guy? It's just like, his opinion, man. Why would you want to sit and listen to someone pontificate about the days events in only a way as to skew it toward the point of view that he favors? I just want facts and then a discussion about the facts. Oh, throw in a little humor and we're good.) Can't they focus on real matters?

Take Ross Mirkarimi for example. Mr. Mirkarimi is the sheriff of San Francisco. See, he had been charged with multiple things like child endangerment and domestic violence after a New Year's Day kerfluffle with his wife that left her with bruised arms. Yeah, that's not cool for any dude to do, but when you're sheriff I really think that you should avoid breaking the law. Call me crazy! It's just one of those things with me.

But get this: Yesterday or the day before he pled guilty to one charge of false imprisonment and the rest of the more serious charges (including the ones that were felonies) were dropped. Shocking that the sitting sheriff would get some sort of a sweet deal, ain't it? Yeah, not quite so much. So they've got a sheriff that's been convicted of false imprisonment of his wife. And do you think he's stepping down? Uh-uh. He's just going to go about business as usual. And it's questionable (and leaning toward unlikely) if there's a legal reason for him to be booted out by the mayor or someone else. So he's going to be the sheriff! Where are all of the women protesting this S?

No where. There is a ton of public outrage because of something Rush Limbaugh simply said on his radio show. This is a guy who is violent toward women! Actual violence! Contrary to what people must believe based upon their reaction to the slut incident, we're gonna survive being called names. It's not gonna kill us. (We're not all the dainty little flowers that people like President Barry think that we are to the point that he needs to call one of us up to "see if she's OK". Please.) But being beaten up by a guy? That could kill someone! And where are the protests? Where is the outrage? Where are the women flipping out because a sheriff has been convicted of false imprisonment (of his wife) and is still planning on being sheriff?! NO where. There just aren't any.

We are a sad little country. I guess people are just so distracted by any shiny object that comes along (and when you're as big and shiny as Rush Limbaugh, I realize that it's hard to look away) that they must get blinded and unable to see it when a real issue actually does come along! The sheriff had a physical altercation with his wife that included some sort of imprisoning falsely! And he's still sheriff! Where's the outrage?! Where are the protests?! Why are you letting yourselves be distracted by Rush Limbaugh and his meaningless comments about some law school student? No one wants to take away your birth control! It's not going to happen! Just calm down and focus! What is wrong with you people?! God, we're doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

The Weiner Proposal

For those of you who don't have the "pleasure" of living in or nearby San Francisco, the land of fruits and nuts, let me just warn you about something. If you go to San Francisco, the chances are greater than average (as compared to other cities of the same size) that you're going to see a penis. That's because walking around naked in San Francisco is still legal. But all that's about to change! Oh, of course they're not going to make you put pants (or a shirt) on. But they are contemplating making you have to put something between yourself and any sort of receptacle that you sit on so that other people who sit there aren't sitting where your bare ass just was.

Now, when I tell you that this law is being proposed by a Scott Weiner, please refrain from any chuckling and/or guffawing that may arise (pun probably intended). According to the stupidvisor supervisor (and the Daily Mail), "...the legislation would ensure that public health standards are met by requiring nudists to put a towel or similar item between their body and a public seat." And while I think that I appreciate that, I think that would I would appreciate more is requiring people to at least wear pants.

I guess I find it difficult to believe that "public health standards" are met if someone is naked in public. That doesn't seem like they'd be met at all. And while San Francisco likes to bill itself as a liberal and tolerant city, I think that they're doing themselves more harm than good with this one. Letting people walk around naked is eventually going to hinder your city, especially if you're counting on tourism to bring the bucks into the city. I just don't want to be on any public street where there is at LEAST a 50/50 chance (and probably more like 75/25) that I'm going to see an unfamiliar wang. (Unfamiliar Wang. Not a bad name for a band.) And I still don't understand what the disservice would be done if the city were to require people to wear clothes in public. At the very least, a loincloth. Because in general, the types of people who are going to be walking around in public naked are not going to be those with a spectacular dingus. (Spectacular Dingus. Another good name for a band. Maybe they could open for Unfamiliar Wang.) Put some damn clothes on!

