Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Will Madison be our Cairo?

Thread: 

[Leaving this stick again. Readers, please post updates in comments. --lambert]

[Readers, Votermom asks What can we do? Please post numbers to call, things to do in the comments. Thanks! --lambert]

You won't find it on its front page section "Protests for Democracy", but CNN is reporting that 15 more school districts will close today [#104] as teachers make their way to Madison, WI to join the protest against Gov. Walker's anti union bill. Wisconsin teachers call in sick

At least 15 school systems in Wisconsin canceled Thursday's classes because teachers and other public employees will continue protests at the state Capitol over a bill that would strip them of most of their collective bargaining rights and increase their contributions for benefits.

From MSNBC we get a report noting some Green Bay Packers weighing in: Madison protests

"As a publicly owned team we wouldn't have been able to win the Super Bowl without the support of our fans," reads a statement signed by seven current and former players. "It is the same dedication of our public workers every day that makes Wisconsin run. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families. But now in an unprecedented political attack Governor Walker is trying to take away their right to have a voice and bargain at work."

I heard a trucker on a show on Sirius Left radio say he was disconnecting his trailer and taking his cab and driving from Kentucky to Madison to join the protests over union busting.

Will Madison be our Cairo?

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Lex on

that is, of course, being studiously ignored by American media.

From what i've read, there's no actual budgetary reason for this. It's union busting plain and simple, and the WI governor is ready to use the national guard to break the unions/replace the union workers.

That's right, he's talking about mobilizing the national guard to take over the work of public employees...and yet nobody's crying "Socialism! Socialism!" over that plan.

Here's to the union workers in WI who may actually understand that more than a century of labor organizing is in terrible danger and they're the ones on the front line.

Also, interesting about the trucker. I talk to a fair number of them and they're often really upset about labor issues. Unfortunately they're mostly independent, but should they ever get together and fight, they're the ones most likely to bring America to its knees in a week or less by strike. (And nobody gets in a truck and drives it around quickly, so scabs aren't even a possibility...)

“Don’t believe them, don’t fear them, don’t ask anything of them” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

But believes in unions and called for other truckers to join him.

And yes, Anderson Cooper et al should get to Madison. I'm going to be checking flights myself.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by lambert on

Radio?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by regulararmyfool on

Much more importantly, he has the Koch brothers funding the experiment in how to destroy unions. They bought his seat and the Republican legislators for chump change. That is all it is, just another Koch experiment. They run a lot of experiments to see how much they can get away with.

When they own the legislatures, the tea party, and cooperate with Murdock and the propaganda people, they try to go as far as possible as fast as possible.

Just plain evil trash that should be arrested and sent to Gitmo to be questioned about their treasonable activities and all of their co terrorists. Then be tried under the RICO laws and have all asset seized.

These people have no rights, they only have money. Break them and the gridlock in politics will soon unravel as more of the conspirators are off to the pen and bankruptcy.

Not going to happen, Obama is too big of a coward to even think of doing the right thing. He will order American civilian's murdered but he hasn't got the guts to take on his fellow criminals.

With the blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Act, he could order the arrest and incarceration of hundreds of co conspirators just in politics, much less the gangsters in banking and insurance. No charges filed, just incarceration and torture.

Hey, he's OK with the treatment of Bradley Manning, but then again he sort of despises the little people. He's got a streak of yellow that is a mile wide. He feels that if a half breed can become president, then anyone who isn't "successful" is a slacker.

Self exile

Submitted by lambert on

... and put it in the sidebar. I hope he doesn't mind...

"Don't wipe your ass with Koch Brothers TP!"

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Eureka Springs's picture
Submitted by Eureka Springs on

Al Maven!

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

I might not be able to leave work to go to Madison or get a flight, but we should see what we can do for the protesters. We have some bad bills here in Montana, but we have a Democratic governor. I should try to get people her to at least go to Helena.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by lambert on

... but Corrente is under a Creative Commons license where you always repost with attribution (but without asking for permission).

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

affinis's picture
Submitted by affinis on

I think the most important thing right now is probably warm bodies.
Wisconsin is ground zero for labor at this point. I'm a WI state employee (at University of Wisconsin-Madison).
Housing availability Facebook page: Madison Protester Housing Available.
Also, if you're willing to crash on a couch (or to use a sleeping bag) some of the Madison Community Coop houses might be an option.
The protests have continued to grow in size (police estimated 40,000 for the 5:00 rally tonight, but having been there, I think that's a substantial underestimate - I would guess at least 60,000). Many protestors are staying in the capital building around the clock (i.e. overnight).
Analysis of provisions of the bill relating to collective bargaining.
A few of relevant labor websites here, here, and here.
Wisconsineye has some good testimony from a listening session about the bill (though some people have difficulty getting video from this site to play) - under search enter "Budget Repair Bill Listening Session".

Submitted by gob on

Yes, the Times is covering the story . I love this quote from Gov. Walker:

“Obviously there is a lot of protest out there, but in the end, it’s the right thing to do,” Mr. Walker said, adding, “We didn’t get elected to worry about the politics.”

Let's see now, the people assemble peacefully in protest, the political system we call "democracy" is supposed to translate the people's will into action, politics is a dirty word, so the "right thing to do" is ignore their protests.

No, you didn't get elected to worry about the welfare of the people,, that's plain to see, Mr. Walker.

We will push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.

zot23's picture
Submitted by zot23 on

It is the right thing to do, the underlining question is "right for whom?"

Sure as hell ain't the 25,000 sitting outside the capitol building.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

show. 5PM to 8PM eastern time. "Make it Plain" also has a Facebook page.

Will this be Obama's PATCO?

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by jawbone on

They're in fundraising mode, which means extra time with Amy Goodman. Today, Noam Chomsky was on and offered some pithy analyses.

Yes, this a very good place to donate money, if you can. Possibly the only real news organiztion being broadcast, in limited outlets but on some local public radio stations as well as Pacifica.

1) Just follow the money. Studies have shown government policy follows the source of political funding. (Forgive me for ever listening to and believing Clinton saying it was important to bring corporations on board, to get some of their money in order to fight against the power of the Right. Either he didn't get it, or he was also complicit. And I was bamboozled.)

