Month: February 2019

by William Skink

There is a new escalation of belligerence and geopolitical desperation playing out on the world stage that I am not sure the Russia-obsessed media is capable of contextualizing. Like the run-up to the disastrous catastrophe in Iraq, the steps America is taking to make a military confrontation more possible is not getting the criticism it deserves.

While Rachael Maddow takes fearmongering to a whole new level by wondering what would happen if Russia cut the power during a polar vortex event like the Midwest suffered through, the US has formally left the INF treaty. I would love to know what kind of 4-D chess Trump the Putin puppet is playing here with a move that could restart a whole new arms race with Russia:

The Trump administration just announced it will officially withdraw from an aging nuclear missile treaty with Russia, a move that could kick-start an arms race and threaten the European continent — but also allow the US to better prepare for a war against China.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump issued a statement that put the final nail in the coffin of the Cold War-era agreement, finalizing a decision that many experts — both happily and nervously — expected for months.

“Tomorrow, the United States will suspend its obligations under the INF Treaty and begin the process of withdrawing from the INF Treaty,” Trump said. “For arms control to effectively contribute to national security, all parties must faithfully implement their obligations.”

In a press conference around the same time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “Russia has jeopardized United States security interests, and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it.”

Does this make anti-Russian, neoliberal xenophobes jump for joy? Isn’t this what you want your President to be doing, sticking it to Russia to show those fucking Ruskies who the boss is?

Another dangerous move by the Trump regime that requires context for those with national amnesia is the return of Elliott Abrams, a despicable creature who belongs in chains before the ICC. Why? Here’s Allan Nairn on Democracy Now with some relevant history on this sociopath:

ALLAN NAIRN: Abrams was the key man in Reagan administration policy toward Central America, when that administration was abetting what a court recently ruled was a genocide in Guatemala, when the U.S. was backing the army of El Salvador in a series of death squad assassinations and massacres, and when the U.S. was invading Nicaragua with a Contra force that went after what one U.S. general described as “soft targets,” meaning civilians, things like cooperatives.

Abrams later came back during the George W. Bush administration, joined the National Security Council and was a key man in implementing the U.S. policy of backing Israeli attacks against Gaza, when the U.S. refused to accept the results of the Gaza elections, where Hamas defeated Fatah in a vote, and instead Abrams and company backed a war operation to overturn the results of the election, backing the forces of Mohammed Dahlan.

If you want to hear/read more, go to the link, but I should warn you Nairn gets graphic with some specific atrocities Abrams helped downplay and cover-up.

Speaking of psychopathic Neocons, I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight the mustached one being given a long leash to fuck shit up, John Bolton. His threats last September against the ICC are extreme bordering on unhinged. Here is Bolton in all his mustached glory declaring the ICC already dead to the US:

The United States launched a blistering verbal attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatened sanctions against its judges if they proceed with a probe into alleged war crimes by Americans in Afghanistan.

John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, made the announcement in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group, in Washington, DC, on Monday.

“Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” Bolton said.

“We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC … We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”

What a psycho. Is this how Trump is draining the swamp? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

The most recent news coming from the Hague is the resignation of a judge over threats to the court by the US and Turkey. I’m going to include a long quote because I think what former ICC judge Christoph Flügge has to say about threats against the court is incredibly important:

Flügge, who had been a permanent judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) since 2008, told the German newspaper Die Zeit that he had concluded in the wake of the developments that the “diplomatic world” saw no value in an independent judiciary.

He warned that the UN’s blind eye to Turkey’s intervention had set an alarming precedent.

“Every incident in which judicial independence is breached is one too many,” he said. “Now there is this case, and everyone can invoke it in the future. Everyone can say: ‘But you let Turkey get its way.’ This is an original sin. It can’t be fixed.”

Flügge said the attitude of the US administration to the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague highlighted the danger.

“John Bolton, the national security adviser to the US president, held a speech last September in which he wished death on the international criminal court,” he said.

“If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the US or investigate an American citizen, he said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted.

“The American security adviser held his speech at a time when The Hague was planning preliminary investigations into American soldiers who had been accused of torturing people in Afghanistan. The American threats against international judges clearly show the new political climate. It is shocking. I had never heard such a threat.”

Flügge said the judges on the court had been “stunned” that “the US would roll out such heavy artillery”.

“It is consistent with the new American line: ‘We are No 1 and we stand above the law,’” he said.

As Neoliberals try to maintain their control over the DNC (more on that soon) and corporate media continues obsessing over Russiagate, this new belligerence is making a shooting world war more possible.

by William Skink

I understand the need to be positive and focus on gains made in the nearly impossible task of “ending homelessness” in Missoula, but at some point the effort to be positive, and how it’s reported in local media, deviates so far from reality that it becomes just PR spin, and does a disservice to those on the ground experiencing the need for services and those trying to deliver services.

There was a panel update Tuesday on Missoula’s 10 year plan to end homelessness. Today the Missoula Current has an article about the update, which includes this:

That’s why Missoula leaders have developed a Coordinated Entry System, or CES, that provides multiple access points for those experiencing homelessness to receive help. These access points include agencies that are advertised as coordinated assessment centers and provide a “no wrong door” approach, meaning a person can go to any of the agencies and enter the system.

What does “no wrong door” mean? One could get the impression that you go to any of these homeless points of entry, say you are homeless, and start getting services. But that is not what happens at all.

First, the homeless individual or family has to meet a strict HUD definition of homelessness, which you can find more info about here.

The way it has worked here, in Missoula, is if you are couch-surfing, you are not considered homeless enough and won’t be assessed by the Coordinated Entry System. If you spent the previous night in a motel room you paid for yourself, you won’t be assessed by Coordinated Entry. But if an agency paid for your motel room, you can be assessed.

The idea of “no wrong door” creates an unrealistic expectation that front-line staff have to then deal with. It is not uncommon for people to get frustrated, to get angry, when they are told their situation is not homeless enough to warrant being assessed by this new system.

The Missoula Current also continues to use Point-in-time data to make it seem like homelessness in Missoula is decreasing:

According to a 2018 point-in-time survey, Missoula had 319 people experiencing homelessness, the highest population among 10 Montana cities that made a count.

Missoula also had the highest number of chronically homeless residents in the survey, at 46 individuals.

However, the city’s total homeless population is dropping, from 538 in 2015 to 395 in 2016, and lower each year since.

How can homeless numbers in Missoula be going down when the numbers at the homeless shelter have been going up? The Salvation Army’s warming center is serving 35-40, in addition to the 160-170 people being served by the Pov. I’m not sure how many people are being served by the DV shelter run by YWCA, or the women and children being served by UGM, or Mountain Home for young mothers, or the families being served by Family Promise, or the increasing numbers of people living in cars and old RVs, but it adds up.

And then there’s the plan itself.

I haven’t watched the whole panel presentation, but the three phases described at the beginning got my attention. Here is how the MC article describes it:

The initiative started in 2012 with two phases, “creating rapid, visible and meaningful change” and “building a coordinated system to end homelessness.”

In its third and final phase, “making adjustments to ensure sustainability,” agencies will work to maintain a system that responds to homelessness by providing rapid access to safe, sustainable long-term housing.

If anyone wants to consult the actual 10 year plan to end homelessness you can read it in pdf form here. I took a look and discovered on page 34 that phase 1 includes this:

Consolidate and/or coordinate existing efforts with clear point of entry and ability to scale to meet needs.

Here are some other phase 1 strategies from the plan:

Create a funding pool for start-up housing expenses (i.e., first & last month rent, deposit, utility deposit)

Initiate task force to structure insurance program that is appealing to landlords and property managers.

Engage landlords in eviction prevention, referral to homelessness prevention.

Somehow Phase 1 became “creating rapid, visible and meaningful change”. Huh? I guess that’s better than saying we hired someone who wasn’t up to the task and wasted over 3 years with little to show for it.

While there have been gains made in the past 7 years, I think it’s important to acknowledge that things have not gone according to the 10 year plan. The 3 phases now stated do not correlate with the actual goals laid out in 2012. The reason for this, in my opinion, is to protect those responsible for failing to provide the tools, oversight and leadership in the first 3 critical years of implementation.