Sphere: Related Content

The Invincible Idiot

I remember having that invincible feeling when I was younger. God, it was great. Not giving a crap about anything you do is a fabulous feeling. The only problem with it in the scenario that I'm describing is that at the time that you're doing it, you don't know how great it is to feel so invincible. You just feel that way because you don't know any other way to feel. You're under the impression that nothing bad will happen to you no matter what you do. And that includes jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge when you're on a field trip. Wait. What now?

Apparently, according to KTVU, "...a male student from Windsor High School in Sonoma County leaped from the bridge at approximately 11:15 a.m. Approximately 45 students and two teachers were at the bridge for the school field trip". OK, then. That's a really stupid thing to do on many levels. Level One, more than 9 times out of 10, you're going to die. Level Two...well, I think that Level One really covers all we need to know here. The most likely outcome (even though that miraculously was not the case this time) is that you're going to be dead moments after you step off of the bridge. How this kid was able to swim away and then walk away practically unscathed is beyond me.

After he made it to the shore with the help of some surfers (a couple of whom this dipwad almost landed on when he jumped) "The student told paramedics that he's a recreational bridge jumper, and has done stunts like this before". What the what is a 'recreational bridge jumper'? Is that just another word for a 17-year old idiot who just took a plunge into the San Francisco Bay? Is that opposed to a professional bridge jumper? What sort of profession is that? How often are those sorts of services needed? I'm guessing not often, but that's probably only due to the incredibly low levels of intelligence if this guy is any indication of those who participate.

And the stunts that he claims to have done before, were they also on field trips with his school? 45 kids and two teachers and this guy still manages to climb over all of the obstacles that they put up in hopes of stopping the unstoppable? Of course. He's a 17-year old. Not only do they feel invincible, they're remarkably determined at performing the inadvisable. But if you're thinking that this was a dare, oh no, think again. See, "Students said they wanted to make it known that no one dared the student to jump or egged him on." Uh-huh.

Do they really think that we're dumb enough to believe that? You have got to be kidding me. The only question is whether more kids dared him to than didn't dare him to. (And if there was going to be a second question, it would be whether or not either of the teachers participated in any of the daring. I'm not implying that they did. I'm just curious.) "We would never encourage that," said a student who likely did just that. Yeah, right. I'm not saying that they're to blame. No, that responsibility lies squarely on the wet, wet shoulders of the moron who actually jumped. I'm just saying that anyone who says that they would never encourage something, especially trying to get a classmate to jump off of a bridge, is not the most truthful individual you're ever going to run across.

I'm not sure what sort of notoriety this stunt is going to bring the kid at school. He's either going to be hailed as the new king of the village or shunned as the new village idiot. (Well, as another village idiot. There are a lot of openings for idiots when you're in high school.) The student under mental observation for a short time after being 'rescued', but I don't know what they're going to find out other than he's 17 and has balls the size of coconuts. But I'm sure that he'll be making the media rounds in a little while here, so we'll get to hear first hand what this moron has to say about all of recreational bridge jumping activities. Makes me kind of glad we're going to be hearing about that tsunami for a while.

I know this much, though: If this little stunt makes it so that the debate about having better barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge is reignited, I'M going to jump off of the bridge. It doesn't need more suicide barriers. If people want to kill themselves by jumping off of the bridge, that's their decision. Land of the free. Remember? Sure, it's sad. Suicide usually is. But do you know what is even sadder? Trying to idiot-proof everything in society in the quest to achieve the impossible goal of trying to make everything safe and sound for everyone all of the time. And even sadder than that (if you can imagine something being sadder)? That's right. Trying to use my tax money to pay for it. Sad, sad, sad.

Sphere: Related Content

A Penis With Personality

You know what will happen when a bunch of city supervisors over at your local City Hall enact a law which completely takes away your freedom of choice under the apparent guise of them knowing better than you? That's right. People near and far are going to want to enact another one which limits your freedom to choose even more. I'm not talking things like abortion and guns here, but that's only because I'm talking about San Francisco. No, when you factor San Francisco into the mix, you have to include wacky things like Happy Meals and the male foreskin. Wait. What now?

Yeah, there's a sentence that I never thought I'd type. At least, I never thought that I'd have the opportunity to include both 'Happy Meal' and 'foreskin' in the same sentence and have them both be relevant. But thanks to San Francisco, such a sentence AND such a concept is now possible. Try not to hang yourself until you finish reading. (I know how tough that will be. I had to resist the urge to hang myself until I finished typing.)

