that has more explanatory power than anything I’ve seen. They can’t get China off their back, too much leverage what with having the keys to our industrial base on top of our treasuries.

Here’s the thing: who will primary Obama? And why aren’t any Democrats — I mean any of them — making any noise about the implications here?

Because NOW would be the time for any Dem to state openly the need to primary Obama and everyone on the Super Committee to boot. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t expect the long-gone sold-out contingent — Hoyer, Kerry, Pelosi — to say word one. I don’t expect David Obey or even Feingold to do more than murmur in their soup.

But where’s Howard Dean? Where’s Al Franken?

This’ll have to come from younger leaders — but it’ll require some folks with name recognition, young electeds with shorter resumes — to spell out a set of non-negotiable items as counterpoint to the unstated agenda of OWS. If people in the middle dont’ pick up the slack, but fast . . ..

Przt. has a narrow range of options as far as making public statements on OWS, none of which will make anybody happy. Saying anything supportive of patriots or critical of police exposes him to criticism from every direction, fair and unjustified alike, all at once. Why get drawn into a political discussion when he can do work (okay insofar as we can define ‘doing work’) On the flip side, he’s got to have the inside scoop. The whole inside scoop. It’s not like Jeanne Quan or Rahm Emanuel aren’t clued in or anything. Until Our Przt can stave off the wingers in Congress now and in 2012, he needs as broad and deep a coalition of allies as he can get, and your average patriot is not the critical chunk of what he’s got to work with. So you can see why Obama scopes his language to speak in such general but accurate terms: we can all see the common truth when he says “there is the perception that there are two sets of rules” It doesn’t matter if you think “how the banking system works” is an indictment or an outright acquittal, Obama shaves away all the sticky stuff about who wants what and why. That doesn’t mean there’s not a lot that’s missing from this picture.

Questions is, what gets built to change the landscape and how fast.

I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.
–Walter Sobchak

Agree w/you re the Obama-nots crying shrilly. Subtle Przt. Obama may be too bent on avoiding inflammatory rhetoric to please those attention-seekers who think it’s always snack-time. Still, they have a point and no one’s answering it. In that vacuum, they haven’t identified effective paths forward .. . so blame somebody and make ‘em pay is still the default. Neither those answers, nor real leadership, will come from our electeds — surely not those at the top — nor from this blog. Look over there! A quip!

Even old-school Senators aren’t making a stink about cuts v. taxes.

You’d acknowledge he misstates both the causes and the specific grievances of OWS, though, right? Specifically, from the article:

President Obama on Thursday called the “Occupy Wall Street” protests a reflection of a “broad-based frustration about how our financial system works”

Obviously “how our financial system works” is not the cause of OWS ‘frustration’. It’s anger, and intellectual expression, first off — but it’s hardly about ‘how the system works’. It’s about how the system was eviscerated; how democracy has been betrayed; how the free market was rigged, and the American economy sold cheap for a few bucks. The anger is about corruption, treason and the obscenity of greed.

You’d be very hard-pressed to find Przt. Obama stating the issue at hand in explicit terms.

For the record, I appreciate your irritation with the PUMA contingent, as well as your way with a quip. They’re tiresome and off-base and cranky. Clinton would’ve been far worse and I still hold marginal(ized) hope for BO. You can’t credibly assert, though, that Obama in your linked CBS video identifies the main problem, names substantive solutions or leads the way forward. Yeah, granted, he refers to “two sets of rules” and “abusive practices”, but let’s call a spade a spade: I don’t see anyone going to jail, and I dont’ see Obama leading a campaign to clean up Wall Street and re-regulate economic activity in order to create a free market with functional competition.

Obama’s level-head, reasonable rhetoric and quiet tone of voice is unlikely to offend unnecessarily, and I expect that to pay off . . . to a degree.

He’s speaking softly. Where’s his big stick?

btw, you were dead wrong about Zucotti Park’s status as a public space. Brookfield Properties sold their property rights — the right to exclude individual citizen or the public as well as the right to regulate public use activities — when they went after density bonuses and built to heights that exceeded zoning ordinances.

