"Thus, what we have here is a homophobic act by a mentally ill person, not domestic terrorism." Those are the words of Ralph Stone in the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Mr. Stone, please do not scapegoat persons with mental illness in your column.

The perpetrator of the Orlando Shooting is not reported to have a history of mental illness. Reportedly, he passed a psychological test enabling him to own a gun. 

An act of hate, yes. An act of someone suffering from delusions, bipolar, or depression, no. Are you going to attribute a mental health diagnosis to members of the KKK? Are you going to attribute a mental health diagnosis to Osama Bin Laden? To George W. Bush?  

People are violent. A mental health diagnosis is not applicable to anyone who commits violence.  

The perpetrator of this action had a well thought out plan that he implemented without error. A person with schizophrenia, when violent, does not have a well thought out plan, and any violence is unpremeditated as well as disorganized.  

Most persons with mental illness are good people with bad diseases. Attributing mental illness to anyone who perpetrates a heinous action is disablist, and disablist prejudice is just as reprehensible as racism. Most people haven't yet woken up to this.

Neighbors warned each other early this morning after they heard explosions during a six-alarm fire on the border of Oakland and Emeryville that destroyed a five-story apartment building under construction, an auto repair shop and four townhouses.

Ashes were reported to have drifted as far as Martin Luther King and Oregon in Berkeley.  

The fire was reported at about 2:45 a.m. at 3800 San Pablo Ave. That address is the location of the Intersection, a project that proposed to rehabilitate the historic Maz Building with 105 apartments and 25,000 square feet of commercial space. 

"The explosions just started going off, one after another," 39th Street resident Veronica Young said. "It was stronger than fireworks." 

The lights were out along 39th Street when people knocked on the doors of their neighbors to warn them of the fire. Charred remains of the building were strewn on the sidewalk for two or more blocks from the center of the fire. 

"People were banging on doors screaming 'fire, fire'," Young said. "Very scary. We thought we were all going to have to leave." 

Apgar Street resident Sheryl Angelo said she didn't hear anything until someone knocked on her door. 

Another 39th Street resident, who declined to give his name, was back home with his two small children after the fire had been contained and said his family spent much of the morning at a neighbor's home farther from the fire. 

Flames spread from the building under construction to adjacent townhouses and an auto repair shop. Four townhouse units and the auto shop were destroyed, as were 12 cars at the shop, Deputy Fire Chief Jim Call said. 

"A fire of this size is very rare," Call said. 

About 100 firefighters from various regional fire agencies responded to the blaze, which was contained by 7:50 a.m. Call said crews will remain on scene until this evening to put out any hot spots and to monitor the scene. 

He said no injuries were reported in the fire and "that's the best news." 

About 50 people were displaced and are being assisted by the American Red Cross at the Emeryville Senior Center at 4321 Salem St., according to Call. 

Only scaffolding remained standing among the charred wreckage of the building under construction. The wood-framed building produced a lot of heat during the fire, Call said. 

Fire crews used a drone from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to provide command staff with thermal imaging and an aerial view of the fire to see what hot spots needed to be put out, Call said. 

East Bay Municipal Utility District officials increased water pressure at the scene to help firefighters with the defensive attack of the fire, according to fire officials. 

The cause and origin of the fire are under investigation and a monetary estimate of the damage it caused has not been determined.

A Berkeley man is in custody on suspicion of brandishing a knife, violently resisting arrest, possessing a concealed knife and a probation violation for a scuffle outside the West Berkeley Whole Foods store on Tuesday that left four officers injured, police said. 

The incident began at about 8:54 a.m. Tuesday when the suspect, 42-year-old Jason Joyner, brandished a knife at two Department of Public Works employees in the area of San Pablo Avenue and Harrison Street "for no apparent reason," Berkeley police spokesman Lt. Kevin Schofield said. 

Responding officers contacted Joyner at Harrison and 10th streets and ordered him to stop numerous times as they continued to attempt to de-escalate the situation, Schofield said. 

But he said Joyner ignored their repeated commands and walked away from the officers, at one point pulling out his knife and brandished it at the officers. 

However, Joyner then dropped the knife and continued to walk south and still ignored multiple commands to stop, according to Schofield. 

Joyner walked south on Ninth Street from Harrison Street toward the front of 1025 Gilman St., where a Whole Foods Market is located, and continued to refuse commands to stop, Schofield said. 

The officers then tried to restrain Joyner from entering the store for the safety of the employees and customers who were inside, according to Schofield. 

Joyner violently resisted and would not allow himself to be handcuffed. During the struggle, four officers suffered injuries ranging from minor abrasions and scrapes to a potentially more serious knee injury to one of the officers, Schofield said. 

The officer who suffered the knee injury is still in the hospital, he said. 

In addition, three officers were exposed to Joyner's blood that came from a cut on his hand. It's not clear if the cut on his hand occurred during the struggle or when he was holding his knife, Schofield said. 

Joyner's blood will be tested so the officers will know if they have been exposed to any communicable diseases. 

Paramedics treated Joyner for the minor cut on his hand before booking him into Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, where he is being held. 

Schofield said Joyner is "well-known" to Berkeley police. He didn't immediately know what offense Joyner was on probation for, but court records indicate that he has prior convictions for battery, vandalism, trespassing, receiving stolen property, theft and possession of burglary tools. 

Joyner is tentatively scheduled to be arraigned at the Wiley Manuel Courthouse in Oakland at 9 a.m. Thursday.

With the electorate facing two of the most uninspiring presidential candidates in recent memory, talk about the possibility of a 2016 libertarian upset is ubiquitous. An unprecedented 58 percent of voters say they’d consider voting for a third-party candidate. Libertarians are the only ones with experienced politicians leading a ticket that will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and a host of libertarian staples—ideas like criminal justice reform, marijuana legalization, electronic privacy, and sexual freedom—now enjoy a comfortable level of support within the American mainstream. If there was any platform likely to capture both disillusioned Never-Trumpers from the Republicans and disappointed Bernie-or-Busters from the Democrats, the libertarians seem to have it. 

Still, this excitement seems misplaced. Although it’s true that people are increasingly receptive to libertarian ideas, there’s reason why virtually nobody identifies as a libertarian. As anyone who watched the libertarians’ ludicrous nomination convention could attest, the party is a complete mess. Its candidates could manage little more than cathartic ravings about taxes as theft and government as tyranny, and that was only when their attention wasn’t diverted by party delegates stripping naked or parading as Jesus onstage. It’s no wonder people regard libertarians as unmoored dogmatists whose obsession with private property leaves them clueless about struggles of modern life. 

To be fair, there’s more to libertarianism than what was on display at the party’s convention, and the dim view many people hold of it results in part from a misunderstanding of its philosophical underpinnings. 

But only in part. Even if we assume that the unhinged convention participants represent the party’s outer fringe, there’s no doubt that the core of modern libertarianism consists of opposition to any redistributive policy¾taxes on income and capital, estate taxes, eminent domain¾whose purpose is to prevent or redress the increasingly severe concentration of wealth in society. These policies offend libertarians because to them, private property is sacrosanct. Once a person lawfully acquires some sort of property, she generally has an inviolable right to continued ownership over it, and the government had better keep its hands off. 

The problem with this property-rights creed is that it’s based on a fallacy. Private property is a social construct, not a metaphysical truism. It exists not by virtue of natural law or divine bequest, but because society has in a given case recognized a person’s right to exclusive dominion over something. That societal recognition alone is what empowers the person to exclude, even through the force of government itself. 

There is no such thing, in other words, as private property independent of government. And one cannot logically claim a right to society’s keeping its hands off something that by definition only exists by virtue of society’s hands in the first place. 

Of course, none of that is to say that the concept of private property isn’t an important one. It is, which is why government shouldn’t lightly redefine the property interests it constructs or interfere with those interests in ways that retard wealth creation and efficient resource allocation. But when recognition of a particular property interest would accomplish those very evils—because, say, it would further concentrate finite capital in the hands of just a select few—society is often better served by altering the nature or scope of that interest. 

Put simply, not everyone who’s rich deserves to be, so there’s nothing wrong with moving wealth around in a way that somewhat levels the playing field. 

To most, that’s just common sense. Unless we want society to look like Downton Abbey again, some reallocation of wealth over the long term is necessary. So when libertarians scream about the evils of taxes or invoke the hollow mantra of property rights to oppose them, people are justifiably bothered. 

The sad thing is, there’s much about libertarianism as a philosophy that we could benefit from. Apart from the tragic losses to life and basic freedom our oppressive drug wars and related misadventures have wrought, heavy-handed government regulations sometimes really do stifle ingenuity and inhibit economic growth. Wider acceptance of some basic libertarian tenets would go a long way toward scaling back an increasingly intrusive government apparatus. But that isn’t going to happen unless libertarians abandon their metaphysical approach to private property and acknowledge that there’s a proper role for government in correcting the mis-allocations of wealth its tax and property laws engender. 

Judging by the reductive echo chamber that was the libertarian convention, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

A memorial vigil will be held Tuesday to honor the life of a University of California at Berkeley student, and others slain in a terrorist attack in Bangladesh Friday. 

The U.S. Embassy in Dhaka first reported a hostage situation at Holey Bakery in the city's Gulshan 2 neighborhood around 10:55 p.m., Bangladesh Standard Time. 

Tarashi Jain, 19, along with several others was inside the bakery, when a group of gunman reportedly stormed the business and began taking patrons hostage. 

Jain was among the hostages who were killed during an hours-long standoff with Bangladesh authorities, Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj said on Twitter. 

After about 10 hours, Bangladeshi authorities were able to free the surviving hostages and reportedly killed six of the gunmen. 

Jain had gone to high school in Dhaka and began studying at UC Berkeley in 2014, according to UC Chancellor Nicholas Dirks. 

The vigil is scheduled to take place at the UC campus's Sproul Plaza on Tuesday from noon to 1 p.m.

