|
El Paso Shooting Suspect Happened to Attend My High School. Don't Blame Mental Health. |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51342"><span class="small">Katherine Hu, USA TODAY</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 08 August 2019 12:34 |
|
Hu writes: "Many of us are unhappy with our lives, or struggle with mental health - but it doesn't lead us to drive 10 hours from home, release a racist manifesto and target Hispanics at a local Walmart."
Mourners visit a memorial at the site of the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas. (photo: John Locher/AP)

ALSO SEE: El Paso Shooting Victims in Hospital Refused to Meet Trump
El Paso Shooting Suspect Happened to Attend My High School. Don't Blame Mental Health.
By Katherine Hu, USA TODAY
08 August 19
Men like the El Paso shooting suspect — my high school classmate — don't have a monopoly on unhappiness, but Donald Trump gives them a scapegoat.
fter learning about the shooting in El Paso, Texas, my mother went to my bookshelf and pulled down a thick maroon yearbook from my shelf. A book that I had once purchased as a lifelong memory, to someday flip through with my children, now contains the photo of an alleged murderer. Patrick Crusius appears in my yearbook twice — once in his official portrait, and the other in a feature on Plano Senior’s “law enforcement” class.
I didn’t know him. While we graduated in the same year from Plano Senior High School, our class was about 1,500 students. Our graduation was held in the Dallas Cowboys’ practice facility, largely because we can’t fit anywhere else. My connection with him is merely a fleeting coincidence.
This shooting isn't about Crusius; it's about the lives gone and the families hurt. It is not lost on me, however, that this shooting could have occurred at my school, or my local Walmart.
Plano Senior High School is 20.7% Hispanic and in a state where the gun laws are notoriously weak. We also have an open campus, which means that students can leave and come at will, often driving to local restaurants for lunch. There was a school shooting threat scrawled in a bathroom stall my senior year, and last year, a gun was confiscated from a student after he allegedly brought it to Plano West Senior High, a neighboring school.
Alienated men looking for a scapegoat
As far as I know, Crusius was an introvert and he didn’t participate in any extracurriculars while at Plano Senior. However, even if he did struggle with mental health issues, we cannot fall back on blaming it as the reason that at least 22 innocent people in El Paso are dead.
Many of us are unhappy with our lives, or struggle with mental health — but it doesn’t lead us to drive 10 hours from home, release a racist manifesto and target Hispanics at a local Walmart. What the El Paso gunman needed was for someone to offer up a scapegoat, to tell him that his unhappiness wasn’t his fault. Many have found that scapegoat in President Donald Trump, whose words have told young white men that their troubles are not their own, that their inability to find a job or succeed in life is the fault of the nonwhite “other,” that people of color are actively conspiring against their happiness.
Trump’s hate is rooted in plausible deniability, in his ability to deny responsibility for the actions of his supporters. He wants us to believe that he doesn’t understand the power of his words, that he doesn’t know they have the power to become bullets and knives and death threats. But he has seen countless examples of what his words can do.
Donald Trump's words make it worse
Trump's comments toward four congresswomen to “go back" to where they came from were followed by a police officer saying that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., "needs a round.” In April, a self-described Trump supporter called the office of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., saying that he’d “put a bullet in her.” Later that month, when Trump tweeted a video of the twin towers to criticize Omar, the congresswoman said death threats against her spiked.
At a rally in May, Trump called out to the crowd, “How do you stop these people?” when referencing migrants. Someone in the crowd yelled back, “Shoot them!” while the rest of the audience cheered. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see a link between events like these and Crusius, who appeared to share images of the word “Trump” spelled out with guns and allegedly wrote about a “Hispanic invasion" of Texas, harking to Trump’s rhetoric about the “invasion” at the southern border.
The president and Republican leadership can continue to tweet about how tragic this is, about how they believe that mental health and video games drove a gunman to do what he did. But the blood of Saturday's shooting in El Paso is on their hands.
They have created a country where it is OK for young white men to blame entire racial groups for their unhappiness or poor mental health, where nonwhites are subhuman “rodent(s)” and “rapists,” as Trump has suggested. They have created a country where it is no longer safe to go to Walmart, where you can no longer tell your loved ones to stay safe because everywhere is dangerous. They have created a country where disagreeing with someone is enough to kill them.
The president’s words matter — as much as I wish they didn’t.

|
|
RSN: Nancy Pelosi's Bad Attitude Toward Progressives |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 08 August 2019 11:54 |
|
Solomon writes: "Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that a letter from the billionaire real-estate broker George M. Marcus was hand-delivered to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking to meet with her. What are the chances that Pelosi would find time on her calendar?"
Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Getty)

Nancy Pelosi's Bad Attitude Toward Progressives
By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
08 August 19
ere’s a thought experiment: Imagine that a letter from the billionaire real-estate broker George M. Marcus was hand-delivered to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking to meet with her. What are the chances that Pelosi would find time on her calendar?
Hint: Marcus gave $4.5 million to Pelosi’s House Majority PAC during the 2018 election cycle.
Or, if the letter had come from the hedge-fund billionaire James H. Simons — who gave $10 million to that PAC during the last election cycle — would his request for a meeting with Speaker Pelosi be granted?
In contrast, we don’t need to speculate about what would happen if Pelosi received a letter from seven progressive organizations “urgently” requesting a meeting to discuss her recent dismissive comments about four progressive congresswomen — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.
That’s what happened on July 17, when a letter was hand-delivered to Pelosi’s office in Washington. It was signed by progressive groups with millions of active supporters — Demand Progress, Democracy for America, Just Foreign Policy, Our Revolution, Progressive Democrats of America, and RootsAction (where I’m national coordinator). It was also signed by the largest caucus of the biggest state party, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.
After a delay of more than two weeks, Pelosi’s office replied on August 2: “Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi is unable to meet at this time. We will be sure to let you know if anything changes in her schedule.”
Pelosi has earned a reputation as a highly skilled legislative manager and a prodigious fundraiser. But her solicitous skills at cultivating wealthy patrons (the top 15 donors gave a total of $37 million to her House Majority PAC during the 2018 cycle) are matched with her rather contemptuous attitude toward progressives who don’t fit into the equations that compute for her on Capitol Hill.
Our letter pointed out that “the ultimate fate of legislative and electoral efforts will depend on active support from millions of people at the grassroots.” But inside the Capitol bubble, Democratic leadership seems to see progressive grassroots energy as more of a threat than an asset.
A month ago, Pelosi went out of her way to disparage Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley and Tlaib for voting against a bill that lacked adequate refugee protections at the U.S.-Mexico border. Pelosi told The New York Times: “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
Pelosi later met with Ocasio-Cortez, but that did little to repair the damage. Lost in the media hubbub was the reality that Pelosi didn’t only express thinly veiled contempt toward four deeply progressive congresswomen; she was also conveying a similar attitude toward millions of Americans who share their political outlooks, while many have been drawn into political engagement due to their achievements. As our letter put it, “Dismissive comments about new progressive members of Congress have given the impression of a disdainful attitude toward like-minded progressives and Democratic activists across the country.”
Nor have Trump’s racist tweets about the four congresswomen changed the realities of how destructive it is for Speaker Pelosi to disparage those emerging leaders and their truly national grassroots constituencies. If Pelosi is supposed to strive for evenly piloting the Democratic aircraft as House speaker, why is she periodically throwing smoke bombs at its left wing?
The party should be called to account when its leaders let their ostensible principles slide. Pelosi’s ire at the four dissenting Democratic congresswomen was triggered by their strong opposition to inadequate protection for refugees. As our letter to Pelosi said: “At a time when flagrant institutionalized cruelty, racism, xenophobia, misogyny and other forms of bigotry have reached new depths from Republican leaders, we can ill afford the slightest wavering from unequivocal opposition to such extremism. Efforts to strengthen our resolve should be welcomed.”
At the same time, a key underlying reality is Pelosi’s alignment with corporate Democrats who worry about being primaried in 2020. Two of the four congresswomen in “The Squad” — Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley — won their seats by defeating incumbents in Democratic primaries last year. They’ve set a good example for progressives while making many House Democrats nervous.
This week, several thousand constituents have used a RootsAction webpage to send individual emails to House Democrats, telling their representative: “I realize that the Speaker is powerful on Capitol Hill, but I ask you to summon the courage to speak up and push her to permanently stop taking sides against progressive lawmakers.”
As I wrote nine months ago, “progressives should recognize the longstanding House Democratic leader as a symptom of a calcified party hierarchy that has worn out its grassroots welcome and is beginning to lose its grip. Increasingly at odds with the Democratic Party’s mobilized base, that grip has held on with gobs of money from centralized, deep-pocket sources — endlessly reinforcing continual deference to corporate power and an ongoing embrace of massively profitable militarism.”
At a time when the virulent racism of the Trump regime is becoming more flagrant, it might seem a divergence to challenge the Democratic Party’s leadership. On the contrary. The imperative of preventing Trump’s re-election will require massive engagement and a huge turnout of the Democratic base — exactly what doesn’t happen when party leaders are aloof, elitist, enthralled with Wall Street, and dismissive of genuinely progressive principles.
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and is currently a coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network. Solomon is the author of a dozen books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
|
FOCUS: Joe Biden Is Coming for Your Legal Weed |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51340"><span class="small">Chris Roberts, VICE</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 08 August 2019 11:13 |
|
Roberts writes: "In his 40 years in the Senate, as is now well known, Biden was a key architect of harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent drug users."
Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg)

Joe Biden Is Coming for Your Legal Weed
By Chris Roberts, Vice
08 August 19
The former VP and 2020 candidate's plan for cannabis is the industry's worst nightmare: It could blow up the system across the country.
o one person created America's war on drugs. No individual is responsible for the accompanying manufactured crises of mass incarceration and impoverishment of working class communities of color. But in the same shamed strata as Richard Nixon and Nancy Reagan, in the view of many, you can find Joe Biden, the wobbly 2020 frontrunner and former vice president.
In his 40 years in the Senate, as is now well known, Biden was a key architect of harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent drug users. Undoing much of his own work was one way to make sense of a large part of the criminal justice plan his presidential campaign recently released. Finding a centrist's safe-and-happy medium on weed in particular, Biden has not embraced legalization—a.k.a. commercialized, recreational pot use—but has claimed to back decriminalization, or removing at least most pot offenses from the criminal justice system.
But Biden is actually pushing a policy that could wreck the growing American weed industry and massively disrupt users' access to the drug, attorneys, consultants, academics, and entrepreneurs well-versed in US cannabis policy say.
"I view Biden's plan as a ham-fisted handing over of cannabis to the pharmaceutical industry," said Gavin Kogan, a California-based cannabis executive and attorney who chairs Grupo Flor, a large, vertically-integrated cannabis firm.
Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I controlled substance, the classification intended for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no medical value—a designation contradicted by a 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review, mocked on a daily basis by dozens of states with medical-use laws, and that even Attorney General William Barr apparently believes is untenable.
Other than cannabis, there are no major state-legal markets for Schedule I drugs. Would making weed Schedule II—intended only for strictly controlled pharmaceutical drugs, and not recreational nor wellness products, the rubrics under which cannabis is often marketed and sold to Americans—make more sense? It might, but here's the catch: Drugs listed under Schedule II (which include cocaine and methamphetamine as well as prescription opiates like fentanyl) are available legally but only under strict Food and Drug Administration controls. That is, only with a doctor's prescription, only after a lengthy FDA-overseen approval process that can include years of clinical trials (and then sold only via a licensed pharmacy), and only for limited applications.
In other words, there are no Schedule II drugs grown, processed, and sold in the way cannabis is brought to market in the United States, either—so that label, too, is probably inadequate. More to the point, if strictly enforced to the letter, Biden's marijuana policy could rip cannabis away from its current producers and sellers and hand over control of commercial weed to corporate interests instead.
"If the federal government actually enforced the CSA [Controlled Substances Act] Schedule II [on cannabis in a Biden administration], then almost all current state-legal activities would be banned and could be shut down," said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College who has served as co-director of the nonpartisan RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center.
In order to continue as normal, the cannabis industry would need to lobby for the same "explicit exemption" enjoyed by alcohol and tobacco—and "it’s not in the bag," Caulkins said. "So they have a reason to worry. It could all come crashing down."
Big and small, weed entrepreneurs are worried. Some seemed downright terrified.
"The traditional businesses, many of whom have paved the way on the policy reform side, would be completely left out of the conversation," said Lindsay Robinson, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, which counts over 500 business members in the country’s largest and oldest legal weed market.
The reality for both producers and consumers "would be substantially different under the purview of the FDA," she added. "Who knows how long it would take patients and advocates to have access to the cannabis they’re now using?"
It wasn't just advocates with skin—financial or otherwise—in the game suggesting Biden's plan would likely amount to a gift to a few key players. Experts said the impact of the policy, if enacted, was pretty cut-and-dried.
“To the extent that FDA regulation always favors bigger companies that can afford to meet the regulations, then, yes, putting cannabis in Schedule II would be a sort of Big Pharma model,” said David Herzberg, a historian at the University at Buffalo who specializes in drug policy and authored Happy Pills in America: From Miltown to Prozac, a review of how prescription drugs have been developed, marketed, and sold.
To date, states have regulated cannabis through health departments, liquor-control boards, or new agencies specifically created to deal with weed. Kogan's company is based in central California, in a mostly poor, heavily Latinx agricultural county banking on cannabis for an economic boom. Kogan helped cofound multiple brands and Grupo Flor runs massive cannabis cultivation operations in greenhouses previously affiliated with the floral industry.
This arguably makes Kogan "big weed," and as a white male who wears a business suit, an avatar for the well-capitalized newcomers that old-school and smaller-scale weed businesses view as a mortal threat. But under the terms of Biden's criminal justice plan, not just "mom and pop" weed operators but people like Kogan, too, would be pushed out of business, he argued.
After all, FDA-approved drugs must survive a battery of clinical trials before they can be marketed and sold. Many cannabis companies don't have the resources enjoyed by a Merck or a Pfizer to pay for those trials without a revenue stream. And selling cannabis in a pharmacy rather than dispensaries would likely trash both the normal sales model in which Americans legally access weed, as well as the taxation structure set up in those states.
It's not clear exactly how Biden hit upon Schedule II as the magic solution, or if he took input from drug-policy reform advocates or cannabis industry players—or took cues instead from the anti-legalization activists working against them. A spokesman for Biden's campaign did not respond to emails, text messages, or a phone call seeking comment.
"There's no way this [Biden's plan] will ever go far enough to remedy the damages these communities of color have suffered," said Solonje Burnett, co-founder of the Brooklyn-based cannabis brand hub Humble Bloom, adding that his was a "half measure" that put him on "the wrong side of history, again."
Indeed, within hours of the plan's release, Biden was critiqued—or subtweeted, really—by fellow presidential hopeful Cory Booker, who has proposed full legalization on the federal level. But he's not just behind his fellow Democrats. According to a bevy of industry players interviewed, Biden's plan would be worse for weed in America than anything proposed under Donald Trump.
"His stance is to blow up 90 percent of the existing regulated and traditional market," said Sean Donahoe, an Oakland, California-based cannabis-industry consultant. That could be a disruption worse, even, than any George Bush or Barack Obama-era crackdown—when many businesses and operators suffered raids or received threatening letters.
This "shows [Biden's] fundamental worldview is framed through a corporate lens with no regard for existing operators, nor good public policy," Donahoe added.
As absurd as it might be to list cannabis in Schedule I, lumping weed with opiates, coke, and pharmaceuticals in Schedule II is also intellectually dishonest, critics said.
"Cannabis, like anything, has risks, but it doesn’t have those risks," said the University at Buffalo’s Herzberg.
Fundamentally, though, the problem is that Schedule II "would still present a conflict with the existing state medical and adult-use cannabis programs that are on the books in 47 states," said Erich Pearson, who owns cannabis dispensaries in San Francisco and in California's Sonoma County, and sits on the board of the Denver-based National Cannabis Industry Association. (Pearson is also a longtime supporter of Sen. Kamala Harris and recently appeared at a Harris presidential campaign fundraiser, according to his Facebook page and FEC filings.)
Under most existing medical-marijuana laws, cannabis is available to sick people with a "qualifying condition" listed under state law who receive a "recommendation" from a physician to use the drug, which is then acquired from a dispensary or grown by a caregiver.
Most cannabis use "is not medical," period, Caulkins noted. Further, most medical cannabis use "would not meet standard FDA approval process."
Whether a Biden-led FDA would have either the ability or the desire to punish every cannabis operator who violated such a policy framework is doubtful. But the takeaway is that Biden's plan as proposed could destroy established businesses. Then again, it might be good for the likes of Altria, the tobacco-industry giant that invested $1.8 billion in Canadian cannabis company Cronos and has also patented dozens of vaporizer devices.
In his defense, Biden has expressed awareness that the war on drugs as he helped wage it is no longer tenable. Biden "is here saying no one should be in jail because of cannabis use," a senior Biden campaign aide speaking on condition of anonymity told reporters before the plan's release. Biden also "very much believes that we need more research and [to] study the positive and negative impact of cannabis use," added the aide.
But his plan wouldn't even do that, skeptics said.
The proposal would do for cannabis "the same thing it’s done for meth: Ensure reduced research initiatives, selective prosecution, and a thriving black market," said Michael Backes, a Southern California-based cannabis industry consultant and author of Cannabis Pharmacy: The Practical Guide to Medical Marijuana.
Selling cannabis like other Schedule II drugs, in "a closed system, only by prescription, only sold by licensed pharmacies, would be massively disruptive," Herzberg concluded. "It would produce massive changes—and if it were actually enforced, there could be no recreational marijuana at all."

|
|
Learn the Damn Speech! |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51339"><span class="small">Al Franken, Al Franken's Website</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 08 August 2019 08:26 |
|
Franken writes: "One of the most frustrating parts of being an American during these past couple years has been trying to process the sheer tonnage of lies, the endless vitriol and stupidity, the unyielding crassness, cynicism, and self-aggrandizement, not to mention the sheer cruelty coming on a daily basis from Donald Trump."
Former Senator Al Franken. (photo: Getty)

Learn the Damn Speech!
By Al Franken, Al Franken's Website
08 August 19
ne of the most frustrating parts of being an American during these past couple years has been trying to process the sheer tonnage of lies, the endless vitriol and stupidity, the unyielding crassness, cynicism, and self-aggrandizement, not to mention the sheer cruelty coming on a daily basis from Donald Trump. It is so overwhelming that it all sort of blends into one nightmarish mountain range of bullshit.
At a certain point, the brain gives up. There is no sense trying to remember his childish taunts, malicious calumnies, and transparently empty boasts. Just wait a few minutes. There’ll be a new one.
Keeping track of, let alone cataloguing, his daily stream of effluent, quickly became an impossible exercise, especially, I would imagine, for the poor souls whose job it is to do just that. But every once in a while, I will find a new category of affront that screams, “point me out!”
And that is Trump’s unwillingness to step up during a moment of national pain and deliver a speech meant to provide some comfort to Americans in a manner that makes you believe he gives shit. Remember, this is a guy who criticized President Obama for using a teleprompter. Yet, when he spoke yesterday about the tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, his expressionless face appeared to be mounted on a swivel-head, turning mechanically from one prompter to another in a way that suggested that he was reading the words for the first time and that he really felt he had better things to do.
Mr. President, when more than thirty people are randomly gunned down by two men in two American cities within hours of each other, and one of the killers had written a manifesto borrowing heavily from your own words, it’s time to step up and at least say something that, while not particularly comforting, (not your forte), at least sounds sincere. Some tips. Practice the speech. Start by reading it. Several times. That way, when you say the words for the cameras, they will seem familiar to you and you may understand why you are saying what you’re saying. Try to rewrite the speech, if just slightly, in your own words – enough to make it sound like you mean what are saying. Don’t gin up emotion if you don’t have any to gin up. But at least make an attempt to pretend that you grieve for those who died and their friends and family.
Don’t go to El Paso. Or to Dayton. But especially El Paso. The families and friends of those who were massacred there have every right to believe that your words from the moment you started your campaign at Trump Tower, then throughout your campaign, and to the very day of the shooting – that those words encouraged the shooter and that their loved ones may very well be alive were it not for the hatred you’ve been spewing almost daily.
Give the speech – a new speech – that expresses heartfelt sadness and grief. Do it from the Oval Office, not from one of your golf courses. And try to make it sound like you’re sincere, even if you’re not. That will require some work. But it will be worth it. Understand how desperate all of us are for some reassurance that there are indeed limits to your unfeeling cruelty. Please. Not just for the people of El Paso and Dayton. But for all Americans.

|
|