Protesters blast Wall Street and war; support OccupySF


Story by Nena Farrell, photos by Ariel Soto-Suver

“We’re mad as hell, and we’re not taking it anymore!” was Tanya Dennis’s cry yesterday (Thurs/6) afternoon at a march and rally that drew from the Occupy San Francisco/Occupy Wall Street and the anti-war movements. It began at the Federal Building at Mission and 7th streets, where protesters will return today at 4:30 pm for a march marking the 10th anniversary of the war against Afghanistan.

Dennis got the crowd to scream the words with her, chanting it. Because it’s true—they’re not taking it anymore. She was one of the many featured speakers at the protest, along with representatives from OccupySF, the California Democratic Party, the American Indian Movement, and so many more. There were also sections of open microphones, where people could stand up to make a proposal, or usually just to make a point.

One of the open speakers proposed we free people. She had the entire gathering call it out with her: “Free people, free people.”

That’s one of the four demands that the 99 percent – the people that the occupiers say they represent – is making. One, to protect the environment. Two, to care for the people. Three, to tax the rich. And four, to end the wars. These are the four demands of the movement. At the protest, these four demands were posted on multiple signs.

The protest was in solidarity with the anti-war action in Washington DC. And from DC, the event had Dick Cheney – or rather, an impersonator of the former vice president – here to open the event. Upon his arrival, he was booed, but Cheney himself seemed fairly pleased with the entire situation. He joked that he brought three virgin hearts with him in case he was shot.

After the speakers, the protest moved to march down to 101 Market Street, where Occupy San Francisco has its movement encampment. The group moved down the blocks, chanting “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!” Each time they came to a bank along Market Street, the entire group would stop and cry together “Make banks pay” and “Tax the rich.”

It was the speakers, overall, that brought the real power to the event. They described the madness the working class was facing, the entire country and our state, and even the outside countries that we have both declared and undeclared wars on. And not just by the selected featured speakers, but also the ones like Sheila Gun Cushman, a blind woman who spoke up during the open speakers, saying “We have wanted this for years, it’s about bleepin’ time!”

Janet Weil, a Code Pink activist, was moved by the speakers as well: “[The] testimony of people at open mike was very powerful and important.”


Greg, how about we start telling ourselves the truth and start holding accountable those who have gotten paid to lead us to failure as a first step?

By any objective measure, progressives, liberals and true moderates have seen our positions deteriorate over the past 30+ years.

Either we continue on the same path and see more of the same results or we hold people accountable for their failures and we reprogram those resources to something else that might have a chance of working.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 10:32 pm

Just to clarify. My response just below is to Guest's comment further above, not a response to the comment just above by Marcos.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 11:45 pm

And you are obviously a right wing concern troll provocateur masquerading as a 'radical' in order to play a propaganda game of attacking and diminishing the movement that is rising up. No one serious in that movement is likely to buy your bullshit however.

And I of course am fully aware that global capitalism has been kicking the shit out of the movement and the planet for decades. I've been a 'radical' activist fighting that onslaught the whole time. And of course if the 'radical' movement that prevailed in Seattle, Quebec, Can Cun, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc hadn't accomplished what we did, you know what? The world would have been a lot fucking worse.

The people reading this blog who aren't stealth shills for corporations get that.

And now, at last, it looks like the tables are very likely turning - and that really scares right wing money grubbing pricks like you, doesn't it? So much that you are spewing FBI style propaganda attacks on organizers in a pathetic attempt to discourage them.

It won't work.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

No, Eric, in the global north, progressives, liberals and moderates have not been even speed bumps on the road to corporate dominance. In San Francisco, we have served as speed bumps that have been rolled over so many times in the past five years that we've been ground into insignificance.

Just because activists expend energy contesting issues does not mean that anything gets accomplished on those issues.

The energy being raised right now has nothing to do with the traditional sources of progressive organizing--labor and the advocacy nonprofits, it is arising spontaneously from different quarters.

How many "E"s for effort can we as a movement expect to get before we flunk the course?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 8:42 am

That implies that elections don't matter; only whatever change you can achieve through non-democratic coercion. That's how terrorists think.

The "effort" should be applied in convincing the voters that you are right. If you can't do that, then your view of what is needed will remain an irrelevancy.