Hence the war on the middle class by the Uberwealthy. They get it. If the middle class has disposable funds, it can influence governmental policy. The wealth redistribution upward not only gives the Uberwealthy more money to play with, it gives more ability to leverage power and control.

2) The wealth disparity is a direct result of government actions, either through legislation or, since Reagan, government failure to enforce laws on the books. Reagan's breaking of the air controllers' union led to the private sector trying the same thing -- and getting no pushback from Reagan. Or Bush I, little from Clinton, none from Bush II, bringing us to Obama who ditched his promise to support check off union formation.

3) Obama's naming a GE exec to create more jobs in the US is not going to lead to more jobs. Obama named as the head of his study group on creating new jobs the head of GE -- a corporation has excelled at moving its jobs, about 50%, off shore. Do not expect him to be very effective at creating jobs within the US. (Do not expect anything good for the middle and working classes from Obama. My take.)

4) The huge exec compensations are a result of the government changing corporate governance rules (CEO's can appoint most of the members of their corporations' boards and thus have direct control over their compensation). Again, the political funding came from the corporations and their extremely highly paid execs. The corporations' leaders do not work for their shareholders as much as for their own enrichment and increase in power.

5) Elections: Vote strategically. Chomsky wrote about what Obama was really like before the primaries even began. Here too, follow the money -- the big money, the early money--Obama as we now know was the Banksters' man from before the gitgo.

He rec'd in '08, if in a swing state vote against the extreme conservatives, but know the altervative will disappoint and do what his or her money suppliers want him or her to do. Otherwise, vote as left as you can find on the ballot. Same advice now.

What is imperative is continued actions such as are happening in Madison.

7) A wage freeze is essentially a tax increase. Obama.s freeze on wages of Federal employees has placed a tax increase on hundreds of thousands of middle and lower middle class workers -- at the same time Obama negotiated one the biggest tax reductions and tax giveaways to the Uberwealthy. What a guy, this conservative neo-lib corporatist (my comment)!!

8- The ginned up attacks on public employees is a deflection from the crimes of the economic sector players and the enabling of that by government. The attacks on public employees themselves, their wages and pensions, their health benefits, and especially their unions are all part of the Uberwealthy and Big Corporations' efforts to deflect attention from the outright theft of monies from taxpayers by the Big Banksters and others who enabled the economic meltdown. Chomsky said that while it is based on long term Republican attacks on public employees, the breadth of those now taking part in that assault in the past few months is breathtaking. The knock on benefit is that the last remaining strong unions will be weakened or knocked out of commission.

Public employee bashing -- it's not just for Republican rightwingers anymore! Come on down, Obama! Come on down, Andy Cuomo! Come on down, Dem politicians!

