Wednesday, April 07, 2010

San Fran Redux...

Look, if I'm going to suffer the indignities of probulation to board an airliner and fly to a city where I'll be disarmed like a peasant and forced to pay Monopoly-money prices for goods and services in a tourist trap, it's going to be Rome or London, not the City by the Bay.

I'm sure it's lovely, but I'm just really not a "buildings, food, and terrain features" kind of tourist. I mean, I haven't even seen all the buildings or sampled all the food in the city in which I live yet. I know that makes me out to be terribly provincial and all, but there you go.

26 comments:

Joel said...

Yeah, I really wouldn't bother. It's very pretty, but unless it's just really ugly where you already are that's not a good enough reason to inflict San Francisco on yourself.

Besides, unless it's changed in the past few years you can't see the scenery anyway, for the crowds of panhandlers trying to trample you and take your wallet.

Anonymous said...

Right there with you on that.

Your state/town/business does not trust me with a firearm? Then I don't trust your state/town/business..... I'll find another place to spend my money.

Desertrat said...

I have many and many a fond memory from my wanderings in the Bay area. Not since the mid-1980s, however. "Frisco ain't Frisco, anymore."

Art

Sabot said...

Sliding down a fifty foot razor blade into a pool of rubbing alcohol sounds a bit better than visiting San Francisco.

JimB said...

"makes me out to be terribly provincial and all"
You say that like it is a bad thing...

Anonymous said...

I live 50 miles from NYC. During Easter my (ultra-liberal) sister-in-law from Maine asked us how often we hang-out in NY. I told her I had not entered the city in almost a decade (for business meetings) and had not gone there by choice for 15 years. She looked at my wife and me in disbelief.

Northwest NJ is crowded enough. When I want to enjoy myself, I drive further away from the crowds.

Jim said...

I wish you had had the chance to know her "when."

Before the kiddie-hip invasion of the 60s and 70s it was often argued that San Francisco +defined+ the term civilization. That's a silly, proposition, of course, but it was the finest city I ever knew.

I don't go there anymore, either.

og said...

Driving in SF was fun. I don't think I'll ever do it again, but when I did it, it was fun. I left the ground a lot.

Daniel said...

I live in the S.F. Bay Area. Last time I "went to San Francisco" was passing through on my way to the Cow Palace (Daly City) gun show. Hate the place.

Anonymous said...

You should do the Alcatraz tour once in your life.

Anonymous said...

Pffft, need I remind you that Starfleet Academy is in San Fransico. Maybe if you hand carried your Starfleet application that will take it more seriously this time.

Live long and in mom's basement,

Shootin' Buddy

Anonymous said...

San Francisco is a city that should be visited on expense account, not personal funds.

Everything is nicer when it's not your own money.

randy said...

Visited there twice when I was traveling courtesy of Uncle Sam. Nice enough place to visit but not the best place I've been, and I certainly wouldn't make a trip there on my own dime.

I don't consider buildings and bridges "scenery" (Urban and Ugly both start with a "U" for a reason)

Ed Rasimus said...

Ahh, what memories of San Fran on my last visit in 2001. The smell of urine in the morning mist, the throbbing beat of rap music from the civic center assembly of circuses for the masses at 2 AM, the traffic blockages at random times through downtown for a march protesting something or other and the locked doors of what should have been public bathrooms in restaurants, motels, gas stations and tourist sights throughout the city to keep the homeless out. What memories...

Once it was beautiful.

RevolverRob said...

And I'm still gonna rag on you a bit Tam and argue that being a tourist is the wrong way to go. Being a traveler is the way to go and SF is still a nice place to travel to and then leave. It's not for everyone, I don't begrudge you for not wanting to go, simply suggesting that there is more than meets the eye.

Travel is a beautiful thing, books get you close, but being there in person is so much more. I hated the thought of travel, until I got a few stamps in the back of the passport. Then I realized what great joy and fun it is, if you pack light (including your wallet) and just make it happen.

-Rob

Jenny said...

My brother briefly lived there some years back. I remember once when he was chatting with my Dad, Mom and I took a walk around the neighborhood...

.... and turned a corner to walk past shop windows all full up with...um.... toys.

Oh, that's a sight to experience with your mom.



The parks and gardens sure are pretty though, and the food is awesome.

DirtCrashr said...

Barcelona is vibrant, San Francisco is narcissistic, it's Vienna by the Bay - and the music scene is straight out of NPR. And then there's Friday Critical Mass, not the Pope's Mass either.

Boat Guy said...

+1 on Barcelona. Better food, weather and people. You're still disarmed (mostly), but Tam's right might's well go someplace nice if you gotta go through all that "modern" travel "affords"

atlharp said...

"Northwest NJ is crowded enough. When I want to enjoy myself, I drive further away from the crowds."



Amen, Seriously I wouldn't want to endure Sanf Fran or any major city. I can barely tolerate Charlotte!

dcjones said...

I kinda had fun the last time I was there, a few years ago - passing through on the way from Seattle to San Diego, driving a 1954 Austin-Healey 100, on the Friday prior to the annual Gay Pride parade.

Plenty of fruits 'n nuts to be seen...
Dan

WV: ballouti, which thankfully I did not witness during that trip!

Ken said...

Yeah, London. Or even Paris.

Preferably, though, Vienna or Salzburg.

Or Munich. Or Cologne.

T.Stahl said...

"...Rome or London,..."

Or Stuttgart. Here at least you could go shooting at the coolest shooting club west of New Zealand.

Moriarty said...

Being on this side of the Sierras and SF being on the other side, the only major concern we have is with refugees in a crisis.

Allegedly, the official plan for dealing with that matter during the Cold War involved blocking I-80 and US 50 with the help of Hercules Rock Softener.

No idea if that was true, but it's a pleasant thing to reflect on from time to time.

Rob said...

Moriarty...why wait for a crisis? ;)

I've been to SF once. It wasn't that bad, and I was a highschool student at the time anyway so it didn't matter that I was disarmed, but it isn't a place I'd want to visit again.

Beaumont said...

People periodically tell me that SanFran is important and relevant to my existence, but I really don't see why.

+2 on Barcelona. Better climate, better beaches, better food, and friendlier (& more sane) people.

Ed Foster said...

Moriarty: I still wouldn't mind seeing select parts of the place for a day or two every few years, but I like your idea about Mr. Hercules (now Alliant).

Can we also get him to mine the river south of Stockton?

Wait, most of the good people still trapped behind enemy lines in Gomorrah by the Bay are actually sailors who race on that wonderfully challenging piece of water. And sailors are by definition self sufficient, closet survivalists.

O.K., then we don't sow the mines until we've waited 48 hours for all the worthwhile refugees to make their escape.