"Feeling" that you're right doesn't make you right. If most people think you're wrong, chances are you are wrong, no matter how much "conviction" you feel.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 8:52 am

I am not making any activist effort in this mayoral election and I am achieving as much as those who are putting extensive effort into it.

Organizing to win elections is all but meaningless if there is no organization to compel elected officials to govern for their electoral coalition instead of abandoning that coalition in favor of a different governing coalition.

Popular movements are stymied in that there are structural constraints built into the system where labor and nonprofits dependent on corporate and government cash for their survival cut deals that buy them in by buying us all out and take proactive steps to discourage popular mobilization lest it crimp Their Good Thing.

This model has been put into place since 1980 at least, maturing during the Klinton regime and cemented in during the post-9/11 hysteria about all activism being tantamount to terrorism.

Guess what? Well meaning liberals in advocacy jobs are not able to just negotiate it all for us, because absent the threat of mobilized communities, they just get rolled for less and less every year.

Organized labor? Well, the numbers tell it all, as does the national Democrats response to Wisconsin and their passage of EFCA when they had the House and Senate.

I'm not sure what's worse, corporate conservatives who use labor and nonprofits for the illusion of popular serving government or the labor bosses and nonprofit executive directors who herd their constituencies like harmless sheep, ensuring that our position continues to deteriorate.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 9:16 am

You don't seem very aware of how the organizing against the global trade pacts happened. That organizing was led and coordinated by anarchists. On the surface it might have looked like the big liberal groups were in charge, because they wisely got on board after anarchists led the way (just as is excitingly happening right now with the Occupy Wall Street protests). But that's not how it went down. It was the Zapatistas who began that wave of anti-corporate globalization organizing, and then anarchists in the north also picked up the ball here and accomplished major victories.

Trust me man, I was there at the core of that movement. We stopped huge amounts of really bad stuff from happening that most people never even knew was happening, and still don't know about.

For example the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). See:

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:18 am

I've long struggled with my own demons
It's difficult being socialist in a capitalist society
The age old tug of war between the have plenty , & the want what she/he has will likely out last most of us
I'll pull my way
The human condition of greedy & green with envy
Has anyone seen the carrot , or did the trickle down not release enough water ?
I was lucky enough to grab a bag full @ 'd' market the other day
Like so much it only goes so far
Hope to find my way to a meaty meal of rich bull
At least the rich don't eat each other , that should leave a meal for the hungry if they aren't clubbed for expressing themselves in a peaceful rising of the tide
It's time to seek higher ground & likely to be crowded in a desirable location if that hasn't already been claimed
Smell the coffee & enjoy the journey with your compatriots
Feast well being mindful of over indulgence , it can cause lethargy , allowing complacency to infiltrate
Come & go in peace , & ' smile on your brother

Posted by Sjohnr on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 5:18 pm

....everybody get together, let's love another RIGHT NOW.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 5:58 pm

If you recall, one rationale for the invasion of Afghanistanto was save the Afghan women from oppression by the Taliban. But are the women of Afghanistan better off now, ten years later? Check out this interview with Reena, an Afghan woman and member of RAWA, on Democracy Now~

"Ten years ago when U.S. invaded Afghanistan, they made promises of democracy, women’s rights, and a general improvement in the lives of people. But ten years later, today, the situation is clearly getting worse for our people. Everyday life has not improved. Women’s situation has gotten worse. There is no sign of democracy or freedom or peace anywhere. In fact, civilian deaths have reached 10,000 on this anniversary. And it’s going to continue to rise with the surge of troops and increase in assaults, this will obviously be continuing."

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

Don't you complain about biased sources?

This article might help.

Some of the reasons for invading Afghanistan were bullshit, while all of the reasons for Iraq were. The abuse of women by the religious a-holes in the Taliban was real and documented.

The leadership of NOW at the time was rightly worked up about the situation in Afghanistan, as were many other leftist rights organizations.

So called progressives look at every day as the first day of year zero.

The reasons so many of these countries are toilets are not because of your rote and learned ravings about the USA, but because the people that live their and come to power are religious shit heads.