Lots more to hear on this Democracy Now! program -- and most of their programs, of course.

~~~~

Today's actual news and discussion time was about an hour and a half--audio and video, plus transcript soon, available at Democracy Now!. (I can't find a URL for the current show, so possibly getting to this show, Thurday, February 17, will require going into the archives going forward.)

PS - DemNow! is followed on WBAI in NYC by a homeopathist, but today he has on a doctor who is breaking down how the Chamber of Commerce has been undermining American workers. They're discussing how the CofC began working against FDR, against Rachel Carson, etc., and, now, against WiliLeaks and any to all of their supporters. At least ChamberGate is getting wide coverage on WBAI.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

Fighting Bob

He says Ed Schultz is showing up today. He also says that national unions are putting money into Wisconsin. For what? He also says that the Democratic Party in the state has been pretty quiet as has the National Democrats. Surprise. Surprise.

Alex Bennett said on his radio show this morning that Gov Walker put a whole bunch of tax cuts in the budget creating a crisis so that he could then break the state employee's union. I haven't found a source for that. Maybe by exploring the Wisconsin blogs.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by jawbone on

MTM links to!

Other Targets: Walker is not asleep. He is also trying to break-up the UW system so the Madison campus would be private! Guess who supports him--"Biddy" Martin! Good god Biddy, read the history of this great state institution!

Can he or any state do that with a landgrant college?

With a few exceptions (including Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), nearly all of the Land-Grant Colleges are public. (Cornell University, while private, administers several state-supported contract colleges that fulfill its public land-grant mission to the state of New York.)

Cornell has a tie to Wisconsin, btw:

Under the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (120 km2) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions described above. Under provision six of the Act, "No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act," in reference to the recent secession of several Southern states and the currently raging American Civil War.

Morrill Hall, on the campus of the University of Maryland, College Park (a land-grant university), is named for Senator Morrill, in honor of the act he sponsored.After the war, however, the 1862 Act was extended to the former Confederate states; it was eventually extended to every state and territory, including those created after 1862. If the federal land within a state was insufficient to meet that state's land grant, the state was issued "scrip" which authorized the state to select federal lands in other states to fund its institution.[5] For example, New York carefully selected valuable timber land in Wisconsin to fund Cornell University.[6] The resulting management of this scrip by the university yielded one third of the total grant revenues generated by all the states, even though New York received only one-tenth of the 1862 land grant.[7] Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17,400,000 acres (70,000 km2) of land, which when sold yielded a collective endowment of $7.55 million.[8] The state of Iowa was the first to accept the terms of the Morrill Act which provided the funding boost needed for the fledgling Ames College (now Iowa State University.) (My emphasis)

So, who knows what someone like Walker could do....

Submitted by admin_hipparchia on

fascinating piece of history.

land grant colleges [or t least have been] hugely important in providing higher education for the masses. it doesn't surprise me at all to see these crooks going after them.

Submitted by jawbone on

in Egypt (also Iraq, elsewhere).

There was much more to building the protest numbers than Facebook and Twitter. Much, much more.

Link to The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Very good day of programming.

Tweeting the Revolution
Thursday, February 17, 2011

Moustafa Ayad, former Pittsburgh Post-Gazette staff writer and native of Egypt, talks about his work training journalists and activists in Egypt and Iraq to use social media, and also discusses the protests in those countries and throughout the region.

This could be very important for us here, but the US gov't is paying for this kind of work in other countries. Mention was made of 5 years (iirc) work in Egypt. How to use use new media, but also the importance of on the ground, in people's living rooms meetings and discussions.

Ayad talked about protests going on in Iraq -- protesters being killed for protesting.

I caught tail end, and audio will not be up for a little while, but this could be really useful for those of us who view our nation as being almost as information deprived as place like Egypt. Not "state" TV here, just almost completely state subservient (totally corporation subservient!).

I've got to hear this whole segment.

(Right now Phil Angelides is on speaking about the misleading info about Fannie and Freddie. He's on every Thursday this month. Brian Lehrer is asking the Repub talking point questions about F&F's role in the Big Shit Pile. As if he doesn't know they're lies! He was better in the Egypt segment; must be some kind of group pressure on everyone in broadcasting.

Angelides was accurate and fair in his discussion of what role the F&F's did play. )

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

She's a software designer and marketing person. When I lamented that no one was protesting the creepy birthed bill and home guard bill, she said, "Let's use social media." Don't know if that will work in Montana with an old population but I'm willing to figure this out because the corporate media will not give us the time of day.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by lambert on

See #180 for some recent history (more coming).

I think that the social media can be excellent as a front medium, but I'm extremely wary of them as a way of creating social capital. For one thing, both Facebook and twitter are wired up the yin yang from the usual suspects; that makes them utterly unsuitable for planning. For another, they're very susceptible to disinformation and trolling (see under 2008, D primaries). I really think that social capital is built the old-fashioned way, by face to face contact (or by writing together, as here, for such a long period as to seem face to face). It's the human network that counts, and not the social medium, as shown by the Egyptians effortless shift from medium to medium as Murbark clamped down.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

Baby, baby, let me sleep on it.
Meatloaf

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by lambert on

... if you know that's what it is.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

Found it. Walker Can't Game System Without Budget Crisis

Capital times Excerpt:
To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes -- or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues -- the “crisis” would not exist.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by lambert on

.... from the teachers and the public unions.

That's what I really like about the Rs -- They're so nakedly, refreshingly honest in their desire for looting. No hand-wringing or obfuscation about it!

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by jawbone on

will just say it's "opinion." Nothing to see there....

My relatives in WI just say "Walker is evil."

That seems to be a term being applied quite a bit nowadays.

But this is incredibly glaringly obvious -- but he'll get away with it if the Repub backing media cover up that aspect of the story.

What slimey crook! How dare he? How DARE he?

Yeah, I know: Because he's a Republican. A very conservative rightwing Republican.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

"Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Obama said in an interview with the Milwaukee-based news station TMJ.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/17/ob...

Asked about Obama, [ local union president, Jeff] Moats recalled a speech last year in which the president expressed support for a Rhode Island school board that had voted to fire teachers at a struggling school. Subsequently, the Central Falls High firings were rescinded. But he and others here said Obama's words still rankled.

Administration officials say Obama's policies have spurred progress on a host of fronts, leading states across the country to take steps toward performance pay, charter school expansion and tenure reform.

Many Republicans say they applaud elements of Obama's reform agenda that are at odds with union traditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

