Bring Hamburger Mary’s to The Castro?

El 9 de junio de 2014. Hola, I got something in the mail about a week ago I guess it was regarding bringing Hamburger Mary’s back to San Francisco, specifically to The Castro. The envelope had the new Harvey Milk stamp on it—not that most people around here in The New San Francisco have any interest in Harvey Milk (he’s from the Alternative and Proudly Radical San Francisco of the past)—which they used as bait to get people to open it rather than consider it junk mail. Because I knew what this was about, the envelope sat around here for a few days before I opened it. I hadn’t planned to open it at all because I could predict the contents. But I finally opened it not because of the bait stamp on it, but for the sole purpose of seeing if a local activist or someone was cheer-leading for this scheme. That wasn’t the case, after reading the flyer, which was just as I had expected it to be.

I remember Hamburger Mary’s, the original restaurant, which closed in 2001. It was located in the South of Market area. I ate there a couple of times (at that time I wasn’t a vegetarian). It was sort of out of the way from where I lived at the time. This proposal is to open a Hamburger Mary’s in the former Patio Café location (on Castro Street) which has been empty for years. Both Hamburger Mary’s and The Patio Café were part of The (now fading) Gay Mecca days. I remember the extremely popular Sunday brunches at The Patio Café. But that was a very different time than today with the GLBTQ community. Today, gay culture is dead. It’s been replaced with bland corporate consumerism. The problem with this thing is that Hamburger Mary’s falls under the formula retail (a chain store) category by the San Francisco Planning Department because there are already 12 locations of Hamburger Mary’s in The Empire (also known as The Cesspool, los Estados Unidos, the US.) There’s also a Hamburger Mary’s in Berlin, Alemania.

The flyer promoting this scheme came with lots of bull shit, newspeak and hype including the typical language I’ve come to expect from the business people around here shilling and gushing over some proposed business and intending to ram the thing through regardless and to get the sheeple in lockstep and excited about it. Here’s some of the language used:

1. Vibrant
Oh here we go with that word! Everything around here is now described as “vibrant.” It’s conservative Politician Cock’s favourite word. Has anyone around here ever heard of a thesaurus?
2. Fun
That’s a requirement too. You’ve gotta say that about anything whether it’s “fun” or not. It’s just sales bull shit.
3. Lively
Loud and obnoxious is a more accurate and appropriate word, especially with the many loud and obnoxious drunks weaving all over the sidewalk around here and some throwing up on the “vibrant” sidewalk.
4. Provides jobs to 30-35 people.
Really? That place will employ 30-35 people? Where are they going to put them all? (After it opens, check back a few months later and ask them, “How many did you really hire, half the number you said?”) The restaurant has to make enough dinero to pay that many people and do hamburger restaurants really make that much dinero? I don’t think so. In a comment I read on a message forum (there were only 4 comments there), some shill for this project had jacked the number up to 40 people being hired. And what kind of jobs will they be? That shill said they would be “GOOD JOB.” (He wrote it in all caps). I don’t know how he would know anything about those jobs. Another self-appointed authority? Might they be minimum wage jobs? Might they be part-time jobs? As usual, they don’t say what kind of jobs they will be offering, but like the current alcalde, just say anything and keep saying: jobs, jobs, jobs. The sheeple will fall for it. The quality of the jobs and whether they are full-time or part-time, and their salary/benefits is of course irrelevant to this Hamburger Mary’s scheme. Ram it through no matter what. I read that there are already 5 votes on the Planning Department opposed to this scheme, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

The flyer reads:
“Hamburger Mary’s is a fun, casual, place to meet friends, get reasonably-priced food and drinks, and support the community.”

This was one of the most annoying but predictable parts of the flyer:

“Mary’s will bring back life to The Patio Café…Mary’s will be good for The Castro and good for San Francisco.”

Oh give it a rest! Don’t shills ever tire of using the same stale, tired, overused, predictable, cookie-cutter corporatist sales-pitch language that’s been used thousands of times before by other businesses trying to open? Can’t some people ever be original around here? I think that “good for…” part is said about every business that comes and goes in The Castro. If there are dollar signs attached to something, then the shills say “it’s good for the Castro.”

Now, the intelligent person would ask: Is there a shortage of hamburgers and fries in The Castro? Hell No. That’s all we have around here. The Castro is awash in the drug alcohol (with the many bars), the many restaurants that sell hamburgers, greasy fries and the many coffee places. I asked mi amiga how she would describe The Castro briefly to someone who doesn’t live here. She said: “Burgers, booze, and coffee.” Yes, that about covers it, gracias mi amiga. The place is awash in all three. So why is there a need or demand for yet another burger place? There isn’t! And when I walk by them, I often see the current burger places in The Castro empty or mostly empty, despite all of this bull shit about “vibrant, lively and fun.” I suspect that some of the other local businesses that aren’t doing well and that also sell hamburgers near by hope that this Hamburger Mary’s scheme collapses.