NACPEX (Neighbors Against Claremont Expansion), the group of Berkeley and Oakland residents which has been organized to oppose a proposed condominium development on the site of the historic Claremont Hotel, situated on the border between the two cities, is urging citizens of both to attend a meeting in Oakland on Wednesday to voice their concerns about the project. 

A July 1 letter from NACPEX asks supporters to attend next week’s meeting of the Oakland Planning Commission, which will set the scope of the Environmental Impact Report which must be done on the project, both because of its magnitude and its impact on the historic hotel site. All of the public's questions and concerns voiced in the hearing or in letters must be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (ER16-010). 

The hearing is scheduled on Wednesday, July 6th, at 6:00 pm, before the City Planning Commission in the Sgt. Dunakin Hearing Room #1, Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza. 

Opponents are asked to write a letter to express their concerns and ask any questions. Letters must be received by 4 pm, July 6th, or at the July 6th meeting. Reference case number ER16-010 and address to "Clevenger, Ann" AClevenger@oaklandnet.com and cc: nacpex@gmail.com. 

NACPEX organizers cite these concerns about the project, among others: 

“Planned development: 43 condominium units atop a multi-level underground parking structure and two single-family homes, significant expansion of athletic facilities (incl. raised tennis courts atop parking, stadium seating, competition pool, & enlarged event area). An overall addition of 30 parking spaces for an expansion of up to 250 more club memberships. 

“Community concerns: degradation of iconic historic hotel building and hallmark views; additional noise & light pollution in peaceful neighboring residential districts in Berkeley and Oakland; exacerbation of traffic congestion with serious consequences in an emergency; life-threatening seismic concerns due to the proposed condominium location directly atop the Hayward Fault; negative impact on wildlife, water sources, & adjacent natural areas." 

Building on a sit-in staged by House Democrats in the nation's capitol last week, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and members of the Bay Area congressional delegation today gathered in San Francisco to call for House Republicans to allow a vote on gun control bills.

The rally at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital this afternoon brought Pelosi and U.S. Reps. Barbara Lee, Mike Thompson, Mike Honda and Eric Swalwell together with gun control advocates, gun violence survivors and local leaders as part of a national day of action on gun violence prevention. 

The event is one of many held around the country today calling for a vote on federal bills that would expand background check requirements for gun purchases and prohibit those on the federal "no fly" list from buying guns, according to event organizers.  

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, today said last week's sit-in was held after Democrats were told there would be a "moment of silence" for victims of the Orlando nightclub massacre in the House but no vote on gun control legislation.  

"People said no longer shall we have on the floor of the house a moment of silence following a tragedy that is just that, a moment of silence and no action," she said. "Our message to our leadership is, give us a vote. No more silence."  

Thompson, D-St. Helena, chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, has put forward bipartisan legislation that would require background checks when purchasing guns online or at a gunshow, closing what proponents call a loophole in current laws.  

Thompson today said background checks work to prevent gun violence, and called on congress to "put partisan politics aside and do what it takes to help keep our communities safe."  

"Because whether its in a movie theater, or on a college campus, or at an elementary school, in a church, in a nightclub, or on the streets of our cities-- we've lost too many innocent lives to gun violence and we can't sit back and do nothing while more lives are cut short," Thompson said.  

Separately, Lee has also put forward legislation that would remove restrictions on sharing information among law enforcement agencies about gun theft and bad-actor gun dealers, and also remove current restrictions prohibiting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control from studying gun violence as a public health threat.

A 19-year-old student at the University of California at Berkeley was among the 20 people reportedly killed in an attack at a bakery Friday in Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

The U.S. Embassy in Dhaka first reported the incident as a shooting and hostage situation happening at Holey Bakery in the city's Gulshan 2 neighborhood around 10:55 p.m., Bangladesh Standard Time. 

Indian national Tarishi Jain was among the hostages who were killed during an hours-long standoff with Bangladesh authorities, Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj said on Twitter. 

Jain had gone to high school in Dhaka and began studying at UC Berkeley in 2014, according to UC Chancellor Nicholas Dirks. 

Jain was inside the bakery when a group of gunmen reportedly stormed the business, taking patrons hostage. After about 10 hours, Bangladeshi authorities were able to free the surviving hostages and reportedly killed six of the gunmen. 

"We have been in contact with her family to provide assistance in any way that we can and are working closely with other students there to assist them in staying safe and determining whether they leave the area," Dirks said in a statement. "Our counseling services staff and CARE services are available to support our faculty, students and staff on campus as we mourn this tragic loss." 

The school is planning a vigil and memorial for Jain, although a location and date has not been announced, according to Dirks. 

Copyright © 2016 by Bay City News, Inc. -- Republication, Rebroadcast or any other Reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited. 

/www/bcn/general/07/newsclip.16.07.02.10.58.00.1.txt

Early in the morning on Monday, June 27, an intruder attacked NPS Ranger and former Berkeley resident Betty Reid Soskin in her home in Richmond and stole many of her possessions. We are all deeply saddened by these events, but relieved to report that she is recovering well and resting. 