I'm opposed to much of the USA foreign policy, but to blame the USA for Afghanistan being a toilet? This is like your citing your conspiracy addled experts on the middle east who claimed that the USA incited the riots and unrest in various middle Eastern states, and then fell silent when the locals started to move ahead.

Seriously, put the bong down, history is longer than what happened this week.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

Back in the 1970s and 80s, Afghanistan was at peace and women enjoyed the same rights as men. It wasn't a democracy, and there was the occasional coup every few years, but it sure was a heck of a lot better than now.

The problem was that Afghanistan was aligned with the Soviet union, and we didn't like that much. And we were willing to do whatever it took, including destroying the country, to change that. Brezhinsky even told then President Carter that "we have the opportunity to create the Soviet Union's own Vietnam," which we promptly did.

No thugs or criminals were too unsavory for us to work with, as long as they were against the Soviets. So we funded warlords and drug dealers, thieves and fundamentalists... hell we even gave money and training to bin Laden himself. After a decade of bloody civil war, we finally got our wish and the warlords and the poppy dealers finally wrested control of a now-devastated country. And every government since has been worse than the previous. The US has no one to blame but itself.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

The Pakistanis and then later other gulf states such as the Saudis started to finance the Mujahidin after the commie revolution in Afghanistan invited in troops from the USSR. This was a rare time where many of these states governments got together on something. In general the population of many Muslim states were indifferent but the leaders feared communist crazies. The the Chinese joined in too, sending in millions in arms and $$$. Oddly helping create their own problem with fundies. Even India lent some tacit support to the cause, even though they hate Muslims as a policy and were somewhat aligned with the USSR.

The USA was one of many who got involved, after Pakistan and others started to support the locals fighting the commies. The local states were quite afraid of Soviet aggression so they started to finance and help recruit for the war. Well after the communist coup, well after the commies made the population hate them, after the USSR sent in troop's, this made neighboring states get to work as they feared they would be next, so they started to finance the locals.

The local commies took over a fairly easy going state and started to kill people like they always do, they made the Shah (who is also a scum bag) look restrained, not quite as bad as the Ayatolla though. The Soviets got involved _after_ the local revolutionary government had pissed off the population. The soviets removed the local commie nut case at some point, by then it was too late as the security forces were too addicted to mass murder and the population hated them so very much. When the soviets at last left Afghanistan the local commie government was so generally hated by the population that there was no hanging on for them. When they at last lost the capital the locals killed them all and let their backward god sort them out.

Yes, the USA supported some garbage, but Afghanistan was in open revolution before the USA, or even the USSR got directly involved, by that point the communists had made themselves absolutely hated by the general population. Not the fault of the USA. The growth of the crazy Islamists in this case was helped along by the commies, as the ones in Iran was helped along by the USA.

The Afghanistan Islamist crazies are the result of, USSR 90%, Pakistan, China, the USA etc... at most 10%.

Again I am not a supporter of much of US foreign stupidities, and the USA did support some shit bags in this case, but the USA joined in late in the game and was probably medium player as far as foreign states involved go.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. The U.S. State Department and CIA carefully orchestrated nearly the entire Afghanistan/Soviet conflict during the Carter administration; and indeed were directly involved in training and using Bin Laden as a CIA asset in that war.

Look for a book titled 'The Grand Chessboard' by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and give it a good read. Then deign to pontificate about world affairs in Central Asia.

Posted by 'anaonymous' on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 12:19 am


Resistance intensifies with various mujahideen groups fighting Soviet forces and their DRA allies. In the first six months of the campaign, the Soviets commit more than 80,000 personnel to occupy Afghanistan. The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supply money and arms to the mujahideen. The US leads a boycott of the Moscow Olympics.


The United States, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year, with a matching amount coming from the Persian Gulf states."[91] The People's Republic of China also sold Type 59 tanks, Type 68 assault rifles, Type 56 assault rifles, Type 69 RPGs, and much more to mujahideen in co-operation with the CIA, as did Egypt with assault rifles. Most notably the CIA donated FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, which caused notable changes to Soviet tactics. The Stinger missile locked on to infra-red emissions from aircraft, particularly engine exhaust, and was resistant to interference from decoy flares. Countermeasure flares and a missile warning systems were later installed in all Soviet Mi-2, Mi-8, and Mi-24 helicopters and Soviet fighter aircraft, giving pilots a chance to evade the missile. Heat dissipaters were also fitted to exhausts to decrease the Mi-24's heat signature. These reduced the Stinger threat but did not eliminate it.[92][93]


You should read up on why the commies alienated the locals to see why they are responsible for the religious fundies going amok. I know sweet nothings about commie antics are nice to believe, you and Greg can bemoan the well intentioned murder and whatnot by the communists in Afghanistan after they came to power.

