by lizard
So I was watching the latest episode of the Showtime series Shameless the other night when I witnessed something profound.
*spoiler alert*
The drunken patriarch of the family, Frank Gallagher (played brilliantly by William H. Macy), had been laying the groundwork for a long-con on a woman who is dying. Slowly he ingratiates himself with little favors, exploiting her loneliness and fear. It becomes apparent his target is her city pension, not just to the viewer but too his mark as well. When she calls him on it, he lays out a justification for why she should do it. It’s a convincing pitch; he wins her over by pledging to keep her memory alive after she dies, that she’ll be remembered; he’ll even go once a week to church to light a candle for her. I think what Frank digs deep to touch is a more profound fear than just death; it’s a fear of the total obliteration of self, of having no trace left behind of your life on earth.
But it’s all a con, and the awful turn in this agreement between an alcoholic and a dying woman comes when a beeper goes off while the woman is in the shower. You see, she’s waiting for a heart to become available, because she needs a transplant, which Frank knows, which is why he calls the hospital and tells whoever on the other end of line that the needy organ recipient had already died.
It gets even worse, but I don’t want to ruin the whole episode. Needless to say, the show earns its title, with every episode.
I am actually going somewhere by mentioning all this. Shameless is an important narrative being told about the ravages of alcoholism, a narrative newspapers can report on, but can’t fully contextualize. Editors can certainly push certain aspects of the symptoms, like featuring three separate stories related to alcohol abuse in the Montana section of the Missoulian a few days ago, or focusing on “Transients” without getting in depth about why our culture turns so callously against drunks who have drunk themselves into the misery of perpetual intoxication on the streets, but it shouldn’t be their responsibility alone to tell us why these things are happening under our collective noses.
A comment here at 4&20, posted this morning by “Opal”, reminds us again of what continues to happen here and all over the country:
Apparently another homeless person has died on the sidewalk in Missoula. The death is being reported on Keci and Kpax, but not in the Missoulian this morning. The Irony of the death on the same day as the project homeless connect event, and during the city’s homeless awareness week. Sad.
As the city slowly develops its 10 year plan to end homelessness, I hope the role alcohol plays in destroying people’s lives is fully considered.
While that happens, there will continue to be those on the margins of our society who slowly drink themselves to death. They all have their stories and their reasons, and those stories, I would argue, are really important for us as a society to listen to, to understand, because there have to be better ways for communities to respond to chronic issues, like alcoholism.
A problem, it should be noted, that may only get worse as economic conditions decline.
by Pete Talbot
Baucus pulls a Rehberg
The rhetoric was pure Rehberg but it came from the mouth of Max Baucus. On the heels of the State of the Union address, the first comment from our congressional delegation was Max blasting Obama for not ramming through the Keystone XL pipeline.
Granted, it was just a local TV news snippet and I’m sure the station was looking for the most controversial quote, but Max gladly provided it.
He joins the ranks of Joe Leiberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln as party skanks. Montana Republicans should be grateful that Max Baucus is their senior senator.
Baucus says he’s “quite disappointed” that Obama didn’t reference the pipeline. Here’s the link to the 10 p.m. newscast. Max is about four minutes in. Viewing not recommended for those with a queasy stomach.
On the other hand
In light of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, both Baucus and Tester are pushing for a Constitutional amendment that would regulate campaign spending. This will be no cakewalk as it takes two-thirds of both chambers and three-quarters of the states (38 states?) to ratify the amendment. Maybe just making our elections publicly financed would be easier, although I’m sure that, too, would end up in SCOTUS.
Of course Rehberg likes the idea of unlimited corporate influence in elections. He believes there just needs to be more “sunlight” (or transparency) in campaigns, which mens a five-minute scroll of all the contributors at the end of a sixty-second negative hit spot on TV. Yeah, right. Like we can’t already figure out where all the millions of dollars are coming from.
It will be interesting to see how aggressive Congress is in advancing this amendment and how accountable members will be to citizens (and by citizens, I don’t mean corporations).
Update: Here’s Pogie’s take on Rehberg and Citizens United.
by lizard
Stress can be like a caged animal caught in your chest, kicking your bowels, stiffening your limbs. Today it bit me good, and so I’m taking a mental health day. After I decompressed for a while, I picked up the book of poems currently gracing my night stand—Reading Novalis In Montana, by Melissa Kwasny. I flipped through and settled on a poem that but smacked me good (it’s actually the second poem of a twelve poem series). Thanks, Melissa! Continue Reading »
by lizard
During the first era of Newt, I didn’t really give a shit about politics. I was just your average privileged white male midwest suburban teenager maximizing my fun time during the ’94 Republican revolution and subsequent contract with America.
What does stick out quite vividly is the political and legal battle over what President Clinton did or did not do with his penis. It was around this time in my life that I started developing what would later become a serious allergy to “social conservative” family values.
Hate is too strong a word, but I really despise the social conservative, Focus-on-the-Family-type morality crusaders who stand against the simple dignity of legal rights for gay couples, which is why Newt Gingrich’s victory tonight makes me so happy.
Newt or Mitt, it ultimately doesn’t matter, social conservatives are going to be gagging to the polls either way, and that makes me smile. The tea party wave they’re still riding on is currently crashing; their political darlings don’t stand a chance. Now they must choose between the corporate Mormon vulture capitalist who incubated Obamacare in Massachusetts, or the serial monogamist/wannabe swinger (polygamist?) who was ousted as speaker on ethic charges and later pocketed cash lobbying for Fannie Mae.
If I was Axlerod I’d be tweeting smug sports analogies too. But instead of reproducing that tweet, I’d like to end with a tweet from Markos:
I don’t ever want to hear Republicans talk about “family values” ever again
by lizard
This week’s LWPS takes a look at Frank Marshall Davis, a black poet and alleged communist who played a prominent role in influencing our president, the closet Marxist, Barack Obama.
I received Davis’ book of collected poems, titled Black Moods, last week. I tried to find the most outlandish poem in the collection, and settled on the poem “To Those Who Sing America”. The poem, slightly altered from its original format, is below the fold. But beware, dear readers, if Davis influenced our president, altering the ideological course of his life, then there’s no telling what effect his verse may have on you… Continue Reading »
by jhwygirl
It’s more than a bit shocking – regardless of your political persuasion, I’d like to think – when a state senator and a congressional primary candidate champions the short-term economic boom to the shops in downtown Billings that occurred when Exxon spilled crude from its pipeline into the Yellowstone River this past July.
That’s the kind of thing you’d expect our current Representative Denny Rehberg might say, given his love for oil & gas industry money – Representative Rehberg ranks 14th in receipts of oil & gas industry money of all recipients there in Washington.
Instead, it was state senator Kim Gillan (D-Billings) who made the remark at a forum for several of the candidates held by The Policy Institute this past weekend. I have tremendous respect for The Policy Institute. They’ve provided excellent policy testimony – especially on budget issues – to legislative committees. Frankly, it’s a bit surprising that Gillan would say such a thing given the audience.
During a Q&A moderated by former Representative Pat Williams, candidates were asked about the Keystone XL pipeline by TransCanada – whether they thought the pipeline was good or bad (or both) for the economy. Gillan was up first with her answer – and I wish I had some video or audio, but alas, audio and video were not permitted – and she said that “there are people in Billings that think the oil spill was a good thing, that it was good for business. They are looking at their watches and asking can we do this again next year?”
The room fell quite with shock. First murmurs…then low boos. What. Was. She. Thinking?
One also has to wonder the company she keeps. Where – even if she was attempting a joke – something like that were considered funny.
Somewhere along the line I read that Montana has the most EPA cleanup sites. The Milltown Dam to Anaconda cleanup is the largest cleanup site of all. Helena (her district) has a big old cleanup site they’re trying to figure out what to do with right now, doesn’t it?
I’m guessing Gillan thinks all that is good economic development too.
Her remarks have been bugging me since I heard about them – I’ve often pondered if there wasn’t a certain attitude in the legislature with regards to mining/oil/gas development that was a lot of “let it roll” combined with “it’ll be a big cleanup site in the future.” Her remarks lead me to believe that I just may not be completely cynical…that there’s actually some truth to what should be pure fiction.
Gillan ranks first in the Democratic field for pulling in cash ($124,145 this last Q), followed by Franke Wilmer ($107,117) and Dave Strohmaier ($49,078). By comparison, Republican Steve Daine’s collected $546,327.
Yeah. Over a half a million buckaroos, Montana.
~~~~~~~
Gillan’s out for me with this kind of news. At least this cleared up any lingering doubts I had about being open to persuasion.
Dave Strohmaier, for his part, has done quite well, picking up a number of endorsements. Strohmaier’s also been hard working and well received around the state. At this weekend forum he got glowing reviews. His answer to the Keystone XL question called for more thorough economic and environmental studies – and he questioned the moving target on the number of long-term jobs it would create.
Franke Wilmer is a strong candidate, having served 3 legislative sessions in the House, representing moderate Bozeman. She’s a scrapper, too – just read her biography).
On Keystone XL, Wilmer pointed out that if “you take the jobs out of the pipeline, no one likes the pipeline.” She went on to point out this is the reason we need to strengthen our unions. “If we had a stronger unions to negotiate for clean jobs,” said Wilmer, “this wouldn’t even be an issue.”
Thank Goddess these two got it right.
by lizard
This winter storm is phenomenal, and not just because of its humbling disruption to our daily routines. Extreme weather like this does something to a community, something encouraging. And because I’m a writer, I wrote something about it.
Stay safe, Missoula!
*
when snow won’t stop falling
when the world becomes whiteout
and the landscape, fused by fluff—
the town shuts down
and people do what they can for each other
by jhwygirl
Dave Gallik’s resignation as Commissioner of Political Practices was quick and fast – Great Falls Tribune reporter John S. Adams continues the scandal story this morning with news of events at the Capitol yesterday, which include Gallik repeatedly stating that the staff had called the police on him, despite that apparently not being true.
I have to say, to me, it almost comes off as him making light of the situation as he walked off to the Governor’s Mansion to discuss his resignation.
What is disturbing in Adams’ story is not the soap-opera scene (which the public seems to need as blame is apparently cast on vengeful women), but the apparent lack of any oversight on the Commissioner of Political Practices. Or the lack of anyone willing to step up. Adams goes through the three offices that the office staff apparently reported their allegations to:
Two staff members from the commissioner’s office told the Tribune they raised detailed concerns about Gallik’s behavior with Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s office and the Legislative Audit Division. They said they also reached out to Attorney General Steve Bullock’s office, but were told by an attorney who works on political practices complaints that the matter did not fall within the attorney general’s jurisdiction.
So they went to the three most logical choices and all three failed to address the situation? And right now the State Administration and Veterans Affairs Interim Committee is trying to determine who has the authority to oversee the office?
Don’t you think Montana should of had these things figured out? There’s so much to say about what is wrong with what Adams’ lays out in his article, I don’t know where to begin. Luckily, I’m tired as it’s been a long day and tomorrow’s another. I do love winter.
It’s easy to get caught up in all the soap opera scene of this situation. It’s also pretty childish to immediately start a defense by making accusations of political motivations against Adams. Given his history for accuracy, quite frankly, it be best for most of the parties involved that this die a quick death.
It’s a sad state of affairs when rather than address the issues of oversight of the chief political oversight office in this state, we’re more concerned with the motivations behind the whistleblowers who attempted to seek compliance with what is – afterall – state law.
When accusations are thrown against a reporter when none of the facts have been called into question.
And guess what? With some oversight of the office, Dave Gallik might have still been in office today. Had any one of the three offices that the office staff contacted with their allegations had then contacted Gallik and reminded him of state policies, he might have taken a different path.
One nagging question I have? Was Gallik told that he could do his private practice and rental property work from his state office? I’m guessing SAVA will eventually figure that out?
~~~~~~~
A number of people around the Montana blogosphere have also written this story up. Don Pogreba has a couple of posts now (I actually missed his first post), and here is Don’s piece on Gallik’s resignation.
James Conner – who, really, all of you should be reading – has two posts up, one on Improving Montana’s commission on political practices and another The Political Practices mess.
Jack the Blogger also kicks in with his analysis of the mess of the office, first having called on Gallik to resign, and today with his assessment of the ineffective mess that is the Office Of Political Practices.
ALSO, Gregg Smith over at Electric City Weblog had this analysis of the situation and how it correlates with past allegations by the GOP. He also has a quick take on the resignation that undoubtedly has some truth to it, even though he admits it to being entirely speculatory.
Finally, Montana Watchdog, a conservative newsource for state politics, has a few posts also. Here’s Phil Drake’s piece on Gallik’s resignation.
by lizard
With Dave Gallik resigning, there’s been quite a frenzy of speculation. In the comment thread of j-girl’s post, some comments from James C. and Pete T. caught my attention, and considering some other headlines in the paper today, deserve some additional consideration. Here are the comments :
James: If the job paid better, much better, we might get better people, and people who don’t feel the need to moonlight.
Pete: While I tend to agree, James, by Missoula payroll standards, $57+k ain’t chump change. If this job opens up, I’m available.
James: It may not be chump change by Missoula standards, Pete, but I don’t think that’s the standard against which the commish’s ought to be measured. It’s an important position and the salary ought to be commensurate with the responsibility, and with the professional credentials necessary to do the job well. We do get what we pay for. In this case, we didn’t pay for much and we’re not getting much.
I see James point of view, and agree whole heartedly that a salary “ought to be commensurate with the responsibility”, but all I need to do to rattle that notion is mention teachers.
According to teacher-portal, a teacher in Montana has an average starting salary of $25,000, and an average overall salary of just under $40,000. I’m not sure if those numbers hold up, but they sound about right from those I know who teach in Montana. Considering the responsibility of, you know, helping to shape the future of America by teaching its youth, I’d say we, as a society, are failing big time.
But not everyone in education gets so meagerly compensated. Here’s the headline that jumped out at me this morning: Regents Likely to Pay Higher Education Commissioner $283K Salary.
I guess the thinking goes, in order to attract quality candidates, the salary and benefits need to be comparable to similar administrative positions. Here is a big chunk from the article.
That annual salary is a pay increase of $69,487 above what Commissioner of Higher Education Sheila Stearns earns currently, but it’s the same annual salary as University of Montana President Royce Engstrom and Montana State University President Waded Cruzado.
The state has offered Christian a deferred compensation package worth $455,000 over 10 years, if the commissioner stays on for five or more years. That is slightly less than the deferred compensation plans offered to both Engstrom and Cruzado, which are worth $500,000 each.
The deferred compensation plan becomes available to the 46-year-old Christian at age 65, when he will receive $35,000 annually for three years and $50,000 annually for seven years, totaling $455,000 over a decade. The plan is a way for the university system to sweeten the pot for Montana’s upper-level university management, who are generally making $60,000 to $80,000 less than their counterparts in four surrounding states, said Kevin McRae, associate commissioner for communication and human resources.
But being competitive doesn’t make sense for this particular pay increase, because the position was never advertised or opened to the public, something that has caused a little bit of grumbling. But grumbling doesn’t really seem to bother the decision makers. It didn’t back when Alex Apostle got his lavish pay increase (after asking teachers to basically forego theirs), and it won’t now.
Economic disparity is a serious problem that those at the top don’t have to take seriously (yet). They have their rationalizations, and if that doesn’t work, they can afford private security.
It’s too bad those same rationalizations don’t work for those lowly teachers who toil in overcrowded classrooms and buy their own supplies.
I remember seeing something recently about the Finnish education system, so I looked around and found this BBC News report. Here is a little tidbit that sounds so nice, I wish it applied here, in the states:
Teaching is a prestigious career in Finland. Teachers are highly valued and teaching standards are high.
Maybe someday we’ll be able to say the same for our teachers. Because despite all the rationalizations, I fail to see how paying administrators more money will make our education system any better. Instead of increasing the quality of teachers, it will just increase the cleverness of formulaic schemes to bring drop-out rates down.
by jhwygirl
Boy. What to say about Great Falls Tribune state reporter John S. Adams’ most recent investigative piece exposing misuse of state funds by Dave Gallik, Commissioner of Political Practices?
The evidence is pretty damning – considering it seems that the entire staff of the department is standing by the accusations.
Seems Gallik is utilizing his office to run his private practice, logging pay hours that weren’t worked (over half!) and increasing the contract outsourcing of legal work.
How’s that for stimulating the economy?
The Commissioner position is appointed. It’s a six-year term. During the past legislative session, Governor Brian Schweitzer appointed Jennifer Hensley to head up the empty seat – an appointment that was rejected in the last days of the session (if I recall correctly – feel free to interject) due to objections over Hensley’s political background.
Gallik was then appointed, leaving the post temporarily filled, where Gallik would surely be asked to resign should the chief executive post eventually go to Republicans.
Political shenanigans from both parties aside, it’s a disgrace to see this kind of activity out of the Political Practices Commissioner for multiple reasons – first and foremost for his misappropriation of state tax dollars. In this case – do read Adams’ story – Gallik is not only en flagrante over his use of the office for his own private enterprise, he’s downright self-righteous about his perceived ability to do so.
Further, Gallik is a lawyer. Isn’t this sort of activity an ethics violation by the pithy standards of the Montana State Bar? Gallik is giving all lawyers a bad name, and he’d doing it out of the Office of Poltiical Practices.
(Probably not) finally – We got an election year coming up. Is this the oversight the citizens of Montana are going to have over this upcoming election?
Sad.
I’m guessing with this last story, supermontananreporter John S. Adams won’t have a front seat at Schweitzer’s last State of the State address.
by lizard
In July of 2008, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen made some serious waves when he warned Israel about overtly attacking Iran. The big perceived slap, though, was the reference Mullen made to the USS Liberty incident, which occurred during the 6 day war, in 1967:
In early July, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen visited Israel to discuss the Iranian nuclear program with his Israeli counterpart, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, and other Israeli officials.
During the talks, Adm. Mullen cautioned that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 is the type of incident that should be ‘avoided in any future military actions’ in the Middle East, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The USS Liberty, a $40m state-of-the-art surveillance ship, was ‘inadvertently’ attacked by Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats in international waters north of the northern Sinai Peninsula coast.
The attack, which lasted at least 40 minutes, claimed the lives of 34 American soldiers and wounded at least 170 crewmembers.
Since then, the bulwarks against an overt attack on Iran by some combination of US/Israeli forces, have been significantly weakened, with a series of dangerous provocations pushing a confrontation ever-closer.
With that in mind, it might be helpful to ask what kind of person is Netanyahu; is he someone the US can trust to deal honestly with the current situation of escalating tensions, or is he a dishonest manipulator not to be trusted. The link features a rare glimpse into a man who, in an unguarded moment 9 years ago, boasted to some Jewish settlers how he destroyed the Oslo accords during Clinton’s presidency. He also called the high level of popular American support for Israel “absurd”.
In discussing this issue in a previous post, Turner implied my hypothetical statements toward Israel would be met with accusations of anti-semitism, which is of course true. Discussing the reality of America’s special relationship with Israel is very dangerous, and gets shut down by watch dog groups like the ADL all the time. I even recall a speaker for the presidential lecture series at UM being heavily criticized by professors like Stewart Justman (I haven’t found the letter he and others penned yet, but I’m looking) for wading into these dangerous waters.
I hope Uri Avnery is right, and Israel won’t attack Iran. But according to the very insightful German blogger I follow, the strategy is to goad Iran into retaliation.
It’s not anti-semitic to state the simple fact that Israel, as an ally, cannot be trusted. A recent revelation that Israeli Mossad posed as CIA agents, and recruited terrorists, is currently making the rounds in the regions of the blogosphere I frequent. For those of us familiar with the proclivity of Israel to use the tactic of false flag, it’s not surprising. As evidence for why Israel is not trustworthy, it’s important. This from the link:
Buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives — what is commonly referred to as a “false flag” operation.
There are saner individuals speaking out, like ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who called an Israeli attack on Iran “the stupidest idea I have ever heard”. But those saner elements are increasingly leaving government, not being asked to participate.
Where US/Israel goes from here is anyone’s guess. There is some speculation that a weak (though rabid for war) GOP field may cause Israel’s rightwingers to do something before the election this fall. With all the AIPAC stooges in place in Congress, Obama wouldn’t risk doing anything that could be perceived as being “soft” on Iran before November, compromising his reelection efforts.
Alexander Cockburn declared yesterday that war on Iran is not a matter of “If”. Near the end of the piece, he discusses the oil industry, explaining how rising tensions have been a boon for oil profits:
As for the embargoes of Iranian oil, Obama is most certainly doing the oil industry a big favor. There have been industry-wide fears of recession-fueled falling demand and collapse of oil prices. That has led to industry-wide enthusiasm (aided by heavy pressure from the majors) for strongly cutting total world oil production (and enjoying the bonuses flowing from the subsequent world price rise), with all the cuts to be taken out of the hide of the Iranians. The Financial Times made clear the need to shrink world production in the following key paragraph in a report last week: “Oil prices have risen above $110 a barrel since Iran threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil chokepoint, accounting for about a third of all seaborne traded oil. Oil fell to a low of $99 in October amid global economic growth worries.”
As Pierre Sprey remarked to me, “Note also that this is one of those rare but dangerous moments in history when Big Oil and the Israelis are pushing the White House in the same direction. The last such moment was quickly followed by Dubya’s invasion of Iraq.”
Chilling.
by lizard
When I talk about the age of mistrust, I don’t mean to imply that we are progressing from some nostalgically utopian age of trust, like this comment from that post seems to insinuate:
Yeah, if we could only go back to those more trusting days .
When they were loading boxcars to Auschwitz and Siberia.
The pure evil most humans shudder to recall—the systemic Nazi extermination of Jews (and gypsies and gays, too)—now solidly justifies America’s involvement in WWII. We were the good guys saving Europe from fascism.
We are no longer the good guys, not when a simultaneous war for the hearts and minds has to be waged to sustain the tentacles of US imperialism.
Oh yeah, and we’re losing that war as well.
The poetry part of this week’s LWPS takes a peek at nostalgia. The two poems I’ve selected come from a Pulitzer prize winning collection of poems by poet Stephen Dunn, titled Different Hours, published in 2000. Enjoy. Continue Reading »
by lizard
As I was listening to some NPR primary coverage last night, something struck me. The discussion was about exit polling, and the guy being interviewed said something about foreign policy being a non-existent concern for voters. The interviewer asked if it was an open question about which issues concerned voters, and the guy (representing PEW I think) said no, people were asked about specific issues, but the exit poll itself included no questions about foreign policy. The interviewer sort of laughed, and said something to the effect of, well, how do you know what voters think about it if you don’t ask them?
Brilliant question, right?
Ron Paul’s strong second place finish must be making establishment types nervous. I may be reading too much into an exit poll NOT asking about foreign policy, but I can’t help connecting that with the constant attacks against Paul, from the right, targeting his “isolationist” foreign policy ideas as being the crazy positions that make him unsuitable for office.
It’s very important, for the establishment types, to ensure terms like “anti-war” conjures up images of leftist commie hippies. But after a decade of imperial insanity, the painful reverberations of the human cost of war have been spreading among families of soldiers, and I would speculate that may have something to do with the fact Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are apparently not deal breakers for over 20% of New Hampshire primary voters.
I have a hunch that cynicism, skepticism, and outright opposition to the bipartisan consensus of ever-expanding war is growing. And it’s growing beyond the crude characterizations of anti-war protestors reenforced by bitter culture warriors.
Ron Paul is playing an important role for those of us who think foreign policy is just as important an issue to discuss during this electoral process as the economy is. And I, for one, will continue to use Ron Paul’s candidacy as a tool to push the topic, despite the consternation of lesser-evil Democrats who refuse to see how dangerous Obama’s prosecution of the War on Terror has been, and will be, once he handily disposes of Mitt “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.” Romney in November.
Foreign policy has GOT to get more attention. Tensions with Iran continue to escalate, with another nuclear scientist getting assassinated (the link is Greenwald’s take, a must read). And in Pakistan, the lull of drone strikes after that whoops NATO air strike (which killed dozens of Pakistani soldiers) is over.
Maybe the media will start paying attention when Iran finally does something in retaliation to all the provocations it continues to endure. And maybe Americans will take the situation a little more seriously when a hot war breaks out, and gas at the pump skyrockets, flinging the economy into a flat out depression.
Until then, pass the popcorn, because watching conservatives try to rally behind a flip-flopping vulture-capitalist Massachusetts-governing Obamacare-originator Mormon, who has extended family living in Mexico (and even employs some of those *gasp* Mexicans) should be fun.
GO DEMOCRACY!
by lizard
I’m afraid we’ve entered the age of mistrust, where nothing is certain, and everything is suspect. Let me try to explain.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of trust lately, and it wasn’t until my response to the professor that those thoughts finally started crystallizing.
While I think Rob Natelson is cynically exploiting the Obama-as-Marxist meme (for a paycheck?), it would be unfair of me (and hypocritical?) to just dismiss the fact that lots of people believe what the Professor is peddling, that Obama is a secret “closet” Marxist.
What I think may be happening is this: we are experiencing a slowly worsening crisis of trust, and it’s permeating more and more aspects of our daily lives. People don’t trust vaccines, the food supply, the money supply, government, science, corporations, and they sure as hell don’t trust politicians, so it shouldn’t be surprising that this trust deficit makes fertile ground for conspiracies of all colors.
In order for us to operate in this increasingly dysfunctional system of late capitalism, it has become necessary for us to choose which conspiracy to believe in. Lot’s of religious folks choose the conspiracy of evil, believing Satan and his legion conspire to fill the realm of hell with the souls of the damned. Leftists choose the conspiracy of capital. Rightwingers partake of different dishes, like communist conspiracies, radical islamist conspiracies, and homosexual conspiracies.
The vein of conspiracies I choose to entertain circulate around the notion of a global elite and resource scarcity, but I don’t go all the way down the rabbit hole. For example, I believe in tactics like false flag attacks and fake “color” revolutions, but I don’t believe in “the illuminati”.
Macro trends fascinate me, and this crisis of trust seems like a big one. Or maybe I’m totally wrong. In any case, expect more inquiries along these lines as 2012 progresses.
by lizard
For those who weren’t paying attention to the constitutional violations of the Bush administration (I’m looking at you, “conservatives”) John Yoo is a member of the neocon cabal who should appreciate Obama’s self-interested reluctance to hold those vultures accountable for their crimes.
Instead, Yoo has been somewhat brazen by defending his role in the post-9/11 assault against America’s alleged “principles”. Here’s a taste of an old Salon piece titled John Yoo Is Sorry For Nothing:
Portraying himself as a dedicated public servant whose legal opinions were simply part of a “prudent and responsible … careful contingency planning” for “a worst-case scenario,” Yoo sarcastically writes that to judge from the media coverage of the memos, “this careful contingency planning amounted to a secret plot to overthrow the Constitution and strip Americans of their rights … According to these critics, the overthrow of constitutional government in the United States began with a 37-page memo, confidentially issued on Oct. 23, 2001.” Yoo warns that if the Obama administration fails to do the same kind of “planning” — more to the point, if it continues to “seriously pursue” officials like him who did that “planning” — it will endanger America. Melodramatically conjuring up a Mumbai-like urban massacre, Yoo says that holding him and other Bush administration officials accountable will “restore risk aversion as the guiding principle of our counterterrorism strategy.”
Yeah, risk aversion. Because we can’t have anyone worried about stuff like laws and constitutional rights when prosecuting the war against terrorism, which now can include any one of us.
*
That Salon piece is from March, 2009. Two months before that, Obama waffled and fluttered when responding to George Stephanopoulos on This Week. Maybe this clip included just enough stuttering of false teeth to make criminal sycophants like Yoo sweat a bit:
Since then, what could possibly entice an un-prosecuted enemy of the constitution like Yoo to stick his fat face above ground, to enter the fray? According to the title of Yoo’s recent dump at the National Review Online, it’s Richard Cordray and the Use and Abuse of Executive Power (I’m not kidding).
The opening is priceless:
Some think me a zealous advocate of executive power, and often I am when it comes to national security issues. But I think President Obama has exceeded his powers by making a recess appointment for Richard Cordray (whom I respect and have no problems with as a nominee) to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
But I think the crux of Yoo’s beef comes from this exorcised nugget of bullshit:
The president’s power over what are known as “recess appointments” stems from Article II of the Constitution, which grants him the authority “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” The Constitution does not define what a “recess” is — the Senate adjourns for short periods of time, and the question becomes when an “adjournment” becomes long enough to turn into a “recess.” In the past, attorneys general and presidents have thought that an adjournment would have to be longer than at least ten days to become a “recess.”
But President Obama is making a far more sweeping claim. Here, as I understand it, the Senate is not officially in adjournment (they have held “pro forma” meetings, where little to no business occurs, to prevent Obama from making exactly such appointments). So there is no question whether the adjournment has become a constitutional “recess.” Rather, Obama is claiming the right to decide whether a session of Congress is in fact a “real” one based, I suppose, on whether he sees any business going on.
Obama can kill whoever without due process. And one of the architects who built the framework of legal cover for torture is trying to ring the constitutional warning bell over a recess appointment?
*
The above is just a long lead-in to this poem and bonus tune by Leonard Cohen. Enjoy.
*
ANY SYSTEM
Any system you contrive without us
will be brought down
We warned you before
and nothing that you built has stood
Hear it as you lean over your blueprint
Hear it as you roll up your sleeve
Hear it once again
Any system you contrive without us
will be brought down
You have your drugs
You have your guns
You have your Pyramids your Pentagons
With all your grass and bullets
you cannot hunt us any more
All that we disclose of ourselves forever
is this warning
Nothing that you built has stood
Any system you contrive without us
will be brought down
—Leonard Cohen
by lizard
Rob Natelson has a new post up at ECW, titled Is Obama A Closet Marxist?. It’s simply amazing.
The post stems from a comment Rob made on Budge’s post about why Libertarians should reject Ron Paul. When a commenter said the following:
“Quite honestly I have come to believe that whoever wins elections has very little effect on what happens to the general public”
Rob replied with this:
— that is generally, but not always, true. We need institutional change more than a change in particular politicians. But sometimes an outlier like Obama can effect significant change. So if the difference is between, say, a Kerry and a Bush it probably doesn’t matter hugely—Kerry would be more liberal, but the GOP would push back harder. But when you elect someone who, if not a closet Marxist certainly acts like one, that does make a difference. If we don’t get a new President in 2012, institutional change becomes that much more difficult.
Dumbfounded that a former university professor could make such a ridiculous claim about our president, I asked the professor what he based his assertion on. I didn’t really expect Rob to answer, but he proved me wrong and put up this list of evidence that Obama is a closet Marxist. Check it out:
* Nationalization of companies and functions (GM, student loans, etc.).
* Attempted government takeover of health care (and he wanted a socialized insurance company, the “public option,” as well).
* Heavy government “investment” in favored parts of the economy (Solyndra, for example).
* Expansion of federal spending to peacetime heights—with more requested.
* Huge expansion of the regulatory state.
* Campaigns as a classic anti-capitalist class warrior, railing against “Wall Street” and “the wealthy.”
* Seeks far more graduated income tax.
* Fixation on promoting labor unions as political as well as economic forces.
* After purportedly being against it, wants power to lock people up without habeas corpus.
* Father a genuine, professed Marxist.
* Admits in his bio being influenced by Marxists as a youth.
* Describes feeling during his brief time in the private sector as “a spy behind enemy lines.”
* Associates with Marxists like Bill Ayers and the “liberation theology” crowd.
I’m sort of at a loss how to respond. Luckily others aren’t, and there are already some good comments countering Rob’s assertion, especially Ryan Morton’s response.
Really, I think it’s sad that Rob is willing to contribute such slop to the political conversations raging across the country. These erroneously-spun Marxist tendencies supposedly exhibited by our President have more to do with crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and the revolving door between government and the private sector than “Marxism”.
by Pete Talbot
Pearls Before Swine by Stephan Pastis
This is in response to the Polish Wolf’s post over at Intelligent Discontent. While some of his stats are interesting, his premise is flawed. Basically he says that the 99% are responsible for their economic plight by shopping at WalMart, buying imported clothing and purchasing gasoline. There’s a grain of truth to this, I suppose, but I’m thinking that the policies of the last few decades have more to do with wealth inequalities: economic policies that favor Wall Street over Main Street, Free Trade agreements that benefit corporations more than workers, and energy policies that promote carbon-based fuels over renewables and conservation.
Montana Supreme Court rules
Or maybe I should say the Montana Supreme Court rocks! I certainly have more respect for the majority of Montana Supremes than the majority of SCOTUS justices. In a 5-2 vote, the justices ruled against the kooky triumvirate of Western Tradition Partnership, Champion Painting Inc. and Gary Marbut’s Montana Shooting Sports Association Inc. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Montana justices don’t believe corporations should be able to buy and sell elections.
Look up pompous ass in the dictionary
And you’ll see a picture of George Will. In his latest column, he promotes the Keystone XL pipeline, the Canadian tar sands and fracking in general. He pooh-poohs climate change, the EPA, the National Labor Relations Board and student loans. He believes “conservatives should stride confidently into 2012″ … “because progressivism exists to justify a few people bossing around most people … ” He has that backwards, of course, but because he uses a lot of two-dollar words, people think he’s smart. He’s not.
And locally
Usually reliable reporter Gwen Florio reports on a woman who’s attempting to disqualify Justice of the Peace John Odlin. This stems from two misdemeanor charges against the woman for “community decay.” What the hell does that mean? Did she beat up on some curbs and gutters? Forget to paint her porch? Dump raw sewage into a neighborhood park? I’m dying to know. Anyway, the Montana Supremes call her case against Odlin “frivolous.”
by lizard
Reviewing what happened this past year is for historians like Newt Gingrich. Because there is absolutely nothing we can learn from history, let’s not waste any of our precious time thinking about stuff that’s already happened. Instead, I would like to offer some predictions for the new year. If you’re feeling prophetic, please offer your own predictions in the comments.
JANUARY
Results from UM’s investigation into alleged sexual assaults will be released, determining no charges should be filed due to lack of evidence. In related news, no one from the athletics program or the administration will lose their jobs.
FEBRUARY
The Carlyle Group, having recently closed their deal to purchase Park Water Company with the blessing of the PSC, will eagerly start investing millions into updating the leaky infrastructure, creating more efficiency in the system, thus lowering rates for customers. In related news, Brad will say something mean to Travis, and Travis will say something mean back, and they will both still be making like 90,000 dollars to act like children.
MARCH
Super Tuesday will be super predictable, and Mitt Romney will win the nomination. Republicans will do everything they can to NOT talk about their candidate, while perpetuating the hilarious fiction that Obama is a socialist uber-liberal waging class warfare against unfairly targeted hedge fund managers and health care executives. In related news, our imperialist president will be on the precipice of war with Iran, and gas will be $5 bucks a gallon at the pump.
APRIL
A mentally ill person will attack a police officer, possibly killing him, and it will happen at an occupy encampment. Obama will declare martial law, placing all occupy protestors into FEMA interment camps. Glenn Beck says I told you so in a drunken clip he uploads himself on Youtube.
MAY
Biden says something that makes Israel’s right-wing extremists upset, and they force Obama to dump him for Joe Lieberman. The trial of Julian Assange begins in the states. Bradley Manning continues to be indefinitely detained. Anyone supporting Anonymous will be declared enemies of the state.
JUNE
Sean Penn interrupts a U2 concert to save the children of Haiti, and punches Bono in the face. In related news, Haiti continues to languish in abject poverty while disaster capitalists build exclusive resorts and start work tapping that sweet crude.
JULY
A vast, complex marijuana grow operation in the wilderness near Montana’s border with Canada will be discovered and busted, providing a good opportunity to militarize national parks with homeland security and drone surveillance. In related news, Lake County law enforcement will still be good ‘ol boys.
AUGUST
Being one of three states with a budget surplus comes in handy when a fire season that makes 2000 look like a campfire rages across the west.
SEPTEMBER
David Burgert, Montana’s recent contribution to America’s Most Wanted, is tracked down and taken out by federal authorities in Idaho. Montana Republicans continue to downplay how deep this vein of right-wing extremism runs in their ranks.
NOVEMBER
Turkey backs Iran and China while Russia throws in with Europe as India hits Pakistan. Elections in the US are suspended. Cuba provides a staging ground for first strikes against Venezuela. In obviously unrelated news, Ron Paul quietly dies of a heart attack.
DECEMBER
As global events appear to be spiraling out of control, aliens make brazen contact, offering humanity a chance to redefine their relationship with the natural world with an inexhaustible form of clean energy. When the details of this plan are leaked, including an alien ban on terrestrial television, America is the only country to deny the deal, causing the aliens to isolate America with an impenetrable force field. Outside the force field humanity experiences a degree of peace previously unknown in its entire history of existence. Inside the force field, a real-life version of Mad Max Thunderdome ensues.
by lizard
As a genre, Spoken Word is poetry performed. Line breaks and clever enjambments need not apply.
Spoken Word is the free-flowing vibe of poetry slams. And it’s the guts of Rap and Hip-Hop. Like any genre, it has its contrivances and caricatures. Like suburban white kids lovin’ themselves some rap music. My only defense is I at least had/have good taste. Below the fold, some spoken word measured by beats. Enjoy. Continue Reading »
by lizard
The crazy is possible, and the scramble is on. Ron Paul’s inevitable penetration into America’s political consciousness is frightening both sides of the aisle.
The Ron Paul brand is a weird assemblage, attracting seemingly disparate bits of our societal frustration. anti-war refugees and those criminalized by the drug war like some of what they hear. Anti-government libertarians and critics of America’s death-pact with Israel like some of what they hear. And, some would argue, corporations, racists, and anti-semites like some of what they hear as well.
Dave Lindorff, one of my favorite regulars at Counterpunch, has a piece up today, titled Why the Establishment is Terrified of Ron Paul.
It’s worth reading the whole piece, because Lindorff tries to put Paul in the best context possible, but for the purpose of this post’s focus, here’s the conclusion:
Libertarianism is at its core an ugly anti-social philosophy of selfishness carried to the extreme. It is the antithesis of all that has been good in human social evolution — the creation of philosophies of caring and of societies in which suffering and want are addressed and, where possible, ameliorated.
Interestingly though, Paul is not being pilloried by his establishment critics in the GOP or the Democratic Party, or in the media, for his Libertarian economic theories or even his far-out property-rights theories. These are, after all, also quietly shared by most people in both of the major parties, and of course are wildly popular among the ranks of the corporate elite, who know they can always get all the favors they want or need from politicians by buying them, and who are happy to spout the gospel of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman when it comes to government regulation of their businesses or taxation of their personal hoards. Unfettered capitalism is also an article of faith in the corporate media.
That said, sometimes it all comes down to a couple of big issues, and in the unlikely chance that the election next November were to end up being the choice between Barack Obama and Ron Paul (and assuming no emergence of a viable Third Party progressive candidate like Rocky Anderson and hisJustice Party), while I might have a hard time pulling the lever for Paul unless he can really make it clear he has no truck with White Supremecists and their ilk, it would be easier than pulling a lever for Obama.
Why? Because with President Obama we would get more war, increased military spending, and at the rate he’s been going stripping away our Constitutional rights, there wouldn’t be any of those after another four years. We would also be electing someone who we now know lies through his teeth, who takes money from some of the biggest corporate thieves in human history, and who has appointed some of those very criminals to most or all of the key economic policy positions in his administration.
With Ron Paul as president, at least we’d be done with all the wars, the people of the rest of the world would be finally free of US military interference, including attacks by US drones. The long-suffering Constitution and its Bill of Rights would mean something again. We might even get a Supreme Court justice or two who actually believed that Congress should declare any future wars before we could fight them, and that citizens who were arrested had an absolute right to a speedy trial by a jury of peers. And we’d be electing someone who appears, especially for a politician, to be that rare thing: an honest man who says what he means and means what he says — and who doesn’t seem to be owned by the banksters.
We’d have a hell of a fight on our hands in a Ron Paul presidency, defending Social Security and Medicare, promoting economic equality, fighting climate change and pollution, defending abortion rights and maybe fighting a resurgence of Jim Crow in some parts of the country, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about being spied upon, beaten and arrested and then perhaps shipped off to Guantanamo for doing it.
Ron Paul is now a phenomenon that has to be dealt with by both sides. The GOP is trying to keep the wheels from coming off in Iowa, and the DNC is wondering how substantial the threat to segments of their disillusioned base may be.
By JC
———–
Update #2 (this is an update from the original Kos post linked to below):
This is from a statement from Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers regarding Republican Denny Rehberg as a target of recall, who also voted for NDAA.
Here in Montana, while we will go after all three violators of the Bill of Rights, I will place special emphasis and “focus of effort” on Denny Rehberg, since he is so fond of wrapping himself in the flag and claiming to be defending the Constitution while his votes do the exact opposite. In that sense, Rehberg is much like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Republicans who, right along with Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman, are leading a sustained and relentless assault on our Bill of Rights.
———–
Do people really believe it is appropriate for our Senators (or Rep) in Montana to cast votes that take away constitutional rights?
Well, many in Montana and across the country don’t believe so. Jonathan Turley, at the TurleyBlog — the foremost legal blog commenting on civil rights in the country — makes a fine example of what many Montanans are doing in response to Max and Jon’s (and should be doing to Denny, too) ill-advised votes for indefinite detention of american citizens:
…Now Montana citizens have decided to try another approach given the non-responsive attitude of our leaders — they are moving to remove their two Senators from office over their votes in favor of indefinite detention powers.
Montana is one of nine states with recall laws. The other states are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Eighteen states have recall laws, but most do not apply to federal officers.
Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses. [sic]
Presumably, they are arguing that voting for an unconstitutional measure that allows for indefinite detention of citizens constitutes both a violation of the oath of office and incompetence. Usually official misconduct does not include policy differences, though voting for potentially authoritarian powers would not be viewed as good conduct in a free nation.
The move by the Montana votes shows something that I found in doing speeches around the country: there is no difference in red and blue states in citizens (1) fed up with our current two-party monopoly and dysfunctional politics and (2) opposed to the loss of civil liberties in this country.
It seems that occasional 4&20 commenter William Crane and others are behind this effort:
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, “reason for recall” reads:
“The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, “for the duration of hostilities” in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as “task which does not end” to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”
…Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions.
Ah, it’s a fine day when the “principled left” believes that a dialog about the electeds stripping Constitutional rights from citizens needs to take center stage! As to Turley’s point above about the “two-party monopoly”, Denny should be taking his licks for his vote, also.
Update with thought exercise: What will the election for Senator look like if both candidates have active petition recalls against them? And what might happen if the petitions actually lead to a vote before the general election next year? And who might the fill in candidates be if both recalls succeeded? Who might replace Max?
by lizard
While sitting in post-feast stupor on the couch, I caught most of the 60 minutes piece about incredibly devout, orthodox, byzantine-time-telling bearded Christians who inhabit Mount Athos and pray every minute of their lives to get closer to God.
It wasn’t until near the end of the piece that women’s presence (or lack-there-of) on this holy mountain was discussed.
The church’s relics are brought out everyday and pilgrims ask for the blessings of the saints. The most sacred relic on the entire peninsula is in this case fabric said to be part of a garment worn by the Virgin Mary.
The irony is – that while the mother of God is revered here – no other woman is permitted to even set foot on Mount Athos; it’s been like that for a thousand years.
The reason for the ban, according to Orthodox doctrine, is that Christ gave the peninsula to his mother and all other women are excluded so as to fully honor the Virgin Mary. It’s also said that in the days before the ban, when women did come here, the monks became distracted and couldn’t devote themselves entirely to prayer. They say it became a lot easier after the last lady left.
Simon: Keeping women out, certainly wasn’t much of a problem three– four hundred years ago. Do you feel that’s becoming problematic today?
Father Arsenios: I don’t believe so because the monastery itself and all the land around it is our property. And, if we don’t want women coming onto our property we have every right to do that.
Mount Athos may be the last all-male bastion in the world. And Father Arsenios says it has to stay that way.
Father Arsenios: Here we’re concerned solely with purity and our elevation to eternity. If women are permitted, they would bring their families and children. This place would become a tourist’s attraction and no longer a place of silence.
The guy makes a point. Women and kids are noisy. For example, my wife tonight got frustrated at how much time my ass spent depressing the couch cushions, and let me know it. This of course once the kids have been put to bed after being non-stop perpetual noise machines their every waking moment. Damn noise.
Forget she has a valid point and rarely ever gets the plush indulgences of gratuitous couch-sitting. If silence is an ingredient for getting closer to God, then banning women is understandable, right guys?
It’s of course all bullshit. Obviously “distracting” the men from their prayers is a nice way of saying carnal thoughts are harder (pun intended) to dismiss when in physical proximity to women (assuming the men are heterosexual, which probably isn’t always the case).
This ancient strain of Christian devotion on Mount Athos is like a time-capsule peek into the patriarchal structure of strict orthodoxy. It’s something I’ve found distasteful the more I learned about the ancient Christian/Judaic roots of the watered down version I received as a Presbyterian growing up.
That same 60 minutes also featured a “rare look” into the Vatican Library. What I found interesting was how they noted the strangeness of “love” letters from Henry VIII to that wife of his he later had beheaded.
You might find, as curator Adalbert Roth showed us, drawings of a German jousting tournament in 1481.
Or an old cookbook, telling us that Roman foodies in the fourth century dined on chicken, veal, seafood, pancakes in milk and whipped pear cake.
Janz: How to hack away at your enemy’s wall…
Or from an 11th century treatise on the art of war: a Byzantine soldier brandishing a flame-thrower, something the Greeks invented 1,500 years earlier.
Or Henry VIII’s love letters to Anne Boleyn.
Collins: The letters are certainly among the most bizarre and unusual that you’d expect to find in the pope’s archives.
There are 17 of them. Handwritten by the king of England to the woman he would make the second of his six wives, and later have beheaded.
Adalbert Roth: There’s the little heart…”
Henry signs his name with a heart, like a smitten schoolboy. He tells of his “fervents of love”, his great loneliness without her. “Wishing myself,” he says, “in my sweetheart’s arms, whose pretty dukkys i trust shortly to kiss.” Dukkys being a term in Henry’s day for well, use your imagination.
Isn’t that fantastic?
Today is the day Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. While old men with long beards pray all day on their little mountain, I remember the two times I felt the closest to divinity; my wife giving birth to our two kids.
by lizard
Geoffrey G. O’Brien’s new collection of verse, Metropole, features an old, grainy picture of Bohemian Grove. The picture was taken by photographer James D. Phelan in 1924, before the now infamous summer boys club in Northern California transformed into a target of conspiratorial speculation.
Intrigued, I purchased the book, and before digging in, did a bit of surfing for some context. I found a review by the Los Angeles Review of Books; the review done by Ed Skoogs, and an interview done by Adam Fitzgerald. Here is a snippet of the Q and A regarding Bohemian Grove:
FITZGERALD: Tell me about “Bohemian Grove”: what it is, and what it means to the architecture of the book.
O’BRIEN: The Bohemian Grove is an encampment set among redwoods in Northern California where male politicos and captains of industry go for two weeks every summer to relieve some of the tension accumulated while despoiling the world the other 50 weeks of the year. The Grove’s motto is “Weaving spiders come not here” and its members kick off the two weeks with a “Cremation of Care” ceremony under the 40 foot concrete owl pictured on my book’s cover and then proceed to get drunk and put on plays that often require cross-dressing. So it’s a sealed, ritualistic space cleaned of the complexity (cares and the “weaving” of schemes) of the rest of the world: multiple genders, races, class stratification, regional conflict should “come not here.” In other words, it’s a kind of political pastoral, a simple green world, a private California, in which song and pageant can take place — a pastoral with an electrified fence and a guarded perimeter.
“Bohemian Grove” is a poem about the dangers and absurdities of conceiving of art as happening elsewhere or of capturing the world via a falsifying simplicity. It moves around in time in the 20th century, the syntax with which one decade is treated melting into the syntax of another (“in leaves, in the 70s I sang a song of we / became ourselves again as women, specifically”) to show this protected space’s blithe passage through history — they just keep staging plays year after year while Rome continues to burn. Putting an image of that ridiculous, sinister owl on the book’s cover was a way of admitting my poems happen in the same world as the rituals of the Bohemian Grove, albeit with an entirely different concept of the function of artifice: to incur responsibility rather than relieve it. Like Oppen, my faith in song is limited but my desire to sing isn’t, so my solution is to try to sing the false pastorals of the actual world rather than flee to them.
O’Brien’s solution “to sing the false pastorals of the actual world” is, I would argue, an important acknowledgment of a cultural environment of falsehoods we are so immersed in we fail to see. We are all participants in a sort of ridiculous pageantry, whether we’re captains of industry playing around in the woods of Northern California, or families exchanging gifts to celebrate the alleged birth of the son (sun) of God.
There is so much cultural detritus heaped upon the core elements of our mortal lives, that using the old pastoral escape routes seems more a stubborn refusal to acknowledge how deeply affected we are by the permeation of that detritus than a celebration of the natural wildness that sustains the human spirit.
Maybe through confronting these false pastorals, artists and poets can help us understand the disconnect that drives us to search for that indescribable something we feel like we’ve lost.
I don’t know how successful O’Brien’s particular poem about Bohemian Grove actually is, but below the fold you can read it and decide for yourself. Continue Reading »
by lizard
In an earlier post that touched on Missoula’s variation of OWS, I mentioned poop and wiping one’s ass.
Well, it appears the poop war between Missoula County commissioners and the occupiers is escalating, with the recent removal of a portable shitter from the courthouse lawn.
Pulling back their shitty olive branch is not all the commissioners are up to. From what I’ve inferred from the article, it would appear there is not yet sufficient grounds for eviction.
“As a result of Occupy Missoula’s unwillingness to help Missoula County solve the problems their camp presents, we are developing a policy that will prohibit camping on county property,” county commissioners Jean Curtiss, Bill Carey and Michele Landquist said in a statement more strongly worded than previous ones.
Such a policy will require a public process.
What we are seeing with our local microcosm of OWS is not merely concern with poop in the bushes. That faux issue is just a stand in for the real issue, which I submit is a general intolerance of the chronically homeless, more commonly referred to as transients by the illustrious Missoulian.
Here’s the problem: Missoula’s occupation has opened up a space where lowly transients might seep in to ratty tents to sleep.
Here’s the solution: from what I’ve heard, “abandoned tents” are already being taken down. Maybe the message is dirty occupiers shouldn’t mix with ice sculpture enthusiasts for First Night. I dunno.
Our other paper, Missoula’s dear Independent, this week has as its feature story an undercover account of being homeless on the streets of Missoula. Jayme Feary does, IMO, a fine job attempting to understand, as an outsider to street culture, what it feels like to live on the margins of acceptable society. To be invisible. It’s worth reading.
With that piece in mind, I can see how the physical occupying presence of maybe a half dozen campers on the courthouse lawn may seem like a meager, vulnerable representation of the broader movement, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the resonance of pointing out how thoroughly the majority are getting snowed by the tippy-top benefactors of this economic squeeze.
Along those lines, I was recently having a not-very-productive argument with Wulfy that somehow became about OWS, which I think may be worth reposting here (sans the nasty stuff):
So, simple factual question: what has the Occupy movement accomplished?
…
Here’s what I’ve seen, Liz. I’ve seen Occupy Denver burn down a city park. I’ve seen Occupy Missoula deny alcohol on a sight where one in their encampment got an 11 year old so drunk he had to be hospitalized. I’ve seen good people get pepper sprayed and yet not one College President or Mayor (or actually any cop) has even payed the price for the action. So please, instruct me what Occupy has accomplished.
And here’s my response:
first, the shift in messaging. as Obama was letting the GOP define deficit reduction as the most pressing economic concern, OWS forced the issue of income disparity/inequality into the national spotlight. that is not insignificant.
second, the police state. as members of the Obama administration lecture other countries about democracy and human rights, OWS is reminding us exactly what the 1% think about the right to assemble. OWS showed us how Bloomberg’s army, paid in part by JP Morgan and company, eagerly used violence to attack peaceful protestors. and across the country, coordinated raids by militarized police units have shown us, again and again, what our plutocracy is willing to do in order to suppress dissent.
third, direct action. OWS shut down west coast ports. again, not insignificant. there are teeth to this movement, and that has forced attempts to co-opt the momentum, like the president of the SEIU getting arrested to build her street cred, then endorsing Obama to position their org for crumbs from the self-destructive effects of neoliberalism.
and finally, if you listen to Obama’s Kansas speech, even our sellout prez is trying to reignite the illusion of his populism by adopting the rhetoric of the 99%.
thankfully, unlike the tea party, OWS is not interested in validating our hopelessly corrupt two party political system. you can try and claim this movement isn’t “political” because they aren’t endorsing candidates, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been significant political ramifications already from this 3 month insurrection against the US plutocracy.
*
Before getting to the poem part of this poem series, I’d like to give a nod to Sherri Downing, coordinator of the Montana Council on Homelessness. Helping to tell the stories of those who die on the too often unacknowledged margins of our society is a worthy cause. Toward that end, here is a poem I wrote a few months ago. About Joe. Continue Reading »
by jhwygirl
Make no mistake, Rep. Denny Rehberg will be voting yes as soon as Boehner rounds up his caucus and get’s ‘em all back to Washington. He is not going to risk letting a tax cut issue reside with Jon Tester.
Who did, incidentally, have no problem voting for it.
On Tuesday Rehberg, of course, stood strong on his vote to say no to a middle-class payroll tax cut with multiple party-line votes that were taken in the House to try and approve the budget deal that came down from the Senate.
What Rehberg’s upcoming yes vote will mean is that he takes marching orders and plays political football with tax cuts that mean a whole hell of a lot to his constituents here in Montana, whose median income sits in the bottom 20%. It shows he can’t think for himself. It shows that he listens to someone else to tell him how to vote.
Rehberg is willing to play politics with middle-class tax cuts to gain favor with some unknown minority of people.
I’m not happy with this budget deal for a variety of reasons – most egregious is the insertion of the Keystone XL pipeline language, whichoil-and-coal loving Rehberg inserted. Yet both Jon Tester and Max Baucus supported the language when there was discussion on whether the Senate would keep it. So “meh” for me.
And if Rehberg votes no? Well, there’ll be a whole lot to say about that.
Quite a pickle Boehner went and let that Tea Party caucus get himself into, huh? Too funny. What did that last? 36 hours? 48?
by jhwygirl
These are some serious issues that deserve some serious attention, folks. There’e no reason to dismiss this stuff as crazy blog stuff, as this and the story below are merely op eds that ask questions of stories written in the Missoulian.
Also in today’s paper was this story of a guy who was out driving so under the influence on Mullen Road that he forced a car and a school bus onto the shoulder of the road.
Thing is, the subsequent arrest for this alleged activity was his fifth.
Now, in wacky Montana (for any of you who might be reading from outside our regressive state) DUI offenders get three “passes” from mandatory jail time. It’s not until the 4th where mandatory sentencing occurs.
I’m sure it’s probably no more than 90 days…
In this case, Gordon James Shaffer – a registered violent offender – was free to drive a school bus off the road because somewhere along the line after he allegedly hit-and-run under the influence and six other offenses, his charges were eventually dropped because paperwork was not filed in time.
In this case, that appears to have been in the county attorney’s office? The same office who told the judge on the last charges that Shaffer is “somebody who’s going to kill somebody if he’s not stopped.”
Nice to know someone is concerned.
That attorney’s office has long been overworked and overburdened. In this case, that lack of adequate staffing has nearly resulted in disaster.
They’re pleading out cases to avoid trial – and they’re losing paperwork such that menaces to society are being released into the public.
To force school buses to drive off the road.
Hey – again…If I had kids….
-
Recent Comments
Mark Miwertz on Just Who Oversees the Montana … Mark Miwertz on Comments on Montana’s Co… Turner on Shameless Alcoholism JC on Comments on Montana’s Co… Gopher attacks Gilla… on Congressional Candidate Kim Gi…
