Month: September 2016

by William Skink

I respect people willing to put themselves physically in the way of environmental destruction because frankly I don’t have the guts to engage in direct action. I’m also pretty pessimistic about the capacity of humans to change course at this point because corruption and greed are so deeply rooted, and the tactic of divide and conquer so effective, I have a hard time seeing how the necessary changes to how we live will occur.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota has been operating to protect their source of water for weeks and weeks without much media attention, but that has certainly changed recently. Getting support from celebrities has raised the profile of the protest, and now private security thugs have descended to deploy violence, sparking even more outrage:

A private security firm guarding the highly controversial construction of $3.8 billion oil pipeline turned mercenary on Saturday, unleashing vicious attack dogs against a sizable crowd of peaceful protesters — including women and children.

Members of the Standing Rock Sioux and at least 100 other Native American nations as well as activists and advocates peacefully chanted “water is life” while guards held dogs nearby to intimidate the crowd. Without warning, these security henchmen showered the demonstrators with pepper spray and released the dogs — at least six people were bitten, including a young child.

The challenge of climate change and the primacy of water for human survival on this planet is going to be an increasingly critical issue. Vast migrations are virtually guaranteed to increase as the climate becomes less and less hospitable. Even the Syrian conflict has its origins in a devastating drought that provided the catalyst for rural migrations into urban centers.

Here in Montana, the environmental movement has suffered from the divide and conquer tactic of corporate funded “collaborators” constantly bashing those damn purist “serial litigators” who have the audacity to use the courts to get the government and the private sector to follow the law. Sadly, Democrats have by far been more effective in perpetuating this divide and conquer approach to environmental activism, especially Montana’s Jon Tester.

With the refugee issue in Montana, supporters have decried the dangerous rhetoric and misinformation they claim is motivating those critical of relocating hundreds of refugees to Missoula. The Missoula Current has a piece up citing concern from the Montana Human Rights Network, which starts with this:

The Montana Human Rights Network believes the misleading and often hateful sentiments directed largely at Muslim refugees are slipping into mainstream discussions, thanks in part to the strong rhetoric cast by political candidates seeking office at both the state and federal level.

The article doesn’t specify what kind of political candidates are using the strong rhetoric, but I think it’s safe to say the concern isn’t about politicians with a “D” beside their name.

Why am I referencing the refugee issue in a post about environmental direct action? Because I don’t recall the same concern when Jon Tester used strong rhetoric with the Missoulian editorial board, stating the following about the environmentalists who opposed his forest bill:

“The work doesn’t get done on the far left and it doesn’t get done on the far right,” Tester said during a meeting with the Missoulian editorial board on Monday. “It gets done in the middle. If you look at the folks opposing this bill, they’re the extremes. Quite frankly, extremists are extremists and I don’t really care. If they’re willing to become less ideologues and more realists, then come on board.”

When I think of extremists, I think of right wingers who bomb abortion clinics and Muslim jihadists. I guess Tester thinks extremists are people who don’t agree with his triangulating tactics to get bad legislation passed into law.

And then there was the infamous and totally bullshit claim that every single logging project in Montana was being held up by litigation. Here are Tester’s exact words:

“Unfortunately, every logging sale in Montana right now is under litigation. Every one of them.”

It’s not just that Tester has spread misinformation, misinformation that those who despise environmentalists probably still believe to be true. A subsequent consequence of constantly demonizing environmentalists who use the tool of litigation to compel government agencies and private interests to follow the law is that a legitimate tool becomes negatively associated with hair-trigger obstructionism, making it more risky for the collaborators to use the same tool they criticize those “extremists” for using.

Today in the Missoulian, columnist George Ochenski has a great piece, titled When Kumbaya Fails: Collaborators Sue the Forest Service. Here’s the opening paragraph:

Ever since collaboration became the mantra for many of Montana’s conservation groups, a strange dynamic has existed that paints other conservation groups that litigate over forest projects in a very unflattering light. Called “serial litigators,” “environmental extremists” and worse, the lawsuits are often filed to protect habitat for wolverine, lynx, grizzly bears, fishers and other “non-game” species. But when it finally came down to logging and road-building projects threatening elk habitat, well, the collaborator groups finally had to realize their only option was doing what was very hard for them to contemplate – suing the U.S. Forest Service.

In the same vein, when you mock and ridicule activists, like Don Pogreba did a few years ago when it was the Keystone XL pipeline receiving the attention of direct action in the state Capitol, it makes it very hard for those of us who see Democrat apologists for what they are–partisans steeped in hypocrisy–to take them seriously.

While it wasn’t Pogreba who wrote this post about Standing with Standing Rock, it was Pogreba who wrote the following tweets (h/t Matthew Koehler):

Nothing says I am a serious protester like wearing a stylish trucker hat.

It’s always important to capture your anti-consumption protest on your smartphone so you can post it on Facebook.

Someone should definitely pick up all that shredded paper those environmentalists left behind on the floor of the Capitol. #protest

I was headed to the Capitol for the redistricting meeting but I am too allergic to patchouli and self-righteous self-promotion to risk it.

