Losing the argument? Play the class card

Photo by Luke Thomas

Here in San Francisco, a k a Progressive Land, it's not patriotism that's the last refuge of scoundrels, it's the class struggle. In the exchange of letters below, H. Brown plays the completely irrelevant class card ("Mr. Anderson remains an apologist for the rich, reactionary and oppressive") in a discussion about the Josh Wolf issue.

He evidently thought that would be enough to trump my fact-based argument about the anarchist demonstration that left a city cop seriously injured.

Bitter a better tag
Mr. Anderson remains an apologist for the rich, reactionary and oppressive. He is correct that Delagnes accused the anarchists (they who rock) of assaulting the cop and burning the car. He does not mention that the POA head backed off both statements. Most likely the officer got in the way of baton wielding colleague. There was no fire. The central point here is the government's attack upon the press. Making the cops the victims is disingenous at best. They are proven liars and any conversation should begin with that fact. As you recall, when they murdered the kid in the attack last year, the same truthful Delagnes announced the kid had fired a gun at them and the cops had the gun. Later in the day, they admitted their lie.

Welcome to Fog City, Rob.
h. brown
San Francisco
September 27, 2006

Cops and Progressives
Dear Editor:
h. brown has the facts wrong, as usual. In a letter to the editor of the SF Chronicle on Aug. 8, 2006, the President of the Police Officers Association claims that officer Peter Shields "was nearly beaten to death by the 'peaceful' protesters. He was hospitalized for more than a month with a fractured skull and other injuries." And labeling my letter as "angry" does not accurately portray either its content or its tone, which was more of puzzlement than anger.

Rob Anderson
San Francisco
September 26, 2006

Arrogant cops and angry Anderson
Dear Editor:
Mr. Anderson is incorrect in stating that demonstrators attacked Officer Shields. At least the police haven't made that claim. He is also wrong when he says there was an attempt to burn a police car. Again, the cops haven't made that claim.

Sadly, he's correct that many of us no longer respect the police. That's about many things but the crux of the problem today is the department's refusal to institute and maintain regular foot patrols around the City.

The SFPD has more officers than at any time in their history. They make more money than they've ever made and are better equipped and trained. Their guns carry twice as many bullets and they were kevlar armor. They don't walk foot patrols for the same reason they don't fly helicopters or man kiosks in high crime areas. The reason is that these things are dangerous and their union has done a terrific job at limiting their members' exposure to danger. Unfortunately, their absence makes it more dangerous for us.

Last night a couple of friends and I had to dodge a police car on Market street. It was driving down the middle of the sidewalk! Yep, crowded sidewalk between 5th and 6th. I waved a 'Krissy for Congress' sign at them and shouted to ask them if this was their idea of a 'foot patrol'. They just gave me a dirty look and never slowed.

Cops are coddled here. The only ones worth a damn are the Patrol Specials (who walk)and there are only 41 of them.

h. brown

San Francisco
September 26, 2006

On the other hand...
Dear Editor:
What the city's left demonstrates by embracing Josh Wolf's cause is that they have little respect for the San Francisco Police. Completely unmentioned is the fact that a city cop was seriously injured in the demonstration that Wolf filmed last July. Officer Peter Shields got a fractured skull when he was attacked by protesters, and someone tried to burn a police car.

And why Green Ross Mirkarimi, a potential candidate against Mayor Newsom next year, is endorsing Wolf's dubious cause is also puzzling. An anarchist's alleged right to withhold evidence of a crime is more important to the titular head of San Francisco's Green Party than the well-being of city cops?

Regards,
Rob Anderson

San Francisco
September 25, 2006

"Roundabouts" and Cycling in Britain and Berkeley

Hello, Cycling Magazine Editor Keith Bingham. Are you aware of this website? (http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/roundabouts.html) It's an informative discussion about the serious hazards roundabouts cause cyclists in Britain. In Berkeley the anti-car bicycle coalition greenies, along with territorial residentialists, have promoted small (10'-25' wide) traffic circle installations in residential intersections all over town. Over the last 5 years the city has installed 40 hazardous bicycle circles, which, as this discussion points out, cause serious conflict between cyclists and cars. Those Berkeley intersections were much safer for cyclists before the circle installations, including those intersections that had no traffic controls, such as stop or yield signs. But try explaining that logical bicycle safety fact to the anti-car bicycle crusaders who've hijacked and now dominate bicycle planning in the US. Hopefully cyclists will educate themselves about the hazards caused by dubious traffic calming schemes irresponsibly promoted by the anti-car bicycle extremists, such as traffic circles and roundabouts, and actively oppose them in the future.

Regards,

California Bicycle Advocate