Month: September 2016

by William Skink

While building walls has been a political issue, there is a wall that hasn’t gotten too much attention. It’s official name is the land-side impermeable wall, but it’s more common name is the ice wall. Here is what this wall is supposed to do:

Built by the central government at a cost of 35 billion yen, or some $320 million, the ice wall is intended to seal off the reactor buildings within a vast, rectangular-shaped barrier of man-made permafrost. If it becomes successfully operational as soon as this autumn, the frozen soil will act as a dam to block new groundwater from entering the buildings. It will also help stop leaks of radioactive water into the nearby Pacific Ocean, which have decreased significantly since the calamity but may be continuing.

This is in Japan, of course. The triple meltdown at Fukushima after the earthquake/tsunami is a still ongoing disaster that doesn’t get the media attention it deserves.

Well, it still has my attention, and here is a song/video about it:

By JC

I’m one of those folks who believe that U.S. foreign policy (as an extension of plutocrats’ will), is probably the single most important issue facing us as individuals, as families, and as a community. In that light, when I read the writing on the wall, I find that it is time to dig in:

US To Suspend Syria Diplomacy With Russia, Prepares “Military Options”

In the most dramatic diplomatic escalation involving the Syrian conflict in the past years, yesterday John Kerry issued an ultimatum to Russia, in which he warned his colleague Lavrov to stop bombing Aleppo or else the US would suspend all cooperation and diplomacy with Russia.

24 hours later, this appears to be precisely what is about to take place, leading to an even greater geopolitical shock in Syria. According to Reuters, the United States is expected to tell Russia on Thursday it is suspending their diplomatic engagement on Syria following the Russian-backed Syrian government’s intense attacks on Aleppo, U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity.

Why now and what happens next? According to US officials, the Obama administration is now considering tougher responses to the Russian-backed Syrian government assault on Aleppo, including military options. According to Reuters, the new discussions were being held at “staff level,” and have yet to produce any recommendations to President Barack Obama, who has resisted ordering military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country’s multi-sided civil war.

However, now that diplomacy with Russia is set to end, this will give the greenlight for Obama to send in US troops in Syria, with Putin certain to respond appropriately, in what will be the biggest military escalation in the Syrian proxy war in its five and a half year history.

Our cold and hybrid war with Russia is about to heat up quickly. And given that the economy has been in the tank for the last 8 years, and going nowhere but down, it isn’t hard to imagine that history is about to repeat itself. It feels like 1939 all over again, and WWIII is the neocon/neolib wet dream to reset the world order, clean the ledgers, and reassemble new power structures.

And that is the choice our upcoming presidential election is all about: what sort of voice do we want to lead us into the new war? A predictable liberal voice for U.S. exceptionalism imperialism? Or a loose cannon that will narrate the war, like a half drunk good ole boy hanging on the end of the bar?

by William Skink

Over a week ago a 24 year old punk pulled a gun and fired it during an altercation near the California Street bridge. This occurred around 8pm in the evening. There is no information yet about how this punk obtained his firearm, though I would hazard a guess that he didn’t obtain it legally, so the local ordinance that passed on a 8-4 vote on Monday, if that is the case, would have had no impact on this particular use of gun violence.

While proponents of this local gun ordinance claim they have public opinion on their side, it’s more than likely going to take the courts to determine if Missoula has the law on its side. That’s because there is specific state law prohibiting local municipalities from regulating guns. Here is a snip from an Indy article from July:

Montana, like most other states, has a law written specifically to stop local governments from regulating guns. Known as “preemption,” it states that no city, town or other local government body may “prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.”
…
Passed in 1985, Montana’s preemption law was the first piece of Montana gun legislation Marbut lobbied for, before the MSSA was founded. He says it “helps articulate and preserve a fundamental constitutional right” and prevents gun owners from being forced to navigate a dizzying patchwork of rules. It’s also the product of a nationwide lobbying effort by the NRA, beginning in the ’80s, to keep gun regulation out of the hands of local officials. Today, 43 states have done just that.

But preemption wasn’t on von Lossberg’s mind when he was first approached by members of the local chapter of Moms Demand Action. Rather, he was struck by data they presented to argue that expanding background checks could reduce gun-related violence.

So, am I to infer from this that state law just doesn’t matter to our local officials if data shows a local ordinance “could” reduce gun-related violence? How quickly will this issue be thrown to the courts? Do our local officials want to exist in a perpetual state of litigation? What gives? Here’s a little more from the article:

Expanded background check policies have wide support in public opinion polls, but legislation has gone nowhere with lawmakers in Helena. Von Lossberg sees this as an opportunity for Missoula to take the lead.

“If they’re not going to be talking about this at the state level, and Congress continues to be deadlocked, what I can look to influence is right in front of me,” he says.

Since preemption exists at the state level, to avoid litigation (with our tax dollars) gun regulation needs to go through Helena. Von Lossberg wants to ignore this reality, though, claiming this is an opportunity for Missoula to take the lead.

I disagree. What Missoula is doing is creating job security for lawyers and further isolating our community from the rest of the state. There will be consequences for Missoula at the next legislative session over this attempt to go-it-alone in direct conflict with established state law.

Missoula is already a pariah in Helena when the legislature is in session. Missoula politicians have actually had to get politicians from other communities to sponsor legislation because of the anti-Missoula stigma that exists. This local ordinance is the type of political maneuvering that earns our community disdain from the rest of the state.

Is it worth it? Will the benefits of forcing background checks within city limits outweigh the cost of litigation and stigmatization that will inevitably follow? I mentioned in a previous post a column last year from Dan Brooks that I think is still quite relevant to this topic. Here is a bit from that piece, titled Bad Aim:

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.

It will also incur as much howling as any other law that might prevent someone from buying a gun. The gun-control discussion has collapsed into binary opposition between people who oppose any new regulation and people who are desperate to pass something—anything—that might curb America’s absurd level of gun violence.

I tend to fall into the second camp, and I support Lossberg et al.’s spirit. I support the efforts of Everytown and Moms Demand Action. I cannot support this ordinance, however, because I think it is likely to provoke opposition from gun show participants without making it meaningfully harder for felons to get guns.

After removing one’s personal ideology and emotionalism from this debate, a more objective cost/benefit analysis doesn’t support the argument that this local ordinance is worth the cost of provoking more political opposition and ensuring Missoula will once again be going to court to spend our tax dollars on a toothless, geographically narrow ordinance that won’t have the impact supporters envision.

But when has reality ever stopped our local government? At least they will be able to say they “did something” when the next tragedy occurs. Too bad that something won’t get at the underlying factors involved in gun violence, like mental health issues, lack of access to treatment for addiction, and a broken criminal justice system.

by William Skink

Two recent pieces caught my attention. The first is a revisionist hit-piece on Zinke in another attempt by Democrats to use Zinke’s support for Trump as a political bludgeon, with a little Putin thrown in to make the dish really pop. After Monday’s debate, and before the polls show whether or not the angry Trump Train will lose some steam over Trump’s implosion, the hope is a Trump trickle down effect will rain on statewide races.

The author of the piece is COMBAT VETERAN Josh Manning. I put COMBAT VETERAN in big letters, so you don’t miss that Josh Manning is a COMBAT VETERAN, and thus worthy of taking on Zinke. If you go to Moogirl, you will see that at the beginning of the post is this italicized introduction of the author:

Josh Manning is a combat veteran and serves on the leadership team of Common Defense, a group of progressive veterans joining together to affect political change. You can follow him on Twitter @joshuamanning23

So with that out of the way, let’s see how Manning opens his hit piece, titled The Nexus of Ego: Putin, Trump, and Zinke:

Counterterrorism analysts shorthand a grouping of terrorists from different groups or skillsets as a “nexus.” There is no better term for what has become a solidifying linkage between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and our lone Congressman, Ryan Zinke. Together this trinity of hate spreads policies based on authoritarian rule, dominance politics, and crony capitalism.

Last week, intelligence officials broadcast their concerns regarding a Trump foreign policy advisor meeting with the same members of the Russian security services who are attempting influence the 2016 presidential election. If you have not heard, the Russian security services are attempting to sway the election toward Trump. It was already concerning enough that this advisor, Carter Page, has connections to Russian companies and oligarchs close to Putin’s inner circle, to include monolithic energy power Gazprom. People who run afoul of Gazprom end up dead or in prison. You do not get close to that group unless your aim is empower Russia at any means necessary.

It’s not difficult to discern this is a political hit piece not to be taken seriously. While I’m sure Manning was spreading nothing but love as he participated in the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq, calling Trump a terrorist for his campaign’s link to Russian business interests is a dangerous and cynical attack when one can so easily use the magic of Google to discover that–GASP!–cash flowed to the Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

So when Hillary gets with Bill and other beneficiaries of their shady dealings, is that also a nexus of terrorists? If yes, then maybe I would take this argument seriously. But Josh is a progressive organization warrior taking on a conservative candidate, so I’m not expecting parity here. Also, it gets worse:

If praising Putin’s “leadership” was not disqualifying enough on its own, unpacking Zinke’s comments regarding Russia’s moves against its near abroad demonstrates how little he understands national security and foreign policy. In characterizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea as brilliant, Zinke has put himself at the opposite end of policy adopted by NATO, our most important ally in the region. He cannot talk about how he supports NATO one year then praise Putin to gain an electoral edge. Further, these approvals give Putin room to amplify military actions against the Baltic and Central Asian states that are trying to develop democracies outside of Russian interference and break away from the Soviet model. If Zinke wants a new Cold War—with he and the GOP oddly on the side of Russians—then this is the way to start it.

Um, where to start with this exceptionally disgusting but altogether predictable mischaracterization of world events? First, I’m less concerned about Zinke’s political calculation for the statements he’s made than I am about the calculation of Manning to refer to the western-backed coup in Ukraine as a Russian invasion. What is brilliant is not the annexation of Crimea, but an American propaganda system that continues to distort and omit direct U.S. actions abroad, which includes funding and organizing anti-democratic regime change operations in non-aligned nations, like Ukraine.

I have little patience for this kind of revisionist bullshit. When Manning laments that praising Putin gives him “room to amplify military actions against the Baltic and Central Asian states that are trying to develop democracies outside of Russian interference and break away from the Soviet model” I wonder if these political hacks that call themselves progressives will ever be capable of acknowledging the damage of American interference and NATO encroachment–or incitement, considering NATO’s decision to install advanced missile systems on Russia’s doorstep.

I would also like to note that it’s difficult to break away from something that broke over a decade ago. It’s not the fucking 80’s, Josh Manning, so talking about the Soviet model doesn’t really lend credibility to your implied assertion that you have any better understanding of geopolitics than Ryan Zinke does.

And then there’s the part about wanting a new Cold War. Just wow on that one. With Hillary calling Putin Hitler and questioning if he has a soul, who exactly is pining for a new Cold War?

I actually don’t think Manning lacks an understanding of world events, I think he’s one of many people playing a dangerous game. There seems to be real panic among the establishment that the Trump train is unstoppable by conventional means, and one of the more far-fetched contingencies if Trump wins is a forced removal from office by the military. Don’t think a coup could happen here in America? Well, this time last year you probably didn’t think a con-man real estate mogul turned reality tv star could get this close to being president.

While Josh Manning is calling our state congress critter a terrorist Trump supporter with some implied traitor shade for good measure, the Financial Times is also going apoplectic over the potential of Trump. My favorite quote is this:

Far from making America great, his presidency might unravel the world.

Funny, I thought that’s what the banksters have been busy doing while we waste time watching a sniffling orange-faced man make incoherent statements about how Hillary has been fighting ISIS here whole adult life.

But the implication of this person becoming president is terrifying, and not just to the many average Americans who deplore him (for good reason), but to the elites circling around their pillars of power and prestige. I think the following concern articulated by the FT embodies perfectly the elites anxieties over Trump:

What might a Trump presidency mean? Forecasting the policies of someone so unpredictable is impossible. But a few things seem at least reasonably clear.

The US and its allies remain immensely powerful. But their economic dominance is in slow decline. According to the International Monetary Fund, the share of the high-income countries (essentially, the US and its chief allies) will fall from 64 per cent of global output (measured at purchasing power) in 1990 to 39 per cent in 2020, while the US share will fall from 22 per cent to 15 per cent over this period.

While the US military might is still huge, two caveats must be made. One is that winning a conventional war is quite a different matter from achieving one’s aims on the ground, as the Viet­nam and Iraq wars showed. Furthermore, China’s rapidly rising defence spending could create serious military difficulties for the US in the Asia-Pacific region.

It follows that the ability of the US to shape the world to its liking will rest increasingly on its influence over the global economic and political systems. Indeed, this is not new. It has been a feature of US hegemony since the 1940s. But this is even more important today. The alliances the US creates, the institutions it supports and the prestige it possesses are truly invaluable assets. All such strategic assets would be in grave peril if Mr Trump were to be president.

The biggest contrast between the US and China is that the former has so many powerful allies. Even Vladimir Putin is not a reliable ally for China. America’s allies support the US largely because they trust it. That trust is based on its perceived commitment to predictable, values-based behaviour. Its alliances have not been problem-free, far from it. But they have worked. Mr Trump’s cherished unpredictability and transactional approach to partnerships would damage the alliances irreparably.

A vital feature of the US-led global order has been the role of multilateral institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. In binding itself by the rules of an open economic system, the US has encouraged others to do the same. The result has been extraordinary growth in prosperity: between 1950 and 2015, average global real output per head rose sixfold. Mr Trump does not understand this system. The results of repudiation could be calamitous for all.

Whether or not Trump understands this system is irrelevant. What I think is relevant is that more and more Americans ARE beginning to understand this system, and they understand where all that increased output has accumulated, and it isn’t in their savings account, pensions or benefit plans.

If the polls over the next few days show no significant dip for Trump’s numbers after his terrible performance, who knows what contingencies may be required to keep Trump out of the White House. With fear ramped high and dangerous rhetoric flying from all sides, the Chinese curse of living in interesting times has never felt more ominous.

by William Skink

Well, the shit-show is over (for now). Trump self-destructed last night, bullying Clinton and that guy who was supposed to be moderating. If he was blowing lines of cocaine (the infamous sniffles) it certainly didn’t give him the extra stamina he needed. At times he seemed nearly out of breath, and he kept sipping water like little Marco did a few years ago.

Trump had so many disastrous exchanges it’s hard to pin down the one that will damage him the most, but it’s probably the indirect admission that he doesn’t pay taxes that will hurt him the most.

If discussing the debate doesn’t do it for ya, you can also opine on Missoula’s city council making themselves feel like they’re accomplishing something by passing the ordinance requiring background checks for gun sales within city limits. I still think this post by Dan Brooks from last year nails the problem with the ordinance: a good idea, but bad policy.

And if that’s not appealing, then may I suggest watching my latest music video. This one is about Missoula, and it’s called Clark’s Fork. Enjoy!