Now they want to welch on the deal.

You don’t see the public trying to tell Brookfield how much rent they can charge for the offices in those extra floors, do you? Or tell ‘em who they can rent to?

Didn’t think so.

I saw that — excellent news. Might want to take a look at the Madison / MPD policy that made the Wisconsin protests — 100k, day after day — so peaceful (‘orderly’). The “Madison Method” imbued citizen-police relations with a Constitution-defending foundation and that translated into a really uplifting and momentous series of civic / civil demonstrations.

The first two of the MPD’s seven principles read as follows:

“We facilitate and protect the public’s right to freely speak and assemble.”
When officers realize that they are at the scene of a protest to facilitate the right of speech and assembly it guides and shapes the law enforcement response from planning to the implementation of the plan.

“We use restraint in the use of force. We protect people first property second.” There is a very real possibility that force may have to be used at any large gathering, especially one born in passion. Those officers working such a large event have to realize that all arrests will be widely watched and recorded. These officers should be welled trained at making team arrests and that training should be freshly updated just prior to the event, whenever possible to insure the arrests can be made efficiently.

http://www.policeone.com/Crowd-Control/articles/3361291-The-Madison-Method-for-crowd-control

This press release reflects a philosophy of the Madison Police Department developed after the violent turmoil during the 60s and 70s, when Madison PD developed the “Madison Method,” for policing demonstrations.

If one took the opportunity to step back and observe the calm, professional police presence at the event you’d have seen this philosophy in action. The Madison Method consists of seven principles, in quotes below. The commentary which follows each is from this writer.

“We facilitate and protect the public’s right to freely speak and assemble.” When officers realize that they are at the scene of a protest to facilitate the right of speech and assembly it guides and shapes the law enforcement response from planning to the implementation of the plan.

“We use restraint in the use of force. We protect people first property second.”
There is a very real possibility that force may have to be used at any large gathering, especially one born in passion. Those officers working such a large event have to realize that all arrests will be widely watched and recorded. These officers should be welled trained at making team arrests and that training should be freshly updated just prior to the event, whenever possible to insure the arrests can be made efficiently.

“We dialog with participants before, during, and after demonstrations.”
When events are being planned it can be extremely beneficial for law enforcement to speak with the organizers before during and even after that event. This re-enforces the police role as facilitators rather than a force to be confronted. By maintaining a dialog it allows for the opportunity to encourage peaceful gatherings and minimize sources of conflict.

“We enable citizens and the media through constant communication.” In the age of 24-hour news, it is important to prevent potentially dangerous rumors from being reported as fact. Riots have been triggered after police use of justifiable force, because journalists have run witness accounts of incidents, even though those witnesses were nowhere near the incident, when it occurred. Law enforcement is not responsible for irresponsible journalism, but getting facts to the press in a timely manner can often be beneficial to the police, the public, and the media.

Here is an example of the press announcement which was released on February 18, during the protests:

“Large numbers of protesters are likely to gather around the State Capitol again today, and the Madison Police Department (MPD) is ready to assist in keeping everyone safe. Traffic interruptions are likely as demonstrators move to the Capitol Square. Contingency plans remain in place to close all or parts of the Square, depending on crowd levels. The MPD continues to commend the behavior of those who have gathered to peacefully protest. MPD officers have made no arrests this week, and have encountered no problems outside of the State Capitol.”

More at the link. Item #1 really says it all: the point of public safety is first and foremost to ensure the safe and unfettered exercise of civil liberties — not to deny them to free citizens.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576593371443552888.html

This Wall Street Journal article appeared Sept 26th and got it right the earliest AFAIK. The status of Zuccotti Park matters because of the distinction between owning land and owning specific rights in relation to the property. It matters b/c Brookfield in this case, and other actors generally, want to have it both ways: heads they win; tails we lose.

“Zucotti Park isn’t a true public space.”

False. You’ve inverted the situation: It is no longer a private space because Brookfield Properties, of their own volition, exchanged the use of the land by the public for the right to build at higher-than-legally-allowable densities or heights on an adjacent or nearby parcel. In short, the developers sought density bonuses, and the price of exceeding the zoning limit was public access to and use of the land that became Zucotti Park.

