Harvey Milk airport!

Maybe this Dan Niccoleta photo will be in the main SFO terminal

First of all, it's a great idea.

Major airports get named after people who have had a major impact on society (LaGuardia, Kennedy) or heros (Lt. Commander Edward O'Hare) and Harvey Milk was both. SFO is the gateway to the United States for millions of travelers, much as Kennedy is on the East Coast, and the idea that all of them would be potentially exposed to Milk's life and legacy is wonderful.

Sup. Scott Wiener supports the idea, but says it will "spark a robust debate" about other people who have contributed to San Francisco, and I've heard the names Dianne Feinstein and Willie Brown mentioned. Both were bad mayors, both sold out the city to developers, both would be an embarassment -- but that's not the point. There are plenty of politicians like Feinstein and Brown in the world; there was only one Harvey Milk.

Thanks to Sup. Campos for the idea. I suspect it will get about 70 percent of the vote.


And seriously, would anyone have suggested naming the airport after Milk if he hadn't been shot? Would we instead be considering the Tom Ammiano International Airport.

SFO needs a name with international reputation and cachet. The closest we get to this is the John Waye Airport in Orange County and the John Lennon airport in Liverpool.

But Milk Airport? Yuk.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 11:44 am

next time I'm in Reagan National Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, LaGuardia Airport, or Kennedy Airport or another airport named for a politician.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

a lowly supervisor who can be elected with as few as 6,000 votes.

Milk claim to fame is that he stopped a bullet. I'm not sure that puts him aside the political greats.

How about asking the people of SF and give them a choice of names?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

return to the glory years it had during the terms of President LaGuardia.

Harvey Milk was famous before Dan White assassinated him.

Let's name the airport after you: Heartless, Brainless And Cheap Field.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:04 pm

people from other countries, and even other States, have never heard of him.

Airports should be named after household names and globally recognized icons of greatness. We can do better.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

Who's ever heard of Logan, Hartsfield, or O'Hare? I bet a small minority could even identify LaGuardia these days.

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 11:06 am

Norman Mineta.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

"Reagan [sic] National Airport"

Out of protest, I continue to call it Washington National Airport.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:02 pm

And I continue to call it Army Street...

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 4:05 pm

you described where you hire your easily exploitable day laborer employees.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 4:23 pm

Yes I do. What do you do for illegals?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

You mean the corporations that engage in illegal behavior? I think they should be punished, don't you?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 6:55 pm

For free. I'm not looking to make a buck off them. Exploiting labor is your highest calling. So sad.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

I refuse to utter the words South Van Ness and instead refer to it by it's original and much more dignified name Howard Street. Just leave well enough alone, it's because of people like you loonies that we don't have butchers in Butcher Town anymore!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:40 am

Guest troll really means that the forebears of his political tradition shot and murdered Harvey Milk and George Moscone.

They did not "get shot." Dan White shot them and murdered them for political reasons.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 12:14 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

Dan White shot and killed Harvey Milk and George Moscone, was convected of doing just that, did time in the penitentiary and fortunately the pathetic shit had the courtesy to the rest of us to have killed himself after release.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:08 pm

Milk already has a bar and a plaza named after him. Enough already.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

That's what I think whenever you pollute this site your imbecilic musings.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:39 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

now boyz....

Posted by Daniele E. on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 11:27 pm

absolutely ices the deal for me. Way better than an aircraft carrier.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 1:32 pm

I doubt that 70% of the people who live here even know who he is.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 2:48 pm

Heck, the Natalie Wood International Airport would have more currency.

Naming the airport after Milk would confirm to the world what a narrow-minded, provincial, introspective and unimportant little town we really are.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

It seems more about the person naming than the person being named.

Milk seemed like a guy who liked a laugh, I would guess he would get a laugh out of this.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

not so fast, guest!
maybe it would reinforce San Francisco's reputation for being a city with HEART...an open city that accepts people for who they are...a peace-loving city.
That to me spells first class.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 11:31 pm

I suspect if you asked most in the Castro today who Harvey Milk was, you'd get a blank stare and they'd have trouble telling you/remembering who he was. They couldn't care less. It's old history. From what I know about Milk's politics, the Castro wouldn't have elected conservative Wiener if they shared the politics of Harvey Milk. Clearly they don't.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

of naming a navy ship after Milk more than the airport.


