Progressive Thinking

Vietnam era veteran Buzz Davis provides his views on the media blitz working overtime to puff out the fog of WAR that is drifting over America. Are the rich 1%ers, Wall Street bankers and the proponents of the military/industrial/political complex clapping their hands in glee because fear mongering is working so well?

STOUGHTON, WI - For 50 years our presidents and generals have been like losing football coaches who lose year after year but always say, “Just wait ‘til you see us WIN next week – we’re gonna crush em!”

McNamara and LBJ were pros at spinning losses into wins in the media.

But on the ground, millions of Vietnamese and soldiers paid a deathly price for their lying and the public’s gullibility. (I include myself in the gullible -- fortunately I was not sent to Vietnam in 1969.)

A month ago the US presidential primaries were debating inequality because activists, unions, economists and -- an unknown old man named Bernie Sanders had pushed America’s massive income and wealth inequality front and center into the presidential campaigns.

The 1%ers saw Sanders shoot up in the polls between March and now. They see he has smashed the hornets’ nest of inequality. 1%ers and their Wall Street/CEO welfare queens will get bit hard in the pocket book if Sanders wins.

How can they destroy Sanders? Dirty tricks? Dark Money floods? Assassination? Ah, how about MORE WAR? That wouldn’t cost us a dime and we’d actually make a buck.

Bam, almost like an orchestra conductor waving the baton, Paris erupts in screams, shots and terror. The media goes into “fear” overdrive ahla 9/11.

Reality be damned. Let’s do war!

You and I know the real terrorists are our neighbors. We have seen the enemy and it is us boozed up at our local bar.

We have had over 450,000 deaths in alcohol related vehicle accidents in the USA in the last 35 years and millions of injuries – many horrific and many permanent. Drunks are the terrorists Americans should be fighting!

But let’s flip back to the political reality of the 1%ers.

So the consultant says to the 1%er, “Sir, here is my proposal. We’ll pull the old war trick. We puff up the fear of a bearded terrorist behind every tree who steals young girls and does beheadings just like our Saudi pals. We call for worldwide war against terror, Republican candidates salivate like Pavlov’s dogs looking at red meat, we play Sanders as a wimpy lefty/socialist, Clinton will put on her aviator jump suit like Bush and struts like a tough guy, Sanders sinks like a rock, we put Dark Money behind Bush III cause he is the most trustworthy putty in our hands, the race is Bush III against momma Clinton, we drop the dirty trick bag on Clinton that Billy will be running the White House and Bush III wins with our Stop The Vote Drive.

Result: We have another nice hot war for our buddies in the military industrial complex. We make money. The peons forget this BS about income inequality. I figure it will only cost about $2 billion.

What do you think sir?

Do it. Have David cut the checks when you leave.

Thank you Mr. Koch!

Why are military style assault weapons like those used in San Bernardino County Wednesday so easily and legally available? While it is obvious that a ban on assault weapon sales would not stop all types of gun crimes, we can certainly stop handing these murderers the weapon of their choice to kill us.

GREEN BAY – This week's murder of 14 people in San Bernardino County, and the wounding of 17 others by self styled terrorists at a holiday gathering of public service workers has many implications for all thinking Americans, but one question immediately jumps to mind. Why are military style assault weapons like those used Wednesday so easily available to any murderer, terrorist, or nut case who wants one?

Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms that are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Assault weapons have been used in many high-profile shooting incidents, including Wednesday's massacre in California, the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater, and many others.

A review of 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 by Mother Jones found that assault weapons were recovered in almost a quarter of them. A review of mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013 by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that incidents where assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines were used resulted in 135% more people shot and 57% more killed, compared to other mass shootings.

A joint report by scholars in Mexico and the United States found that semi-automatic assault rifles sold in the U.S. are the most sought after and widely used weapons by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

A study analyzing FBI data shows that 20% of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 to 2001 were killed with assault weapons. Evidence from law enforcement leaders suggests that military-style assault weapons are increasingly being used against law enforcement by drug dealers and gang members.

A report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that Congress enact an effective ban on military-style assault weapons in order to curb the ability of criminals to “outgun” law enforcement officers.

