Norm Stamper Speaks: "Police Departments Are The Junior Partners In The Community"

Since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security on November 25^th, 2002 under the Presidency of George W. Bush, an unprecedented militarization and escalation of tactics in the US has taken place among police departments. From the arming of our police forces with armored personnel carriers to the frequent use of SWAT teams against unarmed and non-threatening protesters, a rash of police actions have swept the country that has led many activists, advocates, and citizens to ask: is this what our police force should be used for?

In no place is that escalation and use of heavy force more apparent than Seattle. The Seattle Police Department has a long history of excessive force in its actions, perhaps most notable by the slaying of John T. Williams, an indigenous woodcarver who was shot by Officer Ian Birk simply because he could not hear Birk’s order to stop.

Occupy Seattle has seen its share of extreme action, most famously in the case of Dorli Rainey, an 84-year old woman who waspepper-sprayed on November 15th, 2011 after complying with a police order to stand on a sidewalk. In other cases, police have used horses, flash-bang grenades, and physical assault in order to subdue peaceful protesters.

The Department of Justice has, since these incidents, issued a strongly worded letter to the Seattle Police Department for their abuses, specifically citing Occupy Seattle as a matter of interest in their investigation. The Department, under the auspices of Chief of Police John Diaz, has been recalcitrant in the wake of this admonishment and continues to refute the Federal Government’s attempts to rein in what appears to many to be a department which has gone out of control.

In 1999, a notorious riot exacerbated by police action took place in what has now been called the “Battle of Seattle.” The Chief of Police at that time was one Norm Stamper, who after his retirement has publicly stated he regretted his decisions during that action and now works tirelessly against police brutality. Thanks to the Occupy Seattle Media Team, I was able to schedule an interview with Stamper, in which we addressed the WTO riots of 1999, current uses of force in the SPD, and what he feels Chiefs like Diaz should keep in mind.

Ian Awesome: You were chief of police during one of the most notorious stateside clashes between police and protester in recent decades. What are you doing now and how has your tenure as chief of police in Seattle affected your current affairs? 

Norm Stamper: It was during that event that I made the worst decision of my career, which was to permit the use of chemical agents on a non-violent, non-threatening crowd on 6^th. We made that decision because we felt it was a necessity, but there was NO necessity for that decision, and I will regret that forever. That week is unfortunately considered my legacy.
I’m a writer, I do some public speaking, and I am mostly involved in drug policy reform and work for the abolition of the death penalty. 

So what’s happened of course is that every time there is an anniversary for the Battle of Seattle, I’ll get a call asking me for my reflections on what happened in ‘99 and what I would have done differently. Of course, Occupy has really taken hold in this country and captured the imagination of so many people so I’ve been doing a lot of interviews on that as well. 

IA: Occupy Seattle has frequently been the victim of heavy-handed tactics even though the recipients of those attacks were peaceably demonstrating or, in many cases, just sleeping. Do you think the current level of force (such as indiscriminate pepper-spray use, riding horses into crowds, punching, flashbang grenades, and use of SWAT teams) is appropriate to the actions of these demonstrators? 

 The remnants of a flashbang grenade used at our Port Action. Photo by Joseph H.

NS: There are times and circumstances when use of force is justified but, generally, there appears to be no justification of the use of chemical weapons and other methods of force. The iconic UC Davis video is a perfect example. These non-violent demonstrators were causing no harm to anyone, to include the police, and were sprayed in a manner that was almost cavalier. It was as if that officer was watering his roses! 

In short, I think that there has been a massive overreaction across the country. My overarching opinion is that it is too much too soon and that it is exacerbating tensions between Occupy and police departments. 

IA: You recently said on The Nation that the paramilitary bureaucracy today is worse than it was in the 1990s. Would you view incidents such as the use of SWAT teams to evict unarmed and peaceful Occupiers from buildings as a symptom of that increased sense of “protesters are the enemy?” 

NS: You know, I do believe that in general there has been a major increase in the militarization of American law enforcement. We are seeing SWAT teams used for things that were not part of the designed purpose of SWAT teams. They were established to deal with hostages, bank robberies, heavily armed individuals, and often times domestic violence situations where someone is holding their partner at gunpoint. SWAT is a smart response to these problems. What’s happened is SWAT is now being employed for very low level drug offenses, on political protests and other situations. 

SWAT operations can get people killed when used improperly, even though the purpose is to protect lives, to include the lives of alleged perpetrators. There is a problem in law enforcement today and that is scared cops! They have been erroneously conditioned to believe that the next person who answers a door they knock on is going to kill them. If that’s your mindset and orientation and your tools are SWAT, tragic outcomes are all but inevitable.

IA: Recently the Department of Justice soundly chastised the Seattle Police Department with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez characterizing SPD’s practices to ensure trust with the community as “broken,” which Police Chief Diaz hotly denies. What would your response be were you in his position? Do you have a word of advice you would give to Chief of Police Diaz? 

NS: Well, without being presumptuous, I would offer this view to any chief including Diaz. If you do not conceive of your police department as belonging to the community, then you have the wrong conception of policing a free and democratic society. I think it’s very important the police take the view that they are the junior partners of the communities they serve. If there’s a senior partner in that relationship it is the community by at least a ratio of 51/49, and that isn’t just the business community or blind supporters of the police department, but also critics and those who have been on the receiving end of oppressive police action.

Norm Stamper is just one voice among many calling for the demilitarization of our police forces. The question is, of course, will current federal leadership and individual police departments listen? 

Barack Obama Signs "Detention" Bill

See you all in hell. By which I mean Guatanamo Bay.

In a move that has horrified civil liberties advocates (not to mention thousands upon thousands of Americans) President Barack Obama signed today a controversial defense authorization bill which contains amendments authorizing the White House to detain persons of interest in terrorism investigations indefinitely by using the US military:

The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority. 

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

Basically, he has given himself the authority to detain Americans without due process but really really wants us to know that he is going to do the right thing and not use that authority. Right.

Keep in mind he also was going to ease federal restrictions on medical marijuana laws yet has instituted crackdowns on dispensaries in Washington State. He promised to have more lax deportation standards but instead has deported more immigrants than any previous president. So are we supposed to trust him?

Yes, Discrimination Against HIV+ Employees Still Exists

The US has laws on the books that prevent on-the-job discrimination against employees working in the States who are living with HIV. It's fantastic legislation that I have been grateful for since my positive test result in January, 2009. I have felt secure since then because I felt that I would be be protected in the workplace.  Maybe I shouldn't have that false sense of security, as it is plain that discrimination is still taking place.

One former employee isn't smiling.

One HIV-positive man in a Michigan dental office called Great Expressions is now alleging that his employees and coworkers, once they found out he carried the virus, created a horribly uncomfortable environment at work. They sprayed him with Lysol, ordered him to not touch doorknobs, and eventually fired him over his serostatus.

Lawyers for James White have called his case the worst case of alleged HIV-related job discrimination they have ever handled. According to White, who was an office assistant at Great Expressions Dental Center, his superiors leaked news of his HIV-positive status to fellow coworkers, several of whom began spraying White with Lysol, prohibiting him from touching doorknobs, and wiping down office furniture and equipment after he used it. Finally, during a stint in the hospital to seek care for his HIV, Great Expressions allegedly called White and told him not to return to work.

White has already sought legal action against Great Expressions, with the Detroit chapter of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that there was probable cause to believe that the office discriminated against him because of his serostatus. Great Expressions has ignored the ruling, however a Change.org petition has been created with 37,500 signatures at the time of this writing demanding an apology from the administrators of the office.

Just to be clear about the law in the US regarding HIV-positive employees, I got this clarification from the website for the National Association of Social Workers:

Individuals with disabilities are protected under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA). Persons with HIV, whether they have outwardly manifested symptoms or not, are considered to have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Therefore, the ADA covers them.The ADA gives federal civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities. It also guarantees equal opportunity in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunications. Recent court decisions and pending legislation may affect this protection of HIV-positive people against discrimination.

Equal Employment Opportunity Laws (EEOP) cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. They also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

[Employment practices covered by the ADA] include hiring, firing, job application procedures, job interviews, job assignment, training and promotions, and wage benefits, including health insurance, leave, and other employment related activities.Employers who know an employee is HIV-positive are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for that person.

Great Expressions is clearly violating the law as mandated by the federal government.

People are often taken aback with my willingness to disclose my status, and James White is a perfect example why. People can't hold prejudices or unfair stigma against people living with HIV when someone they like or respect is open about their serostatus. I look forward to the day when this sort of disgusting harassment ends.

 

 

Memos, Conference Calls, and Police PR

In recent weeks, Occupy encampments around the country have faced numerous obstacles imposed upon them by local and municipal authorities. Major evictions have happened in nearly every metropolitan area that can claim an Occupation as its own, with many Occupiers alleging that their forceful evictions included instances of police brutality ranging from pepper spray to Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) use.

Many of these evictions happened within days of each other, leading Occupiers to speculate that widespread coordination on a national level had taken place. Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, in a rambling radio interview with the BBC, was kind enough to confirm that some coordination had taken place, letting slip that an informal call between 18 city governments regarding Occupy had taken place on October 10th.

Thanks, Mayor Quan!

Curious about Seattle's possible involvement in that call, Alex-Jon (AJ) Earl, a dedicated Occupy supporter and sometime reader of OneAngryQueer, requested from Mayor McGinn's office all Occupy-related memos and e-mails that had been communicated between the dates of October 15th and November 16th. They released to him a huge batch of documents equaling hundreds of pages of PDF files. He scoured them, and came up with some interesting information. I was pleased to sit down with him last night and examine some of the documentation provided.

For instance, did you know that Mayor Sam Adams spent a considerable amount of time making phone calls personally to other cities in the country regarding the Occupy movement?

An e-mail from mayoral staffer Beth Hester to journalist Christ Grygiel.

Also, a survey that saw little-to-no publicizing was initiated by officials in Philadelphia in order to aggregate information regarding Occupy and the statistics related to each city's occupation:

Reviewing the survey, it asks questions regarding how many arrests were made, whether or not protesters had blocked bridges, and probes how homeless populations had moved in with Occupations. All in all, it was an interesting read. Why was the government of Philadelphia trying to get information about each Occupation? Were they forming a database?

This, as we dug deeper, is not in of itself a scandal. After all, they're just talking about past experiences with and observations of their Occupations, right?

Braden Pence, one of the members of Occupy Seattle's legal team, did further digging through the documents and turned up even more interesting information. After all, AJ requested the documents in order to further research telephone coordination between mayoral staffs addressing the Occupy movement. They asked, how exactly was Mayor McGinn's office involved?

That's when Braden and AJ struck gold: the Mayor's office, thus far, had told the press that they were not invited to participate in Mayor Quan's now-infamous "informal teleconference" coordinated by the United States Conference of Mayors (UCSM). Multiple press inquiries were met with repeated denials once the news broke on the 15th. Mayor McGinn's office, evidently, was swamped with media requests on that day regarding the teleconference:

Please note in this inquiry that Sean Whitcomb, who works in the Seattle Police Department's Office of Public relations, is referenced. He comes up later.

Again and again, the Mayor's office denied involvement with that conference call, and there is no evidence to indicate that they were, in fact, involved. The thing that astounded us, however, is that they made no mention that they were participating in another less-publicized conference call regarding unspecified topics related to the Occupy movements.

The story about Mayor Quan's story broke on the morning of the 15th of November. However, after dating the e-mails, it is now apparent that on the 14th (the day before) correspondence took place in the Mayor's office suggesting the Mayor sit in on a conference call on the 16th, a detail conveniently unmentioned when press inquiries were made.

Note that Shauna Larsen is the City of Seattle's federal liaison based in Washington DC. Tom Cochran is the CEO of the US Conference of Mayors. 

Larsen then recommended that someone from the Mayor's office attend the call:

Unfortunately, Mayor McGinn was unavailable. However, turns out one of his staffers was: 

Ethan Raup is the director of Policy and Operations. Allison Burson is the Mayor's Executive Assistant.

Yes. Ethan can take that call. No problem.

Keep in mind that the original invitation from the USCM to participate in an Occupy teleconference for November 16th was sent out on the 14th, two days prior. Mayor Quan's gaffe that revealed inter-city communications regarding Occupations nationwide was reported on the 15th, and the media requests above were received by the Mayor's office that day at the same time this conference for the 16th was being scheduled. 

Did they technically give the correct answer when asked about the November 10th call? Oh, sure. Did they blithely forget to mention that they were busily scheduling another call coordinated by the USCM to address the issue of the Occupy movement? Definitely.

So, at this point, we were intrigued by the documents buried in countless pages of what amounted to memo spam; letters about permits and sound ordinances that surrounded short communiques scheduling conference calls that had the potential to affect a large and attention-grabbing movement. Why didn't they mention it? 

Whatever their reasons, that wasn't the only thing Braden and AJ found.

Everyone knows who Dorli Rainey is. The 84-year-old former schoolteacher and mayoral candidate, on November 15th (the day everyone was busily calling the Mayor to get a clear story and only getting half an accurate picture), happened to be on-scene during one of Occupy Seattle's protests, and ended up getting pepper-sprayed while standing on a sidewalk. She had the misfortune to be observing the mounting tensions between OS and the Seattle Police Department that night and got a face full of pepper spray as a result. The iconic photo that resulted from that night's events can be found here. 

In response to the incident (which almost instantly garnered horrific press for the SPD), the mayor began circulating his official apology among staffers to get their input. What's remarkable is that one of the people involved in that chain of e-mails is Sean Whitcomb (remember him from earlier?), a Sergeant in the SPD who works in the Office of Public Relations.  The original, unaltered version of his apology can be found below: 

But Sergeant Whitcomb had some suggestions: 

The perfect person to amend the mayor's apology regarding police brutality: a member of the police department.

In the end, this is what the Mayor released:

I also called in Seattle Police Chief John Diaz and the command staff to review the actions of last night. They agreed that this was not their preferred outcome. Here are the steps we are taking in response, to achieve a better outcome next time: 

• Reviewing with our officers the deployment of pepper spray last night
• Developing a procedure to ensure appropriate commanders are on the ground at these kinds of events.
• Making sure that we have appropriate levels of police resources at protest events.

While the Mayor didn't exactly conform his statement to Whitcomb's advice, it is clear that Mike McGinn altered his apology for the indiscriminate pepper spraying of peaceful protesters by SPD at the urging of... a member of SPD. Who is working for who, exactly? Does the SPD work at the direction of City Hall, or does City Hall form its policy at the behest of the Seattle Police Department?

Unfortunately, we don't have documentation of further communications on these matters. We don't have any e-mails confirming that Ethan Raup actually attended the teleconference nor do we know his thoughts on the call. We don't know what further advice the Mayor's office received from the Seattle Police Department's office of Public Relations. AJ's request for information only covered communications up to November 16th.

Regardless of assumptions and speculations, it is clear that we don't know everything that passes between various departments and mayoral staffers regarding matters related to Occupy Seattle. What was spoken about in that conference call? Why is the Mayor apologizing for police brutality with talking points given to him by the police?

Sounds like it might be time to request more records.

Police Attack On Occupy Seattle Port Blockade

Tragedy: Man Dies Waiting For Marriage Equality

The one thing Ed Watson wanted to do was marry his partner, Derence Kernek, before he died. Unfortunately, due to the machinations of anti-gay groups that mired California in the legal nightmare that is Proposition 8, he was unable to fulfill his dream and passed away Wednesday. In a sad ironic twist, he died the day before hearings on the controversial "Prop H8" began.