Please consider making a contribution to Betty's Fund, and directing others who want to help to https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/rangerbettysoskin. All funds raised beyond immediate needs will be used, as Betty has asked, to complete a film in progress that contains vital documentary information about Betty's life and impact. This is the legacy that she wants to continue passing on to younger generations, and a remarkable testimonial to her strength of spirit. 

Checks can be mailed to Rosie the Riveter Trust, PO Box 71126, Richmond CA 94807 and should be ear-marked Betty Fund. 

Cards for Betty should be mailed to the Rosie the Riveter Visitor Center: 

Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historical Park Visitor Center
Attn: Betty Reid Soskin
1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 3000 (Oil House)
Richmond, CA 94804 

A Berkeley man with a prior assault conviction was sentenced today to three years in state prison for stabbing two men at an apartment in West Berkeley in March, prosecutors said. 

Tristan Chaix, 33, recently pleaded no contest to assault for the March 22 incident, which police said was unprovoked, and was sentenced by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Paul Delucchi. 

Berkeley police Officer Patrick Anderson wrote in a probable cause statement that witnesses told authorities that Chaix said "he should have killed everyone there" in the incident at an apartment complex in the 1000 block of University Avenue, between San Pablo Avenue and 10th Street, at about 1:30 a.m. on March 22. 

Anderson said Chaix was at the apartment "when unprovoked he went into the kitchen, retrieved three kitchen knives and began to attack the people inside the apartment." 

He wrote, "Chaix successfully stabbed two people in the apartment before the victims were able to knock the knives out of his hands." 

Anderson said, "The people inside the apartment feared for their lives and ultimately feel if they did not fight with Chaix to disarm him they would have been murdered." 

Police said Chaix appeared to be intoxicated when he was taken into custody. 

In addition to Chaix, there were four people at the apartment and the two people who were stabbed were taken to a local hospital, where they were treated for their wounds, which weren't life-threatening, according to Anderson. 

Berkeley police said Chaix suffered a laceration in the incident and was also transported to a hospital to be treated before he was booked at the Santa Rita Jail in Dublin. 

Chaix was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury last Sept. 16 and was still on probation for that offense at the time of the stabbing incident. 

Berkeley police recommended that Chaix be charged with two counts of attempted murder but the Alameda County District Attorney's Office only charged him with the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon.

Martha Anne Hoskinson Nicoloff of Berkeley died peacefully at her home on June 24th, 2016 at the age of 87. She was born on October 6th, 1928 in Chicago, Illinois to Edwin and Pauline Hoskinson. She often said that she lived on the South side of Chicago in a home shared with others during the Great Depression. She was the first and only one in the family to go to college. From an early age, she loved drawing and painting landscapes, houses and people. When she was 18, she was accepted into the Art Institute of Chicago. She received a B.A. in Fine Arts with honors from there in 1950 and then completed an M.F.A from the University of Southern California in 1952.  

In Chicago she met another artist named Alex Nicoloff. She was impressed with him and they married in 1952, moved to Berkeley, and had two daughters, Tamara and Natalya. They were a happy family who enjoyed camping and the alternative lifestyle Berkeley offered. In addition to continuing her drawing and painting, she also held art workshops for children while she raised her own two daughters. 

Martha loved her family dearly. She provided unwavering support to Alex as he experimented with many different art mediums (bronze sculptures, prism videos, telephone pole photographs…). Natalya inherited Martha's love for painting and she treasures the time they spent together painting landscapes around the Bay Area. Martha was Natalya's artistic inspiration. Tamara remembers how important it was that Martha helped her raise her granddaughter Nadia. Martha always enjoyed children, especially Nadia who was funny and creative. Tamara also always felt loved and supported by her mother as she navigated a career in the corporate world. Nadia will never forget how much her grandmother supported her decisions, even when her schooling took her to the East Coast for years. She remembers how her grandmother was always excited to see her and encouraged her travel the world, know about politics, and be creative. She always expressed pride in her granddaughter's achievements. 

Martha always found a way to continue her art. For years she collaborated with Alex in making prism sculptures and producing spectral videos. Together they learned how to get the best spectrum from prisms they made in their home. They enjoyed working together for hours at a time. For the community, Martha created many political drawings and cartoons for posters, newspapers and campaign materials. They always used humor to make a strong point. Her son-in-law, Tom Haw, calls her a “spitfire.” 

Martha leaves a long legacy of neighborhood activism in Berkeley which included many years of grassroots organizing to resist the rampant high-rise and densely populated housing. In 1966, she proposed to the City Council that the BART tube land, where Ohlone Park is now located, be made into a park instead of filling it with housing. One of her proudest accomplishments was co-authoring the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) which was passed by voters in 1973. NPO gave neighborhoods more say over what was built. She ran as an independent for City Council in 1975 and then again in 1986. More recently, she was a long-term treasurer for the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CNA) and worked on initiatives to limit the heights of buildings. Martha remained politically interested until her last days. Tom Haw her son-in-law will never forget how conscious and concerned she was about the politics of her community and our country. He fondly remembers the lively conversations at the weekly Wednesday night dinners. 

Martha leaves behind her daughters, Tamara and Natalya, her granddaughter Nadia, and her son-in-law Tom. She played an important role in her family and her community. She will be missed. 

If you would like to honor Martha by contributing to a non-profit, please contact the Habitot Childrens Museum in downtown Berkeley, see http://www.habitot.org/museum/support.html 

Don Jelinek died peacefully in his Berkeley home on June 24, 2016, at age 82. He had wanted his gravestone to read: “He was SNCC.”

Don was a lawyer who spent the years 1965 – 1968 in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement. Don quickly assumed and maintained dual roles: as a SNCC grassroots organizer and as a crusading ACLU attorney who battled for justice in hostile courts. As a lawyer-activist in Alabama, he took on the overtly racist practices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and brought to light the shameful realities of rural malnutrition and starvation in America. He had the honor to represent Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokely Carmichael, H. “Rap” Brown and organizations ranging from SNCC to SCLC and the NAACP, as well as hundreds of black sharecroppers and civil rights workers. Until he died, Don continued to take part in SNCC meetings at his home.

Don established a law practice in Berkeley, during which time he represented and lived with the Alcatraz Indians on the island they seized as redress for past injustices. Following the 1971 Attica Prison uprising in upstate New York, Don was the lead attorney defending 61 inmates who had been indicted for 1400 felonies as a result of the insurrection, arguing that the charges were political. No inmate ever served time for these alleged crimes.

Don subsequently undertook a three-year pro bono defense of hundreds of flea market vendors who were ousted from the weekend Ashby BART parking lot. After restoring the vendors to their livelihoods, Don was elected to three terms on the Berkeley City Council, where his votes led to major public housing, among other accomplishments. He was a proud member of the Berkeley Citizens Action. Don was also active in the movement to end the Vietnam War; he represented dozens of conscientious objectors and so-called deserters. He proudly remembered one occasion when the U.S. Supreme Court was out of session and Justice William O. Douglas was unreachable. Don trekked overnight into the remote mountains of Washington State to locate the Justice. Justice Douglas signed the requested injunction.

Don was born on February 17, 1934, the son of Jewish immigrants. He was raised in the Bronx and attended Bronx High School of Science - for which he always maintained he was not qualified - then attended New York University where he received both his B.A. and law degree.

In 1955, Don moved to Greenwich Village where he lived in a tenement and paid his rent by working as a janitor—first taking in garbage cans then walking to his law school classes. In the Village, for the first time in his life, Don met gay people, black people, local leftists and bohemians all of whom fueled his lifetime passion for politics, reading and theatre.

Don wrote and published three books: Survivor of the Alamo, about the Texas Revolution and one man who did not stay at the Alamo to die; Attica Justice about the history of prisons in America, the inhumane conditions that led to the uprising and his defense of the Attica prisoners; and White Lawyer, Black Power about his time in SNCC and the civil rights movement.

Don is survived by Jane Scherr, his wife of 30 years; his brother Roger; Jane’s daughters Dove and Apollinaire and Don and Jane’s grandchildren Hannele and Pascal. A Memorial Service will be held on Saturday July 16, 2016 at St. John's Presbyterian Church in Berkeley, beginning at 1 pm. Don asked that in lieu of gifts, money be donated to “Bay Area Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement” c/o Eugene Turitz, 2124 Derby Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.  

Special Report: Beverly Hills 'ambassadors' accused of pushing homeless out of shopping areas

Happy happy Berkeley. There was a city council meeting the other night (June 28, 2016), during which several people ran weeping from the room. They didn’t do it in unison; they left separately, but they were weeping nevertheless. After what city council did with its budget, they must have confronted a horrendous realization – not that they had nowhere to turn. (People are resourceful, and generally know how to fight back). What they realized, in their anguish, was that something they had counted on had turned away from them. That something was the government of the city of Berkeley. 

Here’s the picture in a nutshell. Berkeley has a reserve of $25 million. It will allocate $400,000 for more police. But it will cut $40,000 from funds it had previously provided for a non-profit organization that services homeless youth. (Teenagers and high school kids that are homeless, can you imagine that?) This organization teaches these kids art, community, survival, and self-respect. Some 40 of them showed up at the council meeting to beg that its funds not be cut. What does it mean that one has to beg one’s representatives for recognition? 

I will not give the name of this organization. It would pain me too greatly to associate its name with the need and the act of begging. Indeed, its derogation at the hands of council in effect renders it nameless. I will call it “once-upon-a-time,” or O.U.T. for short. It wasn’t the only organization helping those in need that got cut. There were more. If you want to know their names, I invite you to watch the video of this sad city council meeting. 

The cops don’t show up at these meetings to beg. They know their money is in the bag. Arts institutions don’t show up. They know their money is in the bag. A director or two might come to say thanks for being put on the map. Once upon a time, Berkeley was a land whose legacy (reputation?) was one of advancing the interests of the people (aka democracy). Now, forty homeless youth from OUT show up, and get turned away. 

What are they begging for? They are begging for recognition as the people the representatives are supposed to represent. They are begging for representation. And not getting it. 

One of them turned from the dias in tears, a young black woman who said the most plaintive and accusatory thing I have heard in years. She whispered, because it was too hard to say out loud, “I don’t qualify for anything.” The only thing she had going for her were the open doors of OUT, and the other services that were being cut. 

“I don’t qualify for anything.” How is it possible that a human being, in these modern times, can say something like that? 

How is it possible that, in the richest country in the world, a country so powerful it can kill people 7000 miles away with the push of a button, that in its own cities, someone can say such a thing, and no one has to account for it? 

Well, its not true. She qualifies for being arrested for sleeping on the street. She qualifies for being shot by a cop (in 2015, the average was more than 3 a day, people shot and killed by cops in the US). She qualifies to go “on the market” (an expression that scholars use to signify that they are looking for a job in the academic field) – which in her case would mean renting out that young body of hers to dehumanized men who like their sex commodified. There is a mystical fundamentalism in the idea that something is more meaningful when bought and sold than when it exists as part of a dialogue between equals. 

At this city council meeting, money was the issue, though the issue was not about money. The issue was also about recognition, though the meeting was so lop-sided that even recognition of the humanity of people was reduced to a silent scream. Procedure was an issue, yet procedure cannot be an issue when procedure is more important than people. Representation wasn’t the issue. There wasn’t any. The city is fresh out. 

The lop-sidedness stands out. Dozens of people, many of whom are involved in the services in question, many of whom were young, and had only these services to keep them off the street, came and begged for the right to have this one thing continue to help them out. It took a couple of hours to hear them all out. But then, having heard the people, the council agreed to curtail its own discussion to just a few cursory minutes – to expedite matters, the mayor said, and to get on to other institutional items. Limiting discussion to 20 minutes on what would spell the future for many people, nobody on that governing body said anything at all about what the people had said. There was no evidence of recognition that the people had been there, except the passage of time. One person deigned to notice that, for some reason, the arts organizations and the cops didn’t come to beg, as if to ask, what was wrong with those who did? Two hours to hear the testimony of dozens of people, and 20 minutes to show that those two hours could be totally ignored. Afterwards, a woman who has put her life into one of those non-profits ran weeping from the room and the building. 

They did it with respect to the money, too. The city council has a reserve of $25 million, and it begrudges a homeless service $40 thousand because of what it would mean if they “dip into” that reserve. They refuse to dip into that reserve (beyond supporting cops), according to staff personnel, because it would somehow diminish the city’s credit rating on the bond markets (there’s that word again). 

Well, it is reverse marketing. If you are going to cut out of existence those organizations that keep street people off the street, then you are going to need more cops to control them when they end up back on the street. If you cut $40 thousand, then you create a situation in which $400 thousand is needed. And you do that by claiming that you have to keep a tight hand on the pursestrings. The logic of it is that they cut the funds for the homeless in order to increase expenditures for the police. That’s why both appropriations were in the same budget. It was intentional. Cutting funds to the homeless to create misery is thus foreseen (yes, foreseen) to create a situation of greater criminality, which you preempt by spending ten times as much on cops to deal with it. It is the cynicism and dehumanization of this that is reflected in the need for people to come to council to beg those who should be their "representatives." 

Funny how people find it so hard to free themselves from the myth that their representatives actually represent them. Time and again, arguments by the people (and for the people), about the welfare of the people just get tossed aside by those who ostensibly represent the people. 

Here’s another one. The police are unaccountable. They are insulated from social accountability by the patrolman’s bill of rights, and by a Police Review Commission that has no teeth, no power, no ability to hold the police accountable. OUT, on the other hand, is accountable. 40 of its people show up and give an accounting of what OUT does. Yet the police get the money, and OUT gets cut out. That means that the city government loves unaccountability, and refuses to give recognition to those who are able to account for themselves. 

Here’s another one. One third of the cases of police attention, and one third of the cases of use of force, have to do with dealing with people with mental illness or emotional crisis. That would suggest to any reasonable city government that one third of the police budget should be shifted over to mental health facilities and personnel, to set up the ability to handle such cases humanely, rather than with batons and handcuffs. (Thanks to Andrea Prichett for this; its in the meeting’s video, and on the record.) But nothing of the kind has been done. If a person needs assistance with an emotional crisis, and it is off-hours, no therapeutically trained person will show up. Only the police with their handcuffs. This is what city council desires. 

Democracy means the people determine their own destiny. Begging means that people do not determine their own destiny, but that their destiny is determined for them. One of the mechanical instruments that city government uses to determine people’s destiny is the budget. There can be no democracy without democratizing the budget, without changing the budgetting process from one of begging to one of people determining their own destiny through it. 

This is a city government that has betrayed itself, betrayed its people, betrayed its constituencies, and thus betrayed its right to exist. In showing that it loves unaccountability, it shows that it has no sense of or need to be accountable to the people who elect it. Does that mean that the individuals on the council don’t care? Or is there something deeper that corrupts the very idea and process of representation itself? 

They care to the extent they go through the motions. It is the motions that are empty. The problem is structural. 

In the representationist system, people elect representatives, and the representatives they elect go somewhere else and talk politics. "Talking politics" means not only discussing issues, but thinking up solutions, and making decisions with respect to both the issues and the solutions. 

