Democrats Want Trump To Do Rallies Like Tulsa Every Night 'Til November

Even Tulsa Republicans are smarter than Trump gave them credit for 

Trump-- still stealing Tom Petty's music after his death-- was served with a cease and desist order after he used I Won't Back Down at the poorly attended Tulsa hate rally last night. This is the anti-racism tweet from Tom's wife and 3 children during the rally:

The big takeaways from the botched rally, though, was not about Petty's music nor even about how K-Pop fans and TikTok teens faked out Brad Parscale and Trump by registering in the hundreds of thousands for tickets as a prank-- a prank Parscale fell for, hook, line and sinker. Maggie Haberman explained why that was meaningful-- aside from all the empty seats:

So the big take away wasn't that the fire marshal told the media that "there were only about 6,100 people in the arena" for Trump’s standup comedy routine, even though the space can hold 19,000. The reviews of the event were savage. "By the time Trump took the stage in Tulsa, there were thousands of empty seats in the arena. The overflow area was scrapped. And aides were left trying to explain why a president who has placed enormous value on his crowd sizes was addressing a smaller-than-expected audience." And "Trump’s attempt to revive his re-election campaign sputtered badly on Saturday night as he traveled to Tulsa for his first mass rally in months and found a far smaller crowd than his aides had promised him, then delivered a disjointed speech that did not address the multiple crises facing the nation or scandals battering him in Washington."

Having watched Trump's routine while eating dinner Saturday night (a citrus and avocado salad, gnocchi and a mixed fruit and berry pie I whipped up) what a saw was a pathetic old man unable to articulate a vision for a country's whose grip on the term "the greatest country on earth" is becoming shakier by the day, who instead shared a disjointed and sadly obsessive list of the most petty of personal grievances with a small crowd of people too stupid and too ignorant to understand what a pandemic is and how they were putting themselves and their intimates in harm's way for... a night of cheap entertainment.

That was one big takeaway... maybe too abstract? How about that Trump admitted, publicly, that "he told officials to administer fewer coronavirus tests to keep case numbers down." He doesn't understand that testing helps save peoples' lives. Malignant sociopaths and narcissist s like Trump have no empathy and no ability to understand the world outside of their own ego-centric bubble. It's all about Trump, not the 2,332,023 people-- as of this writing-- who have contracted COVID-19 in the U.S., nor the 122,019 Americans who died while Trump fretted that the testing numbers may have made him look bad.

Death Of A Salesman by Nancy Ohanian

On Saturday those numbers of new cases were spiraling out of control, many of them in "Trump states," like Texas (4,250 new cases on Saturday), Florida (4,049 new cases on Saturday), Arizona (3,109 new cases on Saturday), Georgia (1,800 new cases on Saturday), Louisiana (1,231 new cases on Saturday), South Carolina (1,155 new cases on Saturday), as well as big big spikes in Arkansas, Utah, Alabama, Missouri and, of course, Oklahoma. The U.S. average over the last couple of months has been around 20,000 a day. Now that Trump and his pet governors have forced unsafe, willy-nilly reopenings, the daily national averages are over 30,000 new cases.

After claiming the United States has tested 25 million people, Trump said: “When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people, you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, ‘Slow the testing down, please!’ ” A White House official later told The Washington Post that Trump was joking.

Eight states on Saturday reported their highest single-day case counts since the pandemic began, and daily new infections nationwide exceeded 30,000 on both Friday and Saturday. The country has not seen daily totals that high in more than seven weeks.

It isn't as though Trump doesn't worry about people getting COVID. The NY Times reported that last night he flipped out when it was reported that 6 of his White House staffers who were working on the Tulsa rally had tested positive for COVID-19. Again, in his sick, warped mind, it made him look bad. 

The Less Than One Percent Club-- The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party

The other day, I noted how there are six 2020 presidential candidates actively campaigning, each of whom has so little support than none of them even tops half a percent in the polls. One, former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, went to the California Democratic Party convention over the weekend to extol capitalism and undermine Bernie. This is what happened to the clueless asshole. Frackenlooper wasn't the only candidate to be booed at the convention. John Delaney-- who insists he's further right than either Frackenlooper or Status Quo Joe-- purposely baited the convention by using flase Republican Party talking points to demean Medicare-For-All-- and was roundly and loudly booed. Mission accomplished. Delaney, the first Democrat to announce his 2020 candidacy-- now having lent his campaign $16,280,000.00 (half of which is already flushed down the toilet)-- has a polling average of 0.5% nationally, 1.5% in Iowa (where he has been living for over a year and spending millions on advertising), and 0.3% in New Hampshire.


Eight elected officials being overwhelmingly rejected by Democratic primary voters:

• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard- 0.7%
• Rep. Tim Ryan- 0.7%
• Rep. John Delaney- 0.5%
• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand- 0.3%
• Gov. John Hickenlooper- 0.3%
• Rep. Seth Moulton- 0.2%
• Gov. Steve Bullock- 0.2%
• Sen. Mike Bennet- 0.2%

It would seem that Delaney, who walked out of the San Francisco convention as the most hated candidate, really has a lot to lose-- having sold his House seat to another multi-millionaire and having already spent so much on his campaign. Was he trying to get boo-ed so that he can use the footage in ads showing how conservative he is? Is that how he thinks he's going to win the Democratic nomination? Or is he hoping for a job inside the Trump regime?

Yesterday, writing for The Hill, Scott Wong surveyed the biggest losers in the 2020 cycle. "Tim Ryan. John Delaney. Eric Swalwell. Their names," he wrote, "don't spark the same nods of recognition as former Vice President Joe Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but these are three of the 24 Democrats running for president. Each is polling at less than 1 percent-- and they're hardly alone. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and Sen. Michael Bennet (CO) also have national polling averages under 1 percent, according to RealClearPolitics. So do two candidates with arguably more national name recognition. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's polling average is 0.3 percent, just behind Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's (NY) 0.4 percent." For no apparent reason, Wong awarded Gillibrand an extra 0.01%... but who's quibbling? The main question most people ask about most of them is when will they get out of the race or why are they running in the first place.

All of these candidates, along with a few others in the crowded race, are decided long shots to win the nomination. But all stand to benefit from a race that will bring attention even to those candidates pulling in relatively few votes.

