The Free Speech Zone

Monday, January 21, 2008

Martin Luther King Jr and Politics as Usual

I’m a little sad today (and not just over the Packers loss, though that sure has dampened my mood). Today’s a holiday, though so many people don’t really honor it as such. Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a day to honor one of the great civil rights leaders, to remember how far we’ve come as a society in the journey toward equality, and to acknowledge how far we have left to go.

I grew up mostly in southern states. MLK Jr. Day most often received eye rolls there, along with comments I won’t repeat. I grew up around people who thought that it was a useless holiday, a day unworthy of the inconvenience of banks and post offices being closed. Many schools in the south stay open with token lessons about King’s role in the struggle for civil rights.

Here, my kids are out of school, and my oldest is studying civil rights in class. He came home Friday from school telling me, “I don’t like any white people from the past who were mean to black people.” A film he’d watched showed some of the milder antics of the KKK and some of the heroes of the Civil Rights movement like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, he’s not studying the whole story; a ten year old hardly seems ready to learn about lynchings, though he does know about assassination. It bothers him, equally I think, that both MLK Jr. and John Lennon died that way.

But, I digress. I’m sad today, thinking of all the people who don’t honor today in some way, who belittle the civil rights struggle, who fail to remember exactly what King did for our country. It went beyond telling a crowd that he had a dream. He gave people hope for change; he empowered people, both black and white, and made them believe that equality was possible. He offered ideas and opportunities for people to speak out, walk out, sit down, or do whatever was necessary to make a point that people of all colors were still people just the same.

It’s not just the people who fail to honor today’s message that make me sad, though; it’s also the people who are using today as their own personal political stepping stone. The Democratic presidential candidates, especially, are viewing today as a stumping opportunity, a chance to prove their own particular convictions and obligations to the civil rights movement. In my inbox, I just received an email with Obama’s speech today. I deleted it, though I love to hear him speak. I just can’t bring myself to support the use of today as a political talking point.

Maybe I’m the only one. Maybe it’s a good thing that the candidates use today to speak about the importance of equality and freedom. They need to talk about it sometime, after all. But to me, it just feels like one more day of politics as usual, a day for Clinton and Obama to battle it out over who is more connected to the black community, who is going to fight harder for equal rights, and who is going to serve better in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr. Some days, politics as usual is nothing but talk, and today I just don’t feel like politics as usual is enough.

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Outside the Free Speech Zone

Last night was a great, great night at Vital Source’s Gallery Night party. A steady stream of artists and art lovers, many bottles of wine, an interesting dj, and great art combined to make Vital’s first gallery night surely the first of many. So what does that have to do with you, especially if you weren’t there? (But of course, you were there, weren’t you?)

Seeing the art on display and discussing some of the controversy over Vital’s December cover (a beautiful picture, by the way) reminded me that I’ve been wanting to blog about my blog. Or at least, about the title of my blog. I won’t take credit for the title (it was all Jon Anne’s idea, as most good ideas are), but I will say that I love it.

Free speech is near and dear to my heart. I grew up in a world of books with avid anti-censorship role models. Banned books were on our shelves, and I was always encouraged to read anything and everything. I was also encouraged to speak my mind (as long as I had something on which to base my opinions), and it’s a lesson I continue with my children.

This is a free state. Our constitution gives us the right to free expression, whether through art or protest signs or the burning of a flag. Of course, giving all of us that right is often controversial, tumultuous, or at the very least, lively. Liberals and conservatives, racists, anti-abortionists, environmentalists, and crazy cultists all have the same right to free speech. No one person, or thought, or idea is supposed to be more free, and at the same time, none are supposed to be less free.

