Month: October 2015

by William Skink

I was asked recently why I’m angry. This after picking a foreign policy fight in reaction to Missoula picking a gun background check fight.

The point I’m trying to make is echoed in the conclusion of an article (yes, from Counterpunch) by Rick Sterling, titled Examples of U.S. Foreign Policy Dysfunction:

There is profound need for dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy. Given that over 55% of the discretionary budget of the U.S. goes to the military, it’s likely that positive changes in domestic policy will depend on changes in foreign policy. The starting point has to be realistic assessments of conditions in other countries, sincere examinations of the consequences of past actions and a genuine committment to abiding by international law. As we can see from the above examples, there is a long way to go.

Go to the article for the examples, it’s worth a read (unless you’re a Bernie supporter).

I like the conclusion because it links military expenditures to domestic policy, and that link is important. When Martin Luther King tried making that link half a century ago, he was assassinated.

Thinking about America’s foreign policy makes me very angry, because I’m not just thinking about the suffering happening half a world away. I’m thinking about the suffering happening right here, in Missoula. And I’m wondering how bad it’s going to have to get before all the endless talking turns into actually doing what needs to be done.

There are multiple worsening system overloads happening in the city and the state that have me increasingly alarmed. Montana’s State Hospital is dangerously over capacity, there doesn’t seem to be any real plan for closing down MDC in Boulder, jails across the state are full, so inmates are just shuffled around, like Flathead sending juveniles to Missoula.

And then there’s the aging crisis that’s only just beginning, sometimes referred to as the Grey Tsunami.

Out there in policy land, where things can be dealt with in the abstract, the author of that last linked piece takes issue with associating the 70 million Boomers getting old and dependent with a natural disaster. Here’s the opening:

Over the past few decades, most individuals, academics, and writers have learned that certain terminology which was once linguistically and culturally acceptable are not longer to be used and, in fact, are often the subject of scorn and sometimes legal recourse when they are used. The recent scandal with the use of the “N” word by Donald Sterling, owner of the basketball team LA Clippers, is an indication of just how sensitive we have become to language and how strongly we react to certain terms that are no longer considered acceptable, polite or suitable in a refined population although everyone knows that at other levels such language and terminology are commonly used—just not in public, the press or contemporary literature. Just remember the controversy that surrounded contemporary editions of Mark Twain’s classic novel Huckleberry Finn, which took the liberty of expunging the “N” word, thereby to many distorting the power of the novel within its historical context. Of course there are many other terms that get used negatively to describe groups of people by religion, racial characteristics, colour of skin and country of origin- these two one rarely would use publically but we all know that they are part of many people’s regular vocabulary and conceptual framework of humanity.

So what about this term “Gray or Silver Tsunami” that has come into even polite parlance to describe the growingly aged population primarily in the western world. Following such natural disasters as the Indonesian and Japanese tsunamis, which were associated with horrendous geographical and human damage, one began to see the term used in the popular media especially to encapsulate the perceived and primarily negative impact of what could just as well be deemed the actual miracle of modern medicine and society – the growing human longevity. Rather, the term began to be used even in small local papers, such as The Press Democrat; for example, their article published on February 10, 2013, titled “Aging baby boomers will create ‘silver tsunami’ for Sonoma County” merely reflects the kinds of articles in publications with much larger distributions.

Even organizations that purportedly have the well-being of the aged high on their agenda may inadvertently use terms like tsunami or other similes to make the point of the urgency in addressing the many challenges that society is facing associated with the aging of the population, even when that aging process is the result of all the wonderful advances that we have achieved in medical and other healthcare-related practices. For example the Alzheimer’s Society of Canada produced a very comprehensive report called The Rising Tide, which is directed to policy makers to help them understand that planning must occur to make sure that our aging population received the care it deserves. A Toronto Dominion Bank (one of the largest banks in Canada) reported on the challenges of aging also using the negative term in their 2010 report, Navigating the Storm Ahead.