As you may or may blissfully not be aware, last week, San Francisco passed a law that forbids fast food outlets from giving out a toy with a meal that is not deemed "healthy". Personally, I think the easiest way around that law, rather than succumb to what San Francisco thinks that you should do and/or eat, would be to sell the toy and include the meal for free. There's no law against that. Yet. But I digress. Now, there might be a measure on the ballot next year "...that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18." So sayeth CBS San Francisco. Good Lord, people.

I'm all for the not being able to mutilate genitals. Don't get me wrong, as that sounds like a fairly reasonable provision. However, to need a separate law for it would be, you guessed it, completely ridiculous. That's because you typically don't define a medical procedure as 'mutilation'. But back to the foreskin. (Again, a sentence I never thought I'd type.) The author of this asinine bill is a one Lloyd Schofield who claims that the circumcision IS genital mutilation. Uh-huh. OK, then. What else?

He seems to be going on the belief that circumcision is a religious practice. And yes, it has been for many years and still is in some instances I would assume. But I would be surprised if the majority of circumcisions that are being performed today are being done so because of a religious belief. I would also be surprised if the majority of people thought of circumcision as a religious rite as opposed to seeing it as a medical procedure. I checked with the CDC (at their website) and they don't have any guidelines on whether or not a circumcision should be performed for health reasons. According to the CBS article "Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public." Oh, good. A foreskin promise. That's something to look forward to.

Haven't we always been told (or taught) that circumcision cuts down (pun probably not intended, but completely inevitable) on diseases and is just cleaner or easier to clean? I don't know the specifics, not ever having had a foreskin, I'm just going on what I've learned in various health/anatomy classes. I'm also going to go with what was on Seinfeld when Elaine asked Jerry if he had ever seen one that wasn't circumcised. He said he hadn't and she went on to tell him that it wasn't good. "No, had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian. But hey, that's me." Do you want a weenie with no personality ? I don't think you do.

The point here (surprisingly enough) isn't about the penis. It isn't even about the foreskin. It's about the government trying to ooch its way into every aspect of the life of a private citizen and the decision that they should be making ON THEIR OWN. You don't need to the government to tell you what kind of food you can buy for your child. You're supposed to be responsible enough to make that decision on your own. Yes, yes. I realize that we are surrounded by morons. And I also realize that we are surrounded by morons with children. But we can't let the freedoms of the capable be taken away by the moronic. Technically, the moronic are supposed to suffer as a result of their poor choices. I realize that consequences are practically non-existent in a socialist society, but we're not totally there yet, so there's still hope.

I'm semi-interested in whether or not the author of this bill has had his snipped off. I don't know why I'm semi-interested in that, but I just am. Regardless, it doesn't mean that he gets to try to dictate (again, no pun intended, but pretty funny none the less) what others do with theirs. Why are people not up in arms about the very thought of this happening? I'm not exactly sure, but that alone frightens me more than the possible ban on circumcision does.

Sphere: Related Content

Soda-Free Idiocy Hits San Francisco

In their apparent quest to make sure that no one has to think for themselves, San Francisco has edged a little bit closer to a non-sustainable, faux utopia now that the mayor, pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom, has signed an executive order that "...bars calorically sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property." So says the folks across the bay at SF Gate.

Of course, this nanny state directive was fueled in part by a study which found that "...adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don't". Uh-huh. And? I kept reading the article hoping that it would explain to me how it is the soda that is at fault and not the people who are drinking the soda, but it never did. I guess that sort of explained why Gavin Newsom didn't just ban those who are dim and, in this case, overindulgent.

If only there was something that might indicate that it isn't the soda that is the problem as much as it is a lifestyle choice of those that are choosing to drink the sodas. I mean, after all, diet sodas are readily available. And don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not implying that any soda, including diet soda, is going to be good for you. None of them are going to be great for you, but some are going to be not as bad as others. Oh, I know they taste like crap at first, but you get used to the crap taste. After a short while, you grow so accustomed to the crap taste that you forget what a decent tasting soda tastes like. That's when the overindulging can really begin...when it won't hurt you! But yet folks still indulge in the sugar laden sodas. Yep. That definitely sounds like it's the sodas fault.

The article also mentions that the study "...also found that 41 percent of children and 62 percent of teens drink at least one soda daily." Hmm. And of course, those children and those teens get their sodas from the machines that are on city property. Oh, wait a minute. No, they don't! You moron, Gavin. Could you explain this ridiculous decision?

Well, he couldn't but one of his spokesholes could. A one Tony Winnicker said that "There's a direct link between what people eat and drink and the obesity and health care crises in this country." Really? A direct link between what people EAT and OBESITY? Fascinating, sir! Absolutely fascinating. Do you have more words of wisdom for the sheeple? Of course he does. He said, "It's entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property." Hmm.

You're telling me that for a city government to step in and tell a private citizen what the best choices for him or her are is perfectly OK? Because the government knows best? What happened to the land of the free? Free to make choices, right? That doesn't say that we're free to make only the best choices. We're just free to make choices. But only choices that the government deems to be appropriate. Yeah, I have a problem with that.

Good luck with your utopia, Mr. and Mrs. San Francisco. Let me know how it works out for you when the city starts deciding that other things are bad for you and starts banning those as well. It starts with the sodas. What's next? Chips? Fries? White bread? Red meat? Gravy? Next thing you know, you're only going to be able to get raw vegan fare within city limits because that has been deemed by the government to be the best choice because the people are too inept to make their own choices. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. But you let me know how that turns out. You know where to find me. I'll be inside of my walled off compound protecting myself from the likes of Gavin Newsom.

Sphere: Related Content

The Rules And Etiquette Of Swinging

This post was totally going to be about one thing, but the more that I got sidetracked, the more that it totally became about something else. See, it was going to be about this story that I read over yonder in the Sacramento Bee about a correction officer who claimed that he..."was at a San Francisco restaurant with his wife when a parolee recognized him, then gunned him down with a shot that left him paralyzed from the waist down." He ended up filing a workers' compensation claim "...that could have paid him and his wife nearly $2.5 million." That's an awful lot of cheese. Too bad that his cheese plan fell apart when it turned out that he wasn't really shot after he had left a restaurant...unless "restaurant" is slang for "swingers club". But if that were the case, then "parolee" would have to be slang for "guy whose wife the officer was banging". I checked the Urban Dictionary and it didn't say anything about that, so I'm really doubting that's the correct vernacular to use there.

That's right. The guy was at a swingers club and got shot afterwards and tried to claim it was work related. Yeah, not so much. But here's the thing: While I was reading this article, it said that this club, known by the name of Twist, is located "...at Pacific Avenue and Kearny Street in San Francisco". Huh. I don't recall any sort of swingers club being down there. Oh, that's because "there is no sign out front to advertise its existence" (which seems reasonable) and "...admittance is allowed only after the owner approves an e-mail request". OK, so this is an establishment with some rules. That's where I started to become more interested in how a swingers club operated than I did about the dipwad that got himself shot after a "session".

I figured that I'd look for this place online since it said that you needed to have your email request approved by the owner. (The owner who, I learned from the article in the Bee, is a gentleman who expects us to believe that his real name is Ivan Stroganov. Seriously, dude? You're the owner of a swingers club and you're claiming your name is Stroganov? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that's really your name. Call it a hunch.) And I found it. And lucky me! There are sets of rules and etiquette for anyone who wants to visit Twist and participate with other folks in some sort of untoward sexual practices that likely involve many naked bodies and lots of writhing and sweating. Ick.

Maybe it's because I'm a chick and I don't possess a penile unit, but the thought of the whole "swinging" scene just does nothing for me. I'm sure it's different if you're the one doing all of the checking of all of the oil (so to speak) and not the one supplying the orifices (orifii??), but I just don't get the appeal of it all. But what does appeal to me are rules. I enjoy order in things. And I find it fascinating that in a place where the whole swapping of mates goes on, they have guidelines. (Me, personally? My first guideline is "No mate swapping". But then again, that's just me.)

And this is where I got distracted...with the rules of Twist. Let's look at the first couple of rules for this particular swingers club, shall we? Rule One: Twist is an invitation only private party! No one may attend any function or come in the property without being invited to Twist. Twist is not open to the general public. Now that seems perfectly reasonable. That whole invitation thing almost makes it sounds like a dinner party. Almost. Well, come on! You don't just want weirdos wandering in off of the street and disrupting all of the freelance fornication! Please.

Rule Number Two: STD (sexually transmitted diseases) -- As it is a very private matter, we do not inquire about your status nor request any medical proof. (Oooh! You know, I...I kinda wish you WOULD!) It is your responsibility to notify the couple you are about to play with if you have any STD. First of all, can I just call attention to the term "play with"? What is up with that? But really, how do you suppose that this whole rule is implemented? I'm having a hard time imagining something like "Um, I have chlamydia! And I would like to join you now!" I don't know that something like that is going to go over all that well. Rule Number Two goes on to state "We strongly suggest addressing the issue before moving on to the lounge, where the heat of the moment can cause you to forget about it." (I guess the lounge is where everything really gets going, but that's pure speculation on my part.)

Forget about it? Are you kidding me? "Oh, that's right! I forgot I had AIDS!" I'm not liking this policy very much. You can't have a blood test required with all of those applications that are submitted? Something? Other than their word, provided they haven't "forgot" about their "condition"? That seems silly. ("You know, the whole time I was banging your wife, there was something nagging me in the back of my mind. It just wouldn't come to me. But then I remembered and you know what it is? Gonorrhea!! And full blown AIDS! But anyway, that was great. See ya around!")

Now, given the lackadaisical nature of Rule Two, I was a bit surprised by Rule Number Four: "BYOB only for wine and beer. No hard liquor is allowed." What now? Let me get this straight. You're on the honor system for AIDS and syphilis, but you have very strict rules about hard liquor? None of that. AIDS, perhaps. Gin? Out of the question!!

Rule Number Six: Cell phones, cameras or video equipment is not permitted on the property. So, leave your tripod at home, folks!

Rule Number Seven: Any conduct requiring an apology is grounds for expulsion. Well, that's interesting. You know, there are some guys who just should automatically apologize after every time they have sex. But that aside, that's a rather broad requirement. Let me get this straight. The guy with AIDS can stay, but someone breaks wind and they're booted out? That guy has visible crabs, but because that guy brought whiskey, he has to go?! Seems like an odd way to do things, but what do I know about it? I'm not a swinger (nor will I ever be).

Rule Number Twelve (yes, there were twelve!): Last but certainly not least, have fun! Ohhh! I see! That's one of the rules! Have fun! How can you possibly go wrong when that's one of the rules! I get it now! They should have put that one first to avoid any confusion! Have fun!

Now, while you probably already know more than you wanted to, let's look at some of the etiquette guidelines as long as we're here. Number One: The most important thing to remember is consideration for the next person. That includes NO pressuring anyone, NO hassling, NO rude behavior and accepting "NO" politely. That's not a problem. I learned that growing up. That's just common decency (which makes it a little odd that it's the number one rule at a swingers club).

Number Two: Arrive and leave a party as a couple. Do not initiate activity with other couples unless both you and your partner are willing to join. It is expected that if one person swings, his or her partner is free and willing to do so as well. Clearly, that is in place to avoid what would seem like the most obvious scam that could be perpetrated on such an establishment. ("If you don't mind, I'll just start banging your wife here and, uh, my wife? Oh, yeah. Um, she should be along in about ten minutes or so. She had, uh, she had a thing. Oh, she's smoking hot. Here's her picture. No, that's really her! She should be here in about fifteen minutes. Did I say ten before? Yeah, I meant fifteen. Fifteen minutes or so. Sure.")

Number Three: Good health and hygiene is essential. Don't forget lingering alcohol or tobacco on your breath may be offensive to some. Again, I just want to remind you that technically, you can have AIDS and they're not going to say anything about that because that's private. But they're going to tell you not to have tobacco on your breath. AND they're going to include on their website, the very photo below of two girls squatting down and having a cigarette. It's the ol' Smoke N' Squat! Odd. Very odd indeed.

Number Four: A positive mental attitude and good emotional health will make for more successful encounters. Oh! So it's like a self-help thing. Having a positive mental attitude will make it a lot better for you whilst your wife is taking it from all angles by some other guy. Sure. That makes sense. I'm glad they included that one.

Number Six: Don't disturb the swinging enjoyment of others in a bedroom or other swing areas with loud or prolonged talk. What, exactly, would there be to talk about? Your day at work? Yeah, it's really hard for one dude to screw some other dude's wife when you're in the little sex cubicle next to them yammering on about your day at the office? It's an odd issue to have to address, that's for sure. It's not exactly a library.