“There are candidates who are running to win, and there are candidates who are running to raise their profile,” said Chris Kofinis, who served as a senior adviser to the presidential campaigns of Wesley Clarke in 2004 and John Edwards in 2008.

The long-shot candidates say they don’t see themselves that way. They see a wide-open race for the Democratic nomination, arguing that if the front-runners falter, they have as good a shot as anyone at catching fire. With the unpredictability of Trump-era politics, they say it can pay just to have your name in the mix.

In reality, many of the candidates know they are doomed, say veteran Democrats, but see the race as a chance to boost their profiles and position themselves for future opportunities.

“The next six months are going to distinguish which ones are really running and which ones aren’t,” Kofinis said.

Some candidates are young and playing the long game. Eric Swalwell, the California congressman, and Tulsi Gabbard, the Hawaii congresswoman, are both 38; Julián Castro, the Obama-era Housing and Urban Development secretary, is 44; and Ryan, the Ohio congressman, is 45.

With the first Democratic primary debate just weeks away, experts say a failed presidential bid now could set some candidates up for a stronger run in 2024, 2028 or beyond.

Other White House hopefuls may be gunning for Cabinet posts in a new Democratic administration-- Commerce or Labor secretary-- or aiming for a future bid for a higher office, such as senator or governor. Most wouldn't mind being picked as a vice presidential running mate, as front-runner Joe Biden was after his failed 2008 White House bid-- though that seems highly unlikely for a candidate pulling in just 1 percent support.

The bottom line is these candidates see little downside in a failed shot at the presidency. A White House run in this never-ending campaign media cycle-- chock-full of CNN and MSNBC town halls, televised debates, and cable news hits-- will raise these candidates' profiles no matter how their campaigns fare. That could lead to future book deals, speaking gigs or cable news contracts.

Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), who serves with many of the candidates but has yet to endorse, said the motivation is “all of the above.”

“Just as likely, it’s that running for president could be a stepping stone to other things,” he said. “Just the fact that they are a presidential candidate who throws their support ultimately to the person that wins” could lead to other opportunities.

Yet another possible explanation: Some long-shot candidates are running to draw attention to a pet issue or cause they feel is being ignored by some of the top-tier contenders.

Jay Inslee, the Washington state governor, is billing himself as the climate change candidate.

Seth Moulton, a Marine and Iraq War veteran who is a congressman from Massachusetts, launched his mental health plan this week by disclosing that he had personally been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD.

“I'm sharing my experience because I want people to know they're not alone and they should feel empowered to get the treatment they need,” tweeted Moulton, whose polling average stands at just 0.3 percent.

Ryan, the insurgent who challenged Nancy Pelosi for minority leader after Democrats’ 2016 drubbing, has turned his focus to job loss and the opioid epidemic in Rust Belt districts like his, which he says have too long been ignored by his party.

“Come to Youngstown, Ohio, and see what communities are actually going through, and you'll see why I'm running and why I have a shot,” Ryan told The Hill during an interview at the Capitol. “There's a lot of communities that look like that. And people are fed up and tired of being ignored.”

...One member of the long-shot pool who has had more time than others to get his name out there is John Delaney. The wealthy businessman and former Maryland congressman became the first Democrat to enter the race when he announced his campaign in 2017, planning to use his own money to build name recognition in places such as Iowa and New Hampshire. But so far, the strategy hasn’t paid dividends.

Asked if he’s running for some other political position, Delaney replied, “I’m running for president. That’s all I got to say about it. Opinions are like people’s mouths. Everyone has one.”

Still, he conceded that it has been a challenge to break through the news cycle when there are 24 Democrats vying for the nomination, including a former vice president and a handful of governors and senators.

Amid an increasingly prominent progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Delaney still sees a lane for a centrist, bipartisan, pro-business candidate like himself.

...“I think we’ve entered the theater of the absurd with this many candidates in the race, where reality and logic suggests the overwhelming majority simply won’t be competitive,” said one Democratic campaign strategist.

“Try to convince candidates they can’t win when they’ve convinced themselves they can is a losing proposition… A lot of it is ego, man. It's ego,” the strategist added.

Delaney was always a bad fit for the Democratic Party. One of his former colleagues in the House told me "no one liked him and no one trusted him... everyone was glad when he announced he was retiring. Now he feels the only way forward for him is to tear down Biden, who dominates the conservative lane Delaney had hoped he would have to himself. Delaney goes on Fox to criticize Bernie and Kamala and Elizabeth Warren and by raging against progressive policies. Recently he praised Biden as "very well known and he’s very well liked, and I admire him greatly." BUT... "I think my ideas are better. I think I’m a new face, which I think is what the party really wants. I think we want new ideas and new people... I think in many ways it’s a reminder that we need a moderate candidate who can win the center to beat Donald Trump... The only way we’re going to beat [Trump] is with a candidate the center believes will not derail the progress we’ve made economically. For example, if you put socialism on the ballot, we’re not going to win. If the economy’s doing well and we’re running on socialism, I think that’s a disaster for us."

Is this the new face the Democratic Party is looking for? Trump will never get THAT lucky!

Younger Than Yesterday-- Bernie, Not Trump

Hunter Walker, Yahoo News' White House correspondent reported last week that Bernie is set to announce that he's running. My sources inside the gestating campaign told me Walker is just guessing. And yesterday, like every political junking in the country, they were all reading Mike Allen's and Jim Vanderhei's Axios news that coming face to face with the progressive base of the Democratic Party is making 3 of the most conservative Democrats who were thinking of running-- Bloomberg, Biden and McAuliffe-- start reconsidering (along with the Starbucks guy). Gillibrand somehow thinks she's covered her tracks well enough to not fit in with the right-of-center crowd that spawned her to begin with.

"Michael Bloomberg and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe," they reported, "each of whom were virtual locks to run, are having serious second thoughts after watching Democrats embrace Medicare for All, big tax increases and the Green New Deal. Joe Biden, who still wants to run, is being advised to delay any plans to see how this lurch to the left plays out. If Biden runs, look for Bloomberg and McAuliffe to bow out, the sources tell us. The Democratic attacks on Howard Schultz, after he said he was considering an independent bid, reflect the current party's limited appetite for" what Beltway tools always try to call "moderation," but is actually conservatism. Vanderhei and Allen, like most of the corporate shills at Axios always call the politicians on the right and far right of the Democratic Party "moderates." They were also plotting because polling in Iowa "found that 'socialism' had a net positive rating, while 'capitalism' had a net negative rating."

Of course the establishment will do anything to stop Bernie and it goes beyond ideological attacks. We've talked about the ageist attacks before. Last December, former progressive champion, now a sold-out lobbyist, told the Morning Joe audience that he thinks "the country has moved to the left. It’s shocking to me, but a majority of Americans think that Medicare-For-All is a good idea. Frankly, Bernie gets a lot of credit for that. I don’t think he’s gonna be the next nominee… but he could be. I’m very much for somebody who’s younger. I think my generation has got to get the hell out of politics, start coaching and start moving up this next generation." He then went on to name a pack of mostly unaccomplished newcomers known only to insiders and lobbyists like himself, plugging corporatist Kirsten Gillibrand, as well Kamala Harris, Chris Murphy, who isn't running, and Eric Garcetti, who has wisely announced he isn't running.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote that Biden And Bloomberg Are Too Old To Be President-- Bernie Isn't And Here's Why. It had nothing to do with chronological age, just with ideas and political agendas. When you hear conservative jackasses scolding younger Congress members like AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and telling them to grow up or stop acting like children, they can probably throw Bernie in there too. What conservatives can't grapple with are the ideas these people are putting forward. On Tuesday, Mike Bloomberg said the push to legalize recreational marijuana "is perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done." Now that's old! Really, really, disqualifyingly old. And ignorant. "Last year, in 2017, 72,000 Americans OD’d [overdosed] on drugs. In 2018, more people than that are OD-ing on drugs, have OD’d on drugs, and today, incidentally, we are trying to legalize another addictive narcotic, which is perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done." His idea on pot is from the 1950s. Biden has similarly old fogey perspectives on the world. He doesn't understand Medicare-For-All and he doesn't understand the Green New Deal. It would be a complete waste of time to nominate the Warren G. Harding of the Democratic Party to follow Trump. Trump is ignorant and venal but his instincts are much "hipper" than two squares like Bloomberg and Biden. Bernie on the other hand... he may not skateboard or do Ramones covers, but his ideas are way hipper-- and more fearless-- than Beto's.

Yesterday, writing for the Boston Globe, Robert Weisman opened a can of worms: Too Old To Lead The Nation? That Sounds Lke Ageism To Some. "Fifty-eight years after President John F. Kennedy proclaimed 'the torch has been passed to a new generation,' many Democrats long for another young dynamo, one who can harness the energy of millennials to oust President Trump. That could bode ill for the parade of septuagenarians readying their campaigns."

But a growing movement of older Americans bristles at the notion that gray hair is a deficit-- that the demands of a youth-obsessed culture require candidates with long resumes to step aside. When some candidates say generational change, they hear ageism.

“Of course it’s ageist,” said Ashton Applewhite, a writer and activist whose 2016 book, This Chair Rocks, is billed as a manifesto against age discrimination. “Any call for young blood without evidence that an old person is incompetent or that a young person can do the job better is like saying a black person can’t do the job, or a woman can’t do the job.”

Generational change may be the central dynamic in the 2020 presidential campaign. Age is the subtext of every conversation about new ideas versus experience, every debate about whether a candidate can capture the millennial imagination. And there’s a clear generational split in the crowded field of those hoping to replace Trump, now 72, who was the oldest candidate elected to the presidency in American history.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who formed an exploratory committee last month, turns 70 this summer. Several other prospective contenders are in their mid-70s: former vice president Joe Biden, who is 76; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 77; and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, 76, to name a few.

Another cohort of those eyeing the nomination is at least 20 years younger, including Senators Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who are in their 50s, and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, former Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and former Obama administration housing secretary Julian Castro, also of Texas, who are in their 40s.

At the same time, the electorate’s demographics are changing. An analysis of census data by the Pew Research Center found that millennials and Generation Xers-- people ages 18 to 55-- together cast nearly 70 million votes in the 2016 presidential election, a majority of the 137.5 million total.

“Millennials are emerging as the dominant force in American politics and will soon supplant baby boomers as the group that decides elections,” said state Senator Eric Lesser, 33, a Longmeadow Democrat who worked as an Obama aide and runs a millennial caucus in the Legislature. “And they’re fed up that everything in their lives has changed-- the way they work, the way they shop-- except government” and its inability to solve problems.

But some advocates for older people object to the notion that the seventysomethings are yesterday’s news, or are simply “too old,” as some activists have complained.

“Saying people are ‘too old’ is reflective of an outmoded idea,” said Eric Schneidewind, a Michigan lawyer who stepped down last year as AARP’s national president. “If you can get through the meat grinder of a presidential election, whatever your age, you’ve made it through trial by combat.”

Voter preferences don’t always hew to generational lines. Sanders racked up margins of more than 2 to 1 among millennials in his antiestablishment campaign against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. And while young voters in the November midterms also powered insurgents who won seats in the House like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, of New York City, and Ayanna Pressley, 44, of Boston, they were joined by many older voters, especially women and people of color.

Still, a surfeit of older candidates could be a problem for the Democrats, who need to electrify the party’s base in the next presidential race.

“The Democratic Party is getting younger, but some of the candidates are very old,” said political strategist Brad Bannon, president of a Washington polling firm. “That’s a dangerous combination. We’re on the cusp of a generational change, and generational change is incredibly disruptive.”

Rather than tap into that sentiment openly, younger candidates will make the appeal obliquely, he said.

“You can’t say Joe Biden is too old,” Bannon said. “You can say he represents the policies of the past. You can say there’s a need for a fresh approach for a new age.”

The mayor of South Bend, Ind., Pete Buttigieg, 37, who launched a long-shot campaign for president last week, is appealing explicitly to fellow millennials by calling for “intergenerational justice” and stressing issues, like school shootings and climate change, that resonate with young people.

But candidates have to be careful in making generational arguments.

Representative Seth Moulton, 40, of Salem, who’s also weighing a presidential run, was roundly criticized by Democratic loyalists when he called for a “new generation of leadership” in initially opposing the bid of Representative Nancy Pelosi, 78, a woman with decades of experience, to be House speaker. One lesson: Many voters don’t see women, largely absent from the power structure until recently, as part of the old guard.

Youthful Democrats who can draw a generational contrast more artfully have been rewarded in presidential races over the past decades. Kennedy was 43 when he was elected president in 1960, while Bill Clinton was 46 when he won his race in 1992, and Barack Obama was 47 when elected in 2008. All of them defeated older Republican candidates-- and succeeded older Republican incumbents.

“There’s a compelling argument for a younger candidate,” Lesser said. But he added that ideas for creating opportunity and improving people’s lives matter more to millennials than age.

“We’re the first generation that will have lower living standards than our parents,” he said, “because of student loans, rising inequality, and skyrocketing housing and health costs.”

But Americans over 65, a bloc of about 50 million people who are among the most reliable voters, are dealing with their own issues, including workplace discrimination and financial stresses, that some believe aren’t fully understood by younger candidates. While they benefit from Social Security, one of the few government programs that enjoys a sterling reputation, they worry about health care-- a concern Democrats traditionally exploit during election season by warning voters that Republicans want to cut Medicare.

“From my perspective, the concerns of older persons aren’t very well addressed in the general population,” said Jack Kupferman, president of Gray Panthers NYC, an advocacy group.

“There’s always a need for new ideas,” he added, “but there’s also a need for continuity and experience. And some of the older candidates are the ones that have the new ideas.”

Looking at the business world, Harvard professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter said younger entrepreneurs and managers bring innovations vital to commercial success.

But she also finds value in “adult supervision,” especially in the political realm. Kanter cited Pelosi, 78, who she said channels her experience into effective action. “There’s a lot of feisty energy that in another era might have been put out to pasture,” she said.

A president doesn’t have to be young to “make room for a new generation’s fresh thinking,” she added. It’s available for hire by smart leaders.

“Every White House is full of young fresh idea people running around,” she said.

By the way, the recent Marist poll for NPR that measured popularity among Democratic voters for their candidates indicated that the only candidates with a favorability over 50% were all pretty old-- Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Biden.

We Can't Let The Wasserman Schultz Machine Steal The Election Again

Last December we tried untangling the mess of how Wasserman Schultz, one of the most loathed figures in American politics, managed to steal her reelection bid in 2016. It was Politico's Marc Caputo who broke the a story about how Brenda Snipes, a crooked Wasserman Schultz crony and ally and the Broward County elections chief, broke the law by destroying ballots cast in the tight primary election between Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova after Canova sued to get access to the ballots. Canova, according to Caputo "wanted to inspect the optical-scan ballots cast in his Aug. 30 primary race against Wasserman Schultz because he had concerns about the integrity of the elections office."

This year, Canova is challenging Wasserman Schultz again, and mostly playing down his on-going lawsuit against the Broward Supervisor of Elections. He'd rather debate Wasserman Schultz on the core issues that inform his campaign-- from reversing income and wealth inequality, addressing Climate Change, regulating Wasserman Schultz's allies in the payday lending indutsry and developing "sensible, humane and comprehensive immigration reform" to curbing gun violence, Medicare-for-All, ending for-profit prisons, ending the war on drugs and campaign finance reform.

A few days ago, though, Canova did address the law suit so many of his supporters have asked about. "After our 2016 run against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her corrupt political machine," he wrote, "a number of election integrity experts expressed serious concerns about the official results. Rather than ignoring their research, I decided to try to verify the vote by inspecting the ballots under Florida’s public records law."

All too often, election frauds are swept under the rug, especially when it’s establishment Democrats cheating progressive and grassroots Democrats. We saw this happen in state after state where Bernie Sanders and his campaign were cheated. In New York City alone, more than 200,000 citizens were purged from the voting rolls in the days prior to New York’s 2016 presidential primary. The New York City Board of Elections admitted to all this, and yet there’s been no real punishment for the massive fraud.

I was determined to shine a light on any corruption that may have rigged my own election results against Wasserman Schultz. I felt that I owed nothing less to the thousands of supporters who stepped up to make donations and volunteer their time to my campaign. So, when Dr. Brenda Snipes, the Broward Supervisor of Elections stonewalled our public records request, I filed a lawsuit last June to enforce our rights.

Incredibly, while the lawsuit was pending, the Supervisor destroyed all of our paper ballots in violation of federal law!

We must not let this scandal involving Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s own reelection be swept under the rug...

Earlier this week, we hand delivered a letter to the Florida Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, the state’s top elections official, informing him of the evidence uncovered in our lawsuit and urging him to conduct a full investigation into Dr. Snipes’ misconduct.

We also followed up with letters to hundreds of state and local elected officials and Democratic and Republican party leaders throughout Florida, urging them to join in our call for action.

  We will not be silent or complicit in the frauds and riggings of our elections. This has not been easy. We have taken a lot of heat from the establishment and we have had to divert significant campaign resources to our lawsuit and inspection efforts. Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz has quietly been raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate interests.

Please consider helping Tim with this crucial primary-- ultimately the only way to hold Wasserman Schultz accountable for years and years of corruption and anti-democratic operations that have dragged the Democratic Party brand through the mud and slime. Please click on the Blue America congressional thermometer on the right and contribute what you can to Tim's entirely grassroots campaign. Let's send a message to the corrupt DC establishments of both parties that politicians like Wasserman Schultz aren't going to get away with it any longer.

Trump Has Been All Talk, No Action On The Opioid Crisis

Tom Petty was an old friend. The first time we met in person, it involved me watching with amusement while he Dwight Twilley and a journalist friend chasing each other around a hotel room for the last bit on coke in an envelope. I think that was right before or right after the release of American Girl. More recently, many decades later, Tom became the latest of several superstars-- Prince, Heath Ledger, Philip Seymour Hoffman-- to die from opioid use. Most people caught up in the epidemic aren't superstars and aren't multimillionaires and will only be mourned by their families and close friends. Chronic pain hits all strata of society-- and is making pharmaceutical companies profitable beyond reason. According to the CDC, the highest death rates from opioid overdoses are in Trump country-- West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky-- but there are no states that are immune from the scourge.

Trump's rhetoric about fighting a war against the opioid epidemic went over well in West Virginia counties like McDowell and Kanawha-- which had the highest overdose mortality rate in the U.S. Kanawha gave Trump 58% of its vote and McDowell gave him a startling 74.7%. In October Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national public health emergency. That looked like a big deal... but it wasn't, since there was no funding behind it, just more empty rhetoric, what former congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), a member of Trump's commission called "a charade" and "a sham... tantamount to reshuffling chairs on the Titanic...You can't expect to stem the tide of a public health crisis that is claiming over 64,000 lives per year without putting your money where your mouth is." Trump, he said is "playing politics instead of pursuing solutions for issues that impact the lives of Americans. For people and families struggling with addiction in this epidemic, it's essentially been a government shutdown from the start."

Yesterday, German Lopez, writing for Vox, reported that the consensus from experts and advocates agree: "a lot of talk, little action." It's basically been a year of empty p.r. Trump promised everything-- and delivered nothing.

There has been no move by Trump’s administration to actually spend more money on the opioid crisis. Key positions in the administration remain unfilled, even without nominees in the case of the White House’s drug czar office and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). And although Trump’s emergency declaration was renewed last week, it has led to essentially no action since it was first signed-- no significant new resources, no major new initiatives.

Chuck Ingoglia, a senior vice president at the National Council for Behavioral Health, which advocates on addiction issues, summarized the general takeaway of experts and advocates: “A lot of talk, little action. It’s great that the president says this is a priority. It’s great that he convened a task force so we have another paper that says the opioid crisis in America needs attention. But too little has happened to actually do anything about it.”

For experts and advocates, this is hard to understand. Taking action on the opioid epidemic could have been an easy win. It’s an issue that crosses partisan lines, with both Democrats and Republicans angling to do something about it. There’s evidence it’s very relevant to Trump’s own base. While experts talk about needing as much as tens of billions of dollars for the crisis over the next few years, that’s actually not much in federal budget terms-- a fraction of a percent for a government that spends trillions a year.

And yet the Trump administration has barely budged. Beyond declaring a public health emergency, the administration has done little to nothing to combat the crisis.

That’s not because the crisis is getting better. In 2016, the latest year with a full official count, there were nearly 64,000 drug overdose deaths in the US-- an all-time high. The rise in drug overdose deaths was a big reason that life expectancy fell for the second year in a row in the US, which had not happened since the early 1960s. And the early data suggests that 2017 was worse: According to preliminary figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were nearly 67,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12-month period through June 2017, up from more than 57,000 in the 12-month period through June 2016.

If the worst trends continue, Stat forecast that as many as 650,000 people will die within the next decade-- the equivalent of the entire population of Baltimore.

This is the reality facing Trump, the reality in which his administration has responded with next to nothing.

...The most notable actual policy change is the INTERDICT Act. This law’s effect, however, will likely be greatly limited. The federal government has for decades tried to intercept illicit drugs before they come into the US, but drugs have consistently gotten through in huge numbers anyway. Along these lines, experts are deeply skeptical that any effort to beef up border security, including Trump’s wall, would do much, if anything, to stop the flow of drugs into the US.

Meanwhile, Trump hasn’t appointed anyone to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the office is mired by staffing problems-- including the hiring of a deputy chief of staff who apparently lied in parts of his résumé. The drug czar’s office, as it’s known colloquially, is crucial to coordinating federal efforts on drugs, according to experts.

Trump also has not nominated anyone to head the DEA, which is tasked with enforcing the nation’s drug laws.

In his proposals, Trump has also tried to cut the budget for the Office of National Drug Control Policy by 95 percent-- a move that his team initially walked back after facing bipartisan opposition during last year’s budget talks but reportedly may try again this year.

His budget plan also proposed keeping spending for addiction treatment relatively flat, while cutting prevention funding. The administration has also been silent on proposals in Congress to increase funding to the opioid epidemic, including Democratic plans to add tens of billions of dollars in spending to deal with the crisis.

...[E]xperts generally agree on what more federal resources should go to: They could be used to boost access to treatment (particularly highly effective medications for opioid addiction), pull back lax access to opioid painkillers while keeping them accessible to patients who truly need them, and adopt harm reduction policies that mitigate the damage caused by opioids and other drugs.

Advocates and experts argue about whether the extra resources should come through Medicaid, block grants for mental health and addiction care, or some other source. The consensus, though, is that much more federal support is needed-- in the tens of billions of dollars over the next few years.

“I was just in West Virginia this week. These counties are really devastated,” LaBelle said. “I know that’s been covered a lot. But it’s really something when you talk to a county official and you see how little money they have to put toward the epidemic.”

Some states are attempting to seriously confront this crisis. Vermont, for example, has built a “hub and spoke” system that treats addiction as a public health issue and integrates treatment into the rest of health care. The state was the only one in New England to have an overdose death rate that wasn’t significantly above the national average in 2016. (For more, check out my in-depth breakdown of Vermont’s system.)

But Vermont managed to build this new system in large part with federal dollars, particularly through Obamacare’s insurance expansion and a special Medicaid waiver that states can obtain through the health care law. It’s that kind of federal support that budget-strained states will need to deal with the opioid crisis.

These are the kinds of considerations and ideas that experts say can help the country move toward ending the opioid epidemic.

But in its first year, the Trump administration did nothing to make sure states can set up more programs like Vermont’s. So the opioid epidemic continues, killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.

Trump's job approval rating in West Virginia-- his strongest state in 2016-- has finally started to slip. 51% approve and 48% disapprove. His approval in states with the biggest opioid problems are down significantly since they voted for him:

• West Virginia- minus 20 points from +42
• Ohio- minus 13 points from +8
• Pennsylvania- minus 11 points from +1%
• Kentucky- minus 22 points from +30

Tom Petty-- Perhaps Still Alive!! (R.I.P.)

Your first gold record is always the best. And mine wasn't even gold. It's wood. But it will always be one of the most meaningful to me. For one thing, I worked hard and deserved it. For another, it was given to me personally by Tom Petty. It was for his first album, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, which was released by Shelter Records at the very end of 1976. Commercially it was a dud except in San Francisco where 4 or 5 of my fellow djs at the city's top rock station, KSAN, were absolutely nuts over the album-- Beverly Wilshire, Richard Gossett, Norman Davis, Chris Knab, Bonnie Simmons... We played it and played it and played it. It was a smash in San Francisco, although nowhere else that I knew of. And then we heard Shelter's parent label, ABC Records, was in trouble and might drop Tom from the label. The album never even got a chance. KSAN got busy, not just playing it even more heavily, but asking our listeners to write to Shelter and demand they re-release the album. And they actually did. In 1977 "American Girl," our audience's favorite, came out as a single and helped break the band.



The first live show of his I ever saw was a kind of showcase for "the industry" at the Whiskey in L.A. I didn't like L.A. but I flew down to see the 3 days worth of shows since they were opening for another favorite band of mine, Blondie, at a pretty small club. Great shows. Earlier Shelter sent Tom and label-mate Dwight Twilley to do some interviews in San Francisco. A much bigger dj than I interviewed him for KSAN but Tom knew I was behind the concentrated firepower to make him a star in at least one market and spread him from there. So I interviewed him for one of the rags I worked for. I went to Tom's and Dwight's hotel with another rock writer, Michael Snyder. There was someone else there, probably Phil Seymour. Dwight's album wasn't out yet but KSAN had played his first single and we had a hit with it despite his lame label (Shelter/ABC). Soon after Shelter imploded and ABC kept Tom but Twilley went to Arista. Anyway, this is that first single, "I'm On Fire."



I didn't hear a massive hit the way I did with "American Girl," but the KSAN listeners loved it and Tom and Dwight were close. I think Dwight and Phil sang background vocals on some of the songs on Tom's album. Anyway, the interview-- I guess I should go find it; I have it upstairs somewhere-- was fine, even if everyone was interrupting everyone else. Somehow it devolved into an energetic physical struggle for a small amount of coke that someone had, nothing something I was personally interested in. But the whole thing was very bonding. We were all still kids having some fun and when Tom's record finally broke-- it didn't go gold for a few more years-- he had some wooden plaques made for the people who helped him when he was just some unknown guy with a mostly unrecognized potential. He gave me one. I have three closets filled with gold and platinum albums and some scattered around that don't fit in the closets. But Tom's is still hanging on a wall.

I pushed Tom as part of the "new wave." He had bigger ideas than opening for Blondie and his albums got increasingly commercial (and successful). It wasn't my music anymore, although there was always a Tom Petty song I could liven almost every album. And when we'd cross paths over the years, I always felt that bond from 1976 or '77 never broke. Four friends called me today to tele he had passed away, just a couple of years into Medicare eligibility too. Each one of them said the same thing, "why couldn't it have been Trump instead?" Uncanny. You know what really sucks about getting old? Everyone you know starts dying-- and in increasing numbers and frequency. Here are some of my TP faves after that first album:



Turns out Tom may not have died after his heart attack after all! Not exactly fake news, but... I guess by tomorrow we'll know for sure. Meanwhile pray for Tom's recovery... and enjoy his songs. UPDATE: Tom passed away last night.











I don't think this was a big commercial hit for Tom... but it was a smash for every dj in the world who didn't want to play songs on a corporate playlist. It sure spoke to me and everyone I knew:



Elton John: "Tom Petty's music and songs are timeless. He was a wonderful writer, musician and singer. Irreplaceable and unique."

To Those Who Voted For The Orange Fascist: It's On You Now. Period

- by Noah



I'm pretty numb right now. I woke up this morning and I felt like I did when, as a boy, I woke up on the morning of November 23,1963: heartbreak, depression, and wondering what would become of all of us. I live in New York City and the streets are eerily quiet today. The constant cacophony of honking horns is silenced. No one is stopped at the light blasting their choice of music for all the world to hear. Normally, it’s only this quiet during a hellacious blizzard. I haven’t even heard a raised voice.

I worry about what the election of Donald J. Trump says both about and to all of us. Perhaps most of all, I worry about what this election of Trump says to our children. It tells school kids that they can get all the way to the top, not if they study but if they refine their bullying ability, as if bullying wasn’t already a problem in our schools. It tells our boys that assaulting our girls is not just ignored but may be even rewarded. I think of what a picture of an accomplished woman president placed, nicely framed, on the classroom wall would have said about our country and what it would say to our girls.

Don’t waste anytime mourning. Organize!
-Joe Hill

I do know that we need a patriotic resistance movement. I'd like to think that Trump is such a pathological liar that he was lying about everything, but, I know better. I don't see him changing. He is incredibly mentally ill and maladjusted. I do suspect that the most disappointed people in the next couple of years will be those who voted for him. The weight of buyer’s remorse will be immense. The rest of us will have expected the misery. We will all have to live in the consequences. The media has played a supportive role in the rise of Trump (and not just the $2 Billion in free airtime for his Castro/Hitler style ravings) in that his supporters have no idea that he is far more of a crook than they ever imagined HRC to be, and that he has repeatedly failed in his business ventures. They will now have a President-elect on trial for fraud and, possibly, if the case proceeds, rape of a minor. Impeaching him will be hard with a Repug Senate and House. His brand is already suffering. His Toronto hotel closed. The new one in Washington is about to go belly up, but, ironically, his inauguration will buy it time. The way Trump operates, I have little doubt that visiting dignitaries will be told to stay there, and, that somehow, we the taxpayers will pay for their stays. Now he can use his position to enrich himself and his family, which is, most likely, the reason he ran in the first place.

All I can say in Trump’s favor is that, yes, things like NAFTA and CAFTA and similar trade agreements do need to be renegotiated. I recall that the great Thom Hartmann said several years ago now that the party that gets behind that idea and incentivizes the return of industrial jobs to Americans will reap the political success. Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the republicans would give us a structure to go along with it that pays workers slave wages and enriches only the big boss man. I see the return of the company store and the company-owned home. We had a hint of that in what Mitten Romney said about the “wonderful” factories in China; the “wonderful factories in China where Ivanka’s line of shoes is made and where Trump’s line of ties is made.

Funny how the powers that be have removed all mention of Joe Hill from school textbooks. We’ll be needing another Joe Hill more than ever now.

Trump’s supporters called the flawed Hillary Clinton many things. One was "Oligarchist." So what did they do? They voted in an Oligarchist on massive steroids. Even Trump’s New York home is patterend after the Palace of Versailles, right down to the gold filigree chairs he sits in.

Trump’s campaign was a case of "The Cult Of Personality" ruling the day. Personally, I could never have thrown in my lot with the KKK and all of those other White Supremacy groups even if I thought Trump was sane and even if I agreed with him on economic issues. Character should matter, but, all too often, it doesn’t when we decide who goes to Washington. In fact, bad character is often the one true bipartisan thing in our nation’s capitol.



I'm left with two hopes. One is the aforementioned highly unlikely one about him lying so much that he turns out to be the opposite of what he presented to us all. The other is more long term: I see our country's political history as a series of pendulums. The country swings left. Then the country swings right. What happened in the 1920s and the FDR reaction of the 1930s is as good example as any of this. Soup kitchens begat the now endangered Social Security program. The more the pendulum swings one way, the more it often swings back the other way. Trump's followers saw things like gender equality and Obamacare as extreme left things. They even saw the corporatist-centrist President Obama himself as extreme left, and homophobia and race was something that they, unconsciously in some cases, consciously in others, hung their criticisms and nihilistic hatreds on. So, perhaps, in four, or eight years, or maybe twelve, the inevitable reaction will give us the Republican Party's worst nightmare, full blown Socialism, or, at least President Elizabeth Warren. My advice (unwanted) to the Republican Party is: Be careful what you wish for. [NOTE: Bruce has a part II, or an update, coming mañana.]

I've been listening to this song a lot in recent months. It's one of my absolute favorite songs of the last 35 years. It could not be more appropriate than it is today. Great artists give us timeless art.

4-20... Will California Finally Just Legalize Marijuana? Ted Lieu Thinks So

Californians voted-- 5,382,915 (55.6%) to 4,301,960 (44.4%)-- to legalize medical marijuana in a 1996 proposition written by an old friend and coworker of mine, Dennis Peron. Our state was the first to do so, although half the states in the union have followed suit, blue states like New York and Massachusetts, red states like Alaska and Arizona and purple states like Nevada and New Hampshire. A coalition of interest groups in California backing legalization of marijuana completely-- from the California Medical Association and the state NAACP to NORML and the California Cannabis Industry Association-- is close to having enough signatures to guarantee a vote in November. The state's biggest political opportunist, Gavin Newsom, who's running for governor, has jumped on the bandwagon and is struggling to make it look like he's leading it.

On the other hand, California's most progressive Member of Congress, Ted Lieu, officially backed the efforts last week, which was something anyone who has watched his public record would have been expecting. This is what he told the media upon signing on:

"I’ve reviewed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act and believe it creates a legal, responsible and regulated framework for adult use of marijuana that is fiscally responsible, smartly builds on what California has already done with medical marijuana and provides necessary protections for children, workers, local governments, law enforcement agencies and the environment.

"As a policy, marijuana prohibition has wasted taxpayer resources while failing to protect our communities. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act represents a vastly superior and long overdue new approach."

Ted's backing puts him at odds with powerful reactionary forces within his own party. Right-wing Blue Dogs like Henry Cuellar (TX) and Dan Lipinski (IL) have led the charge to find Democrats to vote with the GOP against legalization efforts. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a well-paid puppet of both the private prison industry-- which worries it will go out of business without the War on Drugs-- and of the alcohol industry, is violently opposed to even medical marijuana legalization. The booze industry has funneled $242,018 into Wasserman Schultz's political career. The private prison industry-- primarily Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and The GEO Group-- have lavished her with tens of thousands more dollars, usually through some of Washington's shadiest and most sleazy lobbyists.

In 2014, Blue America endorsed and supported Ted Lieu for Congress, primarily because of his unique record of genuine accomplishment in the state legislature-- on climate change, on LGBT equality, on predatory mortgage fraud by banksters, on NSA domestic spying... Now that he's a Member of Congress and of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Lieu is one of the most steadfast voices for working families and for the issues his constituents elected him to work on.

Last year, the House accepted his amendment to cut federal marijuana eradication programs by 50% and agreed to redirect the savings to programs that help child abuse victims and domestic violence victims. The federal government’s Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program is funded out of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)’s Salaries and Expenses Account. Last year, $18 million was used for marijuana eradication/suppression. Lieu’s amendment cuts $9 million from the account and uses the savings to increase the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) Youth-Oriented Program by $4 million and Victims of Child Abuse program by $3 million. The additional $2 million is sent to the Spending Reduction Account.

"Next year," vowed Lieu, "I will bring another amendment to eliminate the program completely. There is a growing, bipartisan consensus across the country that our marijuana policies must change. Despite the overwhelming support from scientists, doctors, and people across the nation for lessening restrictions on marijuana, the DEA still spends millions of dollars each year on domestic cannabis eradication. In 2014 alone, the DEA arrested 6,310 people under its cannabis eradication program for growing marijuana plants. This is a ridiculous waste of precious federal resources, especially when multiple states and jurisdictions have already legalized marijuana. It is time for the federal government to stop making marijuana use or possession a federal crime. My amendment redirects funding from the DEA’s Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program and funds programs to help child victims of domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual assault. We need to focus our resources where they are actually needed: standing up for children who have been victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault, not spending taxpayer dollars on going after people who grow marijuana plants."

Ted is up for reelection again in November and the Republicans have fielded another one of their crackpot candidates against him, xenophobic bigot Kenneth Wright. You can support Ted Lieu at Blue America's "best incumbents" page, which you can find by tapping the thermometer below:

And virtually all of Blue America's congressional challengers this year have taken strong stands against the War on Drugs and for marijuana reform and legalization. This morning New Jersey progressive Alex Law told his supporters that although "most politicians don't want to comment on 4120 because they think it's juvenile," to him "what's really juvenile is the horrific War on Drugs that the United States has waged against our own people (primarily minorities). I think 420 is a reminder that millions of young people have their lives ruined because they are thrown in jail for nonviolent crimes while corporations profit as giant for-profit prisons grow all across the country. Empirically, it has been emphatically proven that treatment for drug problems works dramatically better than punishment. We must end the War on Drugs as soon as possible and move towards funding treatment for folks that are struggling."



Alex promises to introduce the Marijuana Reparations Act of 2017 if he's elected. "Legalizing marijuana produces a number of downstream benefits. Policing and Criminal Justice would immediately become more efficient. In Philadelphia, for example, with marijuana decriminalized, 2,000 fewer cases end up on the desk of prosecutors, freeing up massive amounts of time to be spent on real crime. Nationwide, police make over 750,000 marijuana-related arrests per year, which contributed to 35 percent of murders and 40 percent of rapes going unsolved due to lack of time and resources. Through legalizing marijuana, we can make law enforcement more efficient, generate tax revenue for schools, substantially reduce overcrowding in our prisons, and eliminate the need for private prisons. Moreover, by removing its Schedule 1 status, it will open up marijuana for the tens of thousands of Americans that would benefit from its medicinal properties."

Alex Law and the other progressive challengers who insist the country take new approach to marijuana can be found by tapping this thermometer, which doesn't include any incumbents:

Tom Petty gets it re. the Confederate battle flag: says he was "downright stupid" to use it in performance, and highlights how "we're creating so many of our own problems"

"The Confederate flag was the wallpaper of the South when I was a kid growing up in Gainesville, Florida. I always knew it had to do with the Civil War, but the South had adopted it as its logo. I was pretty ignorant of what it actually meant. It was on a flagpole in front of the courthouse and I often saw it in Western movies. I just honestly didn't give it much thought, though I should have."

-- Tom Petty, to Rolling Stone's Andy Greene

by Ken

Unlike Kid Rock, the " 'Kiss My Ass' Over the Confederate Flag" Man (who was born and raised in Michigan), true son of the South Tom Petty gets it.

Rolling Stone's Andy Greene explains (links onsite):

South Carolina's decision to lower the Confederate flag on their statehouse has caused a wide range of reactions in the rock community. While many acts are cheering the decision of the South Carolina legislature, some acts are continuing to sell Confederate flag merchandise and rockers like Kid Rock remain defiant. "Isn't Kid Rock from the Midwest?" Tom Petty asks with a chuckle. "I think they were on the other side of the Civil War."

Petty, who featured the Confederate flag prominently onstage during his Southern Accents tour in 1985, spoke to Rolling Stone hours after the flag was taken down to express remorse for his actions.

Tom explains that he used the flag for the one song, "Rebel," during the Southern Accents tour, because the song represents the point of view of "a character who talks about the traditions that have been handed down from family to family" and "still blames the North for the discomfort of his life." "So my thought was the best way to illustrate this character was to use the Confederate flag."

He "regretted it pretty quickly," he says. "I wish I had given it more thought. It was a downright stupid thing to do."

"That flag shouldn't have any part in our government," Tom says. "It shouldn't represent us in any way."

They might have it at the football game or whatever, but they also have it at Klan rallies. If that's part of it in any way, it doesn't belong, in any way, representing the United States of America.

He goes from some lovely clarity about the flag issue to some thoughts going "beyond the flag issue" which are so good, I think we need to yank the last paragraph out in toto:

Beyond the flag issue, we're living in a time that I never thought we'd see. The way we're losing black men and citizens in general is horrific. What's going on in society is unforgivable. As a country, we should be more concerned with why the police are getting away with targeting black men and killing them for no reason. That's a bigger issue than the flag. Years from now, people will look back on today and say, "You mean we privatized the prisons so there's no profit unless the prison is full?" You'd think someone in kindergarten could figure out how stupid that is. We're creating so many of our own problems.

Tom says: "It all stemmed from my trying to illustrate a
character. It was dumb and it shouldn't have happened."

"I used [the Confederate flag] onstage during that song ('Rebel')," Tom says, "and I regretted it pretty quickly."

The Confederate flag was the wallpaper of the South when I was a kid growing up in Gainesville, Florida. I always knew it had to do with the Civil War, but the South had adopted it as its logo. I was pretty ignorant of what it actually meant. It was on a flagpole in front of the courthouse and I often saw it in Western movies. I just honestly didn't give it much thought, though I should have.

In 1985, I released an album called Southern Accents. It began as a concept record about the South, but the concept part slipped away probably 70 percent or so into the album. I just let it go, but the Confederate flag became part of the marketing for the tour. I wish I had given it more thought. It was a downright stupid thing to do.

It happened because I had one song on the album called "Rebels." It's spoken from the point of view of the character, who talks about the traditions that have been handed down from family to family for so long that he almost feels guilty about the war. He still blames the North for the discomfort of his life, so my thought was the best way to illustrate this character was to use the Confederate flag."

I used it onstage during that song, and I regretted it pretty quickly. When we toured two years later, I noticed people in the audience wearing Confederate flag bandanas and things like that. One night, someone threw one onstage. I stopped everything and gave a speech about it. I said, "Look, this was to illustrate a character. This is not who we are. Having gone through this, I would prefer it if no one would ever bring a Confederate flag to our shows again because this isn't who we are."

It got a mixed reaction. There were some boos and some cheers. But honestly, it's a little amazing to me because I never saw one again after that speech in that one town. Fortunately, that went away, but it left me feeling stupid. That's the word I can use. I felt stupid. If I had just been a little more observant about things going on around me, it wouldn't have happened. We did do a live record [Pack Up The Plantation: Live!] and there was a picture inside of us playing in front of one. I went back and had it removed from the record. It took a little time to get done, but it did get done. I still feel bad about it. I've just always regretted it. I would never do anything to hurt someone.

Lowering the flag from the statehouse grounds was the right decision. That flag shouldn't have any part in our government. It shouldn't represent us in any way. The war is over. You know, it's a bit ironic: It's the only time that I know of where we defeated a country in a war and then flew their flag. But Americans were on both sides of the issues. I'm sure some people still carry it to their graves.

That Southern pride gets transferred from generation to generation. I'm sure that a lot of people that applaud it don't mean it in a racial way. But again, I have to give them, as I do myself, a "stupid" mark. If you think a bit longer, there's bad connotations to this. They might have it at the football game or whatever, but they also have it at Klan rallies. If that's part of it in any way, it doesn't belong, in any way, representing the United States of America.

To this day, I have good feelings for the South in many ways. There's some wonderful people down there. There are people still affected by what their relatives taught them. It isn't necessarily racism. They just don't like Yankees. They don't like the North. But when they wave that flag, they aren't stopping to think how it looks to a black person. I blame myself for not doing that. I should have gone around the fence and taken a good look at it. But honestly, it all stemmed from my trying to illustrate a character. I then just let it get out of control as a marketing device for the record. It was dumb and it shouldn't have happened.

Again, people just need to think about how it looks to a black person. It's just awful. It's like how a swastika looks to a Jewish person. It just shouldn't be on flagpoles.

Then follows the concluding paragraph that we've already seen above. But that's no reason why we shouldn't see it again:

Beyond the flag issue, we're living in a time that I never thought we'd see. The way we're losing black men and citizens in general is horrific. What's going on in society is unforgivable. As a country, we should be more concerned with why the police are getting away with targeting black men and killing them for no reason. That's a bigger issue than the flag. Years from now, people will look back on today and say, "You mean we privatized the prisons so there's no profit unless the prison is full?" You'd think someone in kindergarten could figure out how stupid that is. We're creating so many of our own problems.

#