A strong majority of Americans, including gun owners, consistently support laws prohibiting assault weapons. In a recent survey, 67% of Field & Stream readers polled did not consider assault weapons to be legitimate sporting guns.

In 1994, Congress adopted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess” a semiautomatic assault weapon. However, the law expired in 2004, despite overwhelming public support for its renewal and semi-automatic, military style weapons banned under the federal law are now legal unless banned by state or local law.

Gun manufacturers, their lobbyists, gun merchants, and the NRA spend millions of dollars each year fighting legislation to reenact the Assault Weapon Ban. We let them put their financial interest to sell guns and ammunition above the safety of our families by buying their bogus claim that somehow they are protecting our “rights”.

Assault weapons allow criminals and terrorists to fire more shots, wound and kill more individuals and inflict greater damage in the most deadly mass shootings. While it is obvious that a ban on assault weapon sales would not stop all types of gun crimes, we can certainly stop handing these murderers the weapon of their choice to kill us.

And if there is no political will to do something in Washington, we can certainly demand action from our political leaders right here in Wisconsin.

It is time for everybody to do something to stop the slaughter. Wake up and smell the bodies!

MADISON - Yesterday, as you may have seen, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court came down with another terrible decision on the John Doe II investigation and essentially fired Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz on the spot.

I wrote about Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s superb and scathing dissent, which you can read here:

Justice Abrahamson slams the canning of the John Doe prosecutor

We then posted the reaction of Prosecutor Schmitz, which is amazing. He says the rightwing groups he had to contend with in this case were trickier than the “violent criminals and terrorists” he used to have to deal with:

Read the defiant statement of the John Doe II prosecutor

We also sent out a letter to five district attorneys in Wisconsin, urging them to take up this battle and appeal the decision of the State Supreme Court straight up to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Open letter requesting DA intervention in John Doe II case

Now it’s your turn: If you’re in any of the five counties — Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Iowa, or Milwaukee — please call or send an email to your district attorney. Their contact information is at the top of the open letter.

The two likeliest DAs to take this up are John Chisholm of Milwaukee County and Ismael Ozanne of Dane County. So if you live there, be sure to contact them. Here’s their info:

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Phone (608) 266-4211

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Phone (414) 278-4646

We can’t let this horrendous State Supreme Court decision stand.

It would impair our ability to impose sensible limits on campaign spending in the future.

If you believe in fighting for democracy, as I know you do, please contact these DAs today.

Thanks for your activism.

The new “gig economy” has people working as free-lancers or independent contractors. Companies do not have to provide benefits and do not have to follow labor laws. This type of system shifts the risk to workers and the implications for workers and the economy can be great.

ALMA, WI - “If my company followed the rules, they couldn’t survive,” my niece Becky told me as we traveled home from our “Small Business Saturday” shopping trip.

Small retail businesses are owned by local folks and regularly use local workers. The money we spend in our local communities usually stays local.

But in this changing economy, sometimes your small business is not local. Sometimes the company is not even American.

Becky works for a small company that makes “apps” for use on computers or mobile devices.

The company is headquartered in Porta. That’s not a city in Wisconsin but in Portugal. The company hires workers from four continents including Peru, Taiwan, Germany and three employees in the United States.

My niece is a Wisconsinite. She graduated from a Central Wisconsin high school and her folks still live on the farm in Wood County. Becky spent several months in Portugal learning the company business. Now she works out of a Twin Cities co-op type office, which is essentially a basement, converted to free-lancers office space.

She could live and work anywhere in the world that has a good [unlimited data and consistently high speed] Internet connection.

Becky is a free-lancer, a self-employed independent contractor. Her company does not have a Human Resources department because they don’t have employees. Those who work for the company are all on their own. “Internet nomads” Becky says.

What does this mean? And what does Becky’s experience have to do with the way work and workers are changing?

America’s system of work is built on the premise that workers and employers share a social contract: employers gain profits through workers and, in return, workers are compensated and secure through wages, benefits and labor laws.

Health care, unemployment, worker safety protections, sick leave, injured workers’ compensation and retirement savings are all part of this social contract.

But for millions of people who work in the so-called “gig economy” the employer does not hold up their end of the bargain. By dropping benefits and not following labor laws, a company can lower its labor costs – a lot.

