"You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany."

Well, aside from Foggy Bottom, that is. I am currently in San Francisco on a business trip. Our conference is at a hotel on Fisherman's Wharf, which is pretty cool. It is such a shame that a city with as much to offer as San Francisco could be so overshadowed by the exhibition of the worst traits in 21st century America.

This city is the western counterpart to New Orleans, as far as politics is concerned. Liberals have held the reins of power in S.F. since the 1930s, as far as I can tell. That is over 70 years of liberal policies being enacted and reinforced. This place should be Utopia. It is the retirement home for many geriatric flower children, a larger-than-average number homosexuals, and all sorts of people that wouldn't be identified as politically "moderate", let alone conservative. These are the same people that voted to make owning a firearm in city limits a crime. Despite all of this, there's trouble in paradise.

For starters, San Francisco has the highest percentage of unsolved murders of any major city in the United States. Since the no-gun law became effective this January, violent crimes involving firearms have skyrocketed. Criminals of the City by the Bay, like the criminals of the U.K. and aristocrats of feudal Europe, prefer unarmed peasants. Since a federal appellate court recently ruled that Washington D.C.'s gun ban is unconstitutional, what are San Franciscans going to do? If the Board of Supervisors had any sense at all, they would support the police department by making it possible to enforce the laws already on the books. What does this mean, exactly? Well, for starters, they would quit ham-stringing law enforcement when it comes to cracking down on criminals, regardless of a suspect's race, religion, gender, or orientation. It shouldn't matter if you are a minority; if you're breaking the law, you should be arrested and put on trial like anyone else.

Given that San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to call home (if not, the most expensive) and the immense social safety net the city provides its citizens (in the form of unemployment benefits, health care for "domestic partners" of municipal employees, etc.), everyone here should be gainfully employed and poverty should be outmoded here, right? I, as a tourist, can tell you that I have seen more poverty in San Francisco than in Sacramento. For those of you that have never been to downtown Sacramento, the rumors and jokes regarding the number of homeless in our state's capital are true. However, San Francisco seems to revel in the fact that there is a large population of homeless dwelling in the shadow of its stylish neighborhoods. They buy shopping carts to give to their homeless, rather than using that money to provide genuine help to these people. This past Holiday season, lobbyists protested scented poster advertisements at bus stops because "it would be cruel" to make those less fortunate smell a food item they cannot afford to purchase. The reason for all of this absurdity: it makes them feel better! That's right, people who, for whatever reason, live in squallor are allowed to continue in squallor because some well-to-do yuppie wants to feel better about themselves. If the problem were actually solved, they would no longer have any way to show that they care. It is despicable for human suffering of any kind to be used as a propaganda tool, especially under the disguise of philanthropy.

If the citizenry of this city are morally bankrupt, their elected officials are in it up to their ears. The so-called leadership of the city are more like guests on the Jerry Springer show. Mayor Newsom coming out...wait, wrong choice of words, my apologies. Take two: Mayor Newsom coming clean a few months ago about having an affair with his best friend's wife is only the latest scandal to surface. Wait a tick, this is about sex, and according to Clinton apologists everyone lies about sex. So why was it a scandal? Perhaps philandering is not such a widely accepted practice after all. Now, I know that this city was a major port-of-call for sailors, as well as a frontier outpost (and therefore, a pretty wild place), but California has been a member of the Union for almost 160 years. I think it's time to grow up.

With so many problems so deeply rooted in the psyche of its citizens, is there hope for San Francisco? Perhaps, if not in my generation, then the following generations. In an article by Vicki Haddock in the San Francisco Chronicle of September 17, 2006, studies show that liberals are being driven to extinction by their own life choices. Since it's biologically impossible for homosexuals to have children, and lots of liberal, "committed couples" (since marriage is so bourgeois) elect to not have children, conservative "breeders" (as the homosexual community so loving calls them) have 41 percent more children than liberals. Plus, liberals are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and are more likely to avail themselves of their perceived "right to choose"; thus, as grim as it is, preventing even more children being born. Now, if I had no conscience at all, I would be tempted to consider a change in some of my socio-political opinions.

Statistically, only 10 percent of children adopt political points of view that differ from that of their parents. Assuming these children stay in San Francisco, that means that there will be 39 percent more conservatives voting 18 years from now. Let's just hope that they have a stubborn streak a mile wide and decide to be the new counterculture movement in San Francisco. Vive la revolution!