The thought of the guys on the USS Milk having to take abuse from people on other ships when in dock makes me laugh.

seaman 1 "What's your ship?"

seaman 2 "err, um, the, ah, Milk"

seaman 3 - 20 making moronic comments.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:52 pm

he opposes passengers walking naked through the terminal.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

"The gay Pakistani kid taking a flight to San Francisco" Campos rhapsodized today. Yes - because when I fly into an airport I ALWAYS spend time researching who it's named after and I know finding out that info profoundly changes me when I do. I had no idea who O'Hare was named after until today and it certainly doesn't change my impression of either Chicago or the commander guy.

The Cult of Harvey continues. Perhaps he inspired tubby little Campos back when he was downing his daily ration of tamales in Guatemala.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

Young republicans making pilgrimages to that hilarious statue of Bush at that Texas airport.


A young runaway from progressive parents who saves up his money to get away from the enforced progressive thought police. Sitting in coach this kid furiously reads Atlas Shrugged dreaming of sitting in first class and the better life that awaits in Houston...

The assumptions around symbolism from the progressive is so strange.

Naming an airport after a shitty president would never change them in any way, but naming an airport after one of their icons is earth moving.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

YAWN. I still call Reagan "National" and I will still call SFO "SFO."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

Naming the Washington DC airport after that turd Reagan, when 90% of people there voted against him, was a spit in the face to the citizens of Washington DC. Republicans in congress, where Washington citizens don't even have representation, did it as a big "Fuck You" to them, just to show them "who's boss."

It would be as if outsiders imposed the name "Fidel Castro International Airport" on Miami.

Naming the airport after Harvey Milk is different. First of all, it's not imposed from outside. Secondly, Harvey Milk is universally admired in San Francisco now... except for a few putrid trolls.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

Gee, I had no idea.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 5:43 pm

Idiot. Greg was referring to District of Columbia residents (I used to live there). Residents of the District don't have representation in congress (it's called "Taxation without Representation"). And adding Reagan's name to Washington National was a slap in the face to District residents regardless of where National is located (it is located in VA) just outside the District across the Potomac.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 6:36 pm

but it really *is* necessary to focus on every aspect with a strict awareness of the trolls capacity for error. ("Error".)

Greg, in fact, did not suggest that Washington DC was a state. Not even in the least.

The idea of naming Miami airport after Fidel Castro sounds *great!*

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 7:04 pm

SFO isn't in SF either.

I thought everyone knew that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 7:45 am

Administratively speaking, SFO *is* actually in the city and county of San Francisco. Geographically it doesn't really make sense, but that's how the political boundaries are drawn.

So that's why you pay the SF sales tax rate (rather than the San Mateo County rate) on purchases at SFO, and why the SF Board of Supervisors gets to name the airport and regulate it in every way they can regulate other places in the city. Because for administrative purposes, SFO is part of the city.

Two other examples of weird places that are technically part of SF are the Farallon Islands and Hetch Hetchy. That's why SF residents could vote on a ballot initiative to restore the Hetch Hetchy valley; otherwise, its fate wouldn't be voted on by people in a random city on the other side of the state. The Farallon Islands are a bit less interesting politically, because the area is a wildlife refuge and only researchers are allowed to go there.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 9:02 pm

SF County Jail is in San Bruno, but it's under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors. A few oddities like that in our government that date back many years to when the Peninsula was only lightly developed and SF could just buy land there for not much and claim it as sovereign territory. Not everyone on the the Peninsula loves that these days, but no much you can do about it.

Lots of airports aren't actually in the cities that control them. I believe O'Hare is in fact in Chicago but Midway is not. BWI is not in Baltimore or Washington.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that naming SFO after Harvey Milk is an excellent idea. And I think all those people who say nobody in the Castro knows who he was are utterly wrong. Milk is a queer icon. 

