Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.
Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.
Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached.
Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least.
People with all kinds of intentions will try to create outrage from situations like this. I think it's worthwhile to be curious and learn and discuss the details. It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.
Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.
> Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least
Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed after me I'd probably want that too, but if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement? Here in Columbus where I live we have the Wexner Medical Center which is named for Les Wexner who is the co-founder of Victoria's Secret and Limited Brands. Physicians, nurses, and staff wear a logo on their uniforms which says The Ohio State University and then under it Wexner Medical Center.
So at a minimum, it's at least not unusual to me. Although yea sure I can see how people can say they don't like it and whatnot.
> It'll probably all become clearer with time if you talk to people rather than antagonize them.
If you're speaking to me, I'd like to know who you think I'm not talking to (or talking to) and who I'm antagonizing or not antagonizing.
If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic, well, I apologize that you feel that way but I also believe that statement based on the variety of news sources I read, comments and news stories here on Hacker News, and my own opinion from having visited a few times and seen first hand how some policies have affected the city.
>> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control.
> e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here.
Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints different to your own.
> e: if it was unusual or the hospital didn't want to do that, certainly they could have either not accepted the money or tried to remove that requirement?
Yep, perhaps they should have declined the offer. Hopefully there was good-faith debate about the terms and implications of it. Let's see whether we learn more over time; life goes on, either way.
> e: If you find my statement about politics in San Francisco to be antagonistic
Not really, no; it was something about your tone, so no worries there.
Great. Thanks. Always a good thing for people to do and we need more of that. I wouldn’t say it’s warranted here, however, because I can see viewpoints and also think they are “out of control”. (Just a term of convenience so please don’t read too much into that specific way of phrasing things).
For example, I can see good intentions or the viewpoint behind letting people defecate and do heroin in the streets, and also come to view that letting people do so is still a crazy idea. (And I do, in fact I think it’s absolutely out of control).
Similarly, I can understand a small town in Alabama wanting to teach the Bible in their public schools because it’s their schools and they pay for them, but also find that utterly incompatible with my views.
Good ole’ Midwest. Right smack in the middle ;)
If what I've read is accurate, his name is on the hospital at the insistence of hospital administrators. They were hoping it would encourage other, similar donations. It seems he made the mistake of letting hospital administrators have something they wanted on top of the mistake of donating a large amount of money towards public health care.