Obama starts out by saying: "As a general proposition that everybody has to make some adjustments to new fiscal realities. If we want to avoid lay offs....we had to impose a freeze..those kind of adjustments are the right things to do."
Then he goes into "On the other hand" this is an assault on unions and these folks, folksy, folks are our friends, yadda yadda.

No not everybody needs to make some adjustments. No, this need not be the new fiscal reality. Congress could revise the Federal Rserve Act as they did in 1934 to allow the Fed to give money to the states to keep people at full employment.

This is the Shock Doctrine and he knows it.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

including cease to issue debt and simply deficit spend without it. The main point is that it costs the Government nothing to create and distribute money. It can revenue share every State out of its current trouble. It can employ everyone who wants to work. It can fund Social Security without any FICA payments.

We need to tell our Reps that we know that and that if they don't do these things we're going to primary them out of office.

wuming's picture
Submitted by wuming on

Ultimately the solution lies in D.C.

Submitted by jawbone on

Hillary's speech on internet freedom for standing with his back to her while she spoke.

He was removed, beaten, and jailed.

Photos, write up.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.

Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, "So this is America?" Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault. (My emphasis)

This is what happens in this nation when there are not sufficient numbers to intimidate the Powers That Be and their enforcers.

Via Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla.

Submitted by Lex on

McGovern turned his back on Clinton for the speech, was then confronted by the security guys/cop, and then forcibly removed. That's when he started talking, saying "This is America(?)"

“Don’t believe them, don’t fear them, don’t ask anything of them” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Submitted by jawbone on

uniformed men.

I don't believe he was heckling; it seems he was making one statement before being removed and temporarily disappeared.

"So this is America, this is America" he said. I didn't quite catch the last few words.

Heckling? I see it as just not going quietly into that good...detention.

Submitted by jawbone on

did not do anything as McGovern was being dragged out. He feels, since she was talking about respecting peaceful protest in other countries, she could have asked the guards to leave him be, that his was an example of non-violent protest.

It would have been a US example of how authority can react....

I agree.

Eureka Springs's picture
Submitted by Eureka Springs on

Just what one should expect from Madeleine Albrights successor. http://wn.com/Madeleine_Albright__500000...'WORTH_IT‘
Just what one should expect from an SOS who in recent days supported Mubarak then Suleiman the torturer. The very same SOS who warned US college students if they want a job in government someday they best not discuss wikileaks at all on places like facebook. Don't exercise free speech if you want to work for meeee!

Step down, Hillary… right now, today!

Submitted by jawbone on

one example of what happens when people in this nation, ruled by hypocritical leaders who claim to admires protests in Egypt and especially Iran, then stifle, corral, permit out of existence protest in this nation.

"Will Madison be our Cairo?" Without sufficient numbers, it will be Egypt 2008, hopefully without the disappearances....

A single person, standing with a message on his t-shirt, at a speech is hauled away forcefully by the police or whatever the guards were. Since he ended up in jail, most likely police.

To protest here, there must be huge numbers. In WI right now, there are some pretty impressive numbers. But, just wait, Walker will get try to get the police or Nat'l Guard involved if this continues.

Right now, no Dems would attend the state Senate session where a vote is scheduled on Walker's anti-collective bargaining legislation; the police are "out trying to find the Democratic senators," per NPR hourly news round up. At least one Dem is needed for a quorum. It's 19 R's to 14 D's. I doubt five R's will break away from Walker's legislative assault on workers' rights.

Submitted by lambert on

([#54]). Precisely and exactly.

I can make that connection myself. But it still needs to be stated clearly.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

yes, ok fine, Clinton is the evilist of all evils in all evildom. But not pausing her speech while some security guys removed a protester = "Suleiman the torturer"?

From the video you can't tell who the security guys were (Secret Service? riot police? venue rent-a-cops? Bill and Chelsea in uniform?), and they seemingly weren't under Clinton's direction (ahh, but perhaps she was telepathically forcing the security guys to abuse him!). If all the protester was really doing was standing with his back turned, they should have let him stay, yeah.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

This reminds me very much of Kerry standing by during the "Don't tase me bro" incident (thereby helping to normalize tasering I might add) instead of exercising some leadership from the podium. I don't know the auditorium layout, but if Hillary could see the incident, and did nothing, she failed in leadership as much as Kerry. Plus, I'm ticked because I'm told this was a good speech, too, and it's a shame to cast a pall over it.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

and interpolating, it looks like she did see them come in. The bruises, scratches, getting beat up part didn't happen in front of the camera or within shot of the microphones, so it's reaching fairly far to hold her responsible for that.

If Clinton stopped her speeches every time someone protested, she'd never get to make any. In any case, I wasn't objecting to the critcism at all, (they should have left the protester there, he certainly wasn't hurting anyone or even disrupting anything until the security people grabbed him) but the essentially OFB-type reasoning:

Clinton mentions RFK ==> Clinton to assassinate Obama!
Clinton doesn't pause speech ==> She's Suileman!

Some steps missing, in both. It's not that I'm unwilling to believe that Clinton could be as bad as name-your-elite-dictator, but this doesn't really make the case.

It was a pretty good speech. Far better than anything I've heard from other Dems lately (except the WI ones fleeing in support of unions, go WI!). And yeah, there are some legit criticisms that can be made based on her other statements (like some of the Wikileaks ones, which she covered in her speech but not quite satisfactorily in my mind, and I'm totally not one of the Assange-is-God crowd). All in all, not sure how much of a pall there really is bc of this.

There are many ills in the world, and many evils, but they're not all equal.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by admin_hipparchia on

If Clinton stopped her speeches every time someone protested, she'd never get to make any.

probably true for most politicians, especially on college campuses, but there's still a lot of clinton derangement syndrome running loose in the world, and in hillary's case it's probably compounded by the fact that there's still a lot of misogyny running loose in the world.

and yes, lambert, it was a good speech, even though i didn't agree with all of it. it's been a while since i listened to it, but she gave a speech a few years on privacy rights in general, including online, and while i don't remember much detail from that speech now, it seems to me that she hasn't become any worse on privacy rights in the intervening time [none of this 'moving to the center' crap, thank goodness].

Submitted by lambert on

... and "being dragged away by the police," let alone "tasered." Seems there are a few missing steps there, too. (And yes, it's exactly the fact of the missing steps that made me call the comment out to begin with.)

It would be nice if there were some sort of intermediate stage, for example, between inviting whoever up for a colloquy (incentivizing it) and not taking any notice at all (in each case we have here normalizing police behavior that's at the very least iffy).

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by admin_hipparchia on

he was hustled out of the room in short order, and without much fuss, at least at first, but there's not enough on that particular video to see what else happened.