The Pakistan military and security services did the majority of the logistics on their front while the Chinese did their own farther north. Why in the world would the CIA go to the trouble if they could get the Pakies to do it for them?

I know it sucks, because the conspiracy requires them to be supermen, but the CIA is in general a bunch of inept clowns with lots of money. They just tossed that money to the Pakistan government who took a cut and then siphoned some off to Afghanistan. Thats how it's done, not some super human CIA boasting by a government stooge.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 1:54 am

All of that predated by covert operations out of the Carter White House.

I give you kudos for actually writing a decent number of words on a real topic, but you haven't done nearly enough research to know what you are writing about.

Read 'The Grand Chessboard'. It's a good start to true understanding of this stuff.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:26 am

foreign policy, international order, renewable energy, trade policy (both foreign and domestic), affordable housing, foreign aid, San Francisco city government, CA state government, global warming, local, national and environmental policy, military tactics and affairs, covert operations, crisis mapping, weak and failing states, Marxist and Leninist theory, communism, Trotskyism, democracy, capitalism and neocapitalism, education policy on a local, state and national level, the raising of children, anarchism, the GLBT movement, the Chicano movement, the black liberation movement, the American Indian movement, the white power movement, fisheries policy on a local, state, national and international level, agriculture on a local, state and national level, mining and metals extraction, irredentism, post-modernism, terrorism and counter-terrorism, aviation, alternative fuels, transportation planning, North America, Central America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Antarctica, the Pacific region and assorted islands, astronomy, medicine, physics, genetics, history, music, spirituality and religion and finally - physical fitness.

He's a real Renaissance man. And to think - he shares all that knowledge with the readers of this forum for free - and on a daily basis!!

How lucky we are.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 12:29 pm's the USA's fault that Afghanistan was taken over by the religious idiots.

It was not.

The commies who took over the country in a coup started the process of being hated all on their own, by doing what they do every time they take over a country. Without the home grown fighters how exactly would there be open rebellion?

The neighbors of Afghanistan including Pakistan and China with financing from some of the oil states such as Saudi Arabia joined in. The US was a player, after many of the others were involved. Countries like Saudi Arabia encouraged and were happy to see their own local religious nuts leave to Afghanistan, thus adding to the post communist governments problems.

Not much of a conspiracy here, you conspiracy folks give the various US security forces way to much credit. Do you think they could start a mass armed rebellion in Canada?

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

Again, it was U.S. covert operations which lured the Soviets into a crackdown on Afghanistan. The rest is history. The blowback has been continuous and profound (not to mention fully intended by cynical U.S. operatives).

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 3:05 pm

The US had nothing to do with USSR supporting the local communists.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

You're link proves my points.

Jesus Christ you rote America haters are stupid.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 1:04 am

Hmm. Care to explain that absurd remark with an argument?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

Seek higher ground the tide will rise
Finding room on the hill is a struggle , much is claimed already
Celebrate the beauty of the day , smell the coffee , embrace your compatriots there is much to be gained along the winding road
I look forward to feasting on some rich table scraps
Trickle down seems to have starved the carrot that once enticed dreamers in America , it's time to build a better tomorrow with a room at the Inn for a fair price
Only take as much as you need , there are many mouths to feed , and the haves don't play nice with others , they only play nice with each other
Over indulgence can cause lethargy , allowing complacency to infiltrate , this I can attest to
Stay hungry , & eat the rich should you be fortunate enough to have such an opportunity being mindful there only so much to go around , if only they could grasp such a concept
If it's not too good for one , it's probably good enough for all
smile on your other
Enjoy Each other
Fear naught
Come & go in peace be with you

Posted by Sjohnr on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

Yes, all the issues are interrelated. Basically, when you have a system that glorifies money and profit over people, this is what you get. Also, we're a violent culture...we glorify violence. We don't know any other way. Easier to use technology, fight an "enemy" and ram it down their throats. It's what we know.

