Wisconsin Gov. Walker Wants To Charge Fees To Protest At The Capitol

My final thought on this absurd little squabble:  is "lonely" the new hawt insult on the interwebz right now?  Such an oddly personal way to attempt to stick it to a complete stranger.  Does that ever work?

1) To the photo editors of Chicagoist - CONGRATULATIONS!  That is the one and only photo I've ever seen of Gov. Walker where he didn't look like he's seriously brain damaged.  I'm not kidding.  I know one shouldn't judge people by their looks, but Walker always looks like a dolt.  In that photo he seems to be demonstrating some higher brain functioning.  Whether that's extraordinary photo selection or serious Photoshop work, nice!

2)Navin, dude.  That brick wall is harder than your skull.  http://xkcd.com/386/

I don't think Walker only looks like an idiot:  I can't think of a single thing that he's done that hasn't mobilized and angered his opponents.  And not just his opponents, either.  The WI public has turned on him pretty hard.  Its hard to think of a more hamfisted, self destructive "public servant" in recent memory.  I'm just hoping it turns the tide of WI politics towards the blue in the next election.

On 2:  here I thought I was the one giving myself a massive head injury.  Go team Navin?

People have the right to express their opinion but should be responsible for the costs.  Should the public; aka the tax payers; pick up the tab for political demonstrations?  Would you want to shoulder the costs for any group which chooses to stage a demonstration on public grounds?  The only issues I see here are whether the fees are punitive or simply to recover the costs to the government incurred by the demonstrations.  The threshold of 4 demonstrators does make it sound punitive though, but I would like to hear the rational behind that number.

What about the costs to set up and staff polling stations on election day? How about we charge a cover charge to vote, too...

Nobody said that democracy is free, but its a public good under the traditional definition, and should thus be absorbed by the gov't.

That's fair.  But there is a big difference:  the costs of setting up and running an election are predictable.   The costs (most monetary and to the public at large)
of managing a protest is not.

Personally, I would think a sensible policy could be crafted to let any group, no matter how large or small, protest on the public's dime within some reasonable time frame.  Past that timeframe, if the protestors want to continue to beat their point into the public, they can pay for that themselves.  But maybe timeframe isn't the right measurement.  Maybe something like X days per month.

He's an idiot.
 What will happen?

Apply for a permit for 100 and invite 10,000 to show up.

Watch the police panic.

Assembly is YOUR right.

And you have PAID for cleanup and police in your taxes....

So to hell with this idiot, in league with the like of NeoNazis Levin and McCain who want to arrest you using the military for NO reason and no recourse..... when YOUR protest makes you a terrorist.

Get your pemits... and then say "OH WELL" as THOUSANDS show up

Too bad, this is a country that supports rights to assemble... unlike North Korea, Syria, China... so tell Walker to go to h*ll............... or to North Korea, he'll fit right in.

Nah he's right, just after "right of the people to peaceably assemble" it says in tiny, tiny, tiny print:  "For a fee".

So you are an advocate of constitutional originalism now?  Going to get tight with Scalia?  Go rally for 2nd amendment rights?

I won't hold my breath.  You, like so many others before you, have determined what the "correct" reading of the constitution is, precedent and case law be damned.

None of this is to excuse Walkers behavior or to say that I agree with this decision (which will almost certainly be contested in court).  But the legal contortions the OWS movement has made to justify perpetual protests in any place, manner and time they choose has gotten absolutely ridiculous.

I didn't buy it when the NRA was selling it (all gun restrictions==constitutional violation!!!), and I'm not buying it now.

I was making a light joke, but I'm glad you're still incredibly lonely and 'hating' on activism in general.

Of course if he wants to make them get permits and fees, then all he has to do to subvert democracy is to simply deny it, just as Chicago has done in the past.

BTW, I don't believe for a second that you were only joking.  You've made patently clear that you think the only acceptable government response to protests is: let them do whatever they want. 

