San Francisco Rejects Battleship

[Kahuna 172]

In their typical wacky fashion the city government of San Francisco has decided that the USS Iowa is too warlike for their taste and somehow connected with the war in Iraq, so they have decided to decline the honor of hosting it as a museum and memorial.

 

The good news is that the ship will very likely go to Stockton, a much more conservative area upriver, which will be very happy to have it. Sea Scouting is quite active in that area, too, so it's very possible that Sea Scouts will have some presence aboard the "Big Stick."

[SemperParatus 1]

I for one would not be unhappy to see her 16" guns fire a few rounds at the Golden Gate bridge while on her final voyage to the port of Stockton.

 

I wish her well in her retirement years.

[Kahuna 172]

Alas, Semper, she's already up the river, so she'll probably just be towed on up to Stockton.

[Trevorum 24]

Those kooky San Franciscoans. Imagine not wanting a warship in your front yard. I'll bet they'll be sorry next time some foreign power tries to invade.

[Rooster7 11]

And how dare anybody question their appreciation for the military men and women who defend this country...Certainly, SF had these folks in their hearts and minds when they decided a Navy ship wound stain their landscape.

[Trevorum 24]

Their loss, Stockton's gain. Down here, we have the WWII carrier USS Lexington, aka the "Blue Ghost" as well as the Battleship USS Texas. Both have "live aboard" programs that are very popular with our packs and troops. The boys get to bunk in crew quarters (cramped!) and have chow in the galley. Navy coffee for the adults. It's a blast! I hope the Iowa will be similarly outfitted to host Scout units in central California.

[CA_Scouter 11]

Hey Semper, my wife's grandfather helped build the Golden Gate Bridge... if you want to fire those guns, point 'em at City Hall - that's where all this political 'bull droppings' came from...

 

Luckily SF only speaks for SF. Most of the rest of the Golden State stands proud for our military and its history. In fact, Alameda, just across the bay from SF, has the USS Hornet, and our troop spend the weekend there last November. The guys just loved it. ( San Diego has the USS Midway and more ).

 

I'm glad Stockton got it... its been sitting in the mothball fleet out in Benecia for several years now and it will be good to see her cleaned up. The folks around Stockton will appreciate it properly too!

 

I grew up in SF and still have family in the area ( though not in the City ) and I don't remember it being at the kook level that it is now. Used to be SF was just entertaining, but now its at kook level alert HIGH ( Orange ).

 

:-)

 

 

 

[Kahuna 172]

>>I'll bet they'll be sorry next time some foreign power tries to invade

[Rooster7 11]

Even more likely - they would create legislation giving the invaders health care and drivers licenses, while denouncing the imperialistic attitude of the current administration.

[FScouter 24]

San Francisco is home to the USS Pampanito submarine which was state of the art when it was retired, the C.A. Thayer sailing schooner, and at least 6 other historic ships. Maybe they didn't feel a need to add a battleship to their collection.

[SemperParatus 1]

You know you live in San Francisco when your child's 3rd grade teacher has two pierced ears, a nose ring and is named "Breeze." And, after telling that to a friend, they still need to ask if the teacher is male or female.

 

[Rooster7 11]

What's truly sad...while we mock their inane behavior and politics, SF is not embarrassed they celebrate their deeds as if they are the light on the hill...a beacon of hope. I am reminded of an old Andy Griffin show - the episode where Barney Fife moves around in choir practice searching for the member singing off key as he screeches his way through the hymn.

[johndaigler 10]

I am surprised and dismayed at SF's response to the battleship -- doesn't SF have a large historical significance to the Navy?

 

That being said, FScouter's words should give us a few second thoughts. . . Does this decision show a changed attitude since the last retiree was harbored in SF? Maybe a Battleship is a redundancy in SF's honoring of the Navy? Maybe the city's budget is in the red and a Battleship clogs up some income producing space? I don't know, and the city's choice DOES seem "Kooky" on its face, but maybe there's actually some thought behind their "kookiness"?? . . . ??

 

 

jd

 

LOL, Rooster!

 

...

 

"Illegal invaders" seems like a rather redundant minority group to me . . . though if they got driver's liscenses . . .

[scoutingagain 20]

Nothing has been posted regarding the reasons the city declined the ship. If they truly declined the ship on the basis of some political statment I would agree with much of the sentiment expressed in this thread. However, locally there is a small city that accepted a heavy cruiser and set it up as a museum. It is used by local cub scout packs and scout units but fundamentally is a big money looser. They would like to give it away to someone who could take better care of it but have no takers.

 

As FScouter pointed out there may some logical reasons as to why the ship was turned down with no slight to the armed services intended.

 

SA

 

 

[Kahuna 172]

San Francisco has a port museum authority set up that was funded to accept the ship, at least partly with private contributions (and, I think some state funds). The organization was very anxious to have the ship there, as were a lot of citizens.

 

The city officials were quoted as saying that the ship represented war and was connected, somehow, with the war in Iraq. Odd, since the ship has been mothballed since about 1990.

 

It was definitely political correctness, not money or space. Stockton will apparently have no problem in creating a non-profit to operate the ship as a memorial.