This post is not about the Keystone pipeline, or the vote in the Senate that lost by one vote. If a filibuster-proof majority nearly got it through with the 2014 Senate, I imagine they will have the votes next year.
Instead this post is another reminder that despite all of America’s wealth, a new report shows 1 in every 30 US Children is Homeless:
The number of homeless children in America reached nearly 2.5 million last year, an all-time high, according to a new report released by the National Center on Family Homelessness.
The report, titled “America’s Youngest Outcasts” and published Monday, concluded the current population amounts to 1 child out of every 30 experiencing homelessness. From 2012 to 2013, the number of homeless children jumped by 8 percent nationally, with 13 states and the District of Columbia seeing a spike of 10 percent or more.
Faced with ever-increasing numbers in need, how do American cities respond? In Missoula we tried banning sitting on sidewalks. That effort was reconsidered under threat of litigation by the ACLU, so now it’s only illegal to lay down and sleep on sidewalks.
Well, Honolulu has taken a page from Missoula’s playbook and tried their own ban on that pernicious sidewalk sitting:
The Honolulu, Hawaii city council has approved a measure aimed at the local homeless population banning sitting and lying down on sidewalks. The 4,700 homeless people on the island of Oahu are already regularly ticketed for camping, and the city plans to move some of them to a city-owned camp at the nearby Sand Island, which was used as an internment camp for Japanese-Americans in World War II.
Honolulu is far from the only city to enact similar anti-homeless laws. Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and other cities have made it illegal to feed the homeless outside in public spaces, and places like Houston and Orlando have effectively nixed the practice as well. One Florida county spent more than $5 million to repeatedly jail just 37 homeless people for supposed crimes like sleeping in public.
Nice to see there’s still a use for WWII internment camps. Fort Missoula anyone? And spending 5 million on jailing 37 people? What a smart use of resources.
During the last legislative session, Rep. Ellie Hill teamed up with Rep. Austin Knudsen to draft a bill deregulating oversight of taxi businesses by the PSC:
Taxi companies won’t answer to the Montana Public Service Commission if a bill being drafted in Helena ends up on the books.
Rep. Ellie Hill, a Missoula Democrat, and Rep. Austin Knudsen, a Culbertson Republican, are sponsoring legislation that, in its draft form, removes the commission’s authority over “motor carrier transportation.” If passed, the bill likely would affect a Missoula cab company’s case pending before commissioners.
Late last year, commissioners heard testimony on Green Taxi’s request to grow its business into a couple new areas. Green Taxi wants the authority to carry medical passengers and also operate outside Missoula County, but Yellow Cab, Medicab and Valet Limousine argue the expansion would hurt their businesses.
In an email, Rep. Hill said the bill is still in draft form, Commissioner Travis Kavulla is advising the sponsors, and other lawmakers may have similar legislation in the works. The bill’s purpose is to free up the market for cab customers, she said.
“This would eliminate Yellow Cab’s monopoly on the Missoula market and allow Green Taxi or anyone else to compete freely, as I believe consumers want and deserve,” wrote Hill in an email about the draft bill, LC1416.
According to a Twitter exchange between Aaron Flint and Rep. Ellie Hill, it sounds like Hill plans on working on similar legislation this coming session, again with Rep. Knudsen. What sparked that exchange was a tweet from Flint about rumors that Uber is coming to Montana.
Before everyone gets too excited, it might be a good idea to read up on what kind of company Uber is. I suggest starting with Ben Smith’s reporting at Buzzfeed about the strategy of intimidation against critics being contemplated, especially one particular female journalist. Here is how a conversation between the executive, Emil Michael, and partygoers at a swank get together allegedly went down:
Michael, who Kalanick described as “one of the top deal guys in the Valley” when he joined the company, is a charismatic and well-regarded figure who came to Uber from Klout. He also sits on a board that advises the Department of Defense.
Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.
Michael was particularly focused on one journalist, Sarah Lacy, the editor of the Silicon Valley website PandoDaily, a sometimes combative voice inside the industry. Lacy recently accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny.” She wrote that she was deleting her Uber app after BuzzFeed News reported that Uber appeared to be working with a French escort service. “I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety,” she wrote.
At the dinner, Michael expressed outrage at Lacy’s column and said that women are far more likely to get assaulted by taxi drivers than Uber drivers. He said that he thought Lacy should be held “personally responsible” for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted.
Then he returned to the opposition research plan. Uber’s dirt-diggers, Michael said, could expose Lacy. They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life.
My question to Rep. Hill and Rep. Knudsen is this: if legislation removes taxi companies from PSC oversight, will there be any mechanism of oversight left, or will the free market cabbie environment Rep. Hill seems so excited about on her Twitter feed embolden a company like Uber to come to Montana to steamroll its competition?
Sarah Lacy has a piece at Pando describing The moment I learned just how far Uber will go to silence journalists and attack women. From the link:
Ruining her life? Manufacturing lies? Going after her family? Apparently it’s all part of what Uber has described as its “political campaign” to build a $30 billion (and counting) tech company. A campaign that David Plouffe was hired to “run,” that’s looking more like a pathetic version of play acting House of Cards than a real campaign run by a real political professional. Because step one of an illegal smear campaign against a woman is: Don’t brag about it to a journalist at a party.
The woman in question? The woman that this Uber executive has vowed to go to nearly any lengths to ruin, to bully into silence? Me.
I first heard of this when Smith called me for comment over the weekend. I was out late at a work dinner in London and stepped out into the cold to take the call. A chill ran down my spine that had little to do with the weather, as he described the bizarre interaction. I immediately thought of my kids at home halfway around the world, just getting out of their baths and groggily pulling on their pajamas, and how the new line that this company was willing to cross would affect them.
We are used to intimidation at here. We’ve had sources try to intimidate Pando into silence by withholding access, threatening $300 million lawsuits, spreading lies about our relationships with our backers– or even suggesting that we’re funded by the CIA. We have mobs unleashed on us on Twitter, seemingly weekly.
So my concern wasn’t more lies winding up online about me. Sadly, I’ve had to get used to it. My concern was that the nature of these lies weren’t the same trumped up bullshit about Pando being influenced by its investors. That smear hasn’t worked, and we share several investors with Uber, so that dog doesn’t exactly hunt.
No, these new attacks threatened to hit at my only vulnerability. The only part of my life that I’d do anything to protect: My family and my children.
I wonder if there has been any interaction between Uber staff and our state representatives? Will efforts that originated to help Green Taxi expand its business have the unintended consequence of opening the door wide Uber?
Before they try to deregulate the taxi cab industry in Montana, I hope our representatives take into consideration what a company like Uber could do in a free market environment with no oversight.
Politically, things are getting back to normal in Montana. Republicans are doing stupid stuff already by getting busted having a secret meeting to discuss their legislative agenda. Because it’s Republicans doing it, it’s obviously bad and therefore worthy of a Cowgirl post. I don’t recall if there was any criticism from Cowgirl when Bullock nominated 5.1 million acres based on the input of 7 people during 5 conference calls last April:
…Bullock’s office nominated 5.1 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land as priority for “restoration” (read: logging). Some touted the proposal as a collaborative effort among the timber industry and environmental groups, but the Great Falls Tribune reported that in fact it was cooked up by seven people over the course of five conference calls that included zero opportunity for public input. Those left out of the discussion are rightfully angry and calling out the governor for approving such a heavy-handed clearcut of public lands.
In the governor’s defense, spokesman Dave Parker told the Trib “vigorous” public participation will follow on a project-by-project basis, and he undermined those questioning the governor’s so-called “diverse coalition” by dismissing the critics as a “minority.” The merits of the proposal aside, a decision this large deserves a more transparent process, and the governor should know better than to try to strong-arm the public.
In other Montana blogosphere news, over at Intelligent Discontent, Don can’t think of anything new to say about the party he has learned to love, so he reposted his “Sellout Manifesto” written 3 years ago. Here’s a taste:
Why do I generally support a party that is often far to the right of my own positions? Because in today’s political climate, on many important national and local questions, they represent the last bulwark to protect rights gained and advances made in the past 100 years. Because real human beings will suffer greatly if we further empower a Republican Party so divorced from rationality and human ethics that it would destroy a program which provides economic and health security for our elderly, legally define our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as second class citizens, and accelerate the damage being done to our environment.
We progressives often talk about the importance of confronting privilege. Many of us on the left have the privilege of taking all or nothing positions on political questions because we will survive the fallout: our jobs, our rights, and our positions will be secure no matter which party takes power. In fact, perversely, some of us will even see our prestige and status increased the worse our government behaves.
I’m not so certain that the truly voiceless, the powerless, and the poor have that privilege. While I may have a position privileged enough to endure Republican rule, I believe that the truly powerless are much better served by a Democratic Party who will, co-opted as they may be, fight for them and the programs which offer them a decent standard of living.
In an article last week, titled Rising Inequality and Liberal Myopia, Andrew Levine writes about the futility of trying to revive the past:
Fond wishes for the return of Keynesianism will not bring those days back. (And, of course, if you weren’t a white male those days weren’t necessarily golden anyway.) The Keynesian consensus of the mid-20th century was a product of a particular set of circumstances that no longer exist. Keynesianism then depended on an industrial base and market expansion. A repeat of history isn’t possible because the industrial base of the advanced capitalist countries has been hollowed out, transferred to low-wage developing countries, and there is almost no place remaining to which to expand. Moreover, capitalists who are saved by Keynesian spending programs amass enough power to later impose their preferred neoliberal policies.
Capitalists tolerated such policies because profits could be maintained through expansion of markets and social peace bought. This equilibrium, however, could only be temporary because the new financial center of capitalism, the U.S., possessed a towering economic dominance following World War II that could not last. When markets can’t be expanded at a rate sufficiently robust to maintain or increase profit margins, capitalists cease tolerating paying increased wages.
And, not least, the massive social movements of the 1930s, when communists, socialists and militant unions scared capitalists into granting concessions and prompted the Roosevelt administration to bring forth the New Deal, were a fresh memory. But the movements then settled for reforms, and once capitalists no longer felt pressure from social movements and their profit rates were increasingly squeezed, the turn to neoliberalism was the response.
As we look forward to the social unrest that will continue to simmer under economic stagnation, political corruption and environmental catastrophe, the only thing that has ever worked is the threat of massive social mobilization against those who benefit massively from systemic exploitation. From the same article:
The top 0.1 percent — that is, the uppermost tenth of the 1% — have about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of United Statesians. To put it another way, approximately 320,000 people possess as much as do more than 280 million. It takes at least $20 million in assets to be among the top 0.1 percent, a total that is steadily rising.
Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California, and Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the London School of Economics, examined income-tax data to reveal these numbers. They write that they combined that data with other sources to reach what they believe is the most accurate accounting of wealth distribution yet, one that shows inequality to be wider than previously imagined. The authors define wealth as “the current market value of all the assets owned by households net of all their debts,” including the values of retirement plans with the exception of unfunded defined-benefit pensions and Social Security. (The reason for that exclusion is that those moneys do not yet exist but are promises to be kept sometime in the future.)
The authors’ paper, “Wealth Equality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Data,” reports that, for the bottom 90 percent, there was no change in wealth from 1986 to 2012, while the wealth of the top 0.1 percent increased by more than five percent annually — the latter reaped half of total wealth accumulation.
The 22 percent of total wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent is almost equal to what that cohort owned at the peak of inequality in 1916 and 1929. Afterward, their total fell to as low as seven percent in 1978 but has been rising ever since. At the same time, the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent rose from about 20 percent in the 1920s to a peak of 35 percent in the mid-1980s, but has been declining ever since. Although pension wealth has increased since then, Professors Saez and Zucman report, the increase in mortgage, consumer-credit and student debt has been greater.
People, not party politics, will be the catalyst for actual change in this country.
Last night I once again found myself watching The Lego Movie with my kids. I was amused at the Master Builders inability to work together as they attempted to escape the slaughter of Cloud Cuckoo Land by the fascists working for the corporate authoritarian, Lord Business. This morning I decided to putter around a bit online to see if any reviews touched on the larger cultural context of the creative elites—the Master Builders. What I found is very intriguing.
I remembered some criticism of The Lego Movie took issue with the anti-corporate conformity message, but I didn’t realize the extent that some believed this movie was one of the most anti-Christian ever. Before getting to the excerpt, be warned there are SPOILERS ahead. From the link:
All throughout the movie there are references to the “man upstairs.” This is not only a figurative reference to God, but it is a direct reference to the god of the Lego people, because “the man upstairs” is the one who builds them, is the one who created everything, who everyone is looking for, and who everyone is expecting to rescue them. Okay. So that’s not so bad.
The movie centers around a set of rebels who value creative thinking outside the set of “instructions” that Legos would normally follow. The institution of society considers this deviant behavior and emphasizes the importance of always following the instructions. Okay. I’m all for out-of-the-box thinking and creativity in a dormant society. Not so bad.
Then it is revealed that the “man up stairs” is really the bad-guy and it is the rebellious son who has introduced chaos and disorder to society by believing the “instruction book” is a bad thing.
Do you see it now? If not, let me just lay it all out for you. You see, the “man upstairs” represents God and the “instruction book” represents the Bible. This rebellious son who introduces chaos, disorder, and a disregard for the “instruction book” to a society built in perfection by “the man upstairs,” of course represents Satan.
I knew there was a larger context to The Lego Movie, and this hints at what I think the movie is getting at. Then, this morning, I stumbled upon this review, titled All that Glitters is Not Gold, and it finally clicked. The underlying current of The Lego Movie is rooted in Gnosticism.
I’ve discussed Gnosticism and its influence on my writing/thinking before, so I won’t rehash it now. For readers who are interested, check out the links and see what you think.
I realize I was a little snarky with my comments yesterday about the U.S. – Chinese deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe it is my inherent distrust of “gentlemanly handshake” agreements between two of the worlds’ three leaders-in-contest for world hegemony. Maybe it was because our own ex-Senator Max Baucus has been eerily silent during his stint as the new U.S. ambassador to China.
Run a google on Baucus’ accomplishments and statements on his work in China, and you come up with nothing. So of course, after watching him and seeing how he rolled in Congress, it’s easy to see him taking a back-room role in all this, and twisting it somehow to someone’s ($$) benefit. No matter (maybe), I digress.
But this agreement was no watershed moment to me, as there were no treaties signed, no Congressional approval, no third party involvement. It was strictly a political maneuver with a lot of side stories. But taken at its face value, here is what Frank Melum, Senior Point Carbon Analyst at Thomson Reuters had to say:
“We do not expect these new targets to significantly alter the world’s trajectory for emissions growth, but the joint announcement will probably alter the pace of negotiations, and could in time could lead to improved ambition levels”.
“Improved ambition levels.” Nice political double-speak! So, that’s all and good and symbolic, and pressure-setting for other countries and emerging economies. And of course, I remain highly skeptical that either the U.S. or China will meet the expectations set for them by 2030. Continue Reading »
American cities continue to address homeless in really awful, inhumane ways. The arrest of a 90 year old for feeding the homeless has garnered international headlines. This from the BBC:
Arnold Abbott, a 90-year-old Florida man, has been called a hero for opposing new restrictions on feeding the homeless outdoors in Fort Lauderdale.
The new laws say that organisations wishing to feed the homeless must do so at designated feeding sites, or must provide portable restrooms and running water.
Abbott, who has fed the hungry at the beach on Wednesdays for eight years, refuses to comply.
I like Russell Brand’s take:
In Manteca, California, they’ve banned the homeless from sleeping outside. Yeah. From the link:
Last week, the city council of Manteca, CA unanimously passed two ordinances aimed at clearing out the homeless population.
One will ban people from sleeping or setting up encampments on any public or private property as of December 4, although the homeless won’t be jailed or fined. It will, however, allow the police to tear down any homeless sleeping areas as soon as they appear without having to be invited by the property owner, as was the case previously.
Explaining why the ordinance is necessary, Police Chief Nick Obligacion said, “The goal is actually to correct the wrong. So, if the correction is them leaving Manteca, then that’s their choice.” He also opposes any sort of shelter for the homeless.
Police Chief Nick Obligacion is an asshole.
If America really was a Christian nation, this wouldn’t be happening.
My god, Democrats, what the fuck are you people thinking? You want to save Mary Landrieu by passing her opponents Keystone XL pipeline bill?
Senate Democrats are working on plans to hold a vote authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline — approval that Democrats believe might bolster the chances of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who faces a tough runoff election next month.
We know Jon Tester is eager to help Republicans move forward their agenda:
Montana’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Jon Tester, will now be in the minority for the first time in his Senate career – but said this week his new role may actually create more opportunities to get things done.
In an interview, Tester said he could be among moderate Democrats who join Republicans to form a 60-senator majority to break a filibuster and advance certain bills.
“That’s a possibility,” he said. “I’m going to look at the policy and see how it works for Montana and the country. There are certain things that we may be able to support that others Democrats don’t. …
Great timing, Democrats. Just ignore the breaking news of the seismic shift in the global response to the climate crisis China and America announced last night. Who cares if one of the Republican’s favorite justifications for inaction on climate change—China—just evaporated? Who cares that tarsand bitumen is one of the most environmentally destructive petro-products on earth? Your base may care, but when did that ever stop you from kicking (tar)sand in their face?
This is why your party is at 36% approval, Democrats. Confronted with an electoral massacre, y’all double-down on Republicating yourselves into more malleable, poll-driven amoebas squishing into whatever form the data-sampling indicates you should take.
You should take a hike, preferably into the woods you think the government should mandate be cut. Even better, go spend a month in China without a respirator, then tell us why coal isn’t dead.
Action has to mobilize outside the voting booth.
Oh Hayduke, where do we go from here?
Today is Veterans Day, a federal holiday. It used to be called Armistice Day, but for some reason that changed in 1954. Maybe it’s because the war to end all wars didn’t end all wars, so a broader remembrance of all veterans created by US imperial ambitions became necessary.
The Middle East has been rendered a clusterfuck of chaos, death and destruction from decades of war. The US is directly responsible. Obama has sent 1,500 more troops to Iraq and now Congress is stirring, blearily recalling a distant time when Congressional Approval was necessary for war. From the link:
A senior Democratic senator said Monday that Congress should vote on whether U.S. troops should be fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), calling the previous Iraq War a “terrible mistake.”
“We are going to have to have a vote on this. We know what a terrible mistake the first Iraq War was,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on NBC.
“It cost us close to $3 trillion, thousands of lives to go after weapons of mass destruction, which never existed in the first place. And if we’re going to go into this, how many other places are we going to? We should have a full debate on it,” he added.
Yeah, let’s have a full debate. And how about including in that full debate facts, like our ally, Turkey, helping ISIS:
Until recently, it was speculated that Turkey had provided indirect support to Daesh; there did not appear to be evidence showing direct Turkish assistance to ISIS fascists. New evidence leads to the latter conclusion.
On 7 November, Newsweek published “’ISIS Sees Turkey as Its Ally’: Former Islamic State Member Reveals Turkish Army Cooperation.” The piece is based on testimonies by a former ISIS communications technician who goes by the pseudonym Sherko Omer. Omer traveled to Syria to fight against the bloody Assad regime — a regime with brutal state terrorist campaigns of mass bombing, torture, starvation, and rape of civilians, including children — yet soon “found himself caught up in a horrifying sectarian war, unable to escape.” He never planned on joining ISIS; he was not a Salafi extremist. Omer was trapped in a terrifying snare — a sectarian, international proxy war — and feared for his life, knowing full well that Daesh murders defectors.
Omer managed to escape by surrendering to Kurdish forces (ISIS extremists would not have spared his life after such a surrender), and subsequently detailed to Newsweek what he saw in his time working for the fascist group.
He notes that Turkey allowed trucks from the Daesh stronghold in Raqqa to cross the “border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February.” He later adds that, not only did they travel “through Turkey in a convoy of trucks,” they even stayed “at safehouses along the way.”
As a communication technician, Omer recalls “connect[ing] ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions,” reporting that he “rarely heard them speak in Arabic, and that was only when they talked to their own recruiters, otherwise, they mostly spoke in Turkish because the people they talked to were Turkish officials.”
“ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks,” Omer says.
Another facet of this full debate should include Libya. Glenn Greenwald, in a piece at The Intercept, asks what I’ve been asking—What Happened to the Humanitarians Who Wanted to Save Libyans with Bombs and Drones? The answer is they scuttled away to the shadows, unwilling to acknowledge that the critics were correct. Libya has descended into abject chaos, and now features the first city outside Syria and Iraq to pledge fealty to ISIS:
On a chilly night, bearded militants gathered at a stage strung with colorful lights in Darna, a Mediterranean coastal city long notorious as Libya’s center for jihadi radicals. With a roaring chant, they pledged their allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State group.
With that meeting 10 days ago, the militants dragged Darna into becoming the first city outside of Iraq and Syria to join the “caliphate” announced by the extremist group. Already, the city has seen religious courts ordering killings in public, floggings of residents accused of violating Shariah law, as well as enforced segregation of male and female students. Opponents of the militants have gone into hiding or fled, terrorized by a string of slayings aimed at silencing them.
ISIS should come with a Made in America label.
It’s pretty impressive that US troops are back on the ground in Iraq fighting the consequences of America’s insanely reckless foreign policy with nary a peep from the somnambulist American populace. I have stopped wondering what it would take to jar Americans out of their slumber.
So enjoy the federal holiday, dear citizens! War will remain on our horizon for the foreseeable future because there is no anti-war movement mobilizing against the insanity, another unfortunate byproduct of Democrats failing to distinguish themselves from their Republican counterparts.
The post-mortems keep coming, and one of the big rifts is the failure of Montana Democratic candidates to distinguish themselves from Republicans with regards to the environment. At Cowgirl it’s all Pick Your Heads Up, Democrats, where the failure to take a stand on the environment is explained with one simple word: polls.
The second point is that I would caution people to be careful about simply accepting all of the theories being pushed out there about why Democrats lost. Because the main and most simple theory is most certainly the correct one: Montana will not send a Democrat to Washington in a year in which we have a democratic (not to mention black) president at 28% in the polls, in a midterm year, who is fairly inept at articulating what he stands for or believes.
For those who believe that the Democrats should unabashedly come out against the Keystone pipeline, or unabashedly for a pro-immigration position, I have news for you: such positions are extremely unpopular in states like Montana, and very polarizing too. The greenlighting of the Keystone pipeline, for example, is supported by 85% of Montana voters. Coming out strongly against it, and shouting it from the mountaintop, provides no electoral benefit.
So Democrats want tarsand gunk flowing to Texas (for export), coal being dug up for China, and government-mandated logging because polls define their positions? How did that work out this year?
Leadership is not looking to polls before taking a position. Leadership means looking hard at dire issues, like climate change, and clearly articulating why taking a principled stand is important. If Montana Democrats had done that, would they have done worse? It’s hard to imagine Democrats doing much worse by taking a tough position on an issue that will negatively impact all our lives if our “leaders” continue ignoring the threat.
Ochenski has his post-mortem up at the Missoulian today. From the link:
Here in Montana – and as pointed out in this column months ago – there were very minor differences between Republican candidates and the stances top-level Democrats took on far too many issues. While there certainly were differences between the political parties and their candidates on certain issues, such as a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy, serious policy differences were few and far between.
Take the environment, for instance, which is an issue near and dear to many who consider themselves the Democrat base. Climate change is arguably the single greatest challenge now facing this state and nation. Yet, one would think the “climate change deniers,” generally pegged to be Republicans, had somehow mesmerized Montana’s Democratic candidates into supporting their non-recognition of the science and on-the-land effects of climate change now ravaging the globe.
How is it possible that all of Montana’s top tier Democratic candidates could support “all of the above” energy policies and claim to be anything but climate change deniers? If you ask the Demo’s so-called strategists, they’ll blithely tell you that “we have to take that position to get elected.” Really? Since they lost in record numbers, one might viably deduce that taking that position did just the opposite.
There are lessons to be learned when one fails. Will Democrats in Montana ditch the strategy of Republican-lite poll appeasement? Or will they double down on positions that didn’t help them this year, and won’t help the environmental devastation we humans are doing to this planet?
Political reporting in Montana is abysmal. Don Pogreba has been writing that beat for awhile, and he’s right, for the most part (though his criticism is more focused on disparities that negatively impact the candidates he supports). Still, Lee Enterprise’s various fish wraps (newspapers) continue to struggle in the changing media landscape with a business model that has absorbed personnel cuts while slowly trying to shift from a reliance on advertising revenue to shaking down readers for access to online content.
The result: a tepid, pro-business slant that doesn’t fully inform its customers.
There are bright spots, like John S. Adams (you can read his piece on Dispirited Democrats here) but for the most part the constraints of the business model are painfully apparent.
The slant is by no means new. The difference is the competition. When content can be so easily created and shared, the monopoly on information the business model once enjoyed is challenged. How newspapers choose to respond—paywalls, staff cuts, etc.—is interesting to watch. And to write about for free on a Sunday morning.
This particular Sunday morning I read an op-ed about the obvious appeal to the wealthy from the New York Times, and the quote from Executive Editor, Dean Baquet, is priceless. But before the quote, here’s a bit of the framing from Margaret Sullivan, the NYT’s Public Editor who wrote the piece:
DAVID Gonzalez approached the South Bronx street-corner preacher and said he was from The New York Times.
“He had just been shouting fire, brimstone and eternal damnation,” recalled Mr. Gonzalez, at that time, in 1991, the Bronx bureau chief. But when the preacher heard the Times affiliation, his face brightened. “He told me that he really liked our opera coverage.”
It was a lesson in not making assumptions about just who reads The Times — a topic that I often hear about from readers who are frustrated by what they describe as elitism in the paper’s worldview, and who would like The Times and its staff to remember that the median household income in the United States is close to $52,000 a year, and that about 15 percent of Americans live in poverty.
It’s not hard to see why they feel that way. The featured apartments with their $10 million price tags and white-glove amenities seem aimed at hedge fund managers, if not Russian oligarchs. The stories on doughnuts at $20 a half dozen are for those who are flush with disposable income, not struggling to pay the rent. Many of the parties, the fashions, even the gadgets are well beyond the reach of the middle class.
The NYT features an elitist slant with a thin liberal veneer. Some people who identify as liberal get defensive when this is pointed out. But maybe, just maybe the elitist assumptions are wrong, as the anecdotal story this op-ed leads with highlights.
Sullivan goes on to ask the question, not just to readers but to Dean Baquet himself, and his response is quite telling:
So who is The Times written for — the superwealthy, or for citizens of all income levels? Is the paper trying, in the axiom about journalism’s mission, to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted”? Or is it plumping the Hungarian goose-down pillows of the already quite cozy?
I asked the executive editor, Dean Baquet, whom he has in mind when he directs coverage and priorities.
“I think of The Times reader as very well-educated, worldly and likely affluent,” he said. “But I think we have as many college professors as Wall Street bankers.”
What a smug son of a gun.
The NYT helped the Bush administration manipulate the American public to lead us into a disastrous war that’s cascaded into the whole region being destabilized, producing more extremism as a brutal side-effect. The NYT also withheld James Risen’s story about Americans being spied on, saving the Bush administration from answering tough questions before the 2004 election.
Liberals shouldn’t be defensive of the NYT, they should be angry and weary of a newspaper with that kind of power and track record.
Both locally and nationally, it’s important to recognize the voices of those impacted by the recklessness of Wall Street and the complicity of our elected officials continue to be marginalized. The op-ed goes on to try and defend the NYT times, but the perspective of the Executive Editor pretty much says it all.
I’ll conclude this post with a quote traced back to Finley Peter Dunne about the role of newspapers:
“It’s the job of the newspaper to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
The insatiable criminals who infest Wall Street got another signal yesterday from Obama that they have nothing to worry about. Loretta Lynch is being tapped to replace Holder, and for Democrats more interested in identity politics than substance, I’m sure there will be some excitement that Lynch would be the first black female Attorney General. That’s the NPR headline, anyway.
Here’s another NPR article from March of this year worth highlighting about a particular bank’s cozy relationship with a barbaric drug cartel:
The Sinaloa Cartel, headquartered on Mexico’s northern Pacific Coast, is constantly exploring new ways to launder its gargantuan profits. The State Department reports that Mexican trafficking organizations earn between $19 and $29 billion every year from selling marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines on the streets of American cities.
And Sinaloa is reportedly the richest, most powerful of them all, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The capture last month of the Mexican druglord Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman has cast a spotlight on the smuggling empire he built.
One key to the Sinaloa Cartel’s success has been to use the global banking system to launder all this cash.
“It’s very important for them to get that money into the banking system and do so with as little scrutiny as possible,” says Jim Hayes, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations for the New York office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. He was lead agent in the 2012 case that revealed how Sinaloa money men used HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks, as their private vault.
ICE says in 2007 and 2008, the Sinaloa Cartel and a Colombian cartel wire-transferred $881 million in illegal drug proceeds into U.S. accounts.
Sounds like a serious crime, right? Who is going to hold this bank accountable for laundering hundreds of millions of blood-soacked drug money? Loretta Lynch, that’s who:
WASHINGTON – HSBC Holdings plc (HSBC Group) – a United Kingdom corporation headquartered in London – and HSBC Bank USA N.A. (HSBC Bank USA) (together, HSBC) – a federally chartered banking corporation headquartered in McLean, Va. – have agreed to forfeit $1.256 billion and enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department for HSBC’s violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). According to court documents, HSBC Bank USA violated the BSA by failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and to conduct appropriate due diligence on its foreign correspondent account holders. The HSBC Group violated IEEPA and TWEA by illegally conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma – all countries that were subject to sanctions enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at the time of the transactions.
The announcement was made by Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; and John Morton, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); along with numerous law enforcement and regulatory partners. The New York County District Attorney’s Office worked with the Justice Department on the sanctions portion of the investigation. Treasury Under Secretary David S. Cohen and Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry also joined in today’s announcement.
What sounds like a lot of money is chump change to a bank like HSBC. They pay a fine, no jail time, and usually gag orders all around so no one can talk about the details of the criminality we citizens now meekly accept.
While the appointment of Loretta Lynch will be met with knee-jerk obstruction by Republicans, another woman is exhibiting the courage our boot-licking public officials sorely lack. Her name is Alayne Fleischmann, a woman Rolling Stone describes in this article as JP Morgan Chase’s worst nightmare. Why? Because she’s defying the gag order her bosses paid a cool 9 billion to place on her whistle-blowing. Here’s how the Rolling Stone piece describes the cash for secrecy approach of Holder’s office:
Fleischmann is the central witness in one of the biggest cases of white-collar crime in American history, possessing secrets that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon late last year paid $9 billion (not $13 billion as regularly reported – more on that later) to keep the public from hearing.
Back in 2006, as a deal manager at the gigantic bank, Fleischmann first witnessed, then tried to stop, what she describes as “massive criminal securities fraud” in the bank’s mortgage operations.
Thanks to a confidentiality agreement, she’s kept her mouth shut since then. “My closest family and friends don’t know what I’ve been living with,” she says. “Even my brother will only find out for the first time when he sees this interview.”
Six years after the crisis that cratered the global economy, it’s not exactly news that the country’s biggest banks stole on a grand scale. That’s why the more important part of Fleischmann’s story is in the pains Chase and the Justice Department took to silence her.
She was blocked at every turn: by asleep-on-the-job regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, by a court system that allowed Chase to use its billions to bury her evidence, and, finally, by officials like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief architect of the crazily elaborate government policy of surrender, secrecy and cover-up. “Every time I had a chance to talk, something always got in the way,” Fleischmann says.
This past year she watched as Holder’s Justice Department struck a series of historic settlement deals with Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America. The root bargain in these deals was cash for secrecy. The banks paid big fines, without trials or even judges – only secret negotiations that typically ended with the public shown nothing but vague, quasi-official papers called “statements of facts,” which were conveniently devoid of anything like actual facts.
And now, with Holder about to leave office and his Justice Department reportedly wrapping up its final settlements, the state is effectively putting the finishing touches on what will amount to a sweeping, industrywide effort to bury the facts of a whole generation of Wall Street corruption. “I could be sued into bankruptcy,” she says. “I could lose my license to practice law. I could lose everything. But if we don’t start speaking up, then this really is all we’re going to get: the biggest financial cover-up in history.”
I know some readers don’t like it when I use naughty words, but I continue to find this bullshit to be absolutely fucking insane.
There is some funny election analysis at the Cowgirl worth quoting here, especially from one commenter, “Drunks for Denny”, who wrote this:
The Democrats need to stop blaming dark money for all their woes, and start doing job of getting their message across. When the Republicans say “So and so voted with Obama 95% of the time”, So and so should respond with “Damn straight!” and tout the accomplishments of Obama Care, the Recovery, etc. instead of running away from him. Pandering to the stupidity of the average voter is insulting to the rest of us.
This is an idiotic message when you consider “the Recovery” is non-existent for most Americans. It was reported last year that 95% of the income gains since the “Great Recession” went to the 1%. Is this the Obama recovery Democrats should respond “Damn Stright!” in supporting? Hell no.
It looks like this commenter, who thinks average voters are stupid, should maybe read up on what has actually happened during Obama’s tenure. Instead, Drunks for Denny has this insightful response to an inquiry by another commenter about low turnout in Missoula:
No, the likely reason that Democrats did not fare as well as they usually do during a presidential election year in Missoula, is that the vast majority of Missoula Democrats are whacked out hippies who smoke a lot of weed. Perhaps yesterday Phish tickets went on sale at the Gorge. Who knows? It’s like when I toss a ball of yarn to my cat.
While Democrats can’t acknowledge their party is a part of the problem, average voters can, because their lives, generally speaking, haven’t improved these past 6 years.
If it’s the economy, stupid, then no one should be surprised when a papered-over economic catastrophe primed for the next crisis depresses turnout for Democratic candidates who can’t put enough distance between their campaigns and the complicity of their party in enabling the wolves of Wall Street.
I have heard the name Al From before, but I had no idea he was the man responsible for expunging the spirit of the New Deal from the Democratic Party, birthing a new Democratic movement that culminated in the electoral victory of Bill Clinton in 1992.
Matt Stoller has a very important review of From’s book, The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Stoller titles his review Why the Democratic Party Acts The Way It Does and it’s quite illuminating.
From created the Democratic Leadership Council and used this organization to enact a “bloodless revolution” within the party:
The DLC was controversial from the start, both because it was competitive with existing party institutions and because the existing party establishment did not agree with this new agenda. The DLC was called the “southern white boys’ caucus”, and Jesse Jackson and populist Senator Howard Metzenbaum, both called it the “Democrats for the Leisure Class.” From mediated this anger by appointing a man with a conciliatory personality, Dick Gephart, as the DLC’s first chairman. While controversial, the DLC was also spectacularly successful at placing itself in the center of the party. Groups of DLC politicians dubbed “the cavalry” traveled around the country to talk to reporters, activists, and operatives about what they were doing and what the Democrats needed to do to be successful. Their message was, well, “change and hope.” Arizona Governor and later Clinton cabinet member Bruce Babbitt explained it as such. “We’re revolutionaries. We believe the Democratic Party in the last several decades has been complacent. . . . We’re out to refresh, revitalize, regenerate, carry on the revolutionary tradition.” It was immediately successful among media elites — the Washington Post’s David Broder headlined his column: “A Welcome Attack of Sanity Has Hit Washington.”
Over the course of the late 1980s, the DLC continued its attack on the orthodoxy of the populism that had residual power in the party. The DLC’s Chairman, Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, said it clearly in an influential speech during this period. “The New Deal consensus which dominated American politics for 50 years has run its course.” Economic growth, not redistribution or getting in the way of corporate power, was now on the menu. The DLC attacked all facets of policymaking, setting up a think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute (because From was tired of being called conservative) and hosting forums on poverty, welfare and crime with liberals like New York Governor Mario Cuomo. PPI and the DLC pushed globalization, the shareholder revolution, and reforms in entitlements like Social Security and Medicare (initially pressing to link their growth to productivity growth).
The DLC group is sometimes portrayed as a pro-Wall Street set of lobbyists. And From did recruit hedge fund legends like Michael Steinhardt to fund his movement. But to argue these people were corrupt or motivated by a pay to play form of politics is wrong. From is clearly a reformer and an ideologue, and his colleagues believed they were serving the public interest. “Make no mistake about it,” wrote From in a memo about his organization’s strategy, “what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party. It is not unlike what the conservatives accomplished in the Republican Party during the 1960s and 1970s.”
Now that Democrats are back to getting their asses kicked, electorally speaking, maybe it’s a good time to scrutinize From’s revolutionary dismantling of the New Deal legacy.
Just a thought.
After Democrats experienced an electoral smack-down Tuesday, will there be any soul-searching? Or is it time to play the blame game? If it’s the latter, millennials are clearly the first scapegoat being pointed at. Here is one article, titled The Young And The Useless: How Millennials Left Democrats Hanging On Election Day. From the link:
Young voters in particular declined to show up for Democrats. The exit poll shows that voters between the ages of 18 and 29 supported Democrats by a strong 54 to 43 percent margin. But they made up just 12 percent of the electorate — down 7 percent from 2012, and equal to their dismal turnout from 2010.
By contrast, 37 percent of midterm voters were 60 or older — and these voters backed the Republicans by more than 15 percent.
While Millennial turn out was low, voters across the nation did support a wide variety of progressive ballot measures, like increasing minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, paid sick time, and expanding background checks for gun sales. In contrast, two personhood ballot initiatives were defeated by large margins.
It’s a confounding disconnect.
A better scapegoat could be the baggage of the Obama presidency. Six years of broken promises and capitulation to the destructive tendencies of America’s imperial ambitions have rendered an electorate disgusted with both parties. Dave Lindorff explains that Tuesday wasn’t a GOP victory, it was a Democratic rout:
The blame is being placed on President Obama for this drubbing, and he richly deserves it. Basically, his presidency has been one long string of disappointments to and outright betrayal of those who voted for him “hoping for change,” as Obama has caved on or compromised away virtually every progressive promise he made during his two campaigns.
As a constitutional scholar, he had promised to restore respect for the law to the presidency, and instead has made end runs around every law imaginable, refusing to prosecute the war criminals of the Bush/Cheney presidency, the CIA, and the military, refusing to prosecute the FBI for violating the Patriot Act, refusing to prosecute the bankers whose crimes brought the US and the global economy to a grinding halt and left the US crippled going on six years now.
He has run the most secretive administration in history, even employing the 1917 Espionage Act against leakers and whistleblowers, and threatening journalists with jail for publishing those leaks. Under his watch, too, the Homeland Security Department secretly orchestrated the nationwide crushing of the Occupy movement by local police departments, while the White House, all the while, offered homilies about the sanctity of the right to protest. (His HSD’s Office of Threat Assessment actually labelled this publication a “threat” for publishing an article exposing that role — a discovery which we now proudly display on our masthead above.)
Claiming to have been a “community organizer,” Obama hung the labor movement that had backed his campaign for president out to dry, declining to push for a promised and desperately needed reform of the National Labor Relations Act that would have ended the interminable and easily delayed process of requiring a secret ballot election to form a union, by reverting to the old system of obtaining a majority of signed cards from workers.
On climate change, which he had once called the issue of our time, his administration actually actively worked behind the scenes, with the help of the National Security Agency, to subvert efforts by international leaders to reach an international consensus on action in 2009 in Denmark. This Obama treachery allowed the world to lurch on towards a climate-change armageddon.
After promising to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama first drew out the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, leading to further chaos there and ultimately to the current disaster where the country is being torn apart by an invasion by the former Baathist military leaders who were earlier turned out by the Bush/Cheney invasion and occupation. Then he expanded the war in Afghanistan, dragging out that conflict to make it, at 13 years and running, the longest war in US history. And after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on pointless war and killing thousands of more Afghans and American soldiers too, he has left a nation in tatters which will revert to Taliban control again probably within months of the last US soldier leaving on the last troop transport.
No wonder the public was pissed this Election Day.
Climate change is one of the issues I think Democrats will have the most problems with going forward because it pits environmentalists against labor interests. Ochenski had a good piece on Monday about the tangible impacts of climate change on Montana’s hunting tradition and the failure of Lewis and Curtis to distinguish themselves from Daines and Zinke. From the link:
While many lament the falling number of hunters in recent years, it’s quite possible they are failing to connect the dots between our warming climate and fewer hunters. Not too tough to figure out, though, that if you go hunting and return without having seen or shot an elk year after year, one might just decide to hang up the elk rifle after a while.
A stunning affirmation of the current conditions was made plain when a good friend, who is a backcountry cook for an outfitter, said out of the nearly two months of wilderness rifle season so far, they had only taken one elk out of their Bob Marshall Wilderness camp. One elk.
Considering the cost for a week’s outfitted hunt runs about $5,000-$6,000 per individual, it’s not hard to predict that those who paid so much for a treasured Montana elk hunt only to find no tracking snow and no elk will be far less likely to do so in the future.
Yet, Montana’s politicians continue to embrace “all of the above” energy policies that only exacerbate global climate change. Keystone XL pipeline? They all support it. Mining more coal to ship to China? You bet. Cutting down more forests that actually take carbon dioxide out of the air? Oh yeah, let’s congressionally mandate even higher harvest levels. And of course more drilling and fracking garners universal applause from Republicans and Democrats.
But none of this happens in a vacuum. So how much of Montana’s hunting tradition – and economy – are our politicians willing to sacrifice to ever more energy production and consumption?
The Keystone XL pipeline will probably be one of the first showdowns between a Congress that hasn’t been this Republican since 1929 and Democrats. This won’t be an easy issue for Democrats, considering many support the pipeline and the ones who don’t haven’t been all that vocal in opposition because of labor’s advocacy and the fear of being tar and feathered as anti-jobs.
All in all, we are in for a frustrating two years of gridlock, shutdown and polarization over the wedge issues that dominate our political conversation in this country while the consensus of perpetual war keeps pushing us to the brink of WWIII.
And so it goes.
Ryan Zinke and Steve Daines will now represent Montana in DC. I first wrote Montanans, but that’s not accurate. Semantics aside, they won and that’s that.
Nationally, Republicans took the senate. What they will do with it remains to be seen, but it’s a good guess any legislative effort to fix any of the broken systems dragging this country down will be swiftly stomped out of existence.
Locally, I was glad to see Marie Anderson win. I also hope Joshua Clark will finally take the hint he didn’t win, and the Sheriff’s Department can start the process of moving forward.
On another positive note, Missoula residents can finally say adios to Fred Van Valkenburg. Kirsten Pabst will now take the lead of the Missoula County attorney’s office. There is still a lot of fixing that needs to happen in that office. I hope Pabst is up to the task.
Oh, and parks. Missoula loves it some parks. Systems may be in slow motion collapse, but at least we’ll have nice parks.
Michael Gordon was just saying goodbye to some ladies he’s known since childhood when Christopher Hymel attacked him for no reason. That’s Gordon’s version of the story, as reported by the Missoulian. Hymel didn’t testify, because he’s dead. From the link:
The inquest began Monday morning with testimony from several of Hymel’s friends who were present during the shooting. The friends claim Gordon enticed Hymel to his truck after insulting Hymel’s girlfriend, Megan Navarro, and friend Chira Graham.
Gordon and Hymel exchanged punches through the driver’s-side window.
Missoula Police Det. Mitch Lang showed a surveillance video of the parking lot that showed Gordon and Hymel exiting the club and the fight that ensued.
In the video, Gordon left first and climbed into his truck, which he apparently started by remote. Several minutes later, Hymel and his group of four friends exited the club and walked past the truck.
The truck’s lights turned on and in audio footage played for the jury later, it’s clear Gordon revved his engine when the girls walked past.
According to the testimony of the four friends, Gordon was calling out to the girls vulgarly through his driver’s-side window. However, they couldn’t remember exactly what he said to them.
According to Gordon’s testimony, he opened his window to say goodbye to the girls, who he had known since childhood and the next thing he knew Hymel attacked him.
“I didn’t do anything. I didn’t say anything,” he said, during his emotional testimony. “I was attacked out of nowhere.”
Four people testify Gordon was calling out to the women vulgarly. Audio of the incident catches an engine being revved. Gordon maintains he was just saying adios to childhood friends. Just speaking from personal experience, I don’t associate the revving of a truck outside a strip club in the middle of the night with a cordial see you later coming from the operator of the gas pedal. But that’s just me.
The article goes on to describe what can be discerned from the video footage:
The video shows Hymel and Gordon fighting through the truck window, but it’s not clear to what extent Gordon was fighting back. At one point during the fight, the truck started shaking and pieces of the window’s rain shield shattered.
According to Gordon’s testimony, he was being brutally beat by Hymel and grabbed his gun from the center console while he was leaned over the center, protecting himself from the blows.
Hymel’s friend, Steven Ellingson, attempted to break up the fight, and grabbed Hymel from behind, ripping his shirt.
Hymel stepped back to remove his shirt, while Gordon opened car door and fired a shot at Hymel. The bullet pierced his lung and fatally ripped through his aorta.
In the heat of the moment, Gordon didn’t consider driving away, he said and he couldn’t roll up his window because he was using that arm to protect himself from Hymel’s punches, Gordon said.
So Michael Gordon had a loaded gun in his center console ready to go. Is that even legal? And what about alcohol? Did anyone on scene even bother to get a blood sample to determine if alcohol was a factor? Gordon was supposedly cooperative with law enforcement, right? WTF?
As an impressionable new gun owner, this case is forming my sense of what I can and can’t do with my handguns. What I’m learning is that I can travel around with a loaded gun in my car and if some sort of physical altercation ensues, I can grab my gun “in the heat of the moment”, open my car door, gun in hand, exit my car, aim my handgun, and shoot the person who attacked me.
And this is legally justified?
What kind of weight does a jury decision from a coroner’s inquest carry? Is this case all wrapped up now? Did the Missoula County attorney’s office get the desired outcome with this punt?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Tomorrow is election day. I plan on voting despite how diminished the impact of my vote has become in this brave new world of dark money.
So what does get results?
I like this story from Electronic Intifada: Bay Area activists declare victory after Israeli carrier cancels all ships. From the link:
On 28 October, San Francisco Bay Area activists organizing to block the unloading of Israeli shipping vessels declared their most significant victory yet: Israel’s Zim Integrated Shipping Services appears to have cancelled all future shipments to the Oakland Port.
This past summer, at the peak of Israel’s brutal bombardment of Gaza, the Bay Area’s Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) mobilized the community in response to the military assault. Deciding to focus on a tangible, highly-visible and big-money target, the group set its sights on Israel’s Zim lines, determined to block the company every time it tried to dock a ship at the busy Port of Oakland.
But they didn’t know it would take only three months to send Israel’s largest shipping company packing — possibly for good — in what looks like an effort to avoid the tireless activists who have consistently out-maneuvered the cargo ships.
Over the summer, AROC spearheaded the original Block the Boat coalition. The movement quickly caught on in major shipping cities along the West Coast, and last week, Los Angeles activists delayed the unloading of a Zim shipping vessel for two days.
The power of the boycott helped break the back of apartheid in South Africa. Now, the BDS movement (boycott, divest, sanction) against the apartheid state of Israel is showing results.
Israel, for it’s part, continues proving why such a movement is absolutely necessary. Here are just a few recent links.
The Missoula County Detention Facility is a jail. It is not a psychiatric unit or a detox center. The staff are not nurses, nor are they mental health professionals.
It would be easy to just point the finger of blame at the detention center staff responsible (or at Sheriff Ibsen, for that matter) for not following protocol in the death of Heather Wasson, a 31 year old woman who died from a seizure brought on by alcohol withdrawal. As a civil matter, the court has done just that:
Missoula County must pay $565,500 in damages to the family of a woman who died of a seizure in the county jail in 2009.
The Missoulian reported (http://bit.ly/1p4nqUT ) Wednesday a district court jury ruled county officials were mostly responsible for the death of 31-year-old Heather Holly Wasson, who died of an alcohol withdrawal seizure about 36 hours after she was jailed.
Instead, this Missoulian follow-up article—No changes at Missoula County jail, despite inmate’s 2009 death—features a quote worth repeating from Barbara Rodderick, the Missoula jail’s assistant commander:
“The thing the jail was guilty of was being overworked and under-staffed,” Roderick said. “From a taxpayer standpoint, why can’t they look at the whole picture? These are great officers here, but … we are not a hospital. We need a detox center.”
“(Inmates) need to be completely detoxed before coming to the jail,” she added.
Your average Missoula taxpayer can’t see the whole picture because there are multiple system overloads that can’t be explicitly described. The crisis at the jail is just one of them. If you have friends or family who work at St. Pats ER, or Providence, or first responders of any kind, they will tell you about what alcohol and other forms of substance abuse are doing. Warms Springs, the state hospital, is busting at the seams.
I don’t know why there aren’t more stories about what’s going on in some of these places. I guess our local paper needs the space for stuff like this op-ed asking for a second police officer downtown:
Could it be that Missoula has at last made progress in its efforts to crack down on problems downtown?
If the figures shared at last week’s Downtown Business Improvement District’s board of directors meeting are any indication, yes. And now that Missoula has hit upon a response that gets results, we should commit more resources to strengthening it. In fact, we should double it – by adding a second patrol officer dedicated specifically to the downtown area.
The single officer doing this work right now, the Downtown BID learned last week, has issued nearly 700 citations and warnings this year, and made exactly 63 arrests through September. The offenses ranged from eight incidents of public urination to seven acts of aggressive panhandling.
Of course, any regular visitor to the downtown area can tell you that these kinds of problems haven’t been eliminated completely. However, it’s become clear that having an officer assigned just to downtown, in conjunction with other programs, has certainly helped.
Maybe the optics have improved downtown, but the crisis has not.
But hey, what about that 42 million dollar parks bond on the ballot? Yeah parks! And Missoula hasn’t quite found the right number of locally brewed beer flowing in taprooms, so throw in another one downtown. Yeah beer!
Going back to the Missoulian editorial, I found this part curious:
Missoula Police Chief Mike Brady told the board of directors of the Downtown BID that a lot of ongoing problems seem to be linked to the sale of tall cans of alcohol. In response, the board is looking at whether to partner with downtown businesses to restrict their sale.
That’s probably not an especially beneficial approach. We’re willing to bet that the vast majority of consumers who buy these tall cans are law-abiding, and not planning to consume their beverage downtown in any case. Restricting the sale of these particular items would probably just discourage consumers from shopping downtown while doing little to curb the problems caused by alcohol intoxication downtown.
Definitely important to protect the ability of people to buy 24 ounce cans of cheap malt liquor. Some of the stores that sell these fine products start as early as 8am.
I’m up late writing this post because I was awoken to screams and shouts outside my home tonight. I looked out my window and saw a street brawl brewing, at least 20 people in the street and more on sidewalks. I live on a quiet street that has been much less quiet since members of a certain football team moved in nearby.
I wonder how many people drove away drunk once the cops inevitably showed up. Hopefully no one gets killed tonight.
The Missoulian has an article today about a state department program UM’s Mansfield Center has been awarded the past few years. Here’s the description:
Meier, with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, has measured the University of Montana’s part in hosting the agency’s Professional Fellows Program, and he likes what he’s seen.
“We just awarded a new project next year for UM,” Meier said. “This particular project is focused on five Southeast Asian countries and is part of a broader initiative to boost U.S. engagement in Asia. We anticipate even greater numbers moving forward.”
The Mansfield Center at UM has been awarded the exchange program for each of the past several years. More than 75 professional fellows from five Asian nations have passed through Missoula to explore the state while growing their understanding of U.S. culture.
Whether their stay places them in the office of a local nonprofit, a government agency or a small business, the goal remains the same: to make them stronger leaders and improve the world through person-to-person contact.
“They get a chance to build the skills they can use at home, but also observe American practices and American daily life,” said Meier. “We want someone with a track record that has demonstrated initiative and leadership through the work they’ve done.”
So, the Mansfield Center is helping the Obama regime pivot to Asia by inviting “professional fellows” to absorb U.S. culture. What aspects of our culture will they explore first? Allow me, dear fellows, to make some suggestions.
Downtown Missoula is a wonderful place to drink alcohol to excess. Start downtown on a Friday night, but beware of a few things. Places like the Bodega and Stockman’s feature a subculture known by the slang term “bros“. Here is how the urban dictionary defines this subculture:
Obnoxious partying males who are often seen at college parties. When they aren’t making an ass of themselves they usually just stand around holding a red plastic cup waiting for something exciting to happen so they can scream something that demonstrates how much they enjoy partying. Nearly everyone in a fraternity is a bro but there are also many bros who are not in a fraternity. They often wear a rugby shirt and a baseball cap. It is not uncommon for them to have spiked hair with frosted tips.
If you are a female Asian fellow, it’s important to be aware that this subculture has aggressive mating rituals that relies on alcohol (and sometimes drugs) to prepare their
victims mates for non-consensual sex, commonly referred to as “rape”. If you happen to become a target of one of these animals, your options for legal recourse may be lacking. Why? Because it’s your fault, as a woman, for doing things like wearing clothes that don’t totally obscure your female form, or making eye contact, or engaging in casual conversation. If you’ve had any alcohol to drink, then you definitely asked for it. So be careful, this is rape culture.
While you’re out and about trying to avoid getting raped by bros, another subculture may pique your interest: transients. Despite being an inaccurate term to describe chronically homeless individuals (don’t tell the Missoulian) these people are seen as threats to businesses downtown, even the bars who get bros drunk and rapey lament that their patrons are harassed by these societal outcasts. Instead of acknowledging the extreme lack of treatment options and the national joke that is our health care system, our city leaders passed (then reconsidered after threats of a lawsuit by the ACLU) ordinances banning sitting on sidewalks.
Creating criminals is something America is really good at. This is prison culture, and one area where America truly is exceptional:
The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world—more even than China or Russia. In fact, more people are in prisons in the United States than in all other developed countries combined. Professor Daniel J. D’Amico explains that as of 2010 over 1.6 million people were serving jail sentences in America.
Let’s say you make it through a Friday night without getting raped and/or giving all your money to panhandling transients. If it’s late spring, summer, or early fall, then you can experience Missoula’s various markets, where all kinds of locally grown/harvested food and locally made crafts can be purchased. Breath in the mingling aromas and watch hipsters mingle with aging hippies while kids run around having a blast.
Food and drink are at the heart of any culture, so what better way to learn about America? But don’t be mistaken, the delicious local fare found at outdoor markets and stores like The Good Food Store are not inexpensive. If you’re poor in America, where austerity keeps nibbling away at programs like SNAP, you eat whatever you can get.
In America, when it comes to food, corporate culture seeks ever-increasing control of the food supply. Corporations like Monsanto have patented their genetically modified food products and spend millions to keep information about their products from making it onto labels so consumers know what they’re buying. Currently their efforts are focused on ballot measures in Colorado and Oregon.
In Missoula, the water we humans need to live is controlled by the Carlyle Group. The link is to wikipedia, so just surface level. What lurks beneath, though, is a rabbit hole of intrigue that segues into another subculture, conspiracy culture.
To wrap up this little foray into American subcultures, all you need to know about conspiracy culture is the people who entertain possibilities outside the mainstream herding of corporate media are easily marginalized through the use of the pejorative term, conspiracy theory. To avoid the mockery and ridicule that accompanies the deployment of the CT pejorative, simply avoid any topic that has been mentioned by Alex Jones.
Welcome to America!!!
A fairness-in-lending advocacy group is targeting Advance America CEO J. Patrick O’Shaughnessy as part of a name-and-shame campaign directed at top financial industry executives. Of the six executives profiled by Americans for Payday Lending Reform so far, their latest target has a unique credential: He’s also a member of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s consumer advisory board.
The CFPB is considering whether to draw up new regulations for an industry that advocates say traps consumers in debt by charging exorbitant interest rates.
“It’s hard to imagine how a someone who has made a career benefitting from high-interest lending will help usher in needed reforms if he thinks it will undercut his profit margin,” wrote Liz Ryan Murray, policy director of the left-leaning National People’s Action, which is producing the “Preyday Lenders” campaign. “And yet that seems to be exactly what the CFPB has asked him to do.”
Agency chief Richard Cordray earlier this year appointed O’Shaughnessy to a three-year term on the 31-member advisory board –which includes a mix of public interest attorneys, consumer advocates, academics, and executives representing non-profits, and the financial services industry, among others.
O’Shaughnessy, a former investment banker, heads one of the largest payday lending operations in the U.S., and is the board chair for Community Financial Services Association of America, an industry trade group.
After hearing about Mel Watt, this lovely Patrick O’Shaughnessy is just par for the course.
Maybe next week the Obama administration can create an Anger Management Czar and appoint Ray Rice.
The second season of American Horror Story featured James Cromwell as a Nazi scientist allowed to continue his human experimentation in an American asylum. The show is fiction, but its storyline borrows from a very dark part of our history that usually only the “conspiracy theorists” seem to want to acknowledge. On October 26th, it was the New York Times acknowledging what’s long been know by some—In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis. From the link:
In the decades after World War II, the C.I.A. and other United States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants and, as recently as the 1990s, concealed the government’s ties to some still living in America, newly disclosed records and interviews show.
At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, law enforcement and intelligence leaders like J. Edgar Hoover at the F.B.I. and Allen Dulles at the C.I.A. aggressively recruited onetime Nazis of all ranks as secret, anti-Soviet “assets,” declassified records show. They believed the ex-Nazis’ intelligence value against the Russians outweighed what one official called “moral lapses” in their service to the Third Reich.
Mickey Z at Counterpunch names names and describes some of those “moral lapses” committed by monsters turned intelligence assets:
*Hermann Lauterbacher, former deputy leader of the Hitler Youth.
*Franz Buensch, a propagandist who worked for Goebbels and authored the pornographic book, The Sexual Habits of Jews.
*SS Obersturmführer Hans Sommer, widely known for setting fire to seven Paris synagogues in October 1941.
*Adolf Eichmann’s chief aide, Alois Brunner (a.k.a. “Georg Fischer”). Said to be responsible for 128,500 murders, Brunner was sentenced to death (in absentia) by the French government for crimes against humanity. He was known for his lack of compassion for Jewish children, labeling them “future terrorists” who must be murdered.
*SS officer Baron Otto von Bolschwing, a senior aide to the notorious Adolf Eichmann, who assisted in drawing up the SS’s “first comprehensive program for the systematic robbery of Europe’s Jews.” Under orders from von Bolschwing, some of the many Jewish victims in a 1941 Bucharest pogrom were butchered in a meat packing plant, hung on hooks, and literally branded as “kosher meat,” while others — including a five-year-old girl — were skinned alive and left hanging by their feet like slaughtered livestock. Von Bolschwing himself stated that in 1945, “he volunteered his services to the Army CIC, which used him for interrogation and recruitment of other former Nazi intelligence officers” — an offer the U.S. readily accepted.
*SS Obersturmführer Robert Verbelen, who had once been sentenced to death in absentia for war crimes, including the torture of two U.S. Air Force pilots. After the war, he served in Vienna as a contract spy for the U.S. Army, which was completely aware of his background.
*Dr. Kurt Blome, who admitted in 1945 that he had been a leader of Nazi biological warfare research, a program known to have included experimentation on prisoners in concentration camps. In 1947, he was acquitted of crimes against humanity and then hired by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to conduct a new round of biological weapons research.
*Blome’s colleague, Dr. Arthur Rudolph, who was accused in sworn testimony at Nuremberg of committing atrocities at the Nazis’ underground rocket works near Nordhausen but was later given U.S. citizenship and a major role in the U.S. missile program.
America assimilated Nazis into the fabric of its intelligence community. This seems outlandish, but it’s true; it’s historical fact. It’s not a huge leap, then, to wonder how responsible America might be for the Ebola outbreak. Here’s Dave Lindorff with a piece today titled With a Government this Vile and Secretive We Need to Ask Questions:
A few days ago, I published a short story linking to a PRN.fm radio interview I did with noted international law attorney Francis Boyle, whom I pointed out was a drafter of the US Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act passed into law in 1981, which act supposedly barred the United States from continuing to keep or to develop new germ warfare weapons.
Boyle told me, on last Wednesday’s radio program “This Can’t Be Happening!,” that he believes the Zaire Ebola strain that is wracking Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea in west Africa, originally came from one of several BSL4-level bio-research labs operated in those countries and funded by a combination of the Center for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the US Defense Department, perhaps because of testing of Ebola being conducted there, or because of some containment breach.
Boyle pointed out the oddity that the epidemic is the Zaire strain, which has in the past been limited to Zaire in central Africa, and not a local strain found in fruit bats in west Africa — the alleged vector that news reports have claimed is being suspected of initiating the outbreak of the disease. As he noted, fruit bats don’t migrate, and certainly didn’t fly 2200 miles from central Africa to Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.
For running this alarming interview with Boyle, I have received some criticism from readers who suggest that Boyle’s facts are weak.
Since then I have been checking out some of his claims and suspicions.
One particularly interesting one is his claim that a BSL4 lab handling Zaire Ebola in Kenema, Sierra Leone, was shut down in July by order of the Sierra Leone government.
I have confirmed that, and attach a screen shot (see below) from the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation’s Facebook Page. This press release declares that the ministry was setting up a new operations center in Freetown for responding to the Ebola crisis, and that in the interim before that center was up and running, all Ebola cases would be brought to a treatment center operated by the government in Kailahun.
Significantly, the announcement also said that the move of operations away from Kenema came in response to concerns expressed by “health workers and the people of Kenema.” Even more significantly, it said that Tulane University, which had been operating the lab under US government contract, was being ordered “to stop Ebola testing during the current Ebola outbreak.”
Now just what kind of “testing” of Ebola might that be, it seems fair to ask. I did try, leaving messages with several people in the public relations office at Tulane University, but got no return calls.
UPDATE:: On Thursday, a reader who is an MD contacted someone he knew at Tulane, Vice President for Research Laura Levy, asking her to explain what Tulane was doing in Kenema. He later sent me her response, which was a link to a web page on Tulane’s website. It seeks to debunk “myths” about Tulane’s work in West Africa. In that article, it states that it is a “myth” that Tulane has been ordered to leave Sierra Leone. But no one is saying that. Tulane was ordered to shut down it’s Ebola lab in the town of Kenema, not to leave Sierra Leone altogether. The article also states that it is a “myth” that the University and its researchers are “collaborating” with the military in Sierra Leone. It goes on to say that “Tulane is working with Harvard University and others in the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium to develop diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever and Ebola. Support for the consortium has come principally from the National Institutes of Health.”
But actually the consortium’s own website says that Tulane is the leader of the consortium. It lists a number of partners, including Harvard University, Scripps Research Institute, and a company called Corgenix. No government “partners” are listed. Yet Corgenix, on its company site, lists USAMRIID, the Pentagon’s bioweapons research unit, as a “member of the consortium.”
Curious indeed that Tulane Research VP Levy omitted that important bit of information.
Here’s what Coregenix had to say about USAMRIID:
USAMRIID (U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases), located at Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the lead medical research laboratory for the U.S. Biological Defense Research Program, and plays a leading role in national defense and in infectious disease research. The Institute’s mission is to conduct basic and applied research on biological threats resulting in medical solutions (such as vaccines, drugs and diagnostics) to protect the warfighter. USAMRIID is a subordinate laboratory of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command.
Corgenix and USAMRIID are members of the Viral Hemorrhagic fever Consortium, working to develop state of the art diagnostic products for biothreat agents and emerging pathogens.
Not concerned yet? There’s more at the link.
Ever hear the name Mel Watt? He’s a Democrat and a black man, so in the age of identity politics, what else do people need to know? If you’re tired of the bankers fucking up the world, then you need to know Mel Watt is the most dangerous financial oligarch puppets operating in America today.
Obama picked this guy to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency, so for liberals asleep at the wheel, they probably assume Watt’s advocacy for looser lending is all about helping people buy houses. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Thankfully we have people like Michael Whitney explaining what an oligarch puppet like Watt is actually up to, and it’s bad:
Last week, the country’s biggest mortgage lenders scored a couple of key victories that will allow them to ease lending standards, crank out more toxic assets, and inflate another housing bubble. Here’s what’s going on.
On Monday, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Mel Watt, announced that Fannie and Freddie would slash the minimum down-payment requirement on mortgages from 5 percent to 3 percent while making loans more available to people with spotty credit. If this all sounds hauntingly familiar, it should. It was less than 7 years ago that shoddy lending practices blew up the financial system precipitating the deepest slump since the Great Depression. Now Watt wants to repeat that catastrophe by pumping up another credit bubble.
Crazy? Yes, absolutely batshit crazy. Here’s more:
The reason that Obama picked Watt was because he knew he could be trusted to do whatever Wall Street wanted, and that’s precisely what he’s doing. Smaller down payments and looser underwriting are just the beginning; teaser rates, balloon payments, and liars loans are bound to follow. In fact, there’s a funny story about credit scores in the Washington Post that explains what’s really going on behind the scenes. See if you can figure it out:
“Most housing advocates agree that a bigger bang for the buck would come from having lenders lower the unusually high credit scores that they’re now demanding from borrowers.
After the housing market tanked, Fannie and Freddie forced the industry to buy back billions of dollars in loans. In a bid to protect themselves from further financial penalties, lenders reacted by imposing credit scores that exceed what Fannie and Freddie require. Housing experts say the push to hold lenders accountable for loose lending practices of the past steered the industry toward the highest-quality borrowers, undermining the mission of Fannie and Freddie to serve the broader population, including low- to moderate- income borrowers.
Today, the average credit score on a loan backed by Fannie and Freddie is close to 745, versus about 710 in the early 2000s, according to Moody’s Analytics. And lenders say they won’t ease up until the government clarifies rules that dictate when Fannie and Freddie can take action against them.” (Washington Post)
Can you see what’s going on? The banks have been requiring higher credit scores than Fannie or Freddie.
But why? After all, the banks are in the lending business, so the more loans they issue the more money they make, right?
Right. But the banks don’t care about the short-term dough. They’d rather withhold credit and slow the economy in order to blackmail the government into doing what they want.
And what do they want?
They want looser regulations and they want to know that Fannie and Freddie aren’t going to demand their money back (“put backs”) when they sell them crappy mortgages that won’t get repaid. You see, the banks figure that once they’ve off-loaded a loan to Fannie and Freddie, their job is done. So, if the mortgage blows up two months later, they don’t think they should have to pay for it. They want the taxpayer to pay for it. That’s what they’ve been whining about for the last 5 years. And that’s what Watt is trying to fix for them.
The banks really lucked out with Obama. If this was a Republican administration pulling this bullshit, Democrats might remember what having a spine feels like.
As it stands now, in this sea of corruption that is American politics, Democrats are jellyfish.
It’s been almost 2 months since Michael Gordon shot and killed Christopher Hymel outside the Fox Club. Instead of being charged with anything, the Missoula County Attorney’s office waffled and ultimately punted the case to a process known as a coroner’s inquest.
Meanwhile, some hash-oil producing moron sparks a literal explosion, and now felony charges are being pursued against the girlfriend who was injured in the explosion, along with her 19 month old child:
The girlfriend of a Missoula man who is accused of causing an explosion while trying to make hash oil in a University of Montana apartment earlier this month has been arrested and faces felony charges.
Virginia Marie Ervin, 18, on Monday afternoon made her initial appearance before Missoula County Justice of the Peace Amy Blixt, who set bail at $25,000.
Ervin allegedly stayed in the residence with her 19-month-old daughter on Oct. 12, while her boyfriend, Patrick Wayne Austin, used butane to extract hash oil from marijuana in the kitchen. About 15 minutes into the process, the butane caused an explosion in the apartment, blowing out the apartment’s windows and burning the adults and child.
Austin was arrested immediately and remains in the Missoula County jail pending bail. Ervin, who is a University of Montana freshman and graduated from Big Sky High School, was booked into the Missoula County jail early Friday morning.
When one juxtaposes recent cases brought (or not) by the Missoula County Attorney’s Office, confusion may ensue. Shoot and kill someone outside a strip club, no charges, no pre-trial jail time. Get injured by an idiotic, hash-oil producing boyfriend who advertises on Facebook, felony charges and jail. Force your girlfriend to try and cut a tattoo off her chest with a box cutter, 3 years probation. Operate a medical marijuana business, like Jason Washington did, and it’s time spent in federal prison, hoping for the kind of mercy judge Dana Christensen showed (I’m not sure if Missoula County attorneys had anything to do with that last case, to be fair).
Is anyone else confused?
Over 130 people have been killed as militants battle for control of Benghazi:
Heavy fighting flared on Sunday between Libya’s army and Islamist militias apparently trying retake one of their largest camps in the eastern city of Benghazi, military officials said.
At least 130 people have been killed in the past 10 days during street fighting in Libya’s second-largest city — part of a wider picture of chaos gripping the major oil producer three years after the downfall and death of Muammar Gaddafi.
Don Pogreba did make a little appearance in last week’s post about Libya as another example of Imperialism run amok, but it wasn’t to admit he was wrong. Instead it was to counter another commenter calling him out for his subsequent silence now that Libya is the failed state critics like me warned about:
Wow, I’m responsible for ISIS? I didn’t realize how much my blog mattered. Thanks, guys, for the affirmation of my importance.
JC certainly isn’t blocked at my blog, by the way, despite his repeated untrue claims that he is. You’ll find ample evidence of me being censored when I question his posts here, though. Does that mean he’s responsible for ISIS, too? Ebola? The disappointing final season of How I Married Your Mother?
I’ll admit I lack your sophistication to understand the nuances of blame. I look forward to being enlightened.
Well Don, let me try to enlighten you.
50 years ago America became involved in a little war in Vietnam. By late winter, 1968, it was becoming increasingly clear that America wasn’t doing so great. One quote from a US official after a village was decimated encapsulated the insanity engulfing the cheerleaders of that disastrous conflagration:
On February 7, 1968, American bombs, rockets and napalm obliterated much of the South Vietnamese town of Ben Tre — killing hundreds of civilians who lived there.
Later that day, an unidentified American officer gave Associated Press reporter Peter Arnett a memorable explanation for the destruction.
Arnett used it in the opening of the story he wrote:
“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,” a U.S. major said Wednesday.
He was talking about the grim decision that allied commanders made when Viet Cong attackers overran most of this Mekong Delta city 45 miles southwest of Saigon. They decided that regardless of civilian casualties they must bomb and shell the once placid river city of 35,000 to rout the Viet Cong forces.
Sadly, not much has changed in 50 years. After half a century America remains a nation of brainwashed exceptionalists deferring to deranged political leaders still fighting a cold war with Russia.
Here is another quote from an article today by Norman Pollack, titled One-Sided Cold War. It’s the opening paragraph of the article, and does a good job of describing our current predicament with regard to reigniting a global showdown with Russia:
America’s shrill, expanding demonization of Putin, Obama now equating Russia and Ebola as paired dangers in the modern world, follows from its ideological-structural matrix of decline as the unilateral military-economic leader of the international order. Decaying societies don’t fare well in global history, especially when the inner rot of the political culture erodes the foundations of reason, moral principles, and humaneness, precisely where America now finds itself. The inner rot is not merely capitalism per se, although that gets it off to a good start because in practice characterized by petrifaction in the face of challenge and dissenting opinion, but capitalism as it presently exists in America, where the fear of social transformation (i.e., anything which jeopardizes the power of ruling groups, questions Authority, or otherwise destabilizes class relations) has yielded systemic militarization to keep capitalism on pace and secure. And even the militarization of capitalism, generally adequate to normalizing conditions of fascism, emergent or full-blown, in America has a particularity distinguishing the society from all others: its fusion of Exceptionalism and counterrevolution (each needed to sustain the other) dressed up in the language of liberal or humanitarian intervention in world affairs.
For those looking for a little Monday morning enlightenment, there you go.
Six years ago, when the bursting of the housing bubble triggered a severe financial crisis, there were two options: deal with the core problems of an economy that had abandoned fundamentals for tricksy Wall Street speculative shenanigans, or paper over the issue with a flood of interest-free capital injections from the Fed. Under the Obama regime, the latter strategy was implemented, making the next iteration of financial crisis inevitable.
The Fed’s cheap money injections, known as quantitative easing, is akin to a junky dependent on the next fix to function. When the QE smack is even hinted at being taken away, the markets freak out. The end of October was suppose to also be the end QE3. Will that actually happen? Here is how Yahoo Finance describes the situation:
The end of an era of easy money is looming, and markets are becoming increasingly jittery.
As the Federal Reserve bought government bonds to juice the economy through lower borrowing costs, its balance sheet has ballooned from $995 billion in late 2008 to $4.5 trillion today. That’s helped propel the S&P 500 to nearly triple in value since hitting bottom in March 2009, as investors poured into better-yielding assets.
But the Fed has struggled to let a co-dependent market go. When the central bank ended QE1 in 2010 and QE2 in 2011, the S&P 500 faltered until policymakers stepped in with new, aggressive action.
The Fed once again stops buying bonds this month, and while it’s said repeatedly that a “considerable time” will pass before the first interest rate rises from zero, investors are mulling a slew of new headwinds. The S&P 500 has notched five sessions of 1% or greater moves in the last seven. And the VIX fear gauge has spiked to multimonth highs.
The economy is basically fucked once QE is taken away and we collectively begin economic detox. Much of the growth has been corporate stock buy-back, driven by interest-free capital. Michael Whitney wrote about this yesterday at Counterpunch:
Since the end of the recession in 2009, investors have borrowed a record amount of money to finance their stock acquisitions. According to the Financial Times, margin debt on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) peaked in February, 2014 at $466 billion and has only recently dipped slightly lower. That’s $85 billion more than 2007 at the peak of the bubble.
When stocks start see-sawing like they did last week, it’s usually a sign that over-extended investors are dumping their stocks to meet margin calls. The same thing happened in the run-up to the Crash of 1929. Stocks dropped sharply in late October which forced deeply-indebted investors to unload their holdings at firesale prices. The falling prices triggered a panic that sent stocks into freefall wiping out billions of dollars, crashing the markets, and paving the way for the Great Depression.
It’s not just the US economy in trouble. The European Union is inching toward recession as well, making the prospect of a global recession more plausible. From the link:
The very real prospect of a repeat of the 2008 meltdown is now widely accepted in the mainstream media, and the many possible factors that could trigger it are readily discussed in policy circles. As the International Monetary Fund makes plain in its latest World Economic Outlook report, for example, the risk of a worldwide recession is of particular concern – especially as the Holy Grail of achieving respectable levels of economic growth is becoming ever more elusive.
Of particular concern is the Eurozone where five countries, including Spain and Italy, are already experiencing economic deflation. All eyes are currently on Germany, which is teetering on the brink of recession as its economic activity continues to contract over consecutive months. The implications for the Eurozone as a whole if Germany enters a contractionary cycle will be far-reaching, since Germany is widely regarded as the main engine for growth in Europe and often props-up neighbouring states when they experience financial hardship. The overarching concern is that this entire currency block could soon succumb to a deflationary spiral, which would plunge it back into a full blown Euro crisis.
That article goes on to make the following assessment and poses the following question:
From any angle, the world financial outlook can only be regarded as rapidly deteriorating, and this starkly reflects how little policymakers have done to address the root causes of the 2008 crisis. Instead of dramatically overhauling the global economy and safeguarding the needs of the majority, governments have chosen to resuscitate a discredited economic ideology that preaches more of the same deregulatory, consumption-driven, austerity-backed neoliberalism. As the social and environmental impacts of the ongoing economic crisis become ever more apparent, how long will concerned citizens be willing to tolerate a political elite that is largely self-serving and neglects the needs of ordinary people?
A few days ago Democracy Now featured Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist critic of the gaming community where sexism and misogyny runs rampant. From the link:
Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent feminist critic of video games, was forced to cancel a speech at Utah State University last week after the school received an email threatening to carry out “the deadliest shooting in American history” at the event. The email sender wrote: “feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge.” The sender used the moniker Marc Lepine, the name of a man who killed 14 women, most of them female engineering students, in a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989. Sarkeesian canceled the talk after being told that under Utah law, campus police could not prevent people from bringing guns.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like our institutions are increasingly failing to keep women safe. Mother Jones has a piece about the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals stance toward issues relating to abortion rights and other issues facing women. Bush appointees on this court, like Priscilla Own, are especially awful. From the link:
In 2010, Owen was part of a three-judge panel that threw out a lawsuit filed by a high school cheerleader who had been kicked off the squad for refusing to cheer for a basketball player she said had raped her. (The athlete ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge.) These judges ordered the cheerleader’s family to pay the school district $45,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
A frivolous lawsuit? Really? For standing up and refusing to cheer on the athlete rapist who sexually assaulted her?
A Missoulian article posted less than an hour ago highlights how even extreme violence against women can result in just a 3 year probationary slap on the hand. I should warn readers that aspects of this story are quite graphic:
According to prosecutors, in late July, Gallegos and his girlfriend began arguing at a University of Montana-owned apartment over a Facebook post Gallegos’ ex-wife had written.
When the girlfriend said she was leaving him, Gallegos apparently told her that he would “have snipers kill her.” He also told her she had to cut a tattoo of his name off her chest.
Gallegos allegedly handed the woman a box cutter, pushed her into the bathroom and told her to “get all the ink off” or he would “get it off with a bullet.” The woman tried to cut the tattoo, but had to stop because of the pain.
When she stopped, Gallegos allegedly beat her on the head until she fell down and blacked out, but he continued to beat her on the ground. Gallegos also allegedly threw the woman into a closet, where she woke up and called 9-1-1, telling dispatchers “if you don’t get here soon I’m going to be dead.”
The dispatcher heard yelling and screaming and the victim say, “Don’t Rene, don’t hit me” before the call disconnected.
Gallegos allegedly told the victim he was going to kill her that night. When police arrived, Gallegos told the woman if she talked to the officers and he went to jail he would send somebody to kill her and her son.
Gallegos answered the door and lied to officers and told them it was only him and his friend inside. The officers weren’t convinced and found the victim in the bathroom.
At first, she denied calling 9-1-1 but once outside she began crying and stated that she was extremely afraid of what Gallegos would do to her if she spoke with police. The friend who was in the house later admitted to seeing Gallegos assault the woman.
Gallegos has two previous domestic violence convictions from Texas and California.
“Mr. Gallegos, you have lived an interesting but mostly charmed life,” Deschamps said before handing down the sentence. “I suspect that a lot of this is because you’re a scary guy and you’ve been able to intimidate your way out of a lot of these events. It looks like there’s hardly been a year in your adult life where you haven’t done some crime or another. I don’t expect that you’ll make it on probation.
“And if you don’t, and come back, with the pattern that you’ve established so far, I’m going to send you away for a very long time. I have agreed to follow this plea agreement and I’ll do it, but prison is just full of guys that started out where you’re at right now. It won’t take very much at all for you to do some serious time, so straighten up your act, OK?”
This piece of shit should be headed to prison, but instead will only have 3 years of probation. I’m not an advocate for guns solving all problems, but if I was this particular woman, I would seriously consider getting a gun and being prepared to shoot this POS dead.
My faith in our legal system decreases the more I learn about it, especially when it comes to the prosecutorial discretion of our County Attorney’s office. Some of the stuff I have learned in just the past few months shows how discretion within our institutions of accountability undermine the quaint notions of justice many Americans without direct experience have.
Can these institutions be reformed? I don’t know. But we have to try.
Yesterday marked the third anniversary of Gaddafi’s violent death at the hands of the “rebels” NATO empowered in the so-called humanitarian intervention of Libya. Here’s wikipedia’s depiction:
Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya, died on 20 October 2011 during the Battle of Sirte. Gaddafi was found hiding in a culvert west of Sirte and captured by National Transitional Council forces. He was killed shortly afterwards. The NTC initially claimed he died from injuries sustained in a firefight when loyalist forces attempted to free him, although videos of his last moments show rebel fighters beating him before he was shot in the head.
I also think it’s important to revisit posts like this from Intelligent Discontent, titled Libyan Intervention: Another Example of Rational Humanitarian Foreign Policy. Here is how Pogreba launches his condescending jab at the leftist critique of Libyan regime change:
I don’t write a lot about foreign policy, simply because I think there are far more intelligent and knowledgeable people out there writing much more cogent analysis, but it’s hard to ignore the reflexive criticism of all things Obama that comes from certain elements of the principled left.
Although I’m no longer surprised that some Americans seem to have a better grasp of events in Libya than reporters, government officials, those with access to military satellites and other international observers on the ground in Libya, it might make their case against WESTERN IMPERIALISM a bit stronger if they could back their assertion that the situation was “trumped up” by the US government.
I think it’s fair to say that Obama overstated the danger–but I’d suggest that was more the result of a lack of clarity about the situation than some grand, Western plot to rule the world. It turns out that moral clarity and perfect vision are much easier in hindsight.
Humanitarian interventionists were dupes and the subsequent years have proven the “reflexive” criticism was accurate. While the interventionists have mostly slunk away from the disaster they cheered on 3 years ago, some of us continue writing and quoting sources to provide the context sorely missing in the lead up to NATO’s regime change, like a post I wrote last year, titled Slouching Toward Regional War.
At Counterpunch yesterday, this piece takes a before/after look at the descent of Libya, contrasting the destruction brought on by NATO with the pre-intervention reality of one of Africa’s most successful states:
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.
The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.
On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.
On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.
The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.
Don’t expect humanitarian interventionists to acknowledge this reality. I hope on some level they realize how wrong they were so the next time a warmongering Democrat uses R2P as justification for regime change they won’t be useful dupes parroting the proven bullshit of America’s “rational humanitarian foreign policy”.
“Power buys wealth infinitely faster than wealth buys power.”
Zero Hedge cross-posted a thought-provoking piece today by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at The Automatic Earth: “Wealth Inequality Is Not A Problem, It’s A Symptom.” I guess to that I might add that it is not just a symptom, but a feature. A feature of what? Well, read Meijer.
One of subtler themes weaving its way through the backdrop of this year’s election is wealth inequality. Unfortunately, it seems that this is one of those “third rail” taboo topics in politics these days, “Job Creators” and all, you know.
One line particularly struck me as worthy of discussion:
Voting in elections has the same function today as singing around a Christmas tree: everyone feels a strong emotional connection, but it’s all just become one giant TV commercial.
When was the last time a national election really affected the power structure running this country? And how does the current media mega-buys of candidates address any of the issues related to the concentration of power in this country? Of course, Meijer makes the astute observation that oligarchy knows no boundaries, but unfortunately, none of us get to vote in any meaningful way that addresses the inequity in power structures.
The days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are over (warning, it’s a trailer trying to sell you a viewing of a 75 year old movie for $2.99). Meijer gets to the heart of the issue of how the 20th century institutions like NATO, the Fed, the UN & EU, IMF, World Bank, yada yada have moved beyond the control of any electoral processes of any country’s voters, and have served to concentrate power in the hands of oligarchs. And when you concentrate power, safe from any electoral processes, that power serves to enrich itself and exacerbate wealth inequality.
When Meijer says that wealth inequality is a symptom, he is referring to it being a symptom of the concentration of power. And in order to do anything meaningful about wealth inequality, we need to break apart the power structures that maintain and solidify oligarchy. No small task.
So with that simple notion in mind, again I ask: “What are we voting for?” And if candidates aren’t willing to address the simple notion of breaking apart power structures, then what does it accomplish to elect them?
One last quote from Meijer:
…what we see now is that any effort, any at all, to break up the IMF, World Bank, UN, NATO and EU would be met with the same derision that an effort to break up the USA would be met with. We have built, in true sorcerer’s apprentice or Frankenstein fashion, entities that we cannot control. And they have taken over our lives. They serve the interests of elites, not of the people. So why do we let them continue to exist?
What powers do we have left when it comes to bailing out banks, invading countries, making sure our young people have jobs when they leave school? We have none. We lost the decision making power along the way, and we’re not getting it back unless we quit watching the tube (or the plasma) and fight for it. Until we do, power will keep floating to the top like so much excrement; it’s a law of – human – nature.
That the people we voluntarily endow with such control over our lives would also use that control to enrich themselves, is so obvious it barely requires mentioning. But that doesn’t mean this is about wealth inequality, that’s not the main issue, in fact it’s not much more than an afterthought. It’s about the power we have over our lives. Or rather, the power we don’t have.