Ah, how nice of Canada to produce a report to help policy makers understand that planning must occur to make sure that our aging population receives the care it deserves. File this under no shit. I’m sure people were paid good money to produce this report. I wonder if there is a section of this report that suggests what to do if there is no plan.

I don’t think policy makers understand what’s brewing. Hospitals and jails and nursing homes are all bursting at the seams.

And we are not prepared.

by William Skink

While most Democrats were busy mocking the Republican obsession with Benghazi, b, the German blogger who runs Moon of Alabama, highlighted an interesting, unintentional confession from Hillary Clinton.

If Democrats could get their collective heads out of their collective asses they might realize that Hillary just admitted the Obama administration lied about the no fly zone in Libya. For those with short term memory problems, this is what Obama said in March of 2011:

“The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone,” adding explicitly, “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

Now here’s Hillary from the Benghazi inquisition:

When asked by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) about a video clip that read, “We came, we saw, he died [meaning former Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi]. Is that the Clinton doctrine?” Clinton replied, “No, that was an expression of relief that the military mission undertaken by NATO and our other partners had achieved its end.”

If elected, Hillary Clinton will be an absolute disaster. To show how far down the foreign policy rabbit hole America has fallen, it pains me to say that the only candidate making any sense is Donald Trump:

Asked by an NBC news presenter if Iraq and Libya had been better off when Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were in power, a question most politicians would have dodged, Trump said: “Iraq is a disaster … Libya is not even a country. You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there – it’s a mess. If you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there – it’s a mess.”

This should not be controversial stuff. Many Iraqis and Libyans are glad to have got rid of the old dictators, but they have no doubt about the calamities that have befallen their countries since the change of regime. But how often in the British general election was David Cameron challenged for his part in reducing Libya to primal anarchy?

Speaking about the White House’s policy of supporting the Syrian armed opposition, Trump truthfully said the administration “doesn’t know who they are. They could be Isis. Assad is bad. Maybe these other people are worse.” He said he was bothered by “the concept of backing people they have absolutely no idea who they are”. Again, US officials admit that they have armed opposition fighters who, on entering Syria promptly handed their weapons over to Jabhat al-Nusra, the local representatives of al-Qaeda. Trump added: “I was talking to a general two days ago. He said: ‘We have no idea who these people are.’”

I don’t think Donald Trump is a serious candidate. I think, more likely, Trump is a brilliant Trojan horse of destruction for the GOP, possibly nudged to run by Bill Clinton. And in that role Trump can say some accurate, sensible things about America’s foreign policy, and because he’s the one saying it, anyone who agrees will be agreeing with Trump, and therefore discredited. This is very similar to how the label “conspiracy theorist” functions.

While Trump says things that aren’t insane about foreign policy, a recent guest post at MT Cowgirl by “Secret Squirrel” does say some very crazy shit about Hillary Clinton. The post is titled Please, Don’t Get Bern(T). There are some parts to this post that really don’t make any sense. That said, there are a few quotes worth highlighting, like this:

Watch the Benghazi hearings or just the highlights. Tell me that is not a president who would stand up against the far right. Imagine Sanders in the same chair, what would he be doing and saying? Maybe he would not have taken action in Libya. Maybe Qadaffi would have wiped out the eastern half of Libya’s population. Imagine that hearing.

And this:

Clinton has made so many promises short of what Sanders has said, and in some cases to his left, that she would have a hard time turning back on them, I trust her, I trust the team around her. As president, I cannot think of anyone more qualified to take on the risks of running an imperial presidency against Congress to do the right things despite the risks. I think she, more than anyone else, would love the challenge and risks associated with doing whatever is good and necessary to spite the right.

And finally, the conclusion:

In a short time, many of you will have to choose between your passions and the future of this country to be able to sustain itself. In 2000, many of us, myself included, made the wrong decision. Please learn from our mistake. Support Sanders, but when he removes himself do not take it personally. Just ensure it gets translated over in some way. I think we will all be fine if we can do that.

I love the plea to learn from mistakes. Yeah, right. Because we learned not to repeat NAFTA, right? And we learned our lessons from letting Bill’s economic team deregulate Wall Street, right? And we learned to be skeptical of the reasons to bomb other countries, right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Democrats don’t seem to be very good about learning from past mistakes. Why should they, it’s not like their candidates are ever held accountable for the misery and destruction they enable.

It’s too bad the only presidential candidate making any sense on foreign policy is Trump. Because it’s coming from Trump, his statements will be subjected to a form of political alchemy in which sensible will be transformed into crazy, while the crazy coming from Hillary and Bernie will, by contrast, appear sensible.

Up is down, hot is cold, and war is peace. 50 years since America got their asses handed to them in Vietnam, we are still destroying villages to save them.

It’s fucking madness.

by William Skink

Before I get to the difference between amphibians and reptiles, I’d like to establish some pertinent information regarding how Libya functioned before Hillary Clinton pushed her humanitarian regime change, which turned Libya into a failed state.

This post claims to have relevant numbers regarding Libya’s Human Development Index. I certainly can’t confirm this source because I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist who should never be trusted. That said, it seems like Libyans didn’t have it too bad before America intervened:

Public Health Care in Libya prior to NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” was the best in Africa. “Health care is [was] available to all citizens free of charge by the public sector. The country boasts the highest literacy and educational enrolment rates in North Africa. The Government is [was] substantially increasing the development budget for health services…. (WHO Libya Country Brief )

Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World.

Because America needs vassal states, and not brash Africans getting all uppity, the Obama regime allowed Hillary’s State Department to use a humanitarian intervention smokescreen for regime change in Libya. For those who don’t know how Gaddafi was murdered, there’s this:

Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libya’s ruler since 1969, was murdered in Sirte at the end of the war. First, his convoy was bombarded by NATO-aeroplanes, and then he and his companions were seized by troops of the administration which had meanwhile been installed in Benghazi. Gaddafi suffered a head injury, was shot in the stomach and lost ever more blood until someone rammed a stick up his anus – in order for his humiliation to be complete. Eventually he died of severe blood loss. Subsequently, on October 31, 2011, NATO declared the war over and itself as the winner.

After NATO destroyed any semblance of civic life in Libya, and Hillary cackled her joy that Gaddafi was anally sodomized and executed, the country has become a breeding ground for jihadis and human traffickers. This reality has not negatively impacted Hillary’s candidacy, which shows just how dangerously vacuous Democrats have become with regard to foreign policy.

Cue the perennial partisan scold, Don Pogreba, to once again smear my humble efforts to bring attention to the insanity of America’s foreign policy:

The truth is that I have largely ignored one of the newest blogs in Montana, because it’s little more than a collection of conspiracy theories and smug derision directed at anyone childish enough to care about domestic politics when the world is at stake, man. That being said, the site is run by a bizarrely personal author who, more frequently and with more anger than I can understand, directs his pseudonymous rants at some of the authors who write here at Intelligent Discontent.

While I pop by once in awhile for amusement, the latest posts offered a reason to comment. In a rant that covered Bernie Sanders as a shill working for Hillary Clinton, the proposed Missoula gun ordinance, and Pete Talbot, the author proposed this fascinating contention:

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, presided over the utter destruction of Africa’s best hope for Democracy.

What country was that, you ask? Libya. Libya. A country under the rule of one man for decades, a man who consolidated his power through brutal repression and sham democratic institutions, was the leader of “best hope” for democracy in Africa until that globalist meanie Hillary Clinton ruined it. MA

I’m glad I have moved Don from ignoring this blog to writing something about foreign policy. Sure, he does it in the most condescending way he can muster, but any utterance by a pathetic partisan like Don is worth considering.

Why? Because when they’re wrong, they rarely ever admit it.

Don Pogreba has never, as far as I know, admitted that he was suckered by the humanitarian intervention propaganda regarding Libya. I continue to quote from this post to show how absolutely wrong Don has been:

I don’t celebrate the death of anyone, but it’s hard to feel terribly sad about the fact that the Colonel is no longer in a position which allows him to torture and kill indiscriminately. Eventually, people rise up to take down despots. It’s often ugly, even brutal, but it will happen—and I’d prefer a national security policy which works to prevent those people from being slaughtered.