And yet, dissent is increasingly pushed aside in a corner. Many of you probably already know that when President Bush travels, any protesters are set aside in a “free speech zone” far from both media and presidential view. Did you also know that this is happening in other situations? I was surprised (and very discouraged) to learn that it even happened at the last Democratic National Convention. I know no one (okay, someone does, but no one I know) really wants to look at the “God hates fags” signs, but I’m not sure that that makes it okay to push them aside where no one can see them. Is making protest nearly invisible the new way to handle free speech? Government has repeatedly been shot down in their attempts to curb free speech, so maybe this is the new answer: allow all people to protest as loud and as outrageously as they want, so long as no one can really see or hear them.

I can’t help but think of Milwaukee Pridefest. Protest is common there, both at the festival gates and at the parade. I won’t lie: I don’t like their signs or their tactics. I don’t like the way they particularly target children and condemn parents, but it’s easy to look the other way and walk on by them. But more than that, the protesters of the protesters (i.e. the supporters) who come out to Pride to show their support of LGBTs is heartwarming. PFLAG parents who love and accept their children hoist signs of acceptance. Would they, I wonder, still have those signs out if the protesters weren’t there? Would we, as a society, take our own active stands if there weren’t someone out there in opposition to what we believe? Or would we all just sit at home and do nothing?

I was reminded last night by Betty from Gallery night that democracy is about participation. For real effective change to happen in our country (and god knows we need it), we all have to get up and protest, fight, campaign, write letters, vote, take an active stand. We have to use our voices and find a way out of the designated free speech zone to make those voices heard.

My voice here at the Free Speech Zone is a small one. And I’ll admit it’s not always right or eloquent or even particularly interesting. But it’s mine, and I’m using it in my own small ways. What about you?

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Chief Flynn and the Unknown Plan

I have a list of things I want to blog about. Today, I considered blogging about Huckabee’s Constitutional amendment proposal (I still might because he sure as hell keeps sticking his whole leg in his damn mouth). But no, I told myself: I really want to wait and blog about the new Milwaukee police Chief’s crime plan (and I can’t really expect y’all to read two blogs from me in one day!).

So, I just started reading through the news, trying to find some information about the plan. Maybe my research skills suck (Oh whatever. My research skills are great.), but I can’t find much about Flynn’s press conference today. Sure, I’ve found some articles that he was planning one to unveil his crime plan. And I even found one after the great unveiling, plus a news clip or two.

What did I find out from that little bit of “news”? Flynn wants officers to get out of their squad cars and patrol the neighborhoods on foot. At least, in one particular neighborhood that they’ve decided to target first- “crack alley”, otherwise known as Wells Street, is a good place to start, I guess, as long as more plans are quick in coming. But, um, where’s the rest of the plan? One news report (and I really am loose in terming them the “news” and “reporting” here) indicates an increase in resources. Huh. Another report from TMJ4 gave almost no details of the plan itself (except for the start of a Wells Street website for residents) because the majority of the piece was spent interviewing someone who really likes Flynn and the plan. But, what is the plan? Can someone help me here? Am I missing something?

I have to wonder what this means. Does it mean that all it takes to fix the Milwaukee crime problem is more money, officers walking around instead of driving, and a couple of neighborhood websites? Surely, there’s more to the plan than this. I hope to god there’s more to the plan than this. Which leaves me frustrated with the media (and the new chief, for that matter).

I personally think that the new chief’s first major initiative is actual news. It’s worth knowing. After all the hoopla of raising the position’s pay rate, it would be nice to see him doing something. After living here a full year and hearing about all the crime on a daily basis, it would be nice to know change is coming, somehow. It would be nice if, as residents of or near Milwaukee, we could actually know something about what’s happening in the city, if we could know that the people in charge actually care about the problems and are trying to fix them (in reality, not just in theoretical political jargon). Evidently, not everyone feels that way. Particularly, the news media who spent so much time covering the Packers and the weather on the 10 o’clock news there was hardly time for anything else.

But, I guess if we ignore the crime problem, it’ll go away. Well, it will as long as the police walk around. I’m going to hope by morning there’s better reporting on this. Anyone out there in the know? Wanna share with me? Or is this really a huge ball drop by all involved?

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Michigan Democrats get the shaft

Today is the Michigan primary. Big freakin’ deal.

Of course, it is a big deal, while at the same time being almost totally irrelevant to the Democratic nomination. Why? Because Michigan (like Florida) decided to move up its primary, which is completely contrary to primary rules (is there like some king of the mountain who makes up these primary rules?) which say that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can hold their primaries (or caucuses, whichever the case may be) before Super Tuesday. Michigan didn’t want to wait their turn, though, so they moved the date.

To which the DNC said- change it back or your votes don’t count. The RNC’s stance isn’t quite that harsh (they’re just cutting the delegates in half). All the major DNC candidates (afraid to piss off the DNC, justifiably) agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, and all the majors except Clinton pulled themselves off the Michigan ballot.

So what’s the point of all this background I’m giving (some or all of which you probably knew): I think the whole thing sucks. I think it sucks to deny the people of Michigan and Florida their right to pick their nominee. I think it’s short-sighted to deny such important electoral states their opportunity to vote. After all, it’s Florida that decided the 2000 election, and while I understand that it’s only the nomination delegates at risk, it seems very...risky to alienate any potential Democratic votes come November.

I don’t know who to blame, though. The limited amount of research I’ve done hasn’t really made it clear who is at fault. On the one hand, it’s ignorant for the states to change their dates without approval. Doubly ignorant to ignore the warnings that the votes wouldn’t be counted. But, that the RNC and the DNC dealt differently with the situation indicates to me that some of the blame definitely lies with the higher-ups at the DNC. Maybe the blame goes all the way around; either way, it sucks, and if I were in Michigan or Florida, I’d be pissed.

Hope isn’t totally lost, though. In Michigan, if a big enough percentage of people vote “uncommitted” the state will still get to seat at least some of its delegates at the convention, where the candidates can then vie for their votes. With only one major candidate running in Michigan, this seems fairly likely that at least fifteen percent will vote that way. Assuming the word got out enough about this option, I suspect they’ll be plenty of people opting for it. And I hope they do, so that Michigan can have its voice at the convention.

And speaking of the major candidates: all of them removed themselves from the Democratic ticket in Michigan except Hillary. I don’t think that was the best strategy for her. A “win” there is empty without opposition or DNC approved delegates, and it makes her look bad, like she’s so hungry for wins she’ll even take the empty ones. At the same time, if “uncommitted” gets more votes than she does- well, that makes her look even worse. It seems like a lose-lose situation to me, and I’m surprised her advisors didn’t do a better job and actually offer good advice.

But then, what do I know? I’m just a blogger. What do you think?

(3) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, January 14, 2008

The edible and incredible Russ Feingold

As my biography says, I love Russ Feingold (and Al Harris, but for totally different reasons). When I say I love him, I don’t just me I admire him, though I do. I don’t just mean I respect him as a politician, though I do that, too. What I mean is that I love him. I may not have ever met him, but I have a great deal of affection for Russ
Feingold. Don’t believe me? Here’s a snippet of a chat I had recently with Lucky, the Slightly Crunchy Parent:

me: there are rumors that bill richardson is dropping out of the race
Lucky: already?
only two states in??
me: yep
what I want to know is who he'll endorse
Lucky: dropping like flies and we've been at it less than a week!
me: I know!
see there's room for gore
Lucky: you should totally call him and tell him!
me: well we are pretty tight
Lucky: i know it
and he will totally listen too
since you're his bff
me: yep
I wonder if he could hook me up with feingold
Lucky: haha
yeah, i bet he could
that's a great idea
what with russ being single right now and everything...
but...
would that mean that you would have to go to fancy cocktail parties and be nice to tipper from time to time
cause that would suck
me: yeah
maybe I could politely ignore her
Lucky: i would
you could, like, look at your cell phone everytime she came near you
act like you're getting an urgent text
me: and I might be, cuz I'd pretty popular if I were dating feingold
Lucky: true
that's a fact
maybe you could meet paul wellstone's family
and then
you
could
write
his
official
biography
me: I bet even olbermann would call me
Lucky: totally
but - and this is something you need think about very carefully before you call gore to tell him there's still room for him in the race -
if you're dating feingold
and then you start talking with olbermann...
(i think you know where i'm heading with this one...)
and then olbermann likes likes you -
what will you do?
how could ever chose between russ and keith?
me: can't I have them both?

I’ll stop the chat there, so you all don’t think less of me for having a little political wet dream about Russ and Keith (whom I always LOVE). So, I bet you’re wondering (especially if you don’t live in Wisconsin)- what’s so great about Russ Feingold. He’s just a politician, afterall. I remember when I used to think that, back before I’d moved here: he’s just a senator from the cheese state.

But I think, now that I know more about him, Russ Feingold is actually the model for what a politician should be. He doesn’t have corporate hands in his pockets, he votes his beliefs, and he remembers where he comes from. There’s alot to be said for that. So, as a little fun Monday treat, I’ve decided to give you five reasons I love Russ Feingold besides the fact that he looks truly edible in jeans (the list started out at ten, but I realized no one likes me enough to read three pages worth of blog!)

5. Russ truly believes in campaign finance reform. Not only was he co-author of the McCain-Feingold reform bill, he also actively follows his own recommendations. He limits his campaign spending (in his first bid for Senate, it was $1 for every Wisconsin resident), and he doesn’t allow soft-money or private groups to pay for ads on his behalf. For him, winning isn’t the only thing that matters; winning with ethics and responsibility is.

4. Twice, Feingold has called for the Senate to censure Bush for illegal activities, like wire-tapping. Not many people had the guts to stand up and agree with him. I agree with him, though, and I’m proud to know that it’s my Senator standing up and telling Bush to fuck off.

3. From his first bid for office, Feingold promised to hold “listening sessions” in every Wisconsin county every year. And he still does it. I don’t know how many people realize that some of Wisconsin is pretty remote; some of it is not all that populated. But, still, Feingold listens in those counties (listens being the operative word. According to reports, Feingold uses these sessions to hear the concerns of Wisconsin citizens, sometimes offering solutions or referrals, but mostly just listening to what’s on the minds of Wisconsin citizens).

2. He started the Progressive Patriot’s Fund. It was originally a PAC created to give him an opening to run for President in 2008, but it has become a huge tool for Progressives. He uses the fund to give support to other progressives in office, helping them to raise campaign funds and to raise awareness about progressive votes. He also uses it to give voters access to their representatives for petition drives and letter writing campaigns, much like Moveon.org. Encouraging fellow progressives is a huge thing, in my opinion; politics are too often competitive, so it’s nice to see a cooperative spirit. It’s also nice to see a politician create ways to enable voters to speak their minds and support their causes.

1. He votes his beliefs, even when they aren’t popular. He’s not afraid to stand up on his own in the Senate. He’s not afraid to criticize fellow Democrats when they cowtow to the President’s whims. In my opinion, that takes alot of guts. He voted against the Iraq War from the very beginning. He was also the first Senator to ask for a specific withdrawal plan from Iraq. He voted against the Patriot’s Act from its first vote. Did I mention that he was the only Senator to do so?

He’s a great Senator, and while I can only guess, he’s probably a great person, too. If ever I were going to turn into a crazy stalker, it would probably be for him. (I promise I won’t, though.) We need more leaders like him, more elected officials who believe in their job and see themselves as agents for change rather than politicians with pockets of power.

(As to why I love Al Harris- that’s a whole other story. Have you seen him play? He’s rough and mean and so aggressive. It’s like he’s playing street ball rather than the tidy NFL. Watch him on Sunday when the Packers play. Count the penalties against him. You’ll see what I mean)

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink