Month: September 2015

by William Skink

In my cynicism toward the Bernie Sanders campaign I articulated an assumption that was inaccurate, which Steve W. tried pointing out in a comment, but it got stuck in the spam filter. I just saw the comment today, so I wanted to bring attention to my error.

Here is Steve W’s comment:

William, I challenge your untrue assertion about Bernie Sanders. In your piece above, you wrote, “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if Bernie Sanders took political advantage of this? He could start loudly and repeatedly calling for more debates, but he won’t.”

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/more-debates

http://time.com/3903978/bernie-sanders-debates/

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/75809/20150831/2016-presidential-debates-democrats-bernie-sanders-martin-omalley-criticize-dnc.htm

The above links demonstrate that Bernie Sanders has repeatedly (since last June,) and forcefully, called for more debates. In fact he’s petitioning the DNC to hold more debates. Please sign the petition and add your name to the formal demand of the people on the DNC Chair.

Bernie also protests the exclusion from debating Republicans, Greens, and others, that the DNC’s schedule contains.

One thing I like about reading you is I usually learn something new. That must be why it annoys me so damn much when I see you write completely unsubstantiated assumptions.

All humans do it. Some more than others, and I don’t think you are worse than most in fact I think you are better. But the information about Bernie’s stance on the DNC Debates is readily available. If you would only search it out before publicly making bad assumptions I doubt i’d be writing this.

I’m amazed at how little you know about Sanders, Mr Skink. This campaign is almost exactly like every campaign Sanders has ever run. If you spent a little time studying the man, his voting record, his amendments, his past campaigns, you would exhibit far more awareness about the current political situation.

Sanders is currently leading Hillary by double digits in both New Hampshire and Iowa and he’s cut his deficit in S. Carolina from about 40 to about 20 points and continues to close. He’s done that by following his long proven campaign strategy of not making personal attacks on his opponent. Now the fact that he tells people what his policies are and how they differ from Clintons policies might not be good enough for you, Mr Skink, but I can hardly see how you can argue with the results politically. What you call “…little interest in taking it to Hillary.” I call “kicking Hillary’s ass” by erasing her double digit leads in NH and IA and halving his deficit in SC.” All in about 3 months.

I think you should consider this article http://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-us-left-and-bernie-sanders-supporters-can-learn-from-jeremy-corbyn/

As for the Indonesian events, it’s all really hinky as far as the eye can see. It’s kind of 9 eleveny. n many of the ramifications and impacts.

Steve W. successfully challenged my untrue assertion about Bernie Sanders. Sometimes I’m lazy with my cynicism, so I appreciate Steve calling me out (sorry for not catching this comment earlier, Steve).

I think part of my obviously very cynical and sometimes inaccurate take on the Sanders campaign is the ever-increasing disillusionment two terms of Obama has produced. Because of that, I don’t allow myself to be hopeful for a Sanders presidency. I just don’t. I do need to at least be accurate, though.

I’ll put the cynicism on hold for a second and say I am increasingly hopeful Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House is terminal. The economic message of the Sanders campaign, and the narrowing of the polls, is encouraging in ways I’m sometimes weary to acknowledge.

I’ll leave it at that, mildly hopeful Hillary won’t occupy the command center of the sputtering American empire.

by William Skink

With the help of Obama’s oratory skills, America has officially gone full Orwell.

There is no better, more succinct way to describe what Obama’s speech at the UN signifies: 1984 has arrived.

Before getting to Michael Hudson’s assessment, it might be helpful to take a look at a Win/Gallup poll from January of last year that shows what the world really thinks about war and peace and America’s alleged role in promoting the latter (with Orwellian vigor):

There’s really no way to sugarcoat it: The rest of world believes that the United States is the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace, beating out all challengers by a wide margin.

This is the conclusion of a massive world opinion poll conducted by Win/Gallup International and released at the close of 2013. The poll, which was first conducted in 1977, asked over 66,000 thousand people across 65 countries this year a variety of questions about the world, including which country they would most like to call home, whether or not the world is becoming a generally better place and which country poses the greatest threat to world peace.

The U.S. was voted the biggest threat by far, garnering 24 percent of the vote. Pakistan was a very distant second with 8 percent, followed by China (6 percent) and Afghanistan (5 percent).

Obviously Americans polled don’t see their homeland as posing the greatest threat to world peace, that would be Iran. That would also be wrong because the rest of the world is right, it’s us.

Good ol’ Noam was talking about all this recently on Democracy Now, and it’s worth checking out.

There is such a tremendous disparity between what America does and what our “elected” leaders say (and what many Americans believe) that I sometimes wonder how the cognitive dissonance doesn’t create a rip in the space/time continuum. Obama’s speech at the UN is just the most recent (and, I think, most disturbing) example.

The word Democracy, Hudson argues, no longer means a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Instead, as applied globally by the Obama administration (and Bush before him), Democracy means a country that supports US policy. With that meaning in mind, Hudson opens his piece by accurately describing Obama’s use of the word Democracy as an overt threat:

In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence or revolution.

This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a “democracy.” In making this hardly-veiled threat, he redefined the word in the vocabulary of international politics. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards,” as Lyndon Johnson said, with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.

And how does Putin respond? This from his 60 Minutes interview:

“It is impossible to tolerate the present situation any longer,” President Putin responded. Likewise in Ukraine: “What I believe is absolutely unacceptable,” he said in his CBS interview on 60 Minutes, “is the resolution of internal political issues in the former USSR Republics, through “color revolutions,” through coup d’états, through unconstitutional removal of power. That is totally unacceptable. Our partners in the United States have supported those who ousted Yanukovych. … We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything.”

The rest of the world also knows much more about what’s happening and who is to blame than Americans trapped in the Orwellian echo chamber know.

Syria right now is the most horrific example of America’s Orwellian insanity. The R2P Libya model failed, the false-flag chemical attack didn’t get traction, and the refugee crisis meme (real crisis, just cynically exploited) was stopped in its tracks by Russia.

Obama can change the meaning of words, but he can’t change the reality on the ground, and the reality is America’s allies are monsters that completely negate US credibility when it comes to the Orwellian rhetoric of Democracy and human rights.

I went looking for an article about the awkward fact Saudi Arabia is overseeing a UN panel on human rights, and after skimming a few articles, I think this Washington Post article is the most entertaining. It starts with this:

Saudi Arabia is having a bad year on the human rights front. In the past few months, the U.S. ally has drawn widespread condemnation for sentencing a blogger to 1,000 lashes with a cane for writing about free speech (only 50 lashes have been delivered so far), and for its plans to execute a young political dissident by beheading him and publicly crucifying his body afterward.

But there is one bright spot for the Middle Eastern kingdom — the same week that the international community was in an uproar over the plight of the young dissident, a watchdog group drew attention to the fact that Saudi Arabia had been selected to oversee an influential U.N. panel on human rights. That panel “selects top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide,” said UN Watch, the watchdog group based in Geneva.

Some words come to mind, like perverse, obscene and disgusting. The words that don’t pop up when I think about Saudi Arabia: Democracy and human rights. But what the hell, they’re helping US arms dealers move product and facilitating the destruction of Syria so ISIS can extend its caliphate further, creating more death and destruction and…more opportunities for arms sales and western intervention.

And to think, Bernie Sanders wants Saudi Arabia to get their hands even dirtier.

The Washington Post article ends with this:

Asked about the appropriateness of Saudi Arabia heading a key human rights panel last week, a U.S. State Department official said “we would welcome it.”

Of course you do, nameless State Department official. And that’s the problem.

by William Skink

When Democrats are incapable of substantive action, they go for symbolic gestures. Nearly a decade ago, with the Iraq war raging, municipalities across the nation passed resolutions to “get us out of Iraq”. Missoula wasn’t first in line with a resolution in Montana, and that frustrated Jay Stevens, who claimed passing a resolution would not be a useless gesture in a post titled Butte wants out of Iraq; what about Missoula? From the link:

To many, this may seem like a futile gesture. It’s not. If enough cities, counties, and states vote on resolutions like this, it will slowly seep into the political consciousness of those living within the Beltway that we, the people, want out of Iraq.

My only question: where’s Missoula? Shouldn’t we be leading this effort?