Gay rights activists lamented Watson's death as a reminder of the harm inflicted on same-sex couples throughout the state because they are denied the right to marry. 

"It's ironic that he died on the eve of appeals about peripheral issues around a case that should have been settled more than a year ago," said Richard Jacobs, chairman and founder of the gay rights advocacy group Courage Campaign, as he was en route to San Francisco for a hearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "None of this will matter to Ed or Derence." 

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled on Aug. 4, 2010, that Proposition 8 violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to due process and equal protection under the law. Sponsors of the initiative passed by 52% of Californians who voted in November 2008 have appealed Walker's ruling and won a suspension of it pending the 9th Circuit's ruling.

This is sad. How many more LGBTs have to die disappointed before people just admit, like Hillary Clinton did before the UN, that gay rights are human rights?

HIV Positive Student Denied Admission To Private School

Today is World AIDS Day, and I spent a good couple hours of my time today holding signs, raising awareness, and gathering signatures for a pledge to help end HIV.  It was a positive (hehe) experience and a great way to commemorate this global day of education.

One of the reasons we have World AIDS Day is to raise awareness, which is the easiest way to dispel the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS.  Unfortunately, we still come across ample examples of why education is needed, like this troubling story coming from a Pennsylvania boarding school.

The Milton Hershey School was founded by the chocolate tycoon as a school that "nurtures and educates children in social and financial need to lead fulfilling and productive lives."

But it seems that fulfillment won’t be coming for a 13-year-old honor student from Delaware County who is infected with the virus that causes AIDS. 

"I feel no other teenager should go through this, being denied just because they have HIV," the boy said in an exclusive interview with NBC Philadelphia’s Denise Nakano.

Watch:

  

It's sad that clear cases of discrimination against innocents who live with this disease still happen.  If the school's administration was educated about the actual methods of spreading HIV, they likely would not have denied this boy a chance for an education.

The US Constitution Responds To The Passage Of Detainment Amendment

Ian: Hi Constitution!  How do you feel about this amendment?
Constitution: No sir!  I don't like it!

Upon hearing that the US Senate has approved a defense appropriations amendment authorizing the military to detain American citizens indefinitely, a concerned United States Constitution leaped into the national debate on the issue, stating in no uncertain terms that this amendment is illegal:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I asked a friend and fellow White House arrestee, Scott Wooledge, how he felt about the matter.

"Scott, does it give you second thoughts about handcuffing yourself to something?"

"If by second thoughts you mean considering doing it a second time, definitely."

 Hmmm.  Scott and Ian no likey.

US Senate Votes To Allow Military To Indefinitely Detain American Citizens

Fuck you, US Senate.

In a move that has many Americans stunned, the US Senate has voted to approve an amendment in the most recent Defense appropriations bill which would allow the military to detain American citizens on US soil indefinitely, a drastic expansion of powers which first were used to hold, without trial, enemy combatants in Afghanistan.

Could this be your new home?

In light of the Obama administration's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the White House was quick to denounce the amendment and has threatened veto twice.  I assume the Republican controlled House of Representatives will pass this disgusting piece of legislation, assuring a showdown between the White House and Congress:

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeatan amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it. 

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.
Rand's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.

The division of Senators who voted for and against the provision is a bit bewildering, with a sizable Republican contingent (to include Paul) voting against it and a significant bloc of Democrats siding for the amendment, to include Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). The White House is staunch in its criticism of the amendment:

This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.

 I'm a bit concerned that the White House didn't include in its statement: "Also, this is unconstitutional and a gross abuse of power."

I know I might be a bit "conspiracy theorist" in supposing that this is a well-timed provision coinciding with nationally coordinated attacks on Occupy Wall Street encampments.  Who knows when some governor is going to decide that OWS protesters are terrorists and calls in the National Guard?  Should Congress overturns the President's veto, will Occupiers run the risk that they will be moved, without justification, to Gitmo?