You could at least have the decency to back your ideas on the matter up with a little reasonable argument (notice that you didn't address my points on the constitutionality of restrictions on assembly).  Probably expecting too much, though...

If you reread, you can see that you didn't make any points at all, except to snark about literal interpretation of the constitution.  I don't care how it's interpreted to be honest.  If he gets away with this legally, then I hope they resort to civil disobedience.  His actions are obviously political and not practical.

The point, were you blessed with the intellectual faculties to understand it, was that hardline interpretation of the "original intent" of the constitution is absurd, whether it comes from the left or the right.  In practice, we negotiate the meaning of the constitution in the context of the modern world and abide by the outcome of those legal wranglings even as we campaign to change the outcomes we don't like.

My suggestion to the OWS crowd is that civil disobedience of our laws can cut both ways:  it can rally the troops or it can alienate potential supporters.  My observation is that in this case it is mostly doing the latter and that doesn't help your goals or mine.

But I'm just a conservative concern troll and can fuck off, right?

Ignoring your little Navin tiff (why does anyone bother with that?), I will point out that while there is truth in your statement concerning hardline interpretations of the Constitution's literal intent, I think charging people for the priviledge of protesting at the seat of state capitol is going too far. I strongly suspect most Constitutional scholar types would agree.

Ha.  Yes, yes...lonely and a hater of activism.  Nailed it!

Listen, I'm no hater of activism.  In fact, I support it.  But it is undeniable that certain groups take their ideology to the extreme and simply do not accept pragmatic compromises that would actually be workable in the real world.  For example:  PETA, the NRA and OWS.  I just don't have the patience to deal with their particular brands of close minded ideology.

Meet us in the middle man.  There are an enormous number of people that are waiting in the wings to support  realistic, workable solutions to our problems.  Engage us.  Don't piss us off with endless protests of drums and talking points.

I think they should tell guys like you and your "concerns" to piss up a rope.  You wouldn't be happy with anything they did, and it's funny that you keep floating this idea that you really would be on board if they could just shape themselves into exactly what you like.

As Angela Davis said:

Rather than worrying about reaching conservatives, organize your natural allies and conservatives will feel left out.

Amen.

Classic Navin fallbacks:  you're a conservative, so why bother trying to convince you!  Concern troll!  Concern troll!

Anything to the right of you is conservative, according to you.  You're so damn blind to your own extremism that you can't see that there are people, like me, who are moderate-left that might actually jump on board your bandwagon if they thought you actually stood for the things that actually matter.  Memo to you:  staking a claim on a piece of public parkland DOES NOT MATTER.

You and your bullshit definition of "liberal" and "conservative" can suck it.  Most of America falls somewhere in the middle and zealots like yourself will never get that.  Whether you like it or not, I will go on calling myself a liberal.  Actually, I hope you don't like it.

Also, I'm not sure there is a better definition for "pissing up a rope" than "trying to have a reasonable conversation with Navin."  You are a zealot and have no ability to reach out to people with even slightly different ideals than you.

Yeah, you're so clearly honest.  Piss off, I think it's hilarious that you actually think anybody is dumb enough to read your endless whining and complete negativity toward every aspect of the protests and think that you are or would ever be on their side.  You are so obviously full of shit.

#lonely #feelingleftout #trollin' #getoutoftheway

Ah, hashtags.  You really sizzled me there.  Also "get out of the way" is an apt suggestion to the OWS movement.  At least the idiots in the Tea Party had the sense to get out of the way when their day in the sun was over.  Take a cue, you twit.

And I don't really give a flying fuck if a clueless zealot like you believes me: it's the truth.  I'm absolutely in support of more progressive taxation, more sensible regulation and laws targeting big corporations and policy intended to close the income gap.  I just have a different approach to achieving it.

But in Navin's world, that type of disagreement simply isn't tolerated.  You're just an asshole.