Robert Reich, President Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, recently released a short video describing the problem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Snob8-6xM&app=desktop). “In five years over 40% of the American labor force will be in such uncertain work,” Reich says.

I believe it. Just in my family, over half of the “twenty-somethings” are self-employed or temporary workers.

Reich says the change in the economy “shifts all of the risk to workers. A downturn in demand or sudden change in consumer needs, a personal injury or sickness can make it impossible to pay the bills.”

Becky likes the flexibility of the new economy. She is willing to buy her own health insurance if she gains freedom to work when and where she wants. She argues small digital companies could not survive if they followed the labor laws in each of the various countries that make up their workforce. “They only have three American workers,” Becky said. “Imagine how hard it would be to follow the rules in a dozen different countries.”

Some digital companies are not so small. According to the Washington Post, this year Uber – the new economy’s answer to taxicabs – has over 160,000 workers in the United States.

Author Steven Hill wrote about this phenomenon in a new book and for Salon.com: “In a sense, employers and employees used to be married to each other, and there was a sense of commitment and a joined destiny. Now, employers just want a bunch of one-night stands with their employees, a promiscuousness that promises to be not only fleeting but destabilizing to the broader macro economy.”

The implications are enormous. Our state is struggling with the problems even now. Several proposals have been floated at the Capitol to change the injured workers’ compensation insurance system. However, if more workers were a part of this system, the health of the funds that support the insurance would improve.

As Becky and I grappled with the policy challenges, I realized there was no simple answer. But our conversation did help visualize the goal.

“There has got to be a way,” Becky said. “To keep the flexibility for companies and protect workers.”

MADISON - In the 1990s the late sociologist and senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined the phrase “defining deviancy down” to describe the tendency of societies to respond to destructive behaviors by lowering standards for what is permissible.

Today it’s clear the same thing has happened to political representation. Here in Wisconsin, we’ve unquestionably grown more tolerant of political corruption, and the same probably goes for the whole country. All across America, standards for what it means to be represented have been lowered. We still have the habit of calling elected officials our “representatives” even though we are convinced they don’t care what we think, put their own interests ahead of the country’s and are slaves to wealthy donors.

We are considered to be represented even though we have elections for Congress and state legislatures where one party gets the most votes but the other party wins the most seats.

Supermajorities of voters in cities and small rural towns, in Republican and Democratic strongholds alike, have made it clear they think there is too much money in politics. Their “representatives” think there is not enough, and went to work changing the law to allow vastly larger political donations with considerably less donor disclosure.

Voters crossed party boundaries to show support for increasing the minimum wage. Their “representatives” ignored their wishes. Voters cast ballots in favor of Wisconsin accepting federal funds to expand health care coverage. Their “representatives” did the opposite, rejecting the federal money.

They not only disregard what voters want. They actively work to make it harder to vote.

It’s clear the representation that is a central feature of any true republic has been diminished, demeaned and devalued in today’s America. It’s equally clear that supposed representatives will not undertake the restoration of authentic representation. This work will have to be an undertaking of the supposedly represented. Standards for what it means to be represented will have to be raised. Intolerance of corruption and what currently passes for representation will have to grow. And we need to question everything about how the system works, because it obviously isn’t working for most of us at the moment.

With the advanced information technology we now have, why isn’t thereautomatic voter registration? Why do we still have to vote on Tuesdays? Why do we have winner-take-all elections? Why do voters have to choose just one candidate for an office? Why can’t we rank all the candidates in order of preference? Why do we still need primary elections and general elections? In this computer age we could save a lot of money by having instant runoffs.

For that matter, why do we have just one representative in each office? If one candidate gets 55% of the vote and another gets 45%, why pretend the top vote-getter “represents” everyone? Computer technology could easily be put to work in the halls of government to allow both to serve as representatives, with their representation of the voting jurisdiction instantly apportioned according to the percentage of the vote each received. That way, the wishes of all those voters would be reflected in decisions made by governing bodies, not just the wishes of just over half of them.

While we are questioning the system, we also have to question our own habits. Why do we call elected officials our “representatives” if we do not feel they represent us? Why do we call office holders our nation’s or our state’s or our community’s “leaders” when they are supposed to be taking their cues from us? Why don’t we recognize ourselves as the leaders and them as our servants?

Really, why?