SFBG Radio: Has official SF lost its mind?

|
(54)

Today Johnny and Tim talk about the police raid on Occupy SF -- and why San Francisco officials insist on making this the only large city in the nation that's sending the cops to clear out Occupy Wall Street protesters. Listen after the jump.

RiotGoinOnCops by endorsements2011

Comments

LOL

It is funny to see the so-called "liberal city" go crazy when its money is threatened--San Fran has been yuppie central for 40 years.

Posted by guest on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

six figure incomes is probably higher than any other US city.

Look beyond the rhetoric and this place is a playground for the rich. The liberal politics here are just a toy for those who enjoy champagne and the fine things in life.

The revolution won't start here.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

The middle class has been squeezed to death in the city. If they decide that they're sick of being handmaidens to the rich and living off the largess of tourists, you might just see rebellion.

Lee is a total stooge and suck up to downtown interests--they're still the minority.

Posted by guest on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 7:49 pm

No harm in that- let's not exaggerate things...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

it's just one team against another and your team's gonna win...

Guess what?
You have already lost.

The Occupy movement does NOT support Obama.
These must be frightening and confusing times for you.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

And with SF becoming a yuppie city, why is it a surprise that yuppie politics are finally pushing liberal politics out of the way in SF and the cops are cracking down? The madcap, zany radical stuff is on its way out and Bloombergization is on its way. The police crackdown is evidence of this. Johnny is correct but underestimates SF's antiprogressivism under Lee (and Newsom before him - remember Newsom patterned his administration after Giuliani's in NYC)

In a way this is a return to how things used to be when SF was a very Republican city, although SF back then had a very healthy middle class and was probably the best American city to live in. SF's middle class is now even smaller than LA's making it the smallest of any major city's. It has become an enclave of the rich so expect its politics to reflect that.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 8:09 pm

A little bit of protesting too loudly going on in your particular case...

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 8:17 pm

An admirable last stand of resistance to what seems to be the inevitable at this point.

Posted by Our best days are behind us on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

Your pitiful reply is not only full of shit (there hasn't been a turnout that big since the second full scale U.S. assault on Iraq, and in every city they are just getting bigger) but it is also a clear indication of your fear of the protests.

It's nice to see you sweat, you gutless, bourgeois prick.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

You sound pissed, which is fine. I think a lot of people are across the nation and for good reason.

With that said, a large turnout for a protest movement that's occurring *all over America* is by no means an indicator that SF will stay far to the left. The blaring reality of the past 10 years shows opposite. I'm not sure if you just moved here or are purposely not paying attention, but a 5 minute analysis of this year's Mayoral race will show you the trajectory we're on. In 2003 Matt Gonzalez - a politician many would consider further to the left than Avalos - got 48% of the vote. This year, the progressive candidate is basically a non-factor, and is polling around 7%. I'm not even touching on Care Not Cash, Aggressive Panhandling Laws, Sit/Lay, Ammiano/Brown, the fact that guys like Daly and Peskin have been replaced by Jane Kim and David Chiu.

As a local who has been here all my life, it's interesting to watch. Ultimately, I think progressives have done a poor job of positioning themselves - in many ways painting themselves as allies *only* of the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the afflicted. While that may be admirable, it leaves many (dwindling middle class) feeling totally forgotten.

Posted by Longtime-Lurker on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

could in fact be the death throes of a liberal movement that has reached the end of this swing of the pendulum. Since last November's election, libs everywhere have been in retreat, with Obama in particular lurching to the right, and locally, Lee mounting a spectacular coup while the progrssives snoozed. And Kim trumping the dowdy, lumpen Walker.

Time for a meaningless shouting match on the street, obviously.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

Occupy is not 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Throw out that 20th century garbage, the false dichotomy that keeps you blind and subservient. Get past it.

Posted by Captain Decent on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 1:25 am

There just isn't anything interesting about it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:47 am

Speaking as someone who has been in San Francisco for over 17 years, and been deeply active in City Hall politics, I can say with direct knowledge and confidence that the Lurker analysis is way off.

The neo-liberal corporate manipulated retrogression that you all are talking about has been perpetrated by a minority, and the anger toward it, both worldwide and locally has been quietly building stronger and stronger for the last three decades.

That repressed anger is no longer repressed. It is emerging and becoming a new revolution just as powerful, and -far- better organized than the revolution in the 60's.

Anyone who thinks that the corporate backlash is going to continue building, is not paying attention, and not remembering the cycles of history.

And all of this gives us locally, the momentum to take back City Hall if we work and focus hard on that task.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

I think SF's been an enclave of the rich since the tech boom, maybe before.

If you start to see the Richmond and Sunset turn, then you'll know it's real--those are the only real middle class neighborhoods left.

Posted by Perkins on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

There's a huge middle class. The average SF income is around 75K. Many great jobs in IT, finance, law, biotech, medicine.

SF is a poster child for a vibrant middle class in America.

But not everyone is smart enough to get the gravy. 'Twas ever so. The path to wealth is ediucation and hard work - not whining in the streets and trying to steal the wealth of others.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 7:04 am

The path of middle class stability is for the sovereigns of this democracy to evict finance capital from government and to change the rules from those used to fuck us over.

In San Francisco, middle class stability means evicting the nonprofiteers and labor coopters first that have cut deals with the 1% in order to provide dribblings exclusively for the 30% of low income and people of color that they claim to serve. Only then will San Francisco's poor and middle class--all 99% very low income compared to the 1%--be able to effectively contest corporate 1% power.

San Francisco needs a 99% movement to challenge Ed Lee's 1% campaign, but short-sightedness amongst our paid advocates and their eagerness to capitulate before power like Obama has left the middie susceptible to appeals from the right wing. So as the rest of the nation is buoyed on a rising tide of populism, San Francisco remains in the grip of the 1%.

Labor and the nonprofits in SF were warned, but the ignored those warnings and now not only their constituencies but the middle class will get screwed and the 1% will continue to strip mine and clear cut San Francisco until the financial system teeters and collapses through its own weight and the Occupy movement, a campaign not (yet) coopted by these ineffective self-serving activists.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 7:32 am

Less than 1% of SF'ers are protesting. Your numbers are about face.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 8:11 am

Ed Lee, like George W. Bush, like John McCain, like Nancy Pelosi, like Dianne Feinstein, represent the 1%.

Many of those who represent the 1% get the votes of the 99% but that does not change the fact that they serve the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 8:26 am

just like there's a richest 5% or 20%.

It's just the latest in a endless series of meaningless bumper stickers.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 8:41 am

making the rest of us a whole lot worse off.

If those elites would release just a fraction of that wealth to the rest of us, it could literally restart the entire global economy.

This reality is not a bumper sticker. Nor is the outcry against the 1% that is screwing everyone else.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 9:17 am

Why not just take up a career in crime?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 10:45 am

This comment shows how little you know about how money is created and used, and how it achieves its value. Money is imaginary. It is a tool, not a possession. Even its very value changes daily due to the way we manage it, and how much of it banks create or eliminate from the overall supply.

Transferring a lot more of it from the 1% to the general populace (from which it has been artificially and foolishly hoarded) will benefit everyone -including- the 1% by making the world's economy more vibrant, stable and robust.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:07 am

The richest 1% are squatting on government and are about to be evicted.

Ed Lee represents the interest of the 1% who are occupying government and are fleecing the taxpayers on the behalf of the super rich.

The Occupy movement now dwarfs the coopted corporate tea bagger movement and it is only growing.

Please, please, continue to put yourself in the way of 99% of Americans who have had it with being fleeced and played against one another so that the already wealthy can take more of our meager wealth.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 9:18 am

Of course there's always a "richest 1%"--how much of the total wealth does that 1% control is the issue.

In America now, the number is approaching 40%. 40 years ago, it was less than 10%.

That's the issue.

More home-schooled Republican idiocy on display here.

Posted by Perkins on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:08 am

so it gets back to you anyway.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

No it does not because Social Security and Medicare pay for themselves.

Most Americans of working age do not receive any sort of government transfer payments.

Military and debt payments are what the 1%'s taxes pay, so the 1% are really just paying themselves.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

The wealthiest and corporations, because of the myriad ways that they can game the system, end up paying 15% or less of their income/profit in taxes.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

Only people pay taxes.

If corporations pay taxes, then it gets passed through via higher costs to you and me.

Or shareholders pay, killing your retirement plans.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

You forgot to mention whose wealth, though. The path to your boss's wealth is your hard work. Americans have been buying into that line for decades, and lo and behold it's true! Over the past 40 years, productivity is way up, people are working longer hours than ever before with less time off, and wealth has increased immensely. Just not *their* wealth.

Work harder America! The 1% depends on you!

Posted by Greg on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 7:42 am

The Marxist definition of profit is: (what the workers earn) minus (what the workers are paid). Thanks for the opportunity to remember that.

But these days, and particularly in the Bay Area, there has never been more worker participation in profits. From stock options to performance bonuses to a huge increase in takeup of IRA's, 401K's, mutual funds and share ownership, the average American is participating in the wealth generation of American business. To many, the salary is moot. It's the employee ownership that is key - just ask all those Google and Apple millionaire secretaries.

In fact, one can reasonably argue that American capitalism has achieved a level of worker ownership of the means of production that Marx predicted.

Ironic huh?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 8:15 am

Neither ironic nor true.

Most Americans do not have stock options.

Most Americans do not have healthy tax sheltered retirement plans.

Most Americans are not involved in decisions involving their workplace.

Most Americans are working longer hours than 30 years ago.

Most Americans are earning lower inflation adjusted real wages than 30 years ago.

The band has left the building.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 8:25 am

The new model is what we're seeing in SF - information workers with equity in the business - true worker democracy.

The times have changed. This isn't the 1950's.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 10:47 am

Analysis of work, pay and benefits overall, shows clearly that what Marcos has said is true.

Extrapolating the experience in one small sector, to the entire workforce, is a ludicrous fairy tale.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:10 am

Most employees I know who work in the information sector have little or no equity, and no say in the operations of their company.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:16 am

No, stable employment, retirement, health care and leisure time was killed, outsourced, insourced and arbitraged by the 1% who hate the 99%.

When did we vote to turn the US into a work camp where we compete against one another on pain of abject poverty in order to enrich the 1%?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:51 am

Excuse, me what? 75K a year is a "middle class" in SF? Sorry, NO in SF it's low income close to poverty, and one is better off on welfare, at least they'll get a cheap apartment and will work taxless under the table.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 1:11 am

After ten years of building progressive political power, in San Francisco, great to see that we're in a position to influence public policy.

Here's the position of the San Francisco nonprofit poverty industrial complex, professional activists responsible for leading progressives into this blind alley:

http://www.sanfranciscorising.org/a/

Avalos #1
Lee #2

Has progressive San Francisco lost its mind? Who will ever trust anyone who is so unsure of the political power they've built that they've got to hedge their meal ticket bets by supporting a neoliberal candidate like Ed Lee?

Why do progressives allow any of these activists to continue to get paid when they will jump off the progressive train and onto the train carrying the 1% to keep their jobs and get trickles down to the communities they claim to represent?

It speaks volumes about the poor quality of those paid to fight for us that our paid activists get punked by someone like Enrique Pearce.

I do not know that there is a translation of the word "accountability" from English to nonprofitese.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 5:30 am

When we regain a strong progressive 8 on the Board and start cutting off their damned money (especially when nonprofits support developer pork to get their cut of the fat) these parasitic faux nonprofits will learn accountability.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 9:27 am

doomed. Doomed. DOOMED!

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 9:37 am

Lurker made the most sensible post on here, and nobody responded to it because it doesn't jive with the progressive fantasy land.

"When we regain a strong progressive 8 on the Board...". What reality are you living in? How many losses do you have to take before you understand that your perception of what SF should be is not what the city's residents actually want? You would think that this year's mayoral race would serve as a pretty blaring example of that.

It is not 1999 anymore. You guys had your shot, and you absolutely sucked. The period of progressive political power in this town is in the history books next to a picture of Chris Daly. Just meditate on that for a second.

Good lord... like constant delusion from you.

Posted by Sambo on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:46 am

Don't confuse the incompetence of the labor and nonprofit sectors that twisted and dominated progressive politics into the ground with the illusion that disgust with that coalition and support for Lee somehow means that the details of Lee's agenda are now where San Franciscans are at.

That is as much true as the Republican congressional victories in 2010 mean that the country has joined the Tea Party.

And I agree, Eric's not being honest with himself or anyone else about the progressive collapse and the reasons for it. On the incoming fire side, the counterrevolution, as it were, began in December 2005 when Donald Fisher called Newsom in and read him the riot act. Along with Brown, they laid out a strategic plan to take back power.

Our side was too hooked up to government and corporate funding for their meal tickets and too willing to cut crappy deals with the 1%--Prop C, anyone--to know what was happening much less articulate a coherent response.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

As well as the general trend. Brown and his minions had to work -hard- to barely wrench control of City Hall back into their camp.

However the trend in San Francisco is clearly toward more and more progressive policies.

Just to give one example, almost all of the mayoral candidates are openly supporting municipalizing the power grid.

That would have been absolutely unimaginable a decade ago.

ps.. why bother responding to 'Sambo'? He's a complete moron that no one pays any attention to...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

and that the City must exercise eminent domain in a takeover of the SF Chronicle building and turn it into low income housing.

Like, these are things you really believe. I don't know how else to put this, but that is completely fooking insane, lol.

Lurker provided a laundry list of concrete, real examples of this CIty's move to center. You responded with candidates supporting municipalizing the power grid? He basically just lit you up for 7 touchdowns, and you got a short yardage field goal. Props to you, crazypants.

May want to take your message to Portland. You guys are done here.

Posted by Sambo on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 4:17 pm
Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 8:16 am

you want something that's anything but bumper-sticker-speak? then please, listen to this (it's only 2 minutes long). and then tell me honestly if you can't relate to anything she's saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

when you separate yourself from others, and think you're better than others, that's what speaks volumes. not everyone has had equal opportunity in this country. but if you've been fortunate to do well, and if you care about your fellow human being, you give back. sorry to say, but capitalism is a system that has bred greed over compassion. we created the system, and now, to use techno-speak, we can tweek it.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 11:15 am

It's wonderful--this is pure American, man--no more shutting up and just taking shit.

Just so you all know, I will be in the Bay Area, first time in eons, at Make Out Room, 11/25. Playing tunes from this: http://johnnyangelwendell.bandcamp.com/

Tim will not be singing at the gig. I have my limits.

JAW

Posted by Johnny A Wendell on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

SF was invaded with Yuppies in the early 80s.
People have been pushed out due to greedy landlords
and Ellis Act evictions.
The Chinese are conservative and they are gaining power
by coup.
Regular people have move out of the bay area because it
is too expensive.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 12:49 pm