"Democracy" would be the opposite of this. In democracy, the people would “talk politics,” and make decisions, and then elect someone from their own ranks to represent those decisions. To determine your own destiny in cooperation and conjunction with others means to make decisions in that conjunction and through that cooperation. 

In democracy, because there had been discussions and decisions, the elected representative would have something to represent. In representationism, the representatives have nothing to represent – just some amorphous group of people called an electorate who have had no discussions, and made no decisions. 

In representationism, because the representative has nothing to represent other than his/her own thoughts and interest, the people have to go begging if they want recognition. It is built-in. 

We do not have a democracy here in Berkeley, or in the US. For there to be democracy, there would have to be local assemblies in which people “talk politics” and make decisions, and thus have something for a representative to represent in a higher body (not necessarily the council as it exists). We have representationism instead. We have a system in which it is possible for a young person to actually say, openly, with tears in her eyes, “I don’t qualify for anything.” When we finally discern that what she really meant was “I just don’t count,” we know that she was actually speaking for all of us. 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The killing of 49 revelers in an Orlando nightclub on June 12 has produced more outrage than any other mass shooting in this country, even reaching the floor of Congress, where Democrats staged a sit-in protest against Republican intransigence on passing gun control legislation.

So far nothing much has changed in the stand-off between gun control and gun rights advocates, a divide that is sure to escalate in the presidential campaign. After the recent shooting, four measures designed to prevent terrorists from buying guns were defeated in the Senate. What can break the legislative deadlock on gun regulation?

There is a middle ground, not a distinct alternative, but an avenue that both sides might be willing to pursue: taxation and insurance. A public/private revenue stream based on responsible gun ownership could provide funding and opportunity for more effective regulation and compensation for victims. Establishing such a system could build common ground and cooperation between the two camps whose political paradigms are currently totally opposed. 

The notion that all firearms should be taxed and insured like vehicles is expressed in the insightful conclusion to a scholarly work on the second amendment by Saul Cornell: A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America (2006). The Berkeley Public Library has only one copy, but the book is readily available in paperback. 

Cornell’s work is required reading for those who want to understand the second amendment and how the courts have interpreted the right to bear arms throughout our national history. It was published before Heller, the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case written by the late Judge Antonin Scalia, much heralded by conservatives and reviled by liberals. For a scathing analysis of Heller, read Michael Waldman’s The Second Amendment, A Biography (2014), which relies heavily on Cornell for background. The Berkeley Public Library has three copies. 

Briefly stated, Cornell found that the second amendment was intended to inscribe a civic or collective responsibility to serve in a defensive militia, as opposed to the British standing army. This traditional reading of the second amendment as collective responsibility, not an individual right, enabled the creation of the National Guard in 1903 and lasted well into the twentieth century. In response to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, The National Rifle Association, once a sportsman’s club, morphed into an effective political lobby advocating an aggressive interpretation of the second amendment based on the individual right to bear arms; that’s the kernel of a complicated history. 

The Dominance Effect

Such control is momentary and illusory because violence invites social consequences from remorse to suicide, vengeance, or punishment, just as natural eruptions - earthquakes, fire, and flood - change the physical landscape. For every action there is a reaction. The convergence of June headlines: the worst mass killing in this nation’s history in Orlando and a light sentence for rape by a Stanford athlete was coincidental. But synchronicity matters, and it’s difficult to separate the import of such events. The common thread that binds gun and domestic violence is the need to dominate. 

In mourning for the Orlando victims, we should reflect upon the lessons of Macbeth, one of the great political dramas in our language, given a riveting production at Berkeley Rep this spring. In a parable of power and psychological truth, the pivotal scene occurs when Macduff learns of the slaughter of his family back home in Scotland. All my pretty ones? What all my pretty chickens and their dam at one fell swoop? Malcolm urges him to dispute it like a man, to which Macduff replies, I shall do so. But I must also feel it as a man. 

These words turn the action of the play towards the restoration of a just society. The exiles feel their own pain, by extension the agony of their country under tyranny, develop alliances and a strategy, and then act in common cause. Macduff’s resolve I shall do so is completed in the final combat scenes of liberation. 

The photos of the Orlando victims, mostly young Hispanics – half of them Puerto Rican – comprise a gallery of pretty brown boys and girls, all fallen in one fell swoop. We must first feel the pain as men and women, dispute the causes and consequences, and then we must act. We have a collective responsibility to end the slaughter of the innocents or relinquish our heritage as a free people. 

In a New York Times article Amanda Taub connects mass murder and domestic violence. FBI data shows that 57 percent of recent mass shootings “included a spouse, former spouse or other family member among the victims — and that 16 percent of the attackers had previously been charged with domestic violence.” The correlation suggests that the perps need to control; it was no surprise to learn that Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, had routinely terrorized his first wife. “She has said that he forced her to hand over her paychecks to him, forbade her to leave the house except to go to work, and prevented her from contacting her parents. Even small perceived infractions were met with a violent response. ‘He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that,’ Ms. Yusufiy told The Washington Post.” 