coupla things about being arrested while protesting... you can go calmly and quietly, like the single payer advocates did in the baucus hearing [and at later events]; you can remain calm, even totally passive, forcing the police to carry you, in which case most courts have upheld the use of pain techniques, including tasers [and batons/nightsticks and some other techniques too], to coerce you to get up and walk; or you can raise as much ruckus as possible, particularly popular with protestors who are trying for maximum media attention and/or highlighting police brutality / police state mentality.

i watched probably every single video on the web in the first few days after the 'don't tase me, bro' incident, since it happened here in florida, and i'm convinced that that guy was in the third category, purposely egging on the officers who arrested him. can't tell from this video which of the three categories this protestor would be in.

an interesting side note about the use of tasers, and one that all protestors need to be aware of -- police departments claim [and it could even be true] that the use of tasers as a pain-compliance technique has sharply reduced the workers comp costs for injuries that come from officers having to tackle and carry protestors when they're removing them from an area. courts everywhere have upheld this as a legitimate use, and police departments everywhere use this as a selling point when they're trying to convince their cities and counties to buy more tasers and pay for the training. it's an easy sell -- workers comp costs and career-limiting [or -ending] injuries are a big factor in police [and other public safety] work.

for the record, i'm totally against tasers as a pain-compliance tool [they were originally a less-lethal alternative to guns, and imnsho they should never be used any other way], but the reality is that if you're going to be involved in a physical protest, even peacefully, you might get tasered. be prepared.

Submitted by lambert on

1. Yes, that's what I thought. I suppose that, er, "He was asking for it" really does apply when he's asking for it....

NOTE However, that McGovern was turning his back (#54). That's really about as non-violent form of protest as you can do, and it's totally silent, and still they had to hustle him out. You will comply. You will face forward. Ick.

2. On the Taser manufacturer, I really got the lying weasels vibe when I started looking into them, but never had the time to follow through. So I take any claims and studies pretty skeptically.

3. So, how does one prepare to be tasered? Practice on one's self?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

2. On the Taser manufacturer, I really got the lying weasels vibe when I started looking into them, but never had the time to follow through. So I take any claims and studies pretty skeptically.

agree with you on studies done by taser manuf. but apparently cities/counties/police depts have done their own internal reviews too. you do stuff like that when justifying your budget requests every year.

NOTE However, that McGovern was turning his back (#54). That's really about as non-violent form of protest as you can do, and it's totally silent, and still they had to hustle him out. You will comply. You will face forward. Ick.

didn't i read somewhere that the back of his shirt had some kind of slogan on it? something anti-hillary, or anti-empire, or anti-war, or anti-______? yes, i agree wholeheartedly that if all he was doing was standing there [slogan or no], then he should have been allowed to stay.

but hillary is a high-ranking govt official and the secret service and everybody else charged with the formidable task of guarding her life and safety is not going to be willing to take any chances on things getting out of hand, especially in a relatively small, closed-in space like an auditorium. can't say i blame them for their nervousness in this case.

3. So, how does one prepare to be tasered? Practice on one's self?

lol! no, i just meant 'be mentally prepared' knowing that this could happen to you too, and that the circumstances in which it could happen are fairly broad. if, like me, you are of the old school of protesting, and you think that entirely passive and non-violent methods of protest [suh as sit-ins, stand-ins, lie-ins] will be met with relatively equal non-violence on the part of police...

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

They are not "non-lethal", just "less lethal"...I personally would avoid being struck by such a device with all of my energy. The lethality depends on the site of strike, the number of hits, the genetic predisposition towards cardiac arrhythmias (wanna find out yours the hard way?), the concomitant stressors surrounding the event, etc. Studies "proving' their safety have been tainted by accusations of bias and bribery by the taser corp -see here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008...
and the number of deaths due to their use has been rising every year.
To use these weapons in anything other than a situation of proximate, potentially deadly force by an aggressor is inexcusable, IMHO, and yet, they are increasingly being used for "control" of obstreperous, non-compliant citizens, who pose no lethal threat. Tasers are easily deployed, provide a a distance from which to ennervate a subject, and are being used on protesters, inmates, and even children! (A 15 year old mentally-challenged child died in MI, not the first that year, after being tazed-oh see here at corrente:
http://www.correntewire.com/taser_death_...
For more info:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/44455/?pa...

Time for Real Change

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

What should she have done, that would not normalize but not incentivize? Keeping in mind that the one time she replied fliply to an audience question, it was the bitch-shot heard round the world?

Stopping her talk to address the protester creates a disruption, which DOES incentivize disruptions. In this case, ironically, the removal of the non-disruptive protestor created a disruption -- and probably incentivized disruptions anyway -- that's why I think it was stupid on several levels. They should have just left the guy alone. But it also makes me slightly suspicious of the rush to assert that the removal was somehow under her direction, esp. since Clinton has faced down way more hostile crowds than a bunch of people sitting and listening quietly, with a single person standing with his back to her.

Fwiw, if it were me (not that I'll ever be important enough to be protested!), I'd probably go with the "ignore" setting too. But that's because when I was a kid, my mom's response when I whined about what a pain my younger brother was being was always "ignore him, maybe he'll go away." It never really worked, come to think of it, but became part of my first-reaction toolset nevertheless.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

because there's no hard and fast rule for working from a podium; it's dynamic. Working on the assumption that the whole thing was visible to her, and she saw the incident from the beginning, and that McGovern looked like what he was, a 70-year-old man with white hair wearing a T-shirt, alone, I think she should have improvised, and told the cops to let him go and keep standing with his back to her, peacefully [#54]. McGovern would have done his thing, the crowd would have applauded wildly, she would have looked totally great, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Win-win-win-win.

Again, my goal here is to create space for non-violent protest and persuasion. I think that's important for some sort of non-insane, non-bubble relationship between the citizens and the holders of high office (anarchists, feel free to jump in here....) Your name for "non-violent protest and persuasion" seems to be "disruption." I think that's the wrong name.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

Working on the assumption that the whole thing was visible to her,

that strikes me as kind of a big assumption. if you look carefully at the video from about 2:10 to about 2:20, you can see that the lights are on hillary, but the audience [the entire rest of the auditorium, actually] is in semi-darkness. it's actually pretty difficult to see much from the podium under those conditions.

, the crowd would have applauded wildly,

this is another kinda big assumption. if the crowd had been made up of coprrenteans, they might have applauded wildly, but as valhalla and i keep trying to point out, crowds have frequently reacted to anything hillary says or does, not with wild applause but with cds and misogyny.

Submitted by lambert on

... I think you're wrong, and for two reasons:

1. McGovern is only four or five rows back. That's a lot closer that the camera makes it look. That somebody had stood up and turned his back would have been clearly visible, even in a very dim room.