Posted by tim on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 10:58 am

It makes sense for Castro who lionize him but it's rather divisive to impose such a controversial figure on the rest of the city.

Heck, I'd rather have the Dianne Feinstein International Airport. Or Tony Bennett?

Posted by anon on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 11:33 am

Harvey Milk is not controversial.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 11:56 am

It's not in DC. Similarly SFO is not in San Francisco - it's in South San Francisco. 6000 people voted for Milk - how does that deserve renaming one of the world's major airports?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

Lucretia, one can debate whether Milk deserves to be the leading gay rights icon, but he is. The naming is symbolic, as you well know.

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 11:10 am

Greg like progressives would never take any deep meaning as a traveler from naming an airport after our worst right wing presidents, but oddly believe that the naming of one after a guy he likes would have meaning to others.

Such a bizarre bit of logic. I've flown in and out of the Bush airport and didn't become a republican. If I fly in and out of Milk airport I will not become a weirdly obsessed "progressive."

The bizarre need to express meaningless symbolism here is "right to life" like weird.

Milk would probably get a laugh out of the Gregs here.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 7:14 pm

then it's all meaningless symbolism -every time you name a building or a street after someone, it's just meaningless symbolism. Funny how you don't waste so much time objecting to such meaningless symbolism when it's not done to honor a progressive.

Maybe it's not so meaningless to you after all.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 10:07 pm

The people naming shit in the city are the progressives, who meaninglessly name things after other progressives. Maybe some firemen will want to name a firehouse after Dan White?

I got just as big of a laugh out of the republicans who in the 90's wanted to name something in every county in the USA after Reagan. They probably thought that kids would see a county highway intersection or a water pump station owned by the county named after Reagan and become republicans.

Maybe we can name something after George P. Shultz, he lives here now and worked in Washington for decades. Could you get on that?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

Do you really think that we should be honoring murderers?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

But I would guess that a lot of our progressives would get behind something named after Che.

A classic.


Posted by matlock on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 2:52 pm

I don't hear you objecting to anything named after US Presidents, any one of whom killed more people than Che.

Your lack of historical knowledge is once again on full display, as it was when you ventured into the Vietnam/Suharto stuff and got totally pwned.

It's fashionable among the right wing to casually throw around terms like "murderer" with regards to Che. The truth is very different. When Che was a guerilla and shortly after the revolution, he either ordered the executions or was in a position to pardon and refused to pardon a number of people -anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand, depending on who you ask. All of these cases were for things that would often carry the death penalty, particularly in wartime -war crimes, murder, rape, desertion, etc. You can take issue with whether it's just. And I do. I don't think it's right to execute someone for desertion. But shit, even Lincoln and FDR did that. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that implicates Che for the death of innocent civilians.


I don't normally use a source like YahooAnswers, but the first response appears to be very well researched and itself includes 3 links from neutral sources. Of note, also, is the second answer, which seems to contradict the first, parroting the fashionable "Che is a murderer" line. But it's telling that in order to find a "source," they were unable to support their position with anything other than another viciously anti-Cuban right-wing blog post.

By contrast, if you look at the records of virtually ANY US president, each has *murdered* far more people, including many innocent civilians. We murdered 3 million Vietnamese, putting Johnson and Nixon in the same league as Pol Pot. We murdered about a million Iraqis according to a report in the Lancet. Who knows how many excess deaths there have been in Afghanistan -the numbers will probably be shocking once they come out. Even in those little forgotten inconsequential wars, we routinely murder more innocent civilians than all the criminals Che ever executed in his life. Something like 2000 civilians died just in Panama in 1989 to name but one example.

You love to pretend that you're this self-styled "independent thinker," but in reality you're just another right-wing follower parroting the usual garbage.

Your hypocrisy, your ignorance, and your lack of moral compass are once again on full display.


Posted by Greg on Jan. 17, 2013 @ 8:55 am
Posted by anon on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 2:43 pm