In fact, what Brookfield Properties (or their predecessor) gave up was the right to determine who could use the land and for what purpose. Once the owner has voluntarily given up the right to dictate who can be excluded from the land or who is granted entry — in practice, no one may be excluded and everyone must be included where the general public has access and the right to use it for public purposes.

Density bonuses were granted for numerous developers for decades, but not collated or tracked by the City. Until Jerold Kayden started doing site visits, and discovered that most property owners had welched on the deal: in almost every case he found there was no public usage possible or there was no public space provided at all, contrary to the contractual agreement to exceed the zoning ordinances. Instead, most of these public spaces were locked behind iron gates so the public had no access at all; or where public areas were accessible, any and all seating areas were covered with spikes to deter use; in some cases the public space was unsigned, or illegally appropriated and even signed as private space; in several cases there was no public space at all, only a loading dock or a wide spot in the pavement.

Practically to a man, the developers had made a deal for the density bonuses, built higher and denser than zoning allowed, and then turned around and took back the public usage they’d signed over to the City. The only reason the sacred contract was fulfilled by the private sector — the only reason we currently have public access to our publicly-owned right to use those spaces — is because Jerold Kayden’s research proved the property owners welched on the deal.

Contrary to Rafe’s story, legally “[t]he accent in privately-owned public space, for purposes of the public, is on public,” sez Kayden. If you’re gonna fork over public use of your private property, then guess what, the public gets to use that space. The only reason there is a “gray area” is that courts have not weighed in to further define what kinds of public usage are ‘reasonable’ (i.e., or whether public use reasonably includes the exercise of First Amendment rights: though Kayden uses that term and there’s likely statutory language written into the density bonus ordinances, no one can really argue with or deny the basic contractual terms of exchange. Brookfield Properties gave up any right to dictate who can use Zuccotti Park or what constitutes public use or reasonable use of the public space, in exchange for additional stories on nearby buildings. Funny, you don’t see Brookfield asking you and me and Bloomberg how much rent to charge on those extra stories or who gets to sign a lease. This is where Kayden pulls his punches, pretending the swap only amounts to an ‘accent’ on public use and only commenting on one side of the equation. Clearly Brookfield Properties would never go along with that definition. No private property owner would ever settle for ‘an accent’ on rental income when what they want is the very concrete revenues flowing from the extra stories delivered by the density bonuses. In equal measure, the public cannot reasonably construe ‘public access’ as being limited or regulated a) by the entity that gave up the right to determine who goes in and out or for what purpose; nor can b) public use be reasonably construed as less than the highest and best public use that stands as the core of American liberty and keeps the country vital and regular: the full exercise of those rights enumerated in the First Amendment.

Brookfield Properties, like many private sector actors, wants it both ways. They want to profit over and above existing law — and they want to determine dictate what American citizens can and cannot say in public. No rules to constrain them; no rules to keep you free. Note that the zoning secures a free and fair market for all players.

Bottom line: ownership of land entitles the owner to certain property rights, which consist of a bundle of rights. Brookfield traded away the right to exclude the public (‘public access’)and the right to regulate use. Now they want it back. If they are truly unhappy with their contract, we can unilaterally take control of the rental payments on all those extra stories they built and channel it all to more efficient public sector purposes. No?

Capitol Culture in Madison

http://www.facebook.com/?sk=messages#!/album.php?aid=76087&id=1329739469&fbid=1581347816830

David Dayen,

Welcome to Our House!! I lived a few blocks from the Capitol for many years and have scores of close friends on the ground there, keeping close watch and substantively interested and participating. Get ahold of me if you need anything.

I’m so glad you got to experience the real Wisconsin thing! Maybe it’s a trifecta of sorts: Obama elected, a Green Bay Packers’ Super Bowl victory, and a Wisconsin-sparked political moment that carries wider resonance. Indiana backs down, then Iowa’s Branstad take right-to-work legislation — couldn’t have written it any better.