2. It's not like Hillary's in a spotlight and the rest of the room is plunged into darkness. I've been in a GW auditorium for the Fiscal Sustainability Conference, which got me thinking. There's light coming from some window-like source at audience left. When the camera pans back, you can also see highlights on the bald heads of some of the guys (in the audience, so out of range of any spots). So I think the room is dim at the most, and the camera might be making it dimmer than it is.

It seems quite clear to me that the incident was visible to her. (And, heck, it was visible to the cops, right?)

NOTE The real issue to my mind is speed. But we can't know how long McGovern was standing there, because the camera doesn't seem to pan back until the cops are in motion from the back of the room (?).

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

(And, heck, it was visible to the cops, right?)

it's their job, man, spotting trouble before it develops. and hillary did her job, which was to deliver a speeech. and mcgovern did his job, which was to protest.

re your update on your comment below, on kerry and the don't tase me bro guy, this is another place where i think you might be making an unwarranted assumption. i'm pretty sure that had kerry asked the cops to leave the uf protestor alone, and had hillary asked the cops to leave the gw protestor alone, boith of them, despite their very lofty positions in govt, would have been disobeyed.

the cops' job is to make sure that firstsecondthird: nothing bad happens to the vip people [kerry, clinton]; fourth: nothing bad happens to the audience members; fifth: nothing bad happens to the cops; sixth: nothing bad happens to the protestor. my guess is that right or wrong, the cops are going to trust their own judgement about crowd control over the speakers' judgment about crowd control, especially in a closed room.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

here's what I said:

"If all the protester was really doing was standing with his back turned, they should have let him stay, yeah."

"they should have left the protester there, he certainly wasn't hurting anyone or even disrupting anything until the security people grabbed him"

"In this case, ironically, the removal of the non-disruptive protestor created a disruption -- and probably incentivized disruptions anyway"

I was pretty clear that the disruption was the security guys grabbing the non-disruptive protester, not the protester. Where, please, do I equate "disruption" and "non-violent protest and persuasion"? I don't care that you disagree with me, but I do damn well care that you are disagreeing with things I have not said.

I'm not so sure about the "applauding wildly" either (like hipp). The crowd seemed mildly interested in Clinton's speech, from what I recall, perhaps they attended a Clinton speaking event because they wanted to hear her speak. Maybe they support the U.S.' foreign policy (there are some who do).

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

on "disruption." My bad.

* * *

On "applaud wildly," I'm a public speaker; I know how to get that done. Hillary is probably a thousand times better than I am at this, and she could get it done. It's all about seizing the moment. And this isn't the campaign trail.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

perhaps they attended a Clinton speaking event because they wanted to hear her speak.

confession: i listened to all 44? minutes of the video because i wanted to hear what she had to say. i'm completely in sympathy with mcgovern on war, empire, police brutality, and the rights of protestors, but i'd have been really ticked if he had managed to turn this particular clinton speaking event into a ray mcgovern protest event.

Submitted by Lex on

that she was giving a speech about freedom while someone who was peacefully protesting got dragged out and at least mildly abused for doing so. Not just any protester either, someone with more foreign policy experience than her and someone who's actually been to war, something she seems rather fond of without ever having experienced.

She's not Suileman, but she is a hypocrite.

It's not CDS to note that Clinton is part of the problem. She's the SoS. She's neck deep in the actual behavior of the administration.

And, yes, if you're giving a speech about freedom and your hired goons start removing a guy who's not doing anything more than turning his back to you there's a "teachable moment" there to stop the speech and start practicing what you preach.

“Don’t believe them, don’t fear them, don’t ask anything of them” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

I have to admit I didn't read her speech. I'll try, but I grow weary of great speeches about "freedom" from politicians. Hilary has still not risen, in my book, to great stateswoman. Nobody in this administration has. They seem very small and ordinary to me, especially the head guy. She had potential, but it never materialized. Sad.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

Submitted by lambert on

where two of the villains are named Wither and Frost. Everybody in Obama's circle comes away degraded in some fashion. Just like Bush.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by jawbone on

McGovern was being dragged out.

She became poilitical, she says, iirc, as a result of the actions of the Chicago police at the 1968 Democratic Convention.

So, to me, this was profoundly disappointing. And I feared things like this would happen if she joined the Obama administration.

Submitted by lambert on

Obama used her to hedge on the "stability with Mubarak" outcome, and then that didn't happen, so then he put her back in her box and endorsed the "youth movement" (eye on 2012) after it was clear that the revolution had succeeded (for some definition of success). She should have resigned last year. She was the best of the Ds, as the 2008 primaries convinced me, but the best is looking like not good enough. I can always be won back by a forthright declaration on policy -- 1. Medicare for all; 2. End the wars; 3. Soak the rich -- but that doesn't look like it's in the cards. Too bad.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Like that, maybe, again:

Sen. Jon Erpenbach told the Associated Press that he and his fellow Democrats hoped to force negotiations over the Republican-backed bill, but he would not say where the group had gone. The state Senate Democrats did not show up when they were ordered to attend a midday vote on the legislation. Though Republicans hold a 19-14 majority, they need at least one Democrat present to vote.

Man, that was back in 2004. Been a long time....

UPDATE Well done, Lord Eschaton. Sucks to be WKJM.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by jawbone on

was after.

Aside from that indictment and the guilty verdict. And the prison time. But the Repubs got their vote and got their "interim" redictricting.

That's exactly what Walker is after; just get the votes and change the political playing field, hopefully in perpetuity.

We would not have this kind of legislative Republican strangle hold in WI if Obama had done the right things and worked and been seen to be working to help the little people. But, noooo. He had to suck up to the Uberwealthy and those damnable Banksters.

I need to go bay at the moon.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

Howl!

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

this is all about the pensions. Probably the banksters mismanaged or simply absconded with the money. If the pensions are cut, the banksters never have to pay out the money.

Submitted by lambert on

I always thought that's why HOLC was never on the table -- the banks would have been forced to open their books.

You'd think that a 15% management fee would be enough....

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Eureka Springs's picture
Submitted by Eureka Springs on

15 seconds of viewing the video to see and hear the irony of her speech.. as a silent protester (Ray who Hillary probably recognized for pete sakes, or should have) is frog-marched out while she speaks to the very issue.

And someone wants to defend her? or put words in my text... i said she just supported Mubarak and Suleiman the torturer... why would anyone be surprised she didn't say or do a thing in this situation? She's a warlord of the first order. It should be expected by this life long neo-liberal... this ain't rocket science, but go ahead, keep taking your brand of denial to that level if you must... just don't expect everyone to go with you.

Actions or lack thereof speak louder than words... especially in politics.

Oh and that old "misogynistic and derangement" slurr, no matter who it might be directed is really awful .. especially without merit in this thread. I guess it's what folk resort to when they want to ignore the actual meaning of the words she was saying while ignoring a blatant contradiction to them in the same nano second.

goodness gracious... land sakes alive...)

Submitted by hipparchia on

Oh and that old "misogynistic and derangement" slurr,

heh. you do remember "iron my shirt!" don't you?

anybody who does a lot of public speaking develops their own ways of dealing with disruptions, and a lot of them choose to ignore all interruptions altogether, no matter what the relevance of any particular incident. given all the [totally NON-relevant] clinton derangement syndrome and misogynistic crap that's been thrown at her over the years, perhaps she has decided to adopt this policy herself.

Submitted by lambert on

... is the same as "iron my shirt"? I'm not persuaded.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

This was a silent, non-violent message/protest, that was dealt with by the "security apparatus" that surrounds the MOTU. To lay hands on such a person is a violation. OK, there was speech-making going on, with media present, so...the options are 1-ignore the event or 2-respond to the actions of people acting upon your behalf, and perhaps at your behest and nip the act in the bud, or defuse the situation with a small comment, eg-"we're here to discuss freedom of speech, let him stand". Bad PR for her, but absolutely in line with a SOS that claims "Mubarak is a personal friend of my family".

Time for Real Change

Submitted by admin_hipparchia on

or dense. or both.

dude, iirc you are both male and tall and iirc hillary is both female and short.

there are a lot of [sometimes invisible] things that factor into being able to handle a hostile or potentitally audience and sheer "physical presence" is one of those factors. guess what... our society devalues both short people and female people, considering them automatically less worthy of deference, respect, civility and attention.

just one more of the many side effects of marginalizing women in public life just because they're women.

Submitted by lambert on

As long as we're throwing unanswerable statements about, eh?

* * *

Lordy. We've got a male person in the back of the audience standing up and turning his back, and we've got a female person at the podium making a speech who is, moreover, a high official who's been making public speeches of all kinds for what, forty years? and who is the Secretary of State and has her own security team. In addition, Hillary's obvious courage is one of the things I admire her for, and I'm guessing others too ("they'd both have two," as Carville remarked. So much for the "invisible.") The obvious power imbalance between the female speaker and the male protester is a triumph for the feminist project, and a good thing, too, so my advice is to take yes for an answer on that one, eh? Madam.

* * *

Look, all I'm trying to do is create some space for non-violent protest at a public speech by a high official [UPDATE Second paragraph here.]. If you want to classify that project as being "argumentative," that's fine. See how far it gets you.

If you're making the argument that [#54] is never OK when the protester is a [tall] man and the high official is a [short] woman, that's fine. Is that the argument you're making? If that's not the argument you're making, then when is it OK?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by admin_hipparchia on

nah, just frustrated because you [and others] seemingly can't be bothered to look at what i'm actually saying.

Look, all I'm trying to do is create some space for non-violent protest at a public speech by a high official

i'm all for that. i've [mostly] peacefully held up many a protest sign [some of them inflammatory even] at many an event involving govt officials [most recently involving bp and oil on my beaches]. i'm all for more people getting out from behind their keyboards and doing this irl [which is why i also feel a responsibility to let them know what else might happen - tasers, for example - if they do].

If you're making the argument that [#54] is never OK when the protester is a [tall] man and the high official is a [short] woman, that's fine. Is that the argument you're making?

two different arguments.

1. a lot of people, on this thread, and throughout the blogosphere, wanted her to stop her planned speech and engage with the protestor.

this is america. a LOT of americans overlook short people just because they're short, marginalize women just because they're women, and hate hillary just because she's married to bill. if you're a short female person who is married to bill clinton, and you're giving a speech to an american audience, your smartest move, if you want to keep your audience's attention, might be to NOT engage with any heckler or protestor or dissenter [be they short, tall, male, female, old, young, wev].

did this figure into hillary's decision to ignore the protestor and his remival from the scene? darned if i know, but like valhalla pointed out, if hillary stopped to deal with every interruption that her audiences throw at her, how would she ever get to finish what she was saying?

2. i'm not saying that tall and male persons should refrain from being protestors, i'm suggesting that you personally, as a tall and male person, may or may not realize that short and female persons DO make these calculations when trying to participate in public life [where 'speaking to an american audience' is but one aspect of participating in public life].

Submitted by lambert on

Above:

Look, all I'm trying to do is create some space for non-violent protest at a public speech by a high official

i'm all for that.

But when it comes to cases -- this case, in fact -- you aren't for it at all. You really can't, on the one hand, be "all for" non-violent protest and persuasion, and on the other, concerned about "how would she ever get to finish" (in fact, "disruption"). Operationally, the risks are identical.

And despite your attempt to make this thread about me -- and I was down in the trenches in 2008 both online and in RL basically 24/7, so I'm not completely without the capacity to put myself in Hillary's position -- this thread really is about Hillary and McGovern.

Finally, again I suggest that you take Yes for an answer on Hillary's dominant position here ("I'm impervious").

I'm with Valhalla that the best thing to do would have been to just let McGovern do his thing. I think the second best option would have been to prevent a 70-year-old white-haired non-violent protester from being dragged away by the cops during a presentation on free speech, by interacting with him (or possibly with the police). YMMV and, apparently, does.

UPDATE Incidentally, I'm advocating that Hillary interact with the cops, not with McGovern. What I wrote:

I think she should have improvised, and told the cops to let him go and keep standing with his back to her

It's exactly like Kerry. Kerry didn't have to interact with his protester to prevent the cops from tasing him. In the same way, Hillary didn't have to engage with the protester to prevent him from being dragged way. So much for the "incentivize" argument.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by hipparchia on

and I was down in the trenches in 2008 both online and in RL basically 24/7,

i know you were. it's the sole reason why, in spite of my hatred fo having to register to comment on a blog, anybody's blog, i went ahead and registered anyway. just so i could comment on your blog. because you were talking about hillary, and misogyny, at the time. and you were saying all the things i agreed with.

And despite your attempt to make this thread about me

eh. mostly i think you were making some unwarranted assumptions here and there. i reserve the right to call you on them, even if i turn out to be wrong occasionally.

But when it comes to cases -- this case, in fact -- you aren't for it at all.

a hit! a very palpable hit!

yes it's true, i turn churlish in the blink of an eye when someone else tries to foist their own personal agenda onto my own personal agenda. in this case, mcgovern's agends [interrupting hillary] conflicted with my agenda [listening to hillary uninterrupted], but i actually entered the conversation with the sole motive of pointing out that hillary might have had perfectly legitimate reasons to NOT ENGAGE with a protestor

i confess from the depths of my tiny little grinch-sized heart that i cheered when he was thrown out.

I'm with Valhalla that the best thing to do would have been to just let McGovern do his thing. I think the second best option would have been to prevent a 70-year-old white-haired non-violent protester from being dragged away by the cops during a presentation on free speech, by interacting with him (or possibly with the police). YMMV and, apparently, does.

heh. yes, it does.

one of the things you should keep in the forefront of your mind, if you're really going to get into truly useful protesting: mcgovern got waaaaaay more mileage [ie, visibility... and being talked about on blogs!] out this contretemps than he would have got if he had just stood there, or even if hillary had taken a few minutes to 'engage' with him.

Submitted by lambert on

WIBW:

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Mr. Obama said in an interview Wednesday with local television station WTMJ-TV. "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends... And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees."

Right. Don't vilify them. Oh, Lordy, no. Just bust their unions. At least the Rs are honest about what they want to do. Then again, at least Obama got card check passed. Oh, wait....

I was prompted to post this by an Ed Schulz video, where he reported that people on the ground in WI felt that Obama had given Walker a reach-around by backing him on the putative fiscal justification for the bill.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

It hurts Obama more than it hurts us, when he has to pass those budget cuts, or sorrowfully agree that public employees should throw themselves under the bus. If only you knew the pain in his heart.

*barf*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
alas is crocheting daily at http://memorycrochet.blogspot.com/

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

makes me throw up in my mouth. Barf is right. The people that Ed Schultz interviewed were really mad that the president said "As a general proposition that everybody has to make some adjustments to new fiscal realities. If we want to avoid lay offs....we had to impose a freeze..those kind of adjustments are the right things to do."

That's how he started the answer to the reporter's question. He then did his usual, but on the other hand, it kinda looks like union busting and these folks are our pals, but on the other hand, they need to sacrifice too. Come on you janitors, give something up for Mr. Bankster and Mr. CEO. Come on you cheeseheads, give something for the Big Cheeses.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

wuming's picture
Submitted by wuming on

Local actions are important, but the ultimate solution to the problem lies in Washington D.C.

Submitted by lambert on

nt

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

AP once more. Good thing we got a heads-up on this. Some reporting on the National Governor's Conference and the funders would be nice.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

zot23's picture
Submitted by zot23 on

Hmmm ... here's the facts as I understand them:

* Clinton started her speech
* Guy turned his back on her, had a tee shirt on with a protesting message (but not offensive or obscene)
* No other disturbance was issued, he didn't shout, flail, set off fireworks, just stood there
* Police pounced on the guy, beat him fairly decently (within Hillary's field of vision)
* Police dragged him out, he then voiced some cpmplaint
* Hillary never paused, finished the speech

So the first question of course is if Hillary just wanted to finish the speech with the least amount of controversy, why not just leave the guy alone? You position security next to him in case he rushes the stage or ups his "game" during the speech and just wait there until it is over. That by far was the easiest solution.

Since they didn't do that and the "taking" of the protester interrupted the speech far more than the protest itself, the point wasn't to have it be peaceful. The point would be to make a point about what hapens when you protest at one of Hillary's speeches, what you are going to get. Broadcast it across the TV and show how "serious" she is about security (and that if you do anything but listen in total conformance what you get as a citizen.)

No way Hillary didn't know what was going on here, even if she didn't know at the time she could have met with the guy and apologized afterwards (mistakes do happen.) Since none of that has occurred, the most logical conclusion is that she approves of how the police/security handled the situation, she approves the beating. She is a person in the public eye (and a busy one at that), but if someone got the tar beat out of them directly in front of me at a speech, I would at least find out afterward what the hell happened (and apologized personally to the guy if it was unwarranted.) Did Hillary never ask about the guy afterward, or did she not see fault in the response once it was revealed? Which is worse?

Bringing her sex into it and making any claim of bias on that front is duplicitous at best.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

"Police pounced on the guy, beat him fairly decently (within Hillary's field of vision)"

Has anyone claiming Clinton watched and approved what McGovern is claiming was a beating actually watched the video? No? Because it detracts from the truthiness, or just too lazy?

Not even McGovern is claiming Clinton saw him getting roughed up, nevermind masterminded it:

...I was taken outside where nobody was watching, I was manhandled, I have welts and cuts and contusions, lacerations all over my body.

(emphasis supplied)

McGovern says he doesn't know who the guards/people were who removed him:

...And then I turned to the people that were throwing me out of this auditorium and I said "Who are you?" And the odd thing is that to this day I don't know who they were."

GW has issued a statement saying it was GWU police who removed McGovern, after twice asking him to leave. GWU also said that McGovern was violating the campus demonstration policy, which allows protests outside venues but not in them.

Now, one might argue about the reasonableness of GWU's demonstration policy, or the wisdom according to which they enact it, but they are a private institution, they have a policy, and evidently their campus police enforced it. As I've said elsewhere, I think that was the wrong decision -- and I'll just make perfectly clear here I mean that both based on principle (silent, non-violent protest should be allowed) and practically (by grabbing McGovern the GW police created a disruption anyway).

But making stuff up about the incident (and this isn't the only comment to do so), just so it can be laid at Clinton's feet, is just crap.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by hipparchia on

this one seems to be another convenient falsehood, or hyperbolization maybe. i don't think i've seen or heard mcgovern himself anywhere claim that he was actually beaten [although the word manhandled can cover a lot of territory, including actual beatings], but the word is showing up in blog posts and comments all over the internet.

good interview below [23 minutes long]. can't remember the timestamp, it's well into the video, but one thing caught my attention: he says that shouting out your message as you're being removed is a tactic he learned from code pink [good on him for borrowing from them! the single payer protestors at the baucus hearing used it too].

Submitted by lambert on

Here. This looks like the good stuff. See the posts titled "Sights and Sounds":

I’ll keep posting video here as it comes in. Here’s what I have at the moment from the WYOU family and friends. Monday, 1,000 people, video here. Tuesday, 10,000 people, video here. Wednesday over 30,000, video below. And today . . . expect more as the UW schools walk out, over 35 area schools closed, Madison holding a rally and special council meeting tonight. Senate votes today [yesterday, so they didn't]. Talking to many of the “old timers”, no one has ever seen anything like this.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Since when is a legislative quorum supposed to be enforced by the cops?

Wisconsin state police have visited the home of at least one of the missing Wisconsin state senators in an apparent effort to force him to return to the capitol to vote on the proposal to roll back public employees' bargaining rights, a Democratic senator alleged to me in an interview.

State Senator Chris Larson, one of the Democrats who is remaining in Illinois to stall the vote on Governor Scott Walker's measure, tells me that another Dem Senator -- who he declined to name -- returned home late yesterday to try to get some sleep. That Senator's staff reported to Larson that police visited his home, but that the Senator had managed to slip away before cops could apprehend him.

"Police were sent over to his house, but he was able to get out of there," Larson told me.

Larson said that Republican leaders in the State Senate -- who couldn't immediately be reached for comment -- would be the ones to ask the State Police to make such a visit. He said he had also received unconfirmed reports from other Democrats that police were visiting other homes, too.

Most of the Senators remain in Illinios, Larson added, meaning they may be out of reach of cops. But if Republicans have now unleashed an effort to get the cops to haul these Dems back to the capitol, it will only up the tension and urgency of this standoff.

Seriously, WTF? I mean, what next? Cops enforcing an up or down vote instead of "present"?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi