Madison Police: Providing a Safe Place for Democracy

Recently we've seen a lot of iconic images of police brutality against peaceful protesters from all over the country.








From New York City to Tampa to Denver to Oakland and Davis, California, police are apparently under the illusion that violence is an appropriate response when the people exercise their constitutional right to free speech and peaceable assembly to petition for a redress of serious grievances.

But in Madison, Wisconsin, site of some of the biggest protests in the country earlier this year and just a few days ago, the police have by and large protected our right to peaceably assemble. This past Saturday, between 25,000 and 30,000 protesters demonstrated around the capitol square in Madison in support of the effort to recall Scott Walker, and according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the capitol police had "reported no arrests as of Saturday afternoon." No arrests. No brutality. No pepper spray.

On February 19 of this year, soon after Walker et al. launched their heinous all-out attack on workers, schools, and health care in Wisconsin, the Madison police went so far as to commend Wisconsin protesters on their good behavior:

SATURDAY'S CAPITOL SQUARE DEMONSTRATIONS

Law Enforcement Praises Protesters' Conduct

On behalf of all the law enforcement agencies that helped keep the peace on the Capitol Square Saturday, a very sincere thank you to all of those who showed up to exercise their First Amendment rights. You conducted yourselves with great decorum and civility, and if the eyes of the nation were upon Wisconsin, then you have shown how democracy can flourish even amongst those who passionately disagree. ... The goal of law enforcement has been to provide a safe environment for democracy to take place. That goal has been realized for yet another day.

"The goal of law enforcement has been to provide a safe environment for democracy to take place." That was very cool at the time, but in light of recent events, it's extraordinary. So let's turn it around, shall we?

The people of Wisconsin praise law enforcement officers' conduct.


I'm sure I'm not alone in my gratitude for the police who have supported our efforts and our right to peaceably assemble. Thank you for not pepper-spraying or clubbing us, for not telling us we can't exercise our constitutional rights. Thank you for treating us with dignity and respect rather than with violence and brutality. Thank you for not hurting our friends and family—the elderly and the very young—who have gathered with us. You are truly a shining example in what otherwise is a dark night of shame. Just as the rest of the nation has been inspired by Wisconsin protesters, we hope that the nation's law enforcement agencies will be similarly inspired by you.

Norquist Beyond the Thunderdome

Irresistible title on Huffington Post: "Patriotic Millionaires to Grover Norquist: 'Move to Somalia.'"

WASHINGTON — Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, millionaires who want the government to tax them more, met with foremost anti-tax guru Grover Norquist in Washington late Wednesday afternoon.... Patriotic Millionaires ... believe that America has been good to them and that it is their duty to give back. ...

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Norquist felt the group only represented liberal interests. "They were there with a heavy partisan message," Norquist told HuffPost Thursday. "The kinds of arguments I got from these old people weren't interesting when I was 12, the left has not advanced. These guys are Democratic Party hacks. [emphasis added]

Norquist, full-time lobbyist, president and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, who has never run for office much less been elected, is advocate-in-chief for the extreme right-wing no-taxes-not-ever, drown-government-in-a-bathtub political ideology. According to Norquist, paying taxes is not just a partisan message, but a "heavy partisan message." Since when is taxation a left-wing idea? As Mr. Norquist well knows, some Republicans actually believe in taxation. Norquist's hubris allows him to believe that it's up to him to determine what's left and what's right. No doubt he also believes that government is a left-wing idea. And democracy. You know, radical lefty stuff like that.

Norquist (age 55) calls the members of the Patriotic Millionaires who went to visit him "old people." "Old people"? Who does he think he's talking to? A bunch of never-trust-anyone-over-thirty teenagers? I wasn't able to find out exactly which group members met with Mr. Norquist, or exactly how old they are, but in what I found it didn't appear that any were more than about ten years older than old Norquist, and one or two were younger. Check out this photo of the visiting old-geezer delegation of millionaires. Funny how Norquist seems to fit right in with the old white men at the table, isn't it?

"The kinds of arguments I got from these old people weren't interesting when I was 12." Really? Aside from there being very few 12-year-olds who find the idea of taxation especially riveting, since when is "interesting to a 12-year-old" a criterion for the validity of an idea? Norquist is freely admitting here that what he found uninteresting as a 12-year-old is still uninteresting to him today. And he's complaining that the left hasn't advanced?

Indeed he is. Advanced how? No doubt Norquist wants the left to move on from the tired old ideas of justice, equity, and democracy. Is he suggesting that the left should advance as the right has "advanced"? The most casual observation of the Republican presidential debates is indication enough of how the right has "advanced."

And finally, Mr. Norquist labels the Patriotic Millionaires who met with him as "hacks." Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "hack" (as Norquist is using the word) as follows: "3 a : one who hires out his professional service : one who forfeits individual freedom of action or initiative or professional integrity in exchange for wages or other assured reward : HIRELING, MERCENARY." Uh yeah. Right. Those damned hireling mercenary millionaires who want people like themselves to pay more taxes. Unconscionable.

Norquist's response to the millionaires was the oh-so-predictable "there's nothing stopping you guys from paying higher taxes; just send a check to the government!" Eric Schoenberg, adjunct associate professor at Columbia Business School, pointedly asked Norquist: "Would you be willing to sign a pledge where you're willing to forgo all the benefits that government provides? Are you willing to sign a pledge that says you don't want the U.S. military to protect you? That you will refuse to contact the police if somebody steals from you? That you will refuse to contact the fire department if your house is on fire? Because that's the equivalent! Why should you get a free ride? Why should you benefit from my willingness to support the government?" Norquist claims that if he didn't have to pay any taxes for it, he would indeed forgo all of those things. Schoenberg responded: "There's an easy way to do that: move to Somalia!" There's an idea. But of course hard-core ideologue Norquist attributes Somalia's problems to "too much government."

Norquist needs to be banished somewhere where not only does he not benefit from any past or present government services, but neither does anyone he might want to do business with. Picture what Norquist's no-taxes/no-government world would look like: Mad Max on steroids. No wonder these guys want everybody to carry a gun. They prefer the rule of the gun to the rule of law. This nightmare scenario would make feudalism look "advanced."

Mr. Norquist, you are the hack. In fact, you are a greedy old hack who hasn't advanced any more than a selfish, immature, immoral 12-year-old. Paying taxes is not a partisan activity, sir. (Ooh, is it possible that I'm channeling Keith Olbermann?) Paying taxes is a matter of patriotism and duty and concern for the well-being of our country, all of our country. Your moral bankruptcy compels you to care only for yourself. Somalia is too good for you. You really deserve to live somewhere where there are no public services and no rule of law. I suggest you go beyond the Thunderdome.

Clipboard Army

At this moment I'm printing out petitions—lots of them—on my totally crappy printer that I have to feed one page at a time. Don't care. Gotta print 'em. Gotta do it.

I would totally love to be able to go stand on a street corner or go door to door collecting signatures, but alas, my body just won't go along for that ride. So here's the plan: I'm going to take my li'l ol' clipboard with me everywhere I go until we're done. I'm thinking about hanging out at my local coffee dive with my clipboard nice and visible. And I signed up to help the recall folks in the office.

To print out petitions to recall both Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (the lieutenant governor), go to United Wisconsin to Recall Walker. On the right side of the page, click on "Print a petition for recall." You may have to futz with landscaping, as I did, to get the petitions to print out correctly. (The actual petitions are pages 2 and 3. The rest of the pages are instructions and talking points.) Read all the instructions carefully and follow them carefully.

Ten thousand signatures a day. That's how many we need just to get phase 1 of the Recall done. That's a lot, folks. So no slacking off. This is big-time serious business. If we really want this, and I know we do, we're going to have to work really hard for it. Don't worry about what you can't do. Just do what you can, and encourage your friends to do the same. Don't be ashamed to be a member of the clipboard army. In fact, you should be proud. Very, very proud. After all, this is what democracy looks like.

Only Money Has Free Speech

As it is now, advertisers make the decisions about the media, not the people, because the media exist for the purpose of making money. . . .

The fact that people with money can hire lobbyists to represent them in Washington limits equity in the political system. Poor people don’t have the money for this—if they spent everything they had, they couldn’t get enough money together to equal the lobbying power of the rich. After an election, people don’t have access to government, because lack of money prevents them from having equal access to the people in power. That’s an inequity that’s built into the system. That’s where money is more powerful than people.

People do have a right to vote. But whom do they have a right to vote for? They have a right to vote for whoever is chosen. That’s our dilemma right now. It starts with how much it costs to run for office—it now costs $3 million to run for governor in Tennessee. That rules out a lot of people. So the choice is between two people who are willing to spend $3 million, which is not a democratic choice. You can say that the people have a right to vote, but they only have the right to choose between two millionaires or people whom other people with money are willing to back.

—Myles Horton, The Long Haul, © 1990, pp. 169-170

Immigration Uproar

An editorial on CNN Opinion purports to explain why the uproar over immigration has gone nationwide, but the authors, Audrey Singer and Jill H. Wilson, both at the Brookings Institution, left out some key factors. The factors they cite are the economic downturn and the increase of immigrant populations in urban and suburban areas from 2000 to 2010. "The friction in places unaccustomed to or unprepared for new inflows of foreigners, particularly those who are assumed to be present illegally, manifests itself in different ways."

Scapegoating is common when there's an economic downturn, because those who are actually to blame for the country's economic woes want to divert attention away from themselves. Fanning the flames of racism and xenophobia is a time-honored method of deflecting blame toward those who have the least power:

History is full of irrefutable evidence that when the economy gets bad, scapegoats are targeted, and the worst instincts of humanity reveal themselves. Alabama has asked its citizens to cross invisible boundaries of humanity—waging political battles on the backs of school children, cutting access to the most basic human needs, like water. —Ilyse Hogue.

Although most Americans favor reasonable, comprehensive immigration reform, the small percentage of those who don't are the ones who are the most vocal. They believe they have a personal, vested interest in driving people of color out of their communities. Their fear and hatred compels them. That hatred is validated and reinforced by the terrorizing raids of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

On the other hand, few of those who favor reasonable reform are as compelled or as vocal. Because they may not feel that they personally have a vested interest in the outcome, they keep silent while the xenophobes freely and prolifically spew their hatred.

Another reason anti-immigrant uproar has gone nationwide is that there's a lot of money being funneled into it. And capitalism, whose great golden calf is the bottom line unhindered by any moral compunctions, is always in favor of cheap, exploitable labor with no legal protections. Just ask the booming prisons-for-profit industry.

The Immigration Policy Center dispels the notion that immigrants are the cause of unemployment:

Immigrants are not the cause of unemployment in the United States. Empirical research has demonstrated repeatedly that there is no correlation between immigration and unemployment. In fact, immigrants—including the unauthorized—create jobs through their purchasing power and their entrepreneurship, buying goods and services from U.S. businesses and creating their own businesses, both of which sustain U.S. jobs. The presence of new immigrant workers and consumers in an area also spurs the expansion of businesses, which creates new jobs.

We have to realize that we do indeed, all of us, have a stake in what happens to the immigrants in our midst. We must raise our voices above the uproar and advocate for common sense and compassion. The immigrants among us are our brothers and sisters, and in answer to a very old question, we are indeed their keepers.

Privatized Profits, Socialized Risk

No matter how outraged you are, it's impossible to keep up (h/t Lily Tomlin). In last week's installment of "Let's Hope No One's Paying Attention," the Bank of America moved uninsured Merrill derivatives to its commercial bank's federally insured ledgers. In other words, if Bank of America fails, the FDIC must clean up its mess. And apparently the FDIC isn't any too happy about it. But the Fed is reportedly all in favor of the move. Matt Taibbi explains: "Essentially, an irresponsible debtor, B of A, is keeping a loan shark from breaking his legs by getting his rich parents to co-sign his loan. The parents in this metaphor would be the FDIC." Actually, the "parents" would be both the FDIC (Mom) and the Federal Reserve (Dad). But Dad is egging the miscreant on instead of calling him to account.

The Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation was created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, when Depression with a capital D had brought the country to its knees, leading to the bank panic of 1933. The Glass-Steagall Act separated investment banking from commercial banking in order to protect depositors (like you and me) from the risk inherent in investment banking. In effect, it prevented Wall Street from gambling with money deposited in commercial banks. And it created the FDIC to protect commercial banks' deposits.

In 1999, Republicans, enjoying a majority in both chambers of Congress and counting on nobody paying attention (all too often a safe bet), passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the part of Glass-Steagall that prohibited a single institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. During the debate over the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Rep. John Dingall (D-Michigan), eloquently warned of the consequences: "Under of this legislation ... liability in one area is going to fall over in the liability of the next. Taxpayers are going to be called upon to cure the failures that we're creating tonight. And it's going to cost a lot of money."

So the riskier Merrill Lynch liability is now spilling over into the federally insured liability of Bank of America's commercial operation. And, as predicted, taxpayers are being called upon to cure the failures created by Congress in 1999. Jonathan Weil reports:

Unfortunately, none of the actors here went on the record to explain what's going on. We don't know what kinds of derivatives these are, or even the dollars at stake, only that they are big enough to make the FDIC upset. The entire story would be playing out in secret were it not for some unidentified whistleblowers who seem to have this crazy idea that the public should be informed about what the regulators and Bank of America are up to.

We've been told the Dodd-Frank Act passed by Congress last year would end federal bailouts of large banks. It doesn't exactly do that, though. Taxpayer money still would be at risk in the event that the FDIC has to exercise its new resolution powers. ... While the law says the FDIC is supposed to tap the banking industry to pay for any eventual losses, it's hard to imagine the agency could ever charge enough to cover the costs from a failure at a company with $2.2 trillion of assets.

So in spite of the outcry of Occupy Wall Street, the behemoth Bank of America, in all of its too-big-to-fail glory, is still acting as though no one is paying any attention. Hiding behind the voluminous skirts of the FDIC, whose deposit insurance "is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government," B of A continues its dance of privatized profits backed by socialized risk. Where are the decriers of socialism when you need them?

ALEC Corporations: Boycott Them

Corporate members of the American Legislative Exchange Council write model legislation and pressure state legislatures to adopt it. These laws break unions, take away worker protections and environmental regulations, capture control of government for use of corporate interests at the expense of the public good. They include: AT&T, Kraft Foods, UPS, Walmart, Amazon.com, FedEx, Frito-Lay, HP, JC Penney, McDonalds, Microsoft, Miller Brewing Company, Outback Steakhouse, Sprint Nextel, Sony, Time Warner, United Airlines, Verizon, Visa, American Express, KFC/Taco Bell, Walgreens, and hundreds of others. Money you spend there will be used as weapons against democracy, against the middle class, against the environment, against civil liberties. Check the list before you buy. Shop at the smallest, most local places.