Month: December 2019

by William Skink

I can’t think of much to reflect positively on as we say adios to a decade that saw the deflation of hope and change, the re-inflation of unsustainable economic bubbles and a widening chasm of income inequality that would threaten the establishment if Americans weren’t so easily divided against each other, rendering us perpetually conquered by the plutocrats, oligarchs and transnational corporations who hoard wealth off shore in the trillions while we bicker about Presidential tweets and Russian conspiracy theories.

I posted my first blog post as “lizard” all the way back at the beginning of this decade–on September 8th, 2010, to be exact. I talked a lot more about poetry back then, but as the decade progressed (with progressives getting the neoliberal shaft over and over) I cultivated a seasoned cynicism toward the national Obama machine and its echoes in little fiefdoms like Missoula with Herr Engen.

Reflecting on the past decade and not just the past year is important because too many people treat the election of Trump as year zero in a mad reset of what’s possible in a zero sum, no holds barred, ends justify the means assault on one’s political opponents. Our quickening plunge seeking rock bottom may finally hit us in 2020, or 2021, but the when doesn’t really matter.

What we do as local communities in the timespan between now and the deferred consequences of systemic rot sometime in the near future will determine how resilient we are when things go bust. The problem, as I see it, is Missoula went all in with gentrification, making us a microcosm of an unsustainable macro-economic paradigm driven by central bankers who will trigger WWIII if the price is right.

Man, so much doom and gloom. Why keep reading these hopeless tirades against the engines of our oppression?

Despite my relative cynicism I hope you do keep reading because I plan to keep writing, and more, this coming year.

I’m not going to make any predictions, but I will make a promise: to the best of my ability I will continue bringing attention to the issues and trends that I think are important as this new decade begins amidst so much uncertainty and turmoil.

Stay tuned…

by William Skink

It appears this blog is going to be indirectly involved in a libel lawsuit between blogger Pete Talbot and blogger Greg Strandberg, so let me explain how this all started.

On December 5th I posted my reaction to news that Melissa Romano’s husband, Eric Lehman, was busted in August for possession of drugs, including LSD, cocaine and meth. On December 7th, at 10:27pm, Pete Talbot posted a comment and I responded the following morning, since I wasn’t up late fuming about politics like Talbot was. Here’s the screenshot of the comment:

It was this exchange that Strandberg picked up on when he wrote a post, titled Attack the Messenger. Here’s is the potentially libelous commentary Strandberg put up at this blog:

In the past 24 hours, I’ve had 3 negative comments on this site from angry Democrats, two of them from out-of-state.

Lashing out.

Attacking the messenger.

I’m not the only one – over at RD, it’s the same story. There we saw a likely-drunk Pete Talbot giving a piece of his mind. Even heard Aaron Flint mention this on his radio program this week.

Is speculating on the “likely” state of inebriation of a commenter libelous? I guess that will be something for the courts to decide. Here is Talbot’s comment on Strandberg’s post:

Is there any reason for Strandberg and myself to be speculating on the state of mind of Pete Talbot as he lashes out at the bloggers writing unflattering political analysis of his preferred political candidates? The answer to that is yes. First, here’s a screen shot of Talbot’s blogger bio, in which you will note he likes bourbon enough to include it in the brief bio:

How about Strandberg? Does he have any reason, besides Talbot’s avowed love of bourbon, to suspect Talbot could be posting comments while drunk? As it turns out, yes. Here’s an excerpt from Strandberg’s post, Blogger Vs. Blogger:

A few weeks ago, Pete came into my bar and sat down right in front of me while I was working and had two stiff drinks while talking politics with his friend. I watched him miss a few steps as he headed toward the door. That was around 10 PM.

Hmm, that’s interesting. I sure hope Pete Talbot didn’t operate a motor-vehicle that night, because operating a motor vehicle while under the influence is illegal. Just ask Eric Lehman.

While Strandberg speculated a lawsuit wouldn’t be filed, Talbot made his final comments, assuring Strandberg it’s coming:

If I was Stranderg I would seek legal representation pronto, someone like Quentin Rhoades, and I would consider a countersuit, since Strandberg has been depicted as an anti-semite, unfairly, in my humble opinion, by the writers of the Montana Post.

I am also more than willing to testify in court in defense of Strandberg. I could describe my own experiences with political retaliation. After Talbot made his late night comments on my post, I wrote about the political retaliation I have already experienced by a local elected official at my place of work.

Litigation is a serious step for Talbot to be taking, one that Strandberg shouldn’t take lightly. It takes money to fight this shit in court, and Strandberg has, from his own reporting, not a lot of financial resource to bring to bear against this escalation. He also has his kids to think about.

At a time when people are thinking about the holidays and family, it’s really quite sad and pathetic that Pete Talbot is preparing to sue a lowly blogger with young kids. If I get sucked into this, obviously I am going to be limited in what I can write about until this bullshit works its way through the courts.

by William Skink

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood finally made it to the red box, so I rented it to see what Tarantino is up to with his creative take on the summer of ’69, Manson, and the murders that turned the hippie dream upside down.

Spoilers ahead…

Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Rick Dalton, and Brad Pitt’s character, the sidekick stunt double Cliff Booth, are key in understanding the sick fantasy Tarantino plays out on screen with this film.

The conflict Tarantino sets up is between the old western cowboy archetype, as embodied by DiCaprio and Pitt, and the appearance of a new creature–the more effeminate, long-haired hippie male.

Cowboy Rick Dalton isn’t doing so good in 1969. He’s a drunk beyond his prime, taking villain roles and getting driven around by his buddy, Booth. He does have a nice house on Cielo Drive, next door to a new neighbor–a small, weasel-looking man by the name of Roman Polanski.

There’s a particularly telling scene at the Playboy mansion where the guy playing Steve McQueen (a manly man) marvels to a female friend how Sharon Tate, who is dancing seductively, was first engaged to Jay Sebring (a victim in the Tate murders and portrayed as not very manly), then married Polanski.

McQueen says, referring to the two men: “they never had a chance”. The obvious subtext is these two beta males are no match for a woman like Sharon Tate.

While DiCaprio’s character has an emotionally vulnerable moment with an 8 year old actor (not actress, ’cause she’s obviously woke), Brad Pitt’s character gives a hippie chick a ride to the Spahn Ranch, the infamous lair of Manson and his hippie harem.

It’s here the cowboys start making their comeback. Cliff Booth shows up the hippie harem by forcing himself past the matriarch, Gypsy, to see old George, the owner of Spahn Ranch, who the hippies exploited to gain access to his property.

When Booth returns to his car, his tire has been slashed. A dirty, shirtless hippie guy laughs maniacally. Booth beats the shit out of him while all the hippie girls watch. Revenge against the hippies has commenced.

The film crescendos with an orgy of violence, but the twist is in who finds themselves on the receiving end. This is where Tarantino’s alternative reality fantasy takes hold.

Instead of a mixed-gender hippie cult descending on the goddess Tate and her clique, the hippies enter the home next door, where the sunsetting cowboys live. Violence ensues.

I won’t get into all the gruesome details of how Tarantino fantasizes his sunsetting cowboys could have regained their violent glory had they the chance to massacre the hippies, but I will mention that Rick Dalton uses a flame-thrower to torch Squeaky in the swimming pool, the same flame-thrower he is seen using in a previous film where he torches a bunch of Nazis.

The movie ends with beta male Jay Sebring asking from behind the gate what happened. Rick Dalton relates the tale of killing the hippies, then Sharon Tate’s disembodied voice buzzes in, and Rick is invited up to the house on Cielo Drive for drinks.

In Quentin Tarantino’s fantasy, the fading alpha cowboy archetype finds redemption through violently annihilating the hippie beta male and his deranged female assassins.

Maybe you shouldn’t have put the old cowboys out to pasture, Tarantino seems to be saying. Because without their fantastical and imaginary protection, look what happened.

by William Skink

The director of the fairgrounds, Emily Brock-Bentley, values things like fairness and transparency. She even said as much to the MC last year when she was reflecting on what she learned destroying the Merc:

Brock Bentley is proud, too, of her work as chairwoman of the City Council’s Land Use and Planning Committee, where she led the process that resulted in the demolition of the Missoula Mercantile building and construction of a Marriott hotel at Front Street and Higgins Avenue.

“I learned a lot about strategy,” she said. “The Mercantile experience taught me about having a fair and transparent process – that sometimes the outcome isn’t as important as the process. I think we were fair and open, and Judge Deschamps agreed.

I do think Brock-Bentley learned a lot from the Merc process, but fairness and transparency were not the real takeaways. I think she learned how to be a duplicitous, crony-prone spender of County funds. But don’t take my word for it, read the words of a citizen watchdog who wrote a very interesting column in the Missoulian.

Here is Keith Koprivica’s well-informed perspective on what’s been happening at the fairgrounds:

Recent actions undertaken by the Missoula County Fairgrounds do not pass the smell test.

At an upcoming, as-yet unscheduled meeting, Missoula County commissioners are expected to discuss a contract with the business of a former Missoula County Fairgrounds employee. The contract proposes this business be hired as an independent contractor to provide Communications and Content Production for the 2020 Fairgrounds Capital Campaign.

The contract would pay the business $80 per hour for 44 hours of service per month, for six months. According to the County Human Resources Department, the former fairgrounds employee that owns this business was being paid $26.93 per hour when he recently left employment with Missoula County.

Curiously, the proposed contract calls for total compensation to be $19,800, just $200 less than the $20,000 threshold where a competitive RFP is required by Missoula County policy. The proposed contract calls for most of the services to be performed at the Missoula County Fairgrounds and stipulates that the county provide the business an iPad for social media posting.

On Dec. 11, the fairgrounds distributed an email that said they are now a client of this business. The email also promoted the website and web address of this private business. Apparently there was no competitive RFP issued for this contract and now the fairgrounds is stating that they are already a client of this business before the contract has been approved by the commissioners. Even more concerning is that the fairgrounds used public resources (email) to promote a private business. If not illegal, it is certainly not appropriate.

This is not the first time questionable activities have occurred at the fairgrounds. In October, I expressed concern to the commissioners about lack of transparency, failure to follow Missoula County policy and distribution of misinformation.
After the 2019 fair, the fairgrounds released financial figures and claims about the 2019 fair that were not accurate. Particularly troubling were false claims about sponsorships. Some of those inaccurate claims were eventually updated on their website, but I never saw a retraction in local media.

In 2018 and 2019, the fairgrounds rented the entire Commercial Building to one private business to operate an arts and crafts event during the Western Montana Fair. That process was done without a competitive RFP and the Commercial Building was rented for a fraction of its fair market value.

In 2017 the operation of the Beer Garden was contracted to a for-profit entity. In prior years, the beer garden was operated by a nonprofit organization that donated most of the proceeds to local charities. When questioned about the change, fair staff made disparaging, unsubstantiated allegations about the nonprofit organization. Over the course of three years, the for-profit entity never even came close to the sales goals stipulated in their contract, yet when reviewing minutes from the Sept. 5 Fair Advisory Board meeting, I discovered that the fairgrounds intended on extending the contract with this for-profit entity for the 2020 fair without a competitive RFP process, which would have violated county policy. It was only after I questioned this action that the fair decided to open a competitive RFP process for the 2020 Fair Beer Garden.

The continued lack of transparency and failure to follow County policy is alarming. I call on Missoula County to use a competitive RFP to choose the firm that will provide Communications and Content Production for the 2020 Fairgrounds Capital Campaign and to never again use county resources to promote private business.

Citizens should not have to monitor county actions to ensure the rules are being followed.

That’s some mighty strange fairness and transparency, Emily Brock-Bentley. But considering you studied under a skilled manipulator like Engen, it’s not surprising.

by William Skink

A lot of people at City Council last night were there to protest the condo project, but instead of voting, Council members threw it back to committee.

I watched some of the proceedings online and caught the cheerleading for the BID, Missoula’s Business Improvement District. The BID was up for a 10 year renewal and people like Tim France, owner of Wordens, championed the safety and security of downtown that the BID-funded law enforcement has helped to instill. If it wasn’t clear what France was referring to, he specifically mentioned panhandling and transients (Tim doesn’t like transients unless they are buying cheap Steel Reserve from his store).

A legal battle that originated in Boise, Idaho, could have an impact on how municipalities and counties deal with those without homes. Thanks to a recent refusal by the Supreme Court to take up the case, the 9th circuit ruling stands.

Here is NPR’s reporting:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in a case originating from Boise, Idaho, that would have made it a crime to camp and sleep in public spaces.

The decision to let a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stand is a setback for states and local governments in much of the West that are grappling with widespread homelessness by designing laws to regulate makeshift encampments on sidewalks and parks.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed nearly a decade ago. A handful of people sued the city of Boise for repeatedly ticketing them for violating an ordinance against sleeping outside. While Boise officials later amended it to prohibit citations when shelters are full, the 9th Circuit eventually determined the local law was unconstitutional.

In a decision last year, the court said it was “cruel and unusual punishment” to enforce rules that stop homeless people from camping in public places when they have no place else to go. That means states across the 9th Circuit can no longer enforce similar statutes if they don’t have enough shelter beds for homeless people sleeping outside.

This raises some very interesting questions for officials in Missoula. Is land at Reserve Street owned by the Montana Department of Transportation considered public? If not, would enforcing no trespassing, which MDOT has clearly indicated with obvious signage, still be feasible?

Another question I have is about the availability of shelter beds. Missoula has cobbled together a winter shelter plan to allegedly accommodate those in need, but people still choose to sleep outside and in cars. What would happen if people started popping tents on sidewalks downtown, or on the County Courthouse lawn? What would law enforcement do?

I believe inaction at Reserve Street by city and county officials is strategic. Law enforcement could still ticket people for illegal dumping, illegal fires and theft of property if they wanted to, but then the homeless camp could shift to a more problematic location, like Missoula’s gem of gentrification, the downtown core.

Here’s some more on the ripple effects of this legal decision:

The nine states in the Ninth Circuit hold almost two-thirds of the country’s unsheltered homeless — California alone holds almost half — and many cities in those states don’t have enough shelter beds for them. In many cities, enforcement was put on hold as a result of the ruling.

The Honolulu City Council passed anti-camping laws only to have the police say they were unenforceable. In Lacey, Washington, the city passed anti-camping laws but acknowledged it couldn’t enforce them until it opened a shelter. In Costa Mesa, California, the city waited to enforce the rules until it could open a 50-bed shelter at a church in April.

Other cities have found ways around the law. The Berkeley City Council backed away from a proposal to prohibit lying down and camping at a new public transit plaza downtown, but passed a law banning placement of “objects” that prevent use of “any portion” of sidewalks — a change advocates say was against the spirit of the ruling.

In Anchorage, Democrats in the state legislature told the mayor in a letter to clean up camps in the parks because there were other places outside for people to sleep.

“So long as Anchorage has some place individuals can sleep outside, case law does not limit removal of waste … left by drug addicts, thieves, and other squatters/campers,” said the letter.

The gate closed somewhat dramatically in Olympia, Washington. Olympia’s downtown homeless population had grown to 300 over the summer of 2018, and the city was planning what would have been one of its largest sweeps ever. But on the eve of the removal, the city attorney told Keith Stahley, the city’s community planning director, about the ruling.

“So we said, ‘Put the brakes on and back to the drawing board; what do we do?’” Stahley said.

Months later, Olympia opened a sanctioned homeless camp downtown — comprising over 100 city-issued gray and green tents in neat rows — similar to the tent cities Seattle opened. Olympia enacted some rules, made sure there were beds at the local Union Gospel Mission and began enforcing anti-camping laws again.

While officials will claim their hands are tied, there doesn’t seem to be anything in this ruling that would prohibit local officials from removing trash from an encampment. Laws can still apply to those without a roof over their head and they should still apply. No one is above the law, right Democrats?

Selective enforcement of laws is always problematic and right now it seems that is what’s happening at encampments like the one at Reserve Street. At least there was finally some more volunteers out there last Saturday removing trash after a long line of carts appeared and were stuffed with trash for weeks.

It will be interesting to see what happens as this issue evolves. I’m sure city officials are quietly hoping that those without homes stay at camps outside of the downtown core, and if they don’t, how will the city protect it’s gentrified economic engine which they have invested so much public money in?

Stay tuned…