Editorial: Mayor Lee is tough as hell on Occupy SF protestors, but keeps City Hall safe for PG@E and the downtown gang


And so Mayor Ed Lee once again shows his true colors:  he is tough as hell on Occupy SF protestors and, unlike every other mayor in every other U.S. city,  sends in the cops to roust them out in  two midnight raids and trumpets the word  by bullhorn from the mayor's office that he will harass them until the end of time. Meanwhile, he is is quietly sending  sending out the message that under his stewardship that City Hall will be safe for PG@E, the downtown gang, the big developers, the bailed banks, and the feds who are going after the dispensers of medical marijuana and the newspapers who run their ads.  (Full disclosure: that's us at the Guardian.)  B3

EDITORIAL This is what civility and compromise looks like:

At a little after 10 P.m. Oct 16, a squadron of San Francisco police equipped with riot gear raided and attempted to shut down the OccupySF protest. It was the second time San Francisco has embarrassed itself, becoming the only major U.S. city to attempt to evict members of the growing Occupation movement — and this time, the cops used a lot more force.

The first crackdown, on Oct. 5, was supposedly driven by concerns that the activists were using an open flame for their communal kitchen without the proper permits. This time around, the alleged lawbreaking was confined to a Park Code section that bans sleeping in city parkland after 10 p.m. And since Justin Herman Plaza, where OccupySF is camped, is technically under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department, that ordinance could be enforced.

But let's be serious: The encampment endangered nobody, and if any Rec-Park officials had actually complained, the police couldn't provide their names. This was all about rousting a protest against corporate greed and economic injustice. It came with police batons, several beatings and five arrests.

And the mayor of what many call the most liberal city in America hasn't said a word. Mayor Ed Lee was clearly consulted on the raid, clearly approved it — and now becomes unique among the chief executives of big cities across the country, most of whom have worked to find ways to avoid police confrontations.

David Chiu, the president of the Board of Supervisors, issued a ridiculous statement saying that "Both the Occupy SF protesters and the San Francisco Police Department need to redouble their efforts to avoid confrontations like the ones we saw last night." No: The protesters didn't start it, didn't provoke it, didn't want it — and frankly, did their best to avoid it. The crackdown is all about the folks at City Hall trying to get rid of one of the most important political actions in at least a decade — and doing it with riot police.

This is what the civility and compromise so touted by Mayor Lee and Board President Chiu looks like. And it's a disgrace.

In Oakland, where the encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza, renamed Oscar Grant Plaza for the event, has far more people than Occupy SF, city officials approached the activists and offered to issue whatever permits were needed. Mayor Jean Quan visited the general assembly, waited her turn to speak, and then politely asked the group not to damage the somewhat fragile old oak tree on the site. In deference to her wishes, the group surrounded the tree with a fence.

In New York, the private owner of the park where Occupy Wall Street is camped agreed not to evict the demonstrators — or even move some of them to all for a regular park cleaning.

Why is San Francisco acting so hostile? Is this not a city with a reputation for political activism and tolerance? Is it really that big a problem to allow activists to peacefully occupy public space to denounce the greatest corporate thievery in a generation?

San Francisco ought to be supporting the OccupySF movement, not harassing it. Lee should immediately call off the police raids. The Board of Supervisors should have a hearing on this, bring Police Chief Greg Suhr, Mayor Lee and representatives of Rec-Park and the Department of Public Health and work out a solution that doesn't involve repeatedly rousting the protesters in the middle of the night. And if this continues, perhaps OccupySF should move to the plaza in front of City Hall.

Sup. John Avalos is the only person at City Hall who is making an outspoken effort to protect the protest; he needs some support.



Editorial: Editor Bruce is tough as hell on his own employees who want to Unionize, but keeps the City safe for all other unions.

Posted by Patrick Brown on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

probably has more in common with those Wall St. bankers than he does with the average unwashed San Francisco self-styled ninety-percenter.