I guess those shills for this project who are gushing over this scheme and hamburgers don’t realise (or care!) how unhealthy hamburgers are. Does anyone care about that anymore? Eating animals is not a good thing to do. Below are some credible articles related to this for the two people who do care:

All red meat is risky, a study finds

Eating processed red meat boosts risk of dying young, Harvard study finds

Are vegetarians thinner?

UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet. Lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change, UN report says

Musician battles stage IV colon cancer

But one can dismiss all of those articles and choose to live in Denial, and continue to make lame excuses for eating animals (“meat”). Most people will continue to eat animals regardless of their health and health consequences, because not eating animals would require a change in one’s behaviour which most people are not willing to do, until they are forced to due to medical reasons (i.e. heart attack, stroke). It’s nearly impossible to change people’s behaviour.

But these days, considering how mainstream, corporate, sanitised, bland and boring The Castro has become (it’s nothing like the Gay Mecca days unfortunately; it’s mainly a barrio to get drunk in with an increasing number of arm-in-arm and hand-in-hand “straights” weaving down the sidewalk drunk), I suspect most people will want yet another burger place. Eating healthy food is just not a concern in The Castro, otherwise we would not be awash in unhealthy burger places and other restaurants that focus on “meat.” And these days, Queer muchachos especially can be (very) overweight and call themselves “a bear” and that makes being overweight alright. That sanitises being overweight and unhealthy.

Do I think this Hamburger Mary’s scheme will happen? Oh absolutely. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t go through. The flyer says essentially that if there is enough “community support”—does that mean just those useless hateful merchants in The Castro who have helped sanitise The Castro and who hate on homeless and street people and the former few nudists and others?—that the formula retail law will essentially be overridden. It doesn’t say that but that’s implied on the flyer. So “community support” can override a law now? Interesting. I’m sure that conservative Politician Cocks—whom his rabid conservative disciples see as The Second Coming and The Holy Trinity—will make sure this scheme is rammed through somehow just like he did recently for yet another bar (we don’t have enough of those either!) that’s going to open in Duboce Triangle (but they’re calling that “The Castro”). It doesn’t matter what the Planning Department says. I have no doubt about that! Whatever Politician Cocks wants Politician Cocks gets. Most people seem to genuflect to that Establishment conservative corporatist. Chau.—rosa barrio

PS: Speaking of The Castro being awash in coffee, I just spoke with mi amiga and she told me that yet another coffee place is going to open—we’re in desperate need of another one!—in one of those empty store fronts that’s on the street level of that ugly-designed “Luxury Designer Condo” (Dahling) building about a block away from Castro Street. It’s going to be an Espresso Bar (in that little place?) More coffee! Now I’m sure the existing coffee places (there are at least 3 by my count) within the surrounding block will love that competition. The sheeple usually rush in to anything new with this juvenile need to “be the first to try it.” (That’s called being a Sucker.) But after this Espresso Bar has been around for awhile, maybe no one will even go there so the other coffee places will have nothing to worry about as far as competition. There’s already one store in that building and I never see anyone in that except the 2 people who work there. That retail space in that new building has been vacant for months, ever since that unaffordable housing building was built. Chau.—rosa barrio

Related:

The Rainbow Flag is now “too gay?”

Chauvinism in The Castro (San Francisco)

São Paulo’s Gay Pride Parade

Change Gay Pride to Gay Discreet

A Concerted Effort for a Hetero take-over of San Francisco’s Castro

The “Discreet” Gay Guys

The Gay Jock Fad

The Lobotomised Gay Community

Gay Culture is Dead in 2014

What was the ultimate goal of the Gay Rights Movement?

San Francisco’s Fading Gay Mecca

“Straights” come to the Castro to cheat

San Francisco was an amazing place!

The Conservative Gay Heteronormative Populace

Sexual Freedom and Revolution

Lobotomised San Francisco

For the smartphone addicts (The Castro is saturated with them!): Do you walk your dog or your smartphone?

Previously, but related:

03.18.12 Hola. I read an article the other day titled, “More support for passing on the red meat,” and thought to myself: That doesn’t seem to be the direction people are moving, at least in the Estados Unidos (U.S.) Locally, I see a growing, enthusiastic interest in eating animals in a city which up until recent years and gentrification thought of itself as a “progressive” city. Barbeque and other animal-focused restaurants can’t seem to move in fast enough for people to satisfy their desire for “Creole food,” southern food and eating animals (such as pig butt, rich-boy, po-boy, filet Mignon, foie gras (ugh!), shrimp remoulade and fried (not baked) chicken among other foods. Oh, and ostrich. OSTRICH? I should point out that high-temperature cooking can generate compounds in food that may increase cancer risk. Then I came across these:

All red meat is risky, a study finds
and
Eating processed red meat boosts risk of dying young, Harvard study finds.

On the same day, I also saw a headline regarding the best cities in the U.S. for barbeque. On one food forum, I read a comment that said, “more meat, more meat!” One wonders: Would people in the Estados Unidos (U.S.) eat their dog or cat if that were acceptable? If not, why not? If dog and cat “meat” and dog and cat pâté (for example) were on the menu along with prime rib, sirloin steak, roast beef, grilled shrimp, pig butt, ham hocks, grilled shark and chitterlings (intestines of a pig, cattle and other animals), how many people would order the dog and cat “meat,” if dog and cat were also in the “meat” category on the menu?…and knowing they have a dog and/or cat at home which they presumably love.

Am I implying people should be a vegetarian? No, I think people should eat more animals, more “red meat” and other “meats” and drink soda. Don’t you?

I was hesitant to write this post because (based on experience) whenever I see someone’s article about vegetarians or “passing on the red meat” it is predictable what the discussion will become in the comment section: Dysfunctional, Nasty and Rabid. I scanned some of the comments for the article I mentioned initially and they were as expected. Unfortunately, in the comments no one had the maturity to respond to the article as an adult caring about their own health. Of the comments I scanned, people were either dismissing the article, making fun of it or challenging some part of it that they didn’t like hearing. By taking that approach, no one had to change their behavior or were about to change their own behavior regarding what they eat. This food topic predictably becomes no differently than partisan politics (ugh!). The animal eaters often resort to calling the vegetarians, “holier than thou” and “sanctimonious” and other descriptions/pejoratives. That’s expected. I suppose there are some vegetarians those words apply to, but I don’t make any comment about what someone is eating. People can eat what they want. It’s their health. But from personal experience, on occasion I have been subjected to some “sanctimonious” and “holier than thou” treatment from animal eaters who have said to me, “you don’t eat meat?!” as if there’s something urgently wrong with me and they’ve never heard the term vegetarian, ever. Then they go on to sort of bully me about it for a bit, again making fun just like the children (in adult bodies) on the message forums. It’s best to just ignore people like that and I do. They are like internet trolls. And why do they care what I eat? Why is that important to them? They don’t care what they eat. They say (about themselves), “I eat anything, it doesn’t matter what you eat, it’s all genetic.” Meaning all health problems are genetically-based which of course is nonsense. Where would someone learn that? By saying “it’s all genetic,” the person is reneging any responsibility or ownership for their own health. Would national health care costs in general be considerably lower than they are today if more people cared about their health and what they eat and drink on a daily basis?

Am I suggesting that people be a vegetarian? Be what you want to be. I’m not suggesting anything. People will do what they want regardless of what credible information is presented to them, but I do sense a growing trend against vegetarianism and against healthier eating. I think that for many people being a vegetarian and eating healthier was once just a fad. Even for self-described “progressives” and “liberals.” Many self-described “progressives” see nothing wrong with an animal dying so that they can have a meal. I’ve heard some people claim that they’ve earned the right to eat animals from their life experiences, or they justify eating the animal by saying, “the animal was humanely raised by such and such reputable company.” What was “humane” about the killing of the animal? (That’s where Denial sets in.) I remember once having a discussion with self-described “progressives”/”liberals” who saw nothing wrong with eating animals. The discussion turned out to be a major waste of my time. Nothing accomplished at all. It didn’t matter what I said, what information I provided or how I said what I had to say. They were not going to stop eating animals (in part, because they have been trained from their parents/guardians to eat animals), and it would have required an active change in their daily behavior (now good luck with that!) to stop eating animals and that wasn’t about to happen.

There’s ample evidence—–not that that matters to most people—-that being a vegetarian is healthier and better for a person and the planet. Often heart attack patients are put on very restrictive diets and urged to abandon or severely restrict the eating of animals. I wouldn’t think there would be many vegetarians in our medical centers, hospitals and clinics. Would you? Of course, any vegetarian can be unhealthy depending upon what the vegetarian eats (lots of saturated fat like butter and ice cream) and by a lack of exercise. Many of the animal eater like to frequently say that vegetarians and vegans look so “unhealthy.” Many people who eat animals look very “unhealthy” too. I guess the animal eaters don’t look in their own mirrors too often. Some vegetarians and vegans can look unhealthy, depending upon what they eat and (like with anyone else) how much and what kind of exercise they get. Anyone—regardless of what they eat—can “look unhealthy” if they get little or no exercise.

It’s very difficult to change people’s behavior when it comes to what they eat, and even with their partisan politics. With politics in Los Estados Unidos (U.S.), it’s almost as if Democrat and Republican are cemented in people’s DNA. It’s incredible. Partisans will cheer lead for one of those corporatist 1% parties/teams no matter what their team does and even when their team acts like the other team, which they often do. I’ve concluded that until people are forced to change what they eat due to a (life-threatening) medical condition or some other circumstance, they will continue to say that what they eat is unimportant.

From what I sense, “red meat” and other “meats” (pork, for example) are becoming more and more a regular part of what people eat, which is why I say in many ways the Estados Unidos (U.S.) is going in the opposite direction of where it should be going based on credible articles I’ve read.

But for those who don’t care: eat more “red meat” and other types of “meat” and drink more soda. Enjoy. Chau.—rosa barrio

Related Link: Musician battles stage IV colon cancer
“Studies have shown that environmental and dietary factors can influence your risk of colorectal cancer…A low-fat, high-fiber diet is good, as is regular exercise….So Hayes is eating less red meat, more fruits and vegetables.”