In the end, the US and NATO did an admirable job. They used a relatively inexpensive mission which gave the rebels breathing room in which they could defend themselves against a despot. And then the people of Libya did the rest. We can’t know what kind of government or future Libya will have, but I think we can be sure that it will be better than the past two generations.

Nope, wrong wrong wrong. As of October 22nd, 2015, we absolutely do know what kind of future Libya will have, and it’s disastrous.

But Don doesn’t want to discuss that stark reality. No, he would prefer to keep bashing me and this blog with all the smug arrogance he accuses me of exhibiting:

The truth is that I have largely ignored one of the newest blogs in Montana, because it’s little more than a collection of conspiracy theories and smug derision directed at anyone childish enough to care about domestic politics when the world is at stake, man. That being said, the site is run by a bizarrely personal author who, more frequently and with more anger than I can understand, directs his pseudonymous rants at some of the authors who write here at Intelligent Discontent.

The world is at stake, man. And America is widely perceived by the rest of the world to be the biggest threat to world peace.

Democrats are a part of that threat, by the way. And in some ways, I would argue, they are more dangerous than Republicans.

PS for English teachers who might not understand the difference between amphibians and reptiles, this link may be helpful.

by William Skink

While gun control in Missoula is chugging along, war control on the global stage remains berserker. In extending the Afghanistan war (to achieve what exactly?!) both Bernie and Hillary agree that more America warmongering is needed. Here’s the skinny from HuffPo:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday that he supports President Barack Obama’s decision to keep troops in Afghanistan, prolonging the war beyond 2016.

Obama announced last week that he would keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after he leaves office in 2017, breaking his promise to end the war during his tenure. He originally planned to maintain only a small military presence based at the U.S. embassy there.

During an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, whether he backs keeping U.S. troops in the country.

“Well, yeah, I won’t give you the exact number. Clearly, we do not want to see the Taliban gain more power, and I think we need a certain nucleus of American troops present in Afghanistan to try to provide the training and support the Afghan army needs,” he said.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton also said Friday that she thought Obama had made “the right decision.”

Of course they do.

So where is the anti-war vote supposed to go? Considering our options it’s pretty clear: no where.

During the first Democratic debate, which I did not watch, Bernie gave Hillary some cover over the email scandal. Here’s the exchange:

“Let me say something that may not be great politics,” Sanders said. “I think that the secretary is right.”

“The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!” Sanders said, as the audience cheered.

“Me too, me too,” Clinton said, laughing.

“Enough of the emails — let’s talk about the real issues facing America!” Sanders said.

“Thank-you, Bernie,” Clinton said.

The only thing missing from this back and forth is Hillary patting her sheepdog, Bernie, on the head for being a good boy. Bernie, declaring a sentiment he wrongly attributes to the entirety of the American people regarding Hillary’s deceitful use of a private email account, is just doing his duty.

The problem isn’t just emails and the partisan obsession over Benghazi. If one steps back for a little perspective, the problem is that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, presided over the utter destruction of Africa’s best hope for Democracy. If you’re surprised that one would associate Libya with the concept of “Democracy”, please read this:

Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.

The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States. However, Libya’s People’s Congress was not comprised merely of elected representatives who discussed and proposed legislation on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process. Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and all Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues including budgets, education, industry, and the economy.

In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, that has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”

The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Libyan Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya all citizens were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred wealthy politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.

What a terrifying degree of Democracy Libya was experiencing. Thankfully Hillary helped put a stop to this by joyously celebrating the execution of Gaddafi. Here’s a bit more from that same link:

Tuesday marks the four-year anniversary of the US-backed assassination of Libya’s former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the decline into chaos of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

Today, Libya is a failed state. Western military intervention has caused all of the worst-scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for ISIS 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.

All this foreign stuff is just fodder for this humble little blog. Apparently I pay attention to this shit so that others don’t have to.

To illustrate this point, I’d like to include a back and forth I had over at ID with Pete Talbot. For context, the post was a lament that the GOP was hating on Missoula:

Skink: why whine about the predictable reaction from Republicans? this is part of the cost of picking this fight at the municipal level. so go ahead and close this loophole within city limits. sure, the gun show may go elsewhere, but it’s worth it. Missoula further solidifies its “liberal” reputation, which doesn’t help when it comes to going hat-in-hand to legislator, but it’s worth it.

Talbot: Why so angry, liz?

Skink: are victims of American gun violence more important than foreign victims of American wars?

Talbot: Both are abhorrent. What a ludicrous question. Is sexual assault worse than a hate crime? Is killing the planet through man-made climate change worse than nuking it to pieces? What’s with these absurd comparisons.? Gun violence is the issue before the city right now. Next week it could be a peace rally in Caras Park. One doesn’t have to pick and choose issues, but to act on them as they arise.

Skink: criticizing America’s foreign policy of killing poor brown people in places like Yemen doesn’t help elect Democrats because Democrats are responsible for that violence. gun regulation, on the other hand, fires up the base, so it’s no wonder you focus on that and ignore the violence America uses across the globe.

Talbot: “(I) ignore the violence America uses across the globe?” I leave those weighty matters to you and your friends at Reptile Dysfunction. As I’ve mentioned before, I try to keep most of my posts focused on local and statewide matters – issues that Montanans can actually affect – with an occasional foray into international events. But to accuse me of personally ignoring global violence? How arrogant. While I’m deeply disturbed by the events in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan … and America’s role in those tragedies, I’ll continue to write about issues closer to home. There are hundreds of sites out there already, Reptile Dysfunction included, that tackle foreign policy.

Pete won’t express his opinion on the Democrat consensus to extend the war in Afghanistan because he is a defeatist who automatically assumes Montanans can’t “actually affect” this issue. I doubt his generation had the same sentiment toward the Vietnam War, back in the day. What changed?

What changed is the mechanisms of controlling dissent. With both parties controlled and corporate media compliant, dissent is relegated to the marginalized fringes no one takes seriously.

by William Skink

If you are in Missoula, and you are a proponent of passing a city ordinance requiring background checks for all gun transfers, then you may attend, or at least will pay attention to, the debate that will happen tonight at Missoula’s City Council meeting.

As more time and resources are spent trying to increase regulation of guns, spreading more political polarization as the two factions square off (will we get more of the Ellie and Gary Show?), Ochenski’s column reiterates the reality of America’s war in Afghanistan: Obama lied now more will die.

Because we are getting into another political season, domestic gun violence is an acceptable partisan issue to tackle. Stopping America’s insane wars, which impoverishes us to an extent rarely put in context by our corporate media, is not really an acceptable issue, especially if it threatens the Bernie worship so many have naively invested in the Sanders campaign.

Trying to reduce statistically rare mass-casualty gun shootings is commendable, I just wish it was accompanied by an equally vigorous campaign to, you know, stop our government from doing unbelievably cruel things, like literally starving poor Yeminis to death:

According to a joint report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2,682 civilian deaths and injuries resulted from air bombardment in Yemen from late March to the end of July 2015 – more than anywhere else in the world during the first seven months of the year.

The Saudis have also imposed a tight blockade on Yemen by air, land and water, to prevent not only weapons, but also food, fuel and medicine from reaching millions of Yemenis, creating a humanitarian disaster. Doctors Without Borders declared in July that the Saudi blockade was killing as many people in Yemen as the bombing. US Navy ships have been patrolling alongside Saudi ships to prevent arms from entering Yemen, while disclaiming any involvement in the Saudi-led blockade of food, fuel and medical supplies.

That’s my emphasis there and that’s OUR government, keeping food from starving people being indiscriminately bombed by the barbaric Saudis.

Enjoy your City Council theatrics, conscientious Missoulians.