Month: February 2021

by Travis Mateer

Since our new liberal president has a fresh war hard-on for Afghanistan, I thought it might be helpful to take a trip down memory lane to recall how a REPUBLICAN president used some of the EXACT SAME justifications for war two decades ago, and how a feminist by the name of Mary Stranahan wasn’t buying it in 2004.

I came across this feminist oral history project yesterday as I was researching Mary Stranahan’s Goodworks Ventures, and reading the back and forth between Stranahan and her interviewer, Diane Sands, was pretty interesting.

For the historical framing of this interview, here is Sands explaining the intent:

DS: So, I wanted to talk to you for the Feminist History Project for two reasons. But first I want to remind you that I think to me the long term value of this is we’re really speaking to women of another generation and another time. So it isn’t as though this information is necessarily a great deal of use today or tomorrow, but for women 50 years from now or even 100 years from now who want to know who we are as feminists, what work we’ve done, what importance it’s had in our own lives, what change we’ve seen happen. I think to me that’s the real value of this. It’s not so much about dates and places, as how it’s changed how we think about the world, and how we think we’ve changed the world. Which are of course our own opinions but as valid as anything else.

In the year 2054 my little girl will be 38 years old, so I guess Mary and Diane are speaking to her and other women like her about this distant time of 2004 when a Republican president was using the concept of protecting women to justify launching violent wars.

How did the justification go over 17 years ago with these two feminists?

DS: I do think probably the public is not aware, and even sometimes we are not aware, that it really is a worldwide, that feminism, this wave of feminism or empowerment of women, is a worldwide revolution that has touched every corner of the world. As a paradigm shift, even if the reality of women’s equality has not happened, the expectation of women’s equality has happened.

MS: Absolutely. There’s people (women) walking around in Iran and Iraq without their chadors (veils).

DS: Yeah, and hearing even George Bush talk about going into Iraq for women’s freedom, which I don’t believe for a second. But that’s important to think that he thinks somehow that that’s of enough value to somebody as an explanation, a partial explanation, for what he’d doing, that he would use it.

While these American women seem really excited about their nation’s cultural imperialism imposing behavior changes around the world, they don’t seem to believe a Republican president like George Bush is being genuine when he references women’s freedoms as a justification for war.

One of the confounding realties for these two women is the fact that American women are not all homogenous liberals behaving the way Diane and Mary think they should behave. Some of these women–GASP!–even VOTED FOR BUSH! How can that be?

MS: I just, in all of this conspiracy stuff going on around the election, one of the analysis of the election was that he got the women’s vote. He raised his percent of women’s vote by 11% between 2000 and 2004.

DS: And you’re saying you don’t believe that?

MS: I don’t know, I can’t argue statistics, I’m not that sophisticated. But if it’s true, it’s scary.

The idea that some American women would exercise their right to vote by darkening the bubble for George seems pretty disturbing to Mary Stranahan. Those women must all be under the spell of their patriarchal husbands, or else it’s a CONSPIRACY!

At the end of the interview, Mary describes how progressives are learning from the right to be more effective with their methods of brainwashing their base, like funding think tanks and stuff, because the future is all about capturing the minds of the youth:

DS: Well, I know you need to be at another appointment but I want to ask one last question. So what gives you hope for the future?

MS: Well, I have a 13 year-old daughter so I’m vested in youth.

DS: Vested in the future.

MS: And that’s vested into the future. I am watching progressives start to make plans like the Newt Gingriches did in the 1980s about investing money into think tanks and investing money into infrastructure. Actually following in the footsteps of the rightwing and investing in infrastructure that will support a much more progressive agenda than what we have now. I think we’re learning from the rightwing. I have hope on that basis. I think we have to go… you have to give a lot of credit to the rightwing for being a hell of a lot smarter than we are about getting down to the grassroots and funding it well, so that they now have a juggernaut of an infrastructure that’s gonna take a long time to come back. But I have hope that we will. We cannot as a world live with a perspective that the rightwing has. It’s, you know, Armageddon’s coming so what the hell, is their attitude.

DS: And our perspective is?

MS: That Armageddon is not coming and that we need to build for the future and do the seventh generation thinking that’s required for us to survive. Because we’re, I think we’re on the cusp environmentally and economically and politically (inaudible).

DS: Well the doorbell’s ringing, sounds like its time to end. Thank you Mary Stranahan.

MS: Thank you Diane Sands.

I think this time-capsule peek into the minds of two liberal feminists from 2004 is pretty interesting, especially considering Joe Biden will be using the EXACT SAME justification for keeping troops in Afghanistan that George Bush did 17 years ago. The only difference is Joe has a “D” next to his name. From the link:

In another break with the former administration, Biden’s team also has made a point of underscoring the importance of human rights and women’s rights in Afghanistan. The Taliban, known for their draconian rule and repression of Afghan women during their reign from 1996-2001, made no pledges on the status of women in their agreement with the United States.

In his call with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Biden’s top diplomat, Antony Blinken, said any peace settlement needed to preserve “the progress made over the last 20 years with regard to human rights, civil liberties, and the role of women in Afghan society.”

Will American feminists like Mary Stranahan express skepticism toward Biden’s stated goals in Afghanistan, or are American feminists only capable of criticism when it’s a Republican doing the US imperialist two-step?

by Travis Mateer

I like thinking BIG PICTURE when it comes to the trends impacting our little Zoom Town.

One of the BIGGEST trends is how the ownership class is desperately trying to rebrand its crony capitalist system into a kinder, gentler form of Capitalism called STAKEHOLDER Capitalism. What does this mean for Missoula, you ask?

An affordable housing project (that has our illuminated braintrust proudly posing for the cameras) features a combination of funding methods to make the “affordable” part work. There’s the Trump Opportunity Zone piece (private money) and the Tax Increment Financing piece (public money) joining forces to make that totally NOT fascist marriage known as the PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. From the link (my emphasis):

But it’s the public-private partnership behind the Scott Street project that could provide the momentum the city’s economic leaders have been looking for over the past several years.

“It really showcases how to leverage public-private partnerships,” said Julie Lacey, the economic development director at MEP. “We’re excited to see where that goes and what that means for other projects in the area. How do we take what we’ve learned and how do we engage outside partners and folks in Missoula and apply that to other sites?”

Kier said interest in Missoula remains strong, even if the city represents a relatively small market and isn’t widely known to large-scale investors. That makes it hard to attract the national capital needed to fund larger project, such as 9 acres of housing.

But the organization’s networking paid off, and the city’s ownership of the Scott Street property added some security to investors. The parcel, along with most others in the opportunity zone, also sits in one of Missoula’s urban renewal districts, meaning public funding can be used to build the public infrastructure needed to accommodate the development.

“We do feel that if this goes well, it will open the eyes of a new pool of potential investors into the kinds of projects we want to see in Missoula,” Kier said. “We’re hoping this will be an opportunity to build momentum and replicate this as a way of partnering with the city or county and the private sector to move the needle on some of our bigger goals, rather than waiting for the private sector to just come along and take it on.”

Let me provide a rough translation of this excerpt: wealth doesn’t give a shit about a town like Missoula unless there are layered incentives (also known as bribes) to get their attention, like avoiding taxes (opportunity zone) and cost mitigation (public money handouts).

I wanted to know more about IMPACT INVESTING, so I looked online and found something from the Harvard Business Review about impact investing NOT saving Capitalism. The article is from July, 2020 and uses the pandemic to explain why this kind of investing (private money) is going to need government (public money) to RESET the rules for how we are governed. From the link:

Next month will be the anniversary of the U.S. Business Roundtable’s 2019 call for a shift from “shareholder capitalism” toward “stakeholder capitalism.” Business leaders asked us to imagine a transformed world, but a bat virus in Wuhan had its own ambitious plans — and has, for the time being, transformed the world in quite another way. It has thrust government to the center, pushing business, whatever its approach to capitalism, to the sidelines.

Nobody could reasonably expect business alone to fix the pandemic. Nonetheless, some investors under the banner of “impact investing” argue that business alone will be able to fix the other big problems ailing the global economy, such as climate change or global female literacy, without sacrificing commercial returns. This view has garnered interest from major banks, consultancies, business lobby groups, and even former prime ministers. One of impact investing’s leading champions, Sir Ronald Cohen, believes that it could be the “revolution” that will save capitalism and solve many of the world’s greatest problems.

It is an enticing vision of an enlightened post-pandemic economy, and, as an impact investor and economist, we support its ambitions. However, if we really want to reform capitalism, then impact investing as it is traditionally conceived will not be enough. The pandemic is not a mere anomaly; there are profound limits to what business can do profitably in normal times too. We need to reform the rules that govern how our economy works — and impact investors have a critical role to play.

When it comes to Montana impact investing, I discovered Goodworks Ventures and its tagalong foundation, the High Stakes Foundation. The person who started these ventures is Mary Stranahan, described thusly:

Mary Stranahan is the founder of Goodworks Ventures and the High Stakes Foundation. As a result of attending a Play Big Session about a decade ago, she made the decision to leverage her resources to support the people making a positive change in Montana. Her focus is on triple bottom line investments in the for profit arena and rural economic development, leadership development and environmental policy issues in the nonprofit arena.

There are so many interesting players, organizations and programs in our humble little Zoom Town that I’m starting to get a bit overwhelmed. To help keep things straight, I’ve begun mapping all these moving parts.

Mary Stranahan is one of those moving parts now, so any context I can find might be helpful in understanding what’s motivating her, like this article from 2012 about the consequences of Citizens United. Notice another familiar player in the following excerpt:

University of Montana professor Vicki Watson thanked the council for bringing the referendum forward and said she wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an official message it erred. She said extending civil rights to corporations “makes a mockery of our sacred human rights.”

“Corporations do not bleed or feel pain. They can’t die in an unsafe workplace,” Watson said.

Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, said she pitched a similar piece of legislation in Helena, and she heard support from Democrats and Republicans all across the state. Hill noted Montana history is laced with stories of big money, such as the Copper Kings, buying influence.

“This is a question of whether American democracy itself can beat back a corporate takeover,” Hill said.

Mary Stranahan, who doesn’t live in Missoula but enjoys many of its amenities, said putting power back into the hands of the people is a huge matter. She encouraged people to seek more information about the national movement from The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, http://www.celdf.org.

“I think this is one of the most important issues we as a country face in trying to preserve what democracy we have,” Stranahan said.

That was 2012, when people like Ellie Hill (not yet Smith) had a BIG problem with BIG money defining corporations as people. Seven years later, this player was singing a different tune (my emphasis):

Hill said language in I-182, the 2016 referendum that resurrected Montana’s medical marijuana program, and 2017’s Senate Bill 333, a bill further regulating the program, allows providers to hire corporations as employees.

Isn’t that just wonderful?

On Monday I’m going to continue taking a look at Mary Stranahan because I found a fascinating interview, done by Diane Sands in 2004, that discusses feminism and George Bush’s foreign policy.

Since Joe Biden declared AMERICA IS BACK, and troops are already on the move in places like Syria, this 2004 article will be a pretty interesting time capsule to another world where liberals were capable of being anti-war because the wars were being waged by a Republican named Bush.

So stay tuned…

by William Skink

we'll never leave too early
those Afghans are nice chaps
and we LOVE to help them with
their deep dirt wedding naps

sleep is a condition
open eyes don't betray
you nod along to Commander Joe
sleep-walking through your day

skeletal Yemen infants
are threats to be attacked
liberal war is GREAT AGAIN!
Amerika is BACK!

waking up is hard
better just to snooze
while trains remove the Trumptards
to lower altitudes 

by Travis Mateer

It’s difficult to keep up with the many schemes our illuminated braintrust is using to rapidly gentrify our humble little Zoom Town. Even an online news rag like the Missoula Current is finding it challenging to accurately report on these developments.

For example, this article by Alex Mitchell now features an editor’s note at the top of the piece clarifying that Tax Increment Financing was NOT used in recent property purchases on West Broadway. Here’s the note:

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected from an early version, which suggested tax increment financing would be used to purchase the Broadway properties. Proceeds from the sale of surplus water utility properties will fund the purchase.

The sale of these properties is bringing a vision of development first reported by Greg Strandberg at Big Sky Words closer to fruition. From the first link:

The properties include 1337 and 1359 W. Broadway, which are currently occupied by local businesses including Recompute Computers and Wooden Images. Both are also located next to Missoula Water, which the city plans to consolidate in the future, possibly with a move to Scott Street.

That would leave the three contiguous lots open for redevelopment into mixed-use housing at some point in the future.

From Hellgate Canyon to Palmer street, Broadway is going to look radically different in 10 years if all the development goes ka-ching like they’re planning. Condos will eventually be built on 4th street, the Missoulian building will probably be torn down for some modern looking monstrosity, and the tech boom will continue (thanks to Trump’s opportunity zone) on West Broadway.

Since our illuminated braintrust is good at creating PR fig leafs to appease critics, I’m sure some of this development will be billed as “affordable”. Maybe they’ll even call it WORKFORCE HOUSING.

But the overall impact will be a more desirable Zoom Town for the out-of-state newcomers with deep pockets who are excited to be leaving their failed states behind.

For those scrappy Missoulians trying desperately to hang on amidst this zoom-boom, don’t worry, there are tents for you to live in off highway 93 and other forested locations to call home.

Maybe in the future (if the price is right) we can do something REALLY cool, like these futuristic solar-powered sleeping pods for homeless people installed in a city somewhere in Germany:

If you know how challenging complex issues like homelessness are, and you feel guilty that your liberal utopia still features poverty and misery and addiction and violence, then these sleeping pods might just be the PERFECT solution.

And, as a BONUS, they could also double as safe container spaces for Trump supporters on their way to the reeducation camps.

EVERYONE WINS!!!

by Travis Mateer

There are shifting dynamics of power happening right now that people outside the criminal justice system can’t appreciate, and a headline like Missoula County inmate resolution leaves judge frustrated is just the tip of the iceberg.

The frustrated judge is Kathleen Jenks, someone I first wrote about in 2012 as the blogger “lizard” at 4 & 20 Blackbirds. Back then I was bringing attention to how this new judge was setting a new tone and part of that was negatively impacting the funding for treatment courts. I was not a fan of Jenks in those early days, but my opinion has evolved.

Over the years I have continued to touch on policy impacts and societal ills when it comes to the courts, like this post about mean drunks and tax cuts (2014), this post about jail overcrowding (2016), and this one about our Mayor NOT prioritizing criminal justice reform (2018).

My time working at the shelter is important to reference here because that work put me in repeated contact with the “frequent flyers” that so confounded Judge Jenks and service providers like myself.

As I increasingly ran into unstable people not acting in the safest manner, like the guy on meth who physically attacked me behind the Union Gospel Mission when they were still serving people by the train tracks, I came to appreciate the need for a metaphorical stick as I was dodging the metaphorical carrots being thrown in my face.

I don’t mean to infantilize grown-ass adults by saying it’s similar to dealing with kids, but it’s similar to dealing with kids. Awards and positive reinforcement are great and all, but sometimes kids are OUT OF CONTROL and they NEED the proverbial stick.

Nine years ago the shift at the municipal court went from too much leniency with “Let ‘Em Go” Louden to too much rigidity with getting Jenk’d, but since then Jenks has found ways to work within diversion programs, as funding allows.

But then the pandemic came along, and things changed. From the first link:

There are nearly 200 adults in the Missoula County Detention Center right now, but a Missoula judge says the pandemic has impacted her ability to put offenders behind bars.

“Things are really, really, really difficult right now for both the lower courts but specifically Municipal Court,” Municipal Court Judge Kathleen Jenks said. “The county is refusing to hold our people.”

That’s because of a resolution passed by Missoula County commissioners last March. It says the jail will no longer take those charged with nonviolent misdemeanor offenses, nor those arrested for failing to appear in court, and it’s all because of COVID-19.

The pandemic has given the County, which runs the jail, a golden opportunity to deal with long-simmering jail overcrowding problems and funding disputes with the State by declaring non-violent offenders and fail-to-appearers as non-jail-able. And this where the shift in power comes in (my emphasis):

Jenks tells us it’s gutted the ability to function as a court, and she’s concerned it will stick around longer than expected.

“I think that back in March that made sense in an emergency situation, but we are in this for the long haul now, and its causing a lot of issues, and I think it’s putting the community at risk in a lot of ways,” said Jenks.

Slotnick says he doesn’t think the resolution is putting the community at risk.

Jenks says people are only showing up for their hearings 30% of the time, because they know no one will come get them if they don’t.

She adds control now rests with the Sheriff’s Office, not the courts.

I think that is a remarkable statement for a judge to be making, but I understand where Jenks is coming from.

I also think I understand where this is all going, but that’s for another post.