@Tinwoods: As a matter of fact Tinwoods I do much work in the real world of SF politics. One of my projects is to bring about an amendment to the SF Charter which, in theory, sets the rules for how we are governed. My amendment would curtail the mayor's appointive powers. There are many other projects on my plate, local, national and up to global, and I have worked at City Hall. I have a blog, somewhat underused lately: fight-the-machine.org.
I don't feel it a waste of time at all to post online. I do feel it a waste to deal with people such as yourself who immediately degenerate to namecalling when a debate does not go to their liking. That, sir or madam, I'm guessing sir, debases the democratic process. I will not have the time to reply further to you and hope this word to the wise will be sufficient.
@Tinwoods: Apparently you're unaware of how management jobs are awarded at City Hall. I venture to guess that if you looked at a list of high-paying positions there you would find many familiar names from the past, an indication of the machine politics long characteristic of San Francisco and certainly of the Lee administration from top to bottom. I have no particular opinion of Cammy Blackstone, having worked only very briefly with her before she so quickly moved on. The point is the system is corrupt and the ruling phrase is "Them that goes along gets along". I'd suggest that before you go about naively tossing out pejoratives like "snarky" you educate yourself as to how things are really done at Carlton B. Goodlett Place.
@Tinwoods: There may be some truth in what you say Tinwoods but I was more impressed by the fact that she held the job of aide to Katy Tang for a mere matter of weeks and hopped to the next City Hall higher paying position as soon as she was told she could have it. Wouldn't you call that a hop, and an insider one to boot?
Nice job Melissa. The subject was very forthcoming. I only recently had email contact with her as Katy Tang's aide and now she's moved on. Didn't know she was such a looker! Sure seems to be a job-hopper though. That is the way of City Hall, no? They takes care of they's own.
@Fast and Furious: Yes, some people come from military families, F&F, and have a desire to continue a family tradition. One could say they are brainwashed from birth, but that might be an overgeneralization.
As far as young people who "dream of serving their country" I don't think kids of high school age are mature enough to understand what that noble-sounding sentiment actually means in the real world. I served as well but not until I graduated college and went out into the world. My service was in the Peace Corps and I was sent to Nigeria ('61-3) as a teacher.
Others come from a minority/foreign background and the family sees the military as a way of proving their bona fides as Americans. In SF, where a large majority in J-ro are of Asian-American ancestry, you can see this play out. Nationally, Latinos form the biggest group of recruits in part for this same reason.
My godson, a Brazilian-American, never took part in JROTC but after just graduating from high school has signed up with the Army Reserves, taking on an 8 year commitment. No doubt the Rotsey programs he saw in school in SF prepared the way for the choice he made, which was largely for economic reasons, money for college. I had little input but feel regretful over his decision.
There are many reasons this choice is made and all of them are facilitated in one way or another by the recruitment program here in the SFUSD. False patriotism is certainly a reason and a very misguided one in my opinion.
My views don't stem from "hating the military" or hating the servicepeople as individuals, a common mis-characterization by those who disagree with me. It comes from a mature understanding of what the military represents: militarism.
@njudah: Proposition V in SF won with 55% of the vote, largely because it was well financed by ex-military in the Bay Area. The activists who were opposing it (of which I was and AM one) were facing a highly organized pressure group campaign and still managed to get 45% of the vote. Many voters are opposed to militarizing our kids In other places they even attempt to poison the minds of elementary school children.
@Melissa Griffin: "Fewer than 5 JROTC students enlisted each year in 2006 and 2007 so it's hardly a stepping stone to a military career."
That's a specious statistic because (and I forget the exact figure, maybe 50%) a large number of J-ro students enlist LATER, after graduating high school. Some do it eventually to gain benefits for college, some do it after graduating college and looking for a job. So it damned well is a recruiment program and not just for those participating directly. It's a way of "showing the flag" , legitimizing and popularizing the military to the general population.
I wouldn't trust anything the author writes because it is her custom to distort the facts to reinforce her opinions.
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation