San Francisco - Progressive or Just Faking It?

There was an article in the SF Chronicle this past weekend about the mass exodus of middle-low income residents from San Francisco.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/22/MNJJ10NPSK.DTL&hw=expensive+living&sn=006&sc=747

The number of families making $150K or more a year is rising in SF while families making under that continue to decline.

In a city that prides itself on diversity, this trend is anything but. Only about 30% of the SF Police force actually live in the city. Most are living in the east bay and other outlying areas. What would happen if an earthquake disabled the bridges into the city?

One of the best qualities about San Francisco is that it embodies so many varieties of neighborhoods, people and history. If the trend of low-middle class getting squeezed out continues, then only the history will remain.

As a response to the article, a reader by the name of "Ichiro" wrote the following response to the SF Chronicle article:

"This city has changed incredibly in just 15 years. It has lost what little bohemian edge it had, the funkiness really phased out around 1998. The whole "progressive" image is really a joke. Rich consumers simply stand behind a gay's right to marriage and they pander to environmental issues and that makes the city "progressive". Its such a delusion. The city is actually all about just eating and drinking and being entertained night after night after night. San Francisco is a mecca for consumption, that is what is really going on here. Buy stuff, worship Steve Jobs and new gadgets, go eat and drink at the newest hip place, maintain your stallion of friends through e-mails and texts, and go to starbucks. That's the drive of this city, its not progressive, its progressive consumption. Buy a million dollar condo and join in on the fun!! If you and your spouse make less than 350 k a year, I would get the hell out while you can."

Thoughts? Comments?

Lifting the Ban on Stupidity

Bush and his cronies are up to it again, this time they are rallying support along with their fellow big-oil executive friends to lift the ban on off-shore drilling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/washington/19drill.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Instead of lifting this ban, they should be working towards lifting the ban on mass stupidity and short-sightedness. Our addiction to "oil" is exactly that, an addiction. Addiction is a self-feeding disease. It's painful, it's tough. If you can only get a little of substance to feed your addiction, you would feel a lot better...until the next wave of craving hits. And with each wave of craving and feeding, the subsequent craving will be that more pronounced and it'll take that much more feeding to satisfy.

Opening up our wilderness (what's left of it) to drilling for more oil is not a solution. It is not a short term solution because "short term solutions" are A) oxymorons B)impossible to achieve given the length of time to find, drill, refine oil. It is said it would take 5-10 yrs before the 1st barrel of oil is produced should the ban be lifted.

It is not a long term solution because it moves us towards further addiction. Bush and his cronies should stop supplying the addicted country with this black drug. We need to get rid of the drug dealers and overcome this addiction.