That was 2007, when opposition to the Iraq war propelled then-candidate Barack Obama to win the primary and eventually the presidency—another symbolic victory for Democrats.

And yet, despite passing resolutions and electing a Democratic black man to the White House, the only reason troops finally left Iraq is because the Iraqi government held the US government to Bush’s Status of Force Agreement, pushing back against the efforts of Obama to keep a residual force of 10,000 troops in country.

Oh, and let’s not forget, 8 years later, that the Obama Administration continues to advocate for more troops in Iraq:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is open to expanding the American military footprint in Iraq with a network of bases and possibly hundreds of additional troops to support Iraqi security forces in their fight against the Islamic State, White House officials said on Thursday.

As Iraqi forces struggle on the battlefield, aides said Mr. Obama would consider establishing a series of outposts where American advisers would work with Iraqi troops and local tribesmen. The bases would be run by Iraqis, and Americans would still not engage in ground combat, but they would play a more active role closer to the front lines.

Democrats in Missoula have moved on from futile symbolic gestures toward foreign policy to enacting a municipal ordinance closing the gun show loophole within city limits. In my last post I agreed with Dan Brooks’ sentiments on this effort. Pete Talbot also seems to agree with Brooks’ logic, but at the same time celebrates this move by council as an important symbolic victory worth the predictable backlash. Here are Pete’s reasons for supporting this ordinance:

1) If the ordinance prevents just one homicide or suicide, it’s worth it.

2) Although it may be more symbolic than having any sweeping impact on gun sales, symbols are important. They speak to the values we hold dear in our community. I remember a decade ago when the council passed a resolution opposing the Iraq War. The resolution didn’t end the war but it did show where we (and many other communities) stood, morally. That’s important.

3) It will give Gary Marbut conniptions.

Ok, let’s speak about the values we hold dear in our community. For those of us not hyper-focused on gun violence, a broader picture of violence in our community begins to develop, and that picture is dominated by two factors: addiction and mental illness.

I browsed the Missoula County jail roster this morning to see what kind of arrests happened in the last 24 hours. There were the usual charges one would expect from a Saturday night in a college town with a drinking problem: DUIs, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, and a misdemeanor PFA (partner family assault). The one charge that stood out, though, indicated someone had a very violent night last night.

Jason Sanders was charged with felony aggravated assault-permanent or life-threatening injury, felony assault with a weapon, felony kidnapping, and a misdemeanor unlawful restraint, among other charges. Not knowing anything else about these charges, I think it’s a safe bet to assume some type of substance abuse contributed to this violence. Maybe that assumption is wrong, but I doubt it.

Substance abuse, especially alcohol abuse, creates all kinds of violence. Earlier this year an attempt to get retailers to voluntarily remove certain products, in addition to developing a no-sell list, didn’t go anywhere because the values of our Missoula community seem to prioritize money over public safety:

Tim France, owner of Worden’s Market and a BID board member, likened the training to the state’s serve-safe program. He voiced support for the no-sell list, though he remains skeptical of the proposed single-serve guidelines.

While the spirit of the proposal is good, France said, it may penalize retailers in the central business district who sell the listed items. It may also penalize those who obey the law and simply want to grab a beer to take home after work.

Irresponsible alcohol sales is a problem that those who profit from don’t want to address. Earlier this month a Missoula police officer had to use his gun after a drunk individual tried to hit him with his car. That individual had a BAC of .267 after drinking a reported 11 pints downtown. It’s a small miracle no one was seriously injured.

Which downtown business sold that individual his last pint?

If Missoula is serious about addressing violence in our community, then taking a hard look at the role substance abuse plays is absolutely necessary. Dealing with that factor will be more effective than passing a feel-good ordinance to close a loophole within city limits.

It will also be more difficult because there are influential people in our community who value profits over public safety.

That needs to change.

by William Skink

I didn’t grow up around guns. I have a few memories of my grandpa letting my brother and I fire a few rounds, but that’s about it.

My grandpa served in the military, so he was obviously quite familiar with firearms. My dad, on the other hand, had no interest. When I bought my first gun last year, he got really upset with me. I’m still not 100% sure why, but it’s not a subject I bring up. Out of respect.

I solicited feedback before purchasing my first gun, which ended up being a Ruger Mark III. The practical comments were helpful in directing me toward a sensible first-firearm purchase. The political comments were less than helpful, but they do illustrate the fault lines in our discourse surrounding access to firearms.

I know the data shows America has gone ballistic with gun violence, that can’t be dismissed. There is common sense approaches to limiting access to guns for unstable people, like background checks, that will never see the light of day at the Federal level, so it would make sense that localities will try to act where Congress has failed.

Missoula’s City Council recently took on closing the gun show loop-hole within city limits. My reaction mirrors Dan Brooks’ in this week’s Indy.

Basically what Brooks is doing is a cost/benefit analysis: is the benefit of passing a municipal ordinance (just go to Hamilton, crazy felons) to close this loophole, locally, worth the political cost of poking the 2nd amendment bear?

Brooks offers a practical assessment of the limitations of what Missoula’s City Council is trying to accomplish when it comes to limiting access to firearms for the mentally unstable and criminally savvy demographics:

The premise of this proposed ordinance is that such people have already proved willing to inconvenience themselves to buy guns by waiting for gun shows instead of visiting a licensed shop. Requiring background checks at gun shows within city limits might keep some of these people from buying guns, but all it guarantees is that they won’t buy guns in Missoula.

The next Hamilton Gun Show is scheduled for Dec. 4-6 at the Ravalli County Fairgrounds, approximately one hour’s drive from City Hall. That’s farther than 10 miles, and it will keep guns away from mentally ill felons who ride the bus. Otherwise, it will only require that people who want to buy firearms pass a criminal background check or know someone who has a car.

Dan Brooks is right, Missoula’s City Council is not advocating for a smart enough policy worth inciting the political backlash that will ensue. If the loophole persists in Hamilton, what’s the point of expending political capital to force background checks at gun shows within Missoula’s city limits?

Politically, I don’t think gun control is a winning issue for Democrats, especially in a state like Montana. Even a columnist like Dan Brooks can anticipate the cost of a backlash against the misguided, though well-intentioned, actions of Missoula’s City Council.

Trying to address this issue at the Municipal level is a waste of time. Missoula has bigger problems than gun show loopholes to deal with.

by William Skink

Man, the people who thought they bought a clean diesel Volkswagen are pissed. There is so much anger I even heard NPR talking up the possibility that criminal charges will be brought against individuals at Volkswagen. Maybe that’s why the CEO was so quick to jump ship.

To be clear, what Volkswagen did is abhorrent, but it’s not like they killed people. GM, on the other hand, did kill people, and no individual was criminally charged. Not even Ray DeGiorgio.

The link is to a Democracy Now piece, and the following exchange is between Amy Goodman and a Laura Christian, the mother of a 16 year old who was killed in GM’s death machine:

AMY GOODMAN: Who do you think should be prosecuted?

LAURA CHRISTIAN: Well, certainly, Ray DeGiorgio. He’s number one on, I think, everybody’s list.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain, because—for those who aren’t familiar and steeped in this as much as you are.

LAURA CHRISTIAN: Oh, certainly. Ray DeGiorgio is the engineer that was in charge of this particular ignition switch. He was the one that knew that there was not enough pressure or torque in these vehicles, meaning that it was going to be able to go from the on position to the accessory position. He knew this. He gave the order at Delphi to go ahead and manufacture this particular part, even though it did not meet GM’s own specifications. He later on, you know, had the model changed itself, had the switch redesigned, but did not change the actual part number. That’s concealing it, not only to all consumers everywhere, not only to the federal government, but to some at GM, as well. I understand it made it a little bit more difficult to figure out what was going on. Though, nevertheless, it did come to light. Counsel in GM knew. Counsel, you know, basically, in some cases, strong-armed certain victims’ parents, family members, to accept minimal amounts of money, to—in some cases, bullied them against suing GM at all. And these are their own counsel.

GM was fined 900 million dollars for knowingly killing over a hundred people, further solidifying a separate set of legal standards used to address corporate crimes where individual culpability could be prosecuted, but is not.

So forgive me for rolling my eyes at all this tough talk toward Volkswagen. Instead of jumping on the outrage bandwagon, I’m wondering what other angles are lurking behind this clamor to prosecute a foreign corporation for fraud.