“I’m going to wear a powder blue fucking suit, and a white shirt and a red tie and a fucking breast cancer pin…”
Comes now the fight loser “Michael” (who appears to be on a first-name-only basis with DJ “JV“):
“First of all, I’d like to aPOlogize to AC Transit…”
It goes on and on, Black History Month, 5150, bygones, veterans, arthritis, murder, parole, apologies, brothers, stolen money, leaking, ass kicking, Strike Force(?) Showtime TV, 10,000 kids, cocaine - it goes on and on.
Can’t remember which morning-zoo / dawg-pound joint this screengrab came from. Oh yes, it was from WILD 94.9 FM:
Now-famous 62-year-old Bay Arean Thomas Bruso (akaEpic Beard Man, Tom Swift, and Tom Vietnam) picks fights as he rides AC Transit in the East Bay, of course, (incident video now available in high def) but he also has been known to take BART to visit San Francisco from time to time. For example, here he is near Market Street back when he was just 48, as seen by Caliber photographer Troy Holden:
“Back in 1996, I was working at the intersection of 2nd & Market. Each and every day the man pictured above would walk by my shop, wave a loaf of sourdough in my face, and scream obscenities about the San Francisco 49′ers.”
Let’s find out, courtesy of footage of Tom at an Oakland A’s game last year. Is this a proper use of a Taser? I don’t know. It ended up being a time-saver for the cops, certainly. Would they have felt justified in shooting Tom with bullets at that moment? Obviously not. The question after any Taser discharge is what would you have done if you didn’t have the Taser, right?
Speaking of Tasers and the East Bay, check out this excellent report from Demian Bulwa about how the BART Police Department ran the initial stages of its Taser program.
That’s a poorly-run operation. What about the California Highway Patrol? They seem to do be doing better with Tasers these days. For them, a Taser is just another arrow in the quiver. Check it, a CHP officer on San Francisco’s Octavia Boulevard with his two primary weapons, a Smith & Wesson Model 4006 semi-automatic and a TASER International X26:
So why shouldn’t the SFPD have Tasers? We already trust them with handguns and assault rifles, right? We’ll end up with a few more lawsuits but with fewer dead civilians. Sounds like a win, overall.
And finally, let’s hear from the RAND Coporation. They pondered the use of Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) for the NYPD and had this to say:
“Our key less-than-lethal force recommendations:
We reviewed reports of about 455 NYPD shootings from 2004 to 2006 and identified 25 cases where we judged that had a less-lethal weapon been available, officers may have used it to subdue suspects instead of using their handguns.
We also note that when other departments have deployed Conducted Energy Devices or CEDs, commonly known by the brand name TASER, injuries to both suspects and officers have declined.
We recognize that some groups have criticized the deployment of CEDs, raising issues of safety, overuse, and misuse. As such we recommend that the NYPD undertake a pilot program for the deployment of CEDs.
Such a program should allow patrol officers in selected precincts to be trained and equipped with CEDs that can incapacitate suspects from a distance. We believe there is evidence that if NYPD officers had access to this device, some number of officer-involved shootings could be avoided, and injuries to both suspects and police officers will decline. A carefully designed pilot program conducted over six to 12 months in a few select precincts would give the department enough information to determine whether the devices would alter the way the NYPD officers apply force and whether the weapons could be used properly.”
Profoundly nativist, certainly. Racist? Well, as always, You Make The Call. (I mean, the bulk of the people we’re talking about here aren’t coming from Europe, that’s for sure.) A vote on this matter is on the agenda and CAPS is trying to pack the chambers with their supporters right now - we’ll just have to bide our time to see how this one turns out.
See how much sense this absurd YouTube spot makes to you. (Them immigrants don’t have two hands and two feet like us fine Americans, apparently….)
Today’s screed from the nativists. Enjoy:
“San Francisco Supervisors Play ‘Race Card’ in Response to TV Spot Linking Population Growth and Environmental Degradation
Supervisors’ Position is at Odds with Legendary Environmentalists, Including Gaylord Nelson and David Brower
San Francisco Board of Supervisors members Eric Mar and David Campos are attacking a Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) ad campaign connecting population growth to environmental degradation. Mar and Campos have scheduled time for the Board of Supervisors to consider a measure condemning the ads today, Tuesday November 10th. CAPS will deliver the latest research regarding population growth and its effects on our environment to the Board of Supervisors prior to the meeting.
Mar and Campos’ position is at odds with a plethora of research and a long list of legendary environmentalists including the founder of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson and the Sierra Club’s first Executive Director, David Brower. “Often, when someone doesn’t have the facts on their side, they resort to name calling,” explained Diana Hull, Executive Director of CAPS. “Obviously, this is an emotional issue for Mr. Mar and Mr. Campos but as community leaders, they should know better. In America, we welcome all viewpoints.”
The ad campaign makes the point that the number one factor driving U.S. population growth is immigration. Further, when immigrants come to America, their carbon footprint expands to four times what it was in their home countries. The ads suggest that curbing immigration isn’t the solution to global warming but it’s a start.
Along with many highly respected environmentalists, both Gaylord Nelson and David Brower highlighted immigration-driven population growth as a major factor affecting our environment. The 2008 CIS study on which CAPS’ ads are based is the latest in a litany of research reinforcing the common sense conclusion that population growth affects our environment. CAPS’ calls to Mr. Mar’s and Mr. Campos’ offices to introduce them to the research and the facts went unreturned.
“There are many daunting issues facing California and the San Francisco area, so I’m surprised that Mr. Mar and Mr. Campos see this as the best use of taxpayer time,” commented Hull. “With 12% unemployment and families having trouble putting food on the table, it seems like job creation would be a better use of the Board of Supervisors time.”
This attack on the ads comes just hours before the campaign is scheduled to conclude. However, based on the positive feedback CAPS received from San Francisco residents, Hull is considering bringing the ads back to the San Francisco area.
For more information about CAPS or to view the ad campaign, please visit www.CAPSweb.org
So that might be on your mind the next time you visit this small neighborhood of “minimal bungalows.”
Another thing that might strike you about Westwood Highlands was that it was one of the earliest planned residential communities in the United States, where property owners all would agree to be governed by a commons set of controls and restrictions. At the very least, that means “No Black People” is what that means.
Of course WestHigh wasn’t the only place in the world where this was the case, but it’s sort of funny when “born and raised in San Francisco” NIMBYs start talking about all the rules and customs they honor, they always leave this history out.
Here you go, this is typical. Just substitute “black people” for “in-law apartments” and “white people” for “single-family.”
IN-LAW UNIT AMNESTY “Editor — Mayor Willie Brown’s recent re-election pledge to attempt to legalize the city’s illegal in-law apartments is unjust. Almost a hundred years ago many of San Francisco’s neighborhoods were designed and zoned for single-family use.
Our neighborhood, Westwood Highlands Homeowners, was so designated in 1924. Its status as such is further ensured by the mandatory covenants, controls and restrictions to which all Westwood Highlands residents must agree. Moreover, Proposition M, the voter mandate that states that the diversity of San Francisco’s neighborhoods be preserved, would be violated under this amnesty plan. People who move to single-family areas like ours because they enjoy the safety, convenience, parking and uncongested atmosphere that our single-family tracts have to offer have every right to do so.
In recent years, several city politicians have floated this illegal unit amnesty plan. In every case the plans have been abandoned. Mayor Brown should also give up on this unfair, unwise and unjust idea.
DAVID BISHO
President, Westwood Highlands Homeowners Association San Francisco”
You see? It’s the same argument. “My neighborhood was founded on the idea of ______, therefore it can never change.”