But I continue to feel compassion for a man who will go to his grave with P, G & E still delivering power to his home to charge up his E-Z-Boy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 4:56 pm

"Do as I say - not as I do."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 4:57 pm

Right in line with the right wing revolutionary trolls posting constantly on this site.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

Who knew under that progressive veneer lurked the heart and mind of an anti-Chinese racist? "Fear the yellow peril!!" LOL.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 7:51 pm

that's the real meat, guest.

hard to keep us straight since pretend meat's a mimic with a progressive zeal.
by the way- didn't mean all chinese people, just the corrupt ones.

can't blame you for wanting to accuse people you disagree with of racism though.
hell it's a powerful tool when you run out reason.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

NPR retaliates against Occupy activist in DC:
Why do we expect The City Family would more tolerant?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

NPR now gets most of their funding from "underwriters" -corporate advertisers by another name. My money goes to KPFA -real public radio.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:38 am

Agreed. KPFA is real public radio. But liberals need to give NPR an earful on this summary dismissal. Her program has nothing to do with news.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:57 am

I suppose you were equally outraged by NPR's firing of Juan Williams? No, I didn't think so.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 11:20 am

It goes even deeper. Nearly ever head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR), and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) have been former CIA and other national security state directors of U.S. broadcast propaganda arms such as Radio Free Europe.

NPR is nothing more than carefully crafted insidious U.S. government propaganda designed primarily to trick liberals into thinking they are getting real alternative news, while actually delivering news which extensively manipulates its listeners and covers up deep truths about government and corporate malfeasance.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 8:10 am

He KNOWS what he's talking about.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:36 am
Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

You're digging your hole deeper and deeper.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

Here's the paragraph:

"Halpern contrasted the oversight abilities of CPB with those of the government's Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), parent of Voice of America and other overseas services, on which she served between 1990 and 2002.
Alumni of those overseas services are prominent at both CPB and NPR. New CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson chairs the BBG as well and directed VOA during the Reagan administration; CPB Board member Ernest J. Wilson III was a U.S. Information Agency official during the Clinton years; CPB President Bob Coonrod was a longtime USIA executive; NPR President Kevin Klose was the BBG's top executive, and his deputy, Ken Stern, also worked there."

Some of this history is also covered in a CounterPunch report about the crisis at KPFA in the late 90s at:


I'll see if you can manage to find the relevant paragraphs on your own this time.

(Maybe ask your mother to help you if you get confused...)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:22 pm

Everything you're saying here is wrong. Wrong on every level and you keep making it worse!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 9:33 am

You are actually trying to get us to believe that the agency responsible for running the propaganda broadcast stations that the U.S. government has all over the world (an agency which works hand in glove with the CIA) is not an intelligence agency?

The only nonexistence of intelligence here, is in yourself.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:06 am

Yes, we all know NPR is a tool of the state intelligence infrastructure, but why are you wasting your time on such a small issue when the Alien Lizard/Rothschilde Alliance has infiltrated every level of Western society and is threatening the survival of the human species? I heard about it on Coast to Coast AM.

Posted by Jono on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 12:28 am

The sources I cited are perfectly credible and were obviously reporting mundane factual information.

Here's anther one that references the same facts in even better detail.


Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:11 am

truth is that the rich is where the money is at. until the masses are able to contribute to a political campaign in the same manner as the wealthy, why is there any incentive to work on the behalf of the masses. simple business, that's all....disgusting but true. so, we can whine all we want but the billionaire's have the dough and we don't. therefore the rich get the toys and we work to provide them. this is life in a plutocracy and we have created it - get used to it.

Posted by jakiamik on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 6:14 am

that's one of the goals of the occupy movement.

Obviously San Francisco would be better off without Ed "I support your right to protest by sending in the police" Lee.

Rather than "whining" or telling people to "get used to it" they are looking to change things.

You should consider joining them, lots of people already have.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:38 am

Posting from outside the city?

Posted by malock on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:45 am

It looks as if a whole group of far let activists from inside and outside the city may be attempting to usurp your power as a thinker and writer.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 8:02 am

Never was much for conservative red meat

Posted by Maalox on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:36 am

I'm a conservative?