The one person who speaks in the most eloquent way for me is Elizabeth Warren running for Senator of Massachusetts. If you haven't listened to the clip of her speaking that went viral, you owe it to yourself to do so. Now that's the kinda "punch" I like to see, packed into a mere 2 minutes:

As far as the Seattle protests, they happened in an economic boomtime, were centered around talks that were temporary in nature, and 9/11 happened not too long after distracting all of us. This is far different. This thing is spreading for a reason. A good reason. It's time to re-condition ourselves to being a caring society, not one where the bottom line rules the day at the expense of people's well being and the health of the planet.

Posted by Guest Daniele Erville on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

Yes. These new protests are simply the previous Global Movement standing back up on its feet (and now far stronger) after it temporarily lost its footing following 9/11.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 8:51 pm

Based on individual experiences people pick and choose their way through their value system. It takes a systematic belief system for many people to find the answers for all of life's questions in a few simple equations. The far left and right answer these questions and supply these equations based on buzz words..

Conflating all of the things that piss you off about life is not an answer but an excuse.


We Americans compared to most nations and cultures are quite peaceful. When climbing the latter away from low level drug dealing we are amazingly non violent nation. We don't have clan and ethnic mass murder like much of the world. Remove drug/gang crime, the USA would be rated with Western Europe. Western Europe isn't tied a home grown need and the southern border drug trade as the USA is. The average citizen has no interest in violence, so you are just stringing together your complaints.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

What I would like to see is increased taxes on corporations who choose to outsource their manufacturing to countries to save on costs, and tax incentives to companies who choose to operate in the us borders. Would create many new jobs and decrease our dependance on foreign countries..

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

Early Thursday morning when SFPD was 'cleaning debris' outside the Federal Reserve, why was it D11 Supervisor, John Avalos,who showed up to try and moderate, not the D6 Supervisor, it's supposed to be her turf. Anyone aware of any comments she may have made, or position she has taken?

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 9:31 am

So you're right that it's not really any of Avalos's business. And it's equally true that he won't gain anything by this stunt.

This is exactly why avalos can't win - he only cares about his own element. He doesn't have city-wide viability, nor does he seem to try or care.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:28 am

It is every supervisors' business when the executive branch breaks up free speech that challenges corporate power.

Jane Kim, like all elected officials has a choice, whether to stand with corporate power in the face of a structural economic crisis that is only getting worse or to stand with the people and our right to challenge that arrangement.

It is clear that there are enough corrupt claims on the dwindling public purse that the ability of corporate power to maintain control is becoming increasingly constrained just as the ability of the public sector to fund its dwindling portfolio is likewise constrained.

Capitalism has more WMDs aimed at itself than it is able to marshal against a rising tide of discontent. The worse things become, the more people won't take it anymore and the fewer resources corporate power has to check the masses.

Talk all you want about people of color, you ain't seen nothing yet until you've seen entitled white people resisting getting screwed into poverty.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:53 am

10 of the 11 supervisors have no legitimate jurisdiction there. They can still show up but they have no mandate to speak on behalf of the residents.

Then again, most of the protestors are probably out-of-town agitators anyway.

And so you know, the figure for Bay area residents who are NOT protesting is 99.99%. That's the real mandate. People want jobs not mindless protests.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 11:25 am

We are constantly being told that districts need to suck it up and deal with their citywide responsibilities when the wealthy need to squeeze more money out of our neighborhoods. But when it comes to matters like freedom and challenging corporate dominance, provincialism rules!

Posted by marcos on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

true believers like you don't need any facts, do you?
just like the religious right, except you worship money.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 10:39 am

I think from the dissembling and deliberate misinterpretation of my brief comment, that this Anonymous might be our late unlamented PaulT from wherever he/she is hiding. Let me spell it out in terms even the simple minded and obtuse should be able to understand. Avalos was the ONLY public official who showed up in an attempt to defuse a potentially volatile situation, it is questionable whether this will help or hurt his election chances. Time will tell. But I think it demonstrates that when the people's business needs to be attended to, they know who to call. His choice was to show up, Kim's was not.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 11:14 am

defuse anything. It was merely symbolism and, probably, an attempt to shore up his support among the left. A more subtle candidate would have recognized that this would in fact diminish his broader appeal among voters, but Avalos lacks the political smarts to figure that out.

Interestingly, two of Oakland's supervisors tried to put themselves between police and protesters a few months ago and were roundly and rightly criticized for it.

The difference here was at least that Avalos did not try and disrupt the police action, if only because he knew he had no authority or mandate.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

No. If you see clearly, you can distill things down to their essential elements. That’s what I did, meatlock. I don’t have a belief system—I do have good eyes though, and an intact heart.
Don’t call me “far left” please, because I don’t even call myself that! I’m a human being who has studied nonviolence, and who happens to be good at “seeing the big picture”.

I’m very entertained when I see all the bickering and name calling that goes on in these blogs—but again, not, because it’s just a reflection of that violence I was talking about.

I’m not using “buzz words” guy. I’m assessing the situation with clear eyes: capitalism is a system that puts a premium on $$/profit--check the definition. Now, in my humble opinion, it’s run amock--gone “unchecked” if you will. A few well-placed regulations will probably put things right. That’s what this little revolution is all about and I’m down with it. It’s okay if you’re not. But just remember what Bob Dylan said:

There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'…
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

And as far as your remark about us being quite peaceful compared to most nations~well what about:
• The fact that we are the largest supplier of weapons in the world?
• How about all the gun violence that takes place within our borders and the fact that it’s so easy to buy a gun?
• Violent video games abounding—for kids!
• The 6 o’clock news. Have you watched it lately?

We are still suffering the consequences of having subjugated a whole race in slavery…that was violence done on a massive scale to a whole people. We see echoes of it today in the mindset that says it’s not okay to be gay~seeing people as “other” just because they’re different…All of this is violence.

With rhetoric like “Put the Bong Down Lisa”…calling someone’s thoughts and opinions “ravings”…calling countries “toilets”… “religious shit heads”…This is all violence reflected in your language. I see no respect in your language—even if you disagree with or have strong feelings about a person or situation. You, meatlock, are that “average citizen” you speak of who seems to be awash in violence—in your mind, sir, reflected in your comments. But you wouldn’t be alone in this. It’s the master/slave mentality that’s found a home in our heads—and until we become conscious of that, it’s all too easy to “bash” someone when we don’t agree with them.

I still say you should stop hiding behind your moniker “meatlock”, come down to the Buck Tavern, and you might find you have more in common with us than you think. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Posted by Guest Daniele Erville on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

FUCK FB, just breathed on the wrong button and 'lost' half a response, to the relief of many I'm sure. Tough. Attempting to recapture the feeling.
I'm sure I'm about to insert my foot so far down my oral orifice that my little toe will displace some of my hemorrhoids. Que sera.
I'm probably gonna be slammed by friend and foe alike. Que sera.

RIP STEVE, good job, he even predicted and commercialised the T-Party Clones !!
To give credit where it is due I do have to acknowlege that the RRE's (Radical Right-wing Extremists), who post here anonymously ad nauseam, make some very valid points. They are consumate masters at simplifying and dumbing down their 'message' in order to energise and appeal to the basest instincts of their constituency. A short term effective strategy, but one that ultimately, negatively impacts, or disimpacts, us all.
For decades the 'left' has been riven with 'isms'; internal conflicts; power struggles for 'status'; narrow agendas; division; vested self interest; etc. Most especially the co-option and sell-out of the majority of "Labor" organisations: locally SFLC is a prime example.
A perfect example in recent local history, is the ongoing struggle to combat Urban Renewal, whitewashing and displacement in BVHP. The majority of 'progressive' leaders and organisations have been noticeably MIA. 'We' had a brief shining hour when 33,000 SF voters signed a petition to request further discussion on this critical issue that will have an enormous impact on the future of our city. However Dennis Herrera, doing the bidding of the speculators and developers, fought all the way to State Superior Court to invalidate our certified votes. Not the kinda Mayor I want representing my/our/the people's interests.
This gentrification speculation has also already displaced many long time Mission residents/families/businesses, and is doing the same in the 'Loin and SOMA, and it's coming soon to a theatre of war near you. I am not disputing that these afore mentioned 'underserved' neighborhoods wouldn't benefit from a little revamping in certain areas; but 'underserved' is the key here.
BVHP is the template for the long term planning of the 'speculators'. Decades of deliberate designed neglect; redlining and denial of basic human services; criminal unequal access to basic human services; ineffective and co-opted political mis-representation.
EVERY single 'issue' that the left/progressive movement professes to care about is present in BVHP. Racism; Sexism; Homelessness; Health Care; Economic Subjugation; Police Oppression/over-reaction; Joblessness; blah, blah,blah.
Where were 'they' when we needed, and still do, them.
So yeah, kudos to the RRE's, you know how to play the game. Unfortunately most of your 'devotees' who still cling to the illusion that maybe 1 day they become 1 of the 1%, are in for a rude awakening. But by then it will be 2 late for all of us. The brutal reality is that deep inside in your brain His Master's Voice resonates:-
And it's much easier to herd ignorant sheep than:-

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

Apologies for my inadequacies.
Youtube that I wanted to post in the intro was the Apple '1984' ad.***
The last one that didn't register was 'herding cats'
Hold on, gonna check on Lisa's computer and repost in case you're interested and I don't FU - again.
Sheep shearing.
Yeee Haaah, and Yippie eye open oy vey

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 8:05 pm
Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

American Medical Response Ambulance Abuse of Power

While waiting for the Golden Gate Bus 101 on Oct. 6, 2011 around 7:15AM for over an hour (I was early) I was disturbed to notice that an American Medical Response Ambulance (6L93302, 15301, 6W96937 Explore Bus) was parked the entire time of my wait in a nearby loading zone, not for any medical emergency but simply to have breakfast at Philz Coffee.
Civic Center
748 Van Ness Ave
San Francisco, CA 94102
Cafe: (415) 292-7660
Blog Van Ness Ave.
btwn Turk & Eddy (a few blocks from City Hall)
This would appear to be an abuse of whatever authority is granted to this type of vehicle. If those rendering our emergency services cannot conduct themselves with a measure of decorum when parking in San Francisco, then who else will help to set the much needed standards of traffic behaviors so essential in this naked city?

Journalists with questions are asked to contact:

Douglas Moore
EMSC Public Relations Manager
6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 200
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Phone: (303) 495-1287
Fax: (303) 476-4056

Deborah Hileman
EMSC Vice President
Corporate Communications, Marketing & Investor Relations
6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 200
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Phone: (303) 495-1210
Fax: (303) 476-4056

Yellow zones are for active freight loading and unloading only by commercial vehicles. Yellow zones are not intended for long-term parking of vehicles with commercial license plates. The effective times of yellow zones vary and are indicated by signs on the meter and/or by stencils on the curb. Non-commercial vehicles (those without a commercial license plate) parked in a yellow zone will be cited and can be towed if the sign specifies it is a tow zone. Six-Wheel Truck Loading Zones are indicated by signs only. When signed for six wheels or more, such trucks can use the zone. Six wheel loading zones can typically be distinguished by their red-capped meters in metered areas. There is no fee for establishing yellow zones.

V C Section 21458 Curb Markings
Curb Markings
21458. (a) Whenever local authorities enact local parking regulations and indicate them by the use of paint upon curbs, the following colors only shall be used, and the colors indicate as follows:
(1) Red indicates no stopping, standing, or parking, whether the vehicle is attended or unattended, except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signposted as a bus loading zone.
(2) Yellow indicates stopping only for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or freight for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.
(3) White indicates stopping for either of the following purposes:
(A) Loading or unloading of passengers for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.
(B) Depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox.
(4) Green indicates time limit parking specified by local ordinance.
(5) Blue indicates parking limited exclusively to the vehicles of disabled persons and disabled veterans.
(b) Regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be effective on days and during hours or times as prescribed by local ordinances.
Amended Ch. 1243, Stats. 1992. Effective September 30, 1992.

Posted by Guest martin monroe on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 9:30 am

Never thought i'd say this,
Krugman hits the nail on the head in this editorial at the NYT"

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 10:58 am

which tells me this "movement" is already dismissed by those whose cash talks louder than a hippie with a megaphone.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 1:55 pm