Who's REALLY Being Divisive, Newt?

Newt Gingrich attempted to "evict an idea whose time has come" recently by calling on President Barack Obama to denounce the "concept of the 99 and 1".

I repudiate, and I call on the President to repudiate, the concept of the 99 and the 1. It is un-American, it is divisive, it is historically false…You are not going to get job creation when you engage in class warfare because you have to attack the very people you hope will create jobs.

Watch (courtesy Think Progress):



Of course, Newt's repudiation has NOTHING to do with the fact that he is quite clearly a member of the 1%.  Recall that cool half million dollar tab he had running with Tiffany's?

Without addressing, of course, the fallacy in the statement that Occupy Wall Street is engaging in class warfare (you can't, after all, start a war that has already been declared on YOU), I think it's important that we stop and really recall how ludicrous his assertion is that this is pitting Americans against each other.

Divisive?  Maybe Newt should recall a few details from his own checkered past!  Including, for instance, his unpublicized financing of anti-gay groups determined to pit straight Americans against gay ones:

ThinkProgress previously reported on $200,000 that Gingrich funneled from an anonymous donor to the anti-marriage equality group Iowa for Freedom, which was also being funded by AFA Action, the political arm of the virulently anti-gay American Family Association. The Associated Press revealed yesterday that one of the cogs in Gingrich’s vast network of business enterprises and front groups, ReAL Action, provided $125,000 to AFA Action. The Des Moines Register reported this morning that ReAL Action also contributed $25,000 to yet another Iowa anti-LGBT group, the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The American Family Association is, of course, an officially Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate group.

In fact, his anti-gay policies were denounced as divisive by activist Nick Espinosa, who glitterbombed Gingrich at a Minnesota anti-gay group's event last spring:

"Feel the rainbow, Newt. Stop the hate. Stop anti-gay politics. It's dividing our country and it's not fixing our economy," the protester said, as he yanked out a box and dumped the sparkles on Gingrich, who sat next to wife, Callista.

So what part of the OWS movement do you think really troubles him more: our "dividing" of this country?  Or the fact that we want to get rid of tax cuts that benefit him (and his Tiffany's tab)?

To Protect And To Serve Who, Exactly?

Bank Divestment Day passed on November 5th, but people are continuing to withdraw their funds from big banks in order to put their money in credit unions and community banks.  In the Seattle area, local credit union BECU has seen an incredible 280% increase in new membership since the beginning of Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests.

Some, unfortunately, were not able to close their accounts on the fifth.  Alexander Williamson, a dedicated supporter of Occupy Seattle, banked with Chase and wanted to make his statement about financial institutions who received bailout money.  When he went to his branch and attempted to close his account, they stalled him by saying he had to wait to ensure that no charges from Netflix were pending.

Finally, on the 14th of November, he went into a Chase location in Edmonds, Washington and attempted to close his account for a final time.  Since there was no money in the account (he had been transferring his banking slowly), the bank teller informed him that he owed a $19.99 low-balance fee-- one of the many ludicrous charges currently scaring customers away from big banks.

Alex refused to pay and refused to leave until they closed his account.  So, naturally, they called the police and attempted to have him arrested for trespassing.

I just closed an account with no money in it... and they wanted to charge me a 19.99 low funds/inactivity fee.  I refused to pay it... and they wouldn't close it... So I refused to leave.  But I was very calm and polite, with no signs or shouting.

Two police officers arrived, forced him to leave the building, and while one officer spoke with Williamson, the other spoke with the bank manager.  They determined that he was not currently breaking any laws, and let him go without detainment.

The thing is, his goal was not to cause a scene nor make any sort of statement.  He merely refused to pay a spurious and unfair fee, and received the attention of the police for his efforts.

I just went in to make a low key closure... Not trying to make a scene or even protest really. It just pissed me off so much that I kind of ended up doing that.

After the incident, Williamson finally called Chase directly and complained about the service, earning an apology from customer service, who professed to not being aware about any low balance/inactivity fees that were appropriate for his situation.

When he asked the police officer why he was being removed from the bank, he got a simple response: "We cant have you disrupting people's banking, you need to leave right now, or we'll take you in."

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: is this really what we are paying the police to do?  Who was protected?  Who was served?  And why did Williamson have to risk arrest for protesting unfair banking practices?

Video: SPD Laughing, Joking While Pepper Spraying Compliant Protesters

On November 15th, the Seattle Police Department pepper sprayed innocent protesters who had already complied with a lawful order to get on the sidewalk.  One person filming engaged in conversation with an officer who laughed and joked about what was going on.  Watch (warning, graphic footage of police brutality and extreme assholism):

Post-PDX Acknowledgments-- Police, Protesters, and A Really Big Dummy

It's been a long weekend.  After our Veteran's Day festivities at Occupy Seattle, a bunch of us went down to stand in solidarity with Occupy Portland on the night of their big eviction (smirk) as ordered by Mayor Sam Adams.  Full accounts of the night's events are found elsewhere, but before I get out of my Army dress blues and collapse into bed, I thought some acknowledgments were in order for the many characters on-scene in Portland.

Yeah, I'm in this picture.  Far left, in military uniform standing in front of the police.

To the Occupy Seattlites I rode with: thanks for the conversation.  Big thanks to Gabriel and Ken for driving to and from Portland all in one night.

To the Occupy Portlanders: thank you for the warm welcome.  You guys were great.

To the many dancers, musicians, and jokers milling around the encampment: thanks for keeping the atmosphere light.

To the proprietor(s) of Lotus bar: thanks for letting me use your bathroom.  Repeatedly.

To the "gentleman" who got in a heated argument with me about the movement, then stated that he would kill me were I not in uniform, then called me a dummy (it was written on a sign he was holding that he waved in my face) and forced me to walk away in disgust: I'm sorry your behavior was so unruly and disrespectful that it got you TASERed and arrested.  By the way?  I win the argument.

To the police officer who thought it was appropriate to take time out from keeping people safe in order to  yell at me for a minor uniform infraction: neither your sarcasm nor your penchant for harassment do honor to the uniform you wear.  I am confident that I wore my uniform with well-deserved pride, and I hope that someday you will too.

To the frightened hippie on the front line who helped me face down the police, even though tears were streaming down his face: sorry for squeezing your hand so hard.  I was scared too.

To the former Army Specialist in the Guy Fawkes mask who asked me to pin new "rank"-- a flower-- to his collar in military fashion: I have never been so pleased to "promote" someone.  Hoo-ah!

To the many police officers, male and female, who peered through their riot shields with near terror in their eyes: don't worry.  We're far more likely to hug you than hurt you.  Also, I was scared too.

To the man with the tattooed face who informed me his dog had been stolen and then gently told me "He was a good dog":  I'm sorry, brother.  I hope you find your dog.

To the horse who spooked and almost ran, having scented the tension in the air: easy, big guy!  Um.  I was scared too.

To my voice, which I seem to have misplaced after a night of continued chanting and shouting: I don't blame you for leaving, but please come back.  I miss you.

To every brave individual who stared authority in the face and said "I'm not moving": You are some of the bravest people I've ever met, and I am proud to have "held the line" with you.



To every single person who was in downtown Portland and helped ensure that last night's demonstration and police action ended peacefully and without violence: it doesn't matter which side of the line you were holding or if you were police or protester.  Your dedication to peace was awe-inspiring.

To Mayor Sam Adams, Mayor McGinn, and any other politician who dares to send our brethren in the 99% in riot gear to remove us from our adopted homes and infringe on our right to peaceably assemble: We cannot be divided and we cannot be silenced.  We are not here on your terms, but on ours.  We are the 99%, we are too big to fail, and we will not be moved.


I love you all.



PS: Not the guy with the sign that said "Dummy."  You actually suck and I don't love you at all.

Republicans Soften Their Stance On Taxes, Except Not

The political landscape in the US has seen a profound shift among the liberal set, with a focus on social issues shifting in favor of setting economic disparities in the sights of the left's political machine.  This includes yours truly-- I've been sacrificing blogging about gay shit in order to focus on the Occupy Wall Street/ Occupy Seattle movement.  

Perhaps Republicans and the right as a whole is starting to feel the heat, as they now are at least attempting to make an appearance of softening their "no new taxes" stance.  The reality is, of course, that if we do not increase taxes (to include the rich, who pay almost none by comparison to the poor and middle classes), much needed programs like education will feel the pinch.  Maybe the Occupy Wall Street movement has made that plain, as Congressional Republicans have put an offer on the table that would increase tax revenue by as much as $300 billion.

Some, however, are not best pleased with the new plan:

Congressional Republicans have for the first time retreated from their hard-line stance against new taxes, offering to raise federal tax collections by nearly $300 billion over the next decade as part of a plan to tame the national debt. 

But Democrats rejected the offer Tuesday — along with the notion that Republicans had made a significant concession that could end the long-standing political impasse — leaving a special debt-reduction committee far from compromise with less than two weeks until its Thanksgiving deadline.

Democrats said the tax increases in the GOP offer would be dwarfed by major new tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest households, including a reduction in the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent.

In plain terms: Republicans are happy to increase taxes to meet our growing debt!  Uh, it's just that it's the poor and middle classes who will have to pay those increased taxes.  Not the rich!  No, we're going to cut their taxes even further.  

Nice try, guys.  

OneAngryCultist: Voting for God

Hold on to your horses, kids, the current GOP-led Congress is finally voting on something that is nothing short of Biblical and will bring about the second-coming; cure cancer, AIDS, hemorrhoids, and result in the liberation of all humanity accomplish absolutely nothing except reaffirm, "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the United States. The proposed bill would also encourage public buildings to include the motto in their architecture because, you know, architectural redecoration is some kind of job-creation, right?!

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04), Co-Chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and author of H.CON.RES.13 cites the following reasons why this bill is necessary:

"President Obama inaccurately proclaimed "E Pluribus Unum' as our national motto. Last November before a worldwide audience, in a much-anticipated and much-publicized speech focusing on the United States' relationship with the Muslim world, President Obama falsely proclaimed that our national motto was E pluribus unum. The President failed to respond to congressional entreaties to issue a correction; the uncorrected transcript remains on the White House website.

Misunderstanding of the phrase "Separation of Church and State". The Supreme Court has held, “The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. . . We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion.” The words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the phrase originates from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Inaccuracies and omissions in the half-billion-dollar Capitol Visitor Center. In 2008, the over half-billion dollar Capitol Visitor Center opened for the purpose of educating over 15,000 Capitol visitors daily on the “legislative process as well as the history and development of the architecture and art of the U.S. Capitol.” Yet, Capitol Visitor Center historians had sanitized the public building of any references to our national motto, including replacing the inscription of ‘In God We Trust,’ inscribed above the Speaker’s Rostrum with stars in a replica of the House Chamber and cropping an actual picture of the chamber so you could not see the words ‘In God We Trust.’ Only until Members of Congress intervened publically [sic.] and legislatively were these omissions and inaccuracies corrected."

So, essentially, what I'm reading is that Congressman Forbes took one of President Obama's gaffes a little too close to heart and is using Congress to make sure this doesn't happen again lest we all fall into godless heathenry.

Now, "Why is your OneAngryCultist chiming in on this particular issue?" you might ask. Well, because religion is important to me - not just mine, but all religions and spiritual perspectives atheism inclusive. As much as I like a little ceremonial deism here and there, H.CON.RES.13 is decidedly sectarian in nature and is part of a growing trend of denying the religious pluralism upon which this country was founded. While the issue of "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution in word, the kind of religion that politicians like Forbes, Perry and others want to enshrine into law is not the kind of religion that would be recognizable by the founding fathers, let alone the 25% of non-Christians in the United States.