Who knew?

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

Just kidding.

Of course I'm a conservative.

Just read my posts.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

illiterate monkey yet again can't follow the political curve.

I had higher hopes for him but being a narrow small minded idiot it has it's limitations.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 11:44 pm

My monkey licks the peanut butter as if I'm not aware of the realities of the situation.

This is the in depth portion of the supposedly regal and high-minded.

Bested by their own better sense of political machinations.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 12:44 am

You are suggesting that people should join a movement and wise up, and yet you can't take the time to join up yourself?

"Be a smarty, join someone elses party,"

Posted by moloch must die on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 8:11 am

In Ed Lee's world, "civility" is what those who disagree and embarrass the powerful receive at the end of a bunch of police batons. In David Chiu's world, "civility" is his euphemism for lacking a clue ticket on what's really going on in the out-of-sight attacks instigated by the SFPD against the OccupySF protesters.

In both cases, their attitudes demonstrate that neither man deserves to inhabit Room 200 at City Hall.

Posted by Peter on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:06 am

We can't ignore law-breaking by OccupySF just because we might agree with some of their ideals, and then turn round and aggressively police a protest by racists or Nazi's.

The law must be applied consistently, regardless of ideology. That's the hallmark of civility.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:32 am

Guest's claim is, of course, totally specious, because hate speech has much stronger legal prohibitions on it, due to its inherent nature of calling for the denial of freedom and rights to others, often advocating violence to do so.

The Mexico border militias are an excellent example of why hate speech law needs to be, and is, far more strict.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:39 am

If OccupySF use hate speech, they'd be arrested, while a silent KKK march would not be breaking the law.

You can't have it both ways. It's the nature of the protest that is critical, and not the subject of that protest.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 10:41 am

The law applies to protest that is directed at specific individuals or groups, with the intent of inciting or inflicting aggression, hate, or violence upon them.

So if your KKK march had banners with racist speech on them it would be illegal too.

And I was, as you might recall, talking about speech, not a silent march.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Please explain that comment by citing the actual rule along with any attendant prosecutions associated with the application of the rule.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 6:58 pm



Does it occur to you fools to actually take a second to do a web search to see whether or not the absurd nonsense you are about to type is actually true.

I don't quite know which is more stupid. Being blaringly, childishly and obviously wrong - or not bothering to do a simple check to find out if you are wrong, before making an idiot of yourself...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

Not agreeing with you is not hate speech.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 10:53 am

"Hate speech" is not criminalized in the United States. Hate crimes are - but speech is not.

Eric is, as usual, talking out his ass - issuing grand pronouncements which bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 11:48 am
Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 7:20 pm

"These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Fighting words not hate speech.

You also complained about border militias and hate speech, that would be just speech you find offensive, or un PC. Saying we should enforce our nations immigration laws is not hate speech.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

He's talking about groups like the Minute Men which make public statements advocating the murder of undocumented immigrants you fucking moron.

Posted by meatprick on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

You might want to venture off the island.


You folks have become the new 1880's establishment lynchers.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 11:49 pm

Justice is what I bring for all of you ridiculous progressobots.

You are exactly like conservatives, that's how liberal you all are.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 12:39 am

an idiot.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 12:58 am

an idiot


between these lines

of meatlock and matlock and maltlock and glen

good for you

an idiot resides

and you will hear

my lies again

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 7:06 am

The anarchist leaders that you are apparently attempting to demonize had nothing to do with that bombing, and were falsely prosecuted in a kangaroo court. The wiki makes this clear as it goes more in depth on the subject, further down in the entry.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:19 am

where do you come up with this crap? while inciting someone to violence (i.e. fighting words) isn't protected speech, simply "hating on" other people certainly is. Maybe you've read about the Skokie Supreme Court decision? or were you too busy brushing up on the faciscts overseeing NPR?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

Why spoil a good prejudice?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 1:07 pm