I’m just saying…I hope that the Earth Firsters keep protesting for a while in the rain.

Why would someone who identifies himself as an intelligent progressive stoop to this kind of juvenile, hippie-bashing mockery of activists taking a stand for what they believe in? It’s especially disturbing that a teacher would put out those tweets. I guess for partisans invested in electing Democrats, the ends justify the means.

But how many Democrats will be elected this election cycle when the sad reality for progressives in 2016 is, politically, they don’t matter? Those who felt the Bern have been neutralized, the effort to impact the platform was a failure, and Hillary’s transition team undermines any hope her campaign rhetoric will be followed with action.

This demoralizing reality will ensure many of the young people excited by Bernie Sanders will either stay home or vote 3rd party. With more and more Republicans, Neoconservatives, and military brass coming out for Hillary, progressives can either accept being figuratively punched in the face, and vote for Hillary, or they can vote 3rd party, becoming the perfect scapegoats if the horror of horrors happens, and Trump is somehow “elected” president.

Either way, progressives–and the environment–will lose.

*CORRECTION: I removed the term “state-sanctioned” because it was an inaccurate depiction of violence perpetuated from private security contractors.

by William Skink

The Labor Day weekend has not been a good one for Democratic leadership. First, the FBI used the Friday before a holiday weekend to release its report on Hillary Clinton’s incredibly reckless use of email on unsecured devices. I agree with this conclusion: Hillary is either a liar of she’s grossly incompetent.

There is even a convenient list of the 26 things Clinton “could not recall” during her interview:

When she received security clearance
Being briefed on how to handle classified material
How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret “Special Access Program” material
How to select a target for a drone strike
How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
Getting guidance from state on email policy
Who had access to her Blackberry account
The process for deleting her emails
Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
Using an iPad mini
An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
Jacob Sullivan using personal email
State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
Being read out of her clearance
Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

Is Hillary Clinton lying, incompetent, or somehow mentally compromised from brain trauma or a neurological condition? I find it absolutely incredible that these questions are being posed with just over 2 months to go before the election. How anyone can justify voting for her is beyond me.

It wasn’t just a bad Labor Day weekend for Hillary. Obama’s last trip to China before the G20 meeting was an unmitigated diplomatic disaster, starting on the tarmac:

Upon arrival on Saturday in China as part of his last visit to Asia as US Commander in Chief for the periodic photo-op that is the G-20 meeting, something unexpected happened: a very undiplomatic greeting when an unusual tarmac altercation involving Chinese and U.S. officials, including national security adviser Susan Rice, devolved into a shouting match by a member of the Chinese delegation.

It all started with the actual landing: as AP reports, the first sign of trouble is that there was no staircase for Obama to exit the plane and descend on the red carpet. So, as the photo below shows, Obama used an alternative exit. Needless to say, a diplomatic fuck up such as this one, was not accidental – Beijing was sending a loud and clear message.

Back in October of 2011, Hillary managed to carve out some time from whoring out the state department to corporations and foreign governments, like Saudi Arabia, to, to write this piece in FP about the pivot to Asia, titled America’s Pacific Century. Oh the hubris.

Now, five years later, that pivot looks dead in the water, opening a space instead for Russia and China to increase integration. Instead of a pivot, there is a collision coming, and that collision is adeptly described by Pepe Escobar as a choice between either the connectivity of OBOR (one belt, one road) or war:

The heart of the matter in the OBOR-linked South China Sea is not sovereignty over “rocks” or even unexploited reserves of oil and gas; it hinges on the capacity of the Chinese Navy to regulate and eventually deny “access” to the Pentagon and the US Navy. What’s certain is that the US Navy will take no prisoners to prevent China from strategically dominating the Western Pacific, as much as Washington will go no holds barred to ram TPP to prevent China from economically reign over the Asia-Pacific.

Deng Xiaoping’s maxim – “never take the lead, never reveal your true potential, never overstretch your abilities” – now belongs to the past. At the G20 China once again is announcing it is taking the lead. And not only taking the lead – but also planning to overstretch its abilities to make the hyper-ambitious OBOR Eurasia integration masterplan work. Call it a monster PR exercise or a soft power win-win; the fact that humanitarian imperialism as embodied by the Pentagon considers China a major “threat” is all the Global South – and the G20 for that matter — needs to know.

The diplomatic drama in China over the weekend didn’t stop at the tarmac. The tensions continued with another confrontation between Chinese security and members of Obama’s entourage:

At Westlake Statehouse, where the summit was being held, a group of White House staff arriving before Obama was stopped at a security checkpoint. A heated argument between Chinese officials and White House staff, protocol officers and Secret Service, who were trying to enter the building separately from the press, broke out at the security gate.

According to the pool report, U.S. officials could be heard arguing in Chinese with Chinese officials over how many Americans could go through security at one time, how many White House officials were allowed to be in the building before Obama’s arrival, and which U.S. officials were on a security list.

“The president is arriving here in an hour,” a White House staffer was overheard saying in exasperation. A Chinese official assisting the U.S. officials became angered by how the guards were treating the White House staff as the disagreement escalated.

“You don’t push people. No one gave you the right to touch or push anyone around,” he yelled in Chinese at one of the Chinese security officials.

Another Chinese official trying to help White House staff stepped between the two men arguing, as the security official looked like he was going to throw a punch, according to the pool report. “Calm down, please. Calm down,” a White House official said.

“Stop, please,” said a foreign ministry official in Chinese. “There are reporters here.”

As things went from bad to worse, I couldn’t help wondering: where the hell is Max Baucus?

Our former Senator is, after all, the US ambassador to China, so what has he been doing for the past 3 years? At the time of this pick, the Washington Post described 3 reasons Obama picked Max for this important position, but unfortunately those reasons didn’t include Max’s diplomatic skills. The reasons were focused on short-term political goals for Democrats. Too bad. It looks like we could have used an actual diplomat in this role instead of a corporate whore who’s enduring legacy will be destroying any hope of a single payer option and instead saddling the American public with the now proven disaster of the Affordable Care Act.

Has the term “Democratic leadership” become an oxymoron like friendly fire?

by William Skink

In today’s Missoulian (h/t JC) it would appear that the illusion of Missoula being a welcoming community for refugees has hit a snag: reality.

The title of the article–Missoula refugees face housing issues–says it all. I guess the liberal do-gooders forgot to include reality in their exhaustive preparation to bring refugees to Missoula:

Congolese refugees and the people trying to help them get settled in Missoula are facing a housing crisis.

Five families from refugee camps in East Africa will be in town by the end of September, none of them with a source of steady income or credit history.

It’s the job of the local resettlement agency, the International Rescue Committee, to help them secure both as quickly as possible, said IRC director Molly Short Carr.

But record home sales prices in Missoula have placed rentals at a premium. And in a town that swells this time of year with university students – many with no credit ratings themselves – property managers and landlords can afford to be picky about who they rent to.

“We’re kind of hitting a bit of a brick wall,” Carr admitted.

Yeah, no shit refugees are facing a housing crisis. It’s the same goddamn housing crisis I have been writing about for years, and guess what? It’s not just refugees facing this crisis.

This article has my blood boiling. Anyone working in social services could have informed these do-gooders about what the reality of finding housing in Missoula looks like when you don’t have established credit or an income, but I doubt reality would have stopped morally righteous white saviors like Mary Poole from going full steam ahead with bringing families into this gentrified, unaffordable mountain town.

Here’s more from the article:

“We’re really trying to reach out to everybody who has a unit that would be sufficient to our needs,” Carr said. “So far the response has not been very great. We don’t fit into a mold.”

Landlords and property managers have a structure they use to vet potential tenants, she said. “That includes credit checks and background checks, which is something you can’t do with refugees.”

The IRC doesn’t allow its offices to co-sign for refugees.

“Our focus is really on getting them self-sufficient,” said Carr. “Co-signing is kind of a contradiction to self-sufficiency and being able to guide their own lives.”

What the hell were these people thinking? Did they do any research about housing in Missoula? Do they not read the fucking newspaper that reports on the stark reality of stagnant wages and the skyrocketing price of housing?

The illusion that Missoula is a welcoming community starts to unravel when the nuts and bolts of obtaining housing becomes evident. If you have enough money, good credit, and a solid rental history, then yes, Missoula will welcome you with open arms. But if you don’t have all that then you’ll be lucky to find some slumlord to rent to you, or you will be paying hundreds of dollars a week to stay in some bed-bug ridden motel room.

The article also touches on the initial financial support extended to refugees, including being immediately eligible for TANF:

The U.S. State Department supplies a one-time grant of $1,125 for each arriving refugee, including children, to cover housing and other costs for the first 90 days. The money is managed by Carr’s office, not turned over in a lump sum to the family.

Follow-up federal programs, such as one that provides refugees matching grants for financial support for up to six months, allow local agencies to focus on securing employment for adult refugees. Carr said the newcomers are immediately eligible for either Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or refugee cash assistance through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.

“We do have significant financial support to get refugees into permanent housing,” Carr said. “We’re not looking for housing that’s, like, low income, and we’re not looking for any kind of special assistance. What we’re looking for is to find a way to collaborate with property managers and landlords that allows them to take into account that you don’t have a way to do credit checks, and they don’t have jobs when they get here.”

Isn’t that nice? I especially like the part where Carr says they aren’t looking for housing that’s, like, low income. Well, guess what, if that’s all that’s available for refugees with no credit and no job, then what the hell is the problem with low income housing? If it’s good enough for people without stellar credit or enough deposit money for first and last month’s rent, then it is probably good enough for refugees fleeing war zones and refugee camps.

I’m sure these barriers will be creatively broken down for the refugees, but what about everyone else? For anyone with poor credit, an eviction, a criminal record, or just not enough money for first and last month’s rent, the barriers will remain as Missoula becomes more and more economically exclusive.