Now, there are others, but I think I'm going to stop here. I found the whole thing a bit unsavory. I guess the whole part that I don't quite understand is why would you get married if you're just going to be boinking other people? I'm sure not all couples are married, but that is my question for those who are. I guess the reason that I don't get it is that I'm not the kind of person that would be comfortable in an environment like that. Maybe it would be the same for someplace that I'm comfortable with that they wouldn't be. I can't really think of what that would be, however. If you're comfortable being with your spouse in a room full of people whilst fornicating madly with other individuals, I'm guessing that you're going to be pretty comfortable in just about any environment that I put in front of you. Just a guess.

Sphere: Related Content

They Smoke Crack in San Francisco!

When was the last time you were in San Francisco (if ever)? Recently? Within the last year? Two years? Five years? Doesn't matter. Chances are that when you were there, you noticed that there are parts of the city (say like Haight) that are rather, how shall we say, bum ridden. That's right. San Francisco has become rather bummy. They're everywhere. Kind of like the swallows returning to San Juan Capistrano every year. Only the bums are always there. They never leave, so they don't have to return. But when you think San Fran, you think bums.

I might be painting the wrong picture by describing some of these outdoor inhabitants as bums. That might be too generous of a term. They're the chronically homeless by choice. They're the drug indulging. They're the publicly defecating. (That's right. Publicly defecating. What? You've never seen someone poo in public? You've clearly never been to the Haight.)

Now, the mayor of San Francisco, a one pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom, has always been a proponent of the, shall we say, "disadvantaged". (We could even use the term "underadvantaged". But really who we're talking about are the folks who lounge about on the the curbs and sidewalks and doorways of businesses and engage in their less than savory lifestyle.) But suddenly, the pretty pretty mayor has spoken out in favor of what is called a sit/lie ordinance.

What is a sit/lie ordinance? It's just what it sounds like. (And if you think it sounds ridiculous that one is necessary, you're right on!) It's an ordinance that prohibits sitting or lying on public grounds such as on sidewalks and in doorways. And up until recently, the pretty, pretty mayor was against it. According to the folks over there at SF Gate, Newsom was "telling The Chronicle editorial board earlier this month it (the ordinance) was just too divisive to support." Too divisive?

I don't know about you, but when it comes to me and those who prefer to sit and lie, I prefer a bit of division. In fact, I encourage it. Please. Divide me from that portion of society and do it now. Divisive? Hell yes, it's divisive. That's the frigging point. But if it's so "divisive", why is Gavin suddenly all for it?

It would seem that the mayor "...took his 5 1/2-month-old daughter for a stroll on Haight Street one Saturday morning." A stroll? On Haight Street? How'd that go for you, Mister Mayor? "As God is my witness, there's a guy on the sidewalk smoking crack," Newsom said. Wait. What now?

As God as his witness? Does he actually think that we need convincing of this? Has he NEVER walked on the streets of the fine, fine city that he is mayor of? What in the hell does he mean "As God is my witness"? We KNOW!

Let me get this straight. Gavin Newsom has been mayor of San Francisco since 2003 and he didn't know that people lounged around in doorways of businesses and smoked crack?! Welcome to the city, Gavin! Where in the hell have you been?! Could he be more out of touch? I don't think that he could! That is unbelievable to me.

So now that he is personally effected, now it's an issue. Never mind all of these people that have witnessed this problem getting worse and worse and worse over the years (probably most recently during the past seven years that he has been the mayor, as a matter of fact). Never mind all of their reasons that they had for wanting a sit and lie ordinance. Do you really think that NO ONE ever said to him "Hey, there are people smoking drugs in the doorway of my business." I'm pretty sure that they did. What did he think? That they were just making it up? I realize that he has done his best in an attempt to turn San Francisco into some sort of utopian haven for the displaced in the world. But I had no idea that he was THAT clueless.

Wake up, Gavin. There are people in your city smoking crack on the streets. There are people in your city defecating on sidewalks. There are even prostitutes! I know! Can you imagine?! I guess we all know what to do the next time that some sort of public issue needs addressing in San Francisco. I guess we know that we need to pull Gavin down off his high horse and give him a first hand look at what people are talking about in order for him to take any sort of action that is not nothing. What a joke. I can't wait to see how hard he pushes for this to be passed now that he is personally affected. Well, at least we know where his priorities are and they certainly aren't with the citizens of San Francisco, that's for sure.

Sphere: Related Content