The Islamic State preaches total dominance over women, hatred of homosexuals, and it seems everybody other than themselves, including Shiite Muslims, and routinely practices the most heinous atrocities. They are the world’s worst control freaks, role models for the damned and the deluded. Perhaps it matters less, although it’s a history worth considering, how they came to be. The recent Frontline documentary on the history of ISIS is an object lesson on the foreign policy debacle that never stops giving back: the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The USA helped to create this monster. 

But a political motive, whether that of a militant Islamist or a home grown racist, drives only a fraction of mass shooters, although the politically motivated target crowds and wreck more havoc in one fell swoop. Most of the shooters are loopy in one way or another, but what they have in common are the weapons. So our response must primarily focus on keeping tools of mass destruction out of the hands of the haters and the unhinged by enforcing the “well regulated” directive of the second amendment. 

Women in public office have been leaders for gun regulation. Notable Californians include Nancy Skinner, author of AB 1014, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has resumed an attempt to ban assault rifles. We need more strong women in positions of power who have the courage to stand up to the NRA. After hearing Senator Barbara Boxer talk about The Art of Tough at the Bay Area Book Festival, I felt a resurgence of the feminism that saved my own sanity so long ago. So guess who I support for President. 

One thing is certain. Donald Trump would be a disaster. Local hero Robert Reich has been writing some biting columns on Trump for the Chronicle, but one of his best is Trump’s Art of the Deal: Win at Any Cost, which rightly finds a threat in his need to dominate. If character is destiny, as in the tragedy of Macbeth, then Trump’s character makes him unfit to govern a democracy. “The only real hope for positive change is to make democracy stronger, not weaker,” Professor Reich writes. “The Trump bandwagon is marching down the road to tyranny.” 

Time to gather ye boughs in Birnam Wood. 

Here’s news that everyone in Berkeley should be aware of:So many in Berkeley think that as long as they put all their plastic, regardless of the # (on the bottom are 1, 2, 5, etc.) and even plastic wrap, in recycling they’re protecting the environment. If people knew there’s no getting around the negative impact of using plastic, for packaging, etc, they may look at how to decrease consumption.  

My pet peeve is Trader Joe’s, and its incredible popularity here in Berkeley, yet the over-packaging that so many of its products use. Another over-use is plastic water bottles.

I find myself writing today concerning the upcoming budget discussions, specifically that of allocations for Homeless Services.

It is of great concern to me and all Citizens of Berkeley that despite spending $3 million dollars in the last fiscal year the homeless population has mushroomed by 53%. What is completely befuddling is that no one has publicly stated why this has occurred. One thing is obvious. That continuing to allocate funds in the same manner will conclude in the same results. This is a situation that I'm sure none of us wish to see happen.

Recently I sent you a note asking for your input into a town hall meeting about Homelessness that I and other members of the community are organizing. To date I have not heard back from Council. I certainly hope you would at least considering sharing your opinion on this important matter.

What follows here is a set of specific recommendations where money could be better spent. It is my sincere hope you will take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to review each item. Additionally I believe it is a judicious use of Council time to refer and discuss each item. I hope that at least one or more of you will make that referral. 

The issue of homelessness seems huge and overwhelming. Hundreds of people sleeping in doorways, millions of dollars spent with no end in sight. 

In order to grasp a better understanding of the problem we must first define who are the homeless. Many have tried but have only done so from a purely theoretical standpoint. Thus the conclusions they arrive at have little basis in fact. In turn the solutions they devise based on their faulty conclusions will never generate a positive result. 

From a practical and very real perspective the homeless community can be broken into four main categories 

1.) Tweakers/Alcoholics: people with substance abuse problems 

2.) Bums/ Hobos: Tramps people who choose to be live off the grid do odd jobs etc to survive 

3) Wingnuts: people who are battling mental health issues. They were turned out into the street and left to fend for themselves by government policy 

4) Homeless: people who are victims of an economic system which places profit before the needs of people. 40 % are senior citizen on a fixed income who don't have the necessary resources to pay rent. Another 20% are veterans. The rest are the working poor, unemployed, students, youth with few sell-able job skills. 

The current system is broken. We know this to be true in that there is a 53% increase in the un-sheltered homeless population. Currently the system lacks any strategic plan and addresses the ever increasing population either by criminlalization or charity. Silly solutions abound like that proposed by one Council member . He believes homeless people just need to get in touch with themselves and everything is going to be all right. Which is fine if he were paying the bills but he isn't. The whole homeless task force report is quite frankly a joke. 

Before considering spending another dollar Council needs to first off all define what exactly it is trying to accomplish. Are you providing services as a charitable christian thing or to provide a hand up and not a hand out? While I appreciate a sandwich and a mat on a floor quite frankly me and mine if left alone can provide that for ourselves. Probably at a level that drastically improves our quality of life. 

Next the city must prioritize who gets first bite at the very small resource pie. The previously mentioned categories is a perfect starting point. Prioritized for services is category 4. The other three categories must have some type of services applied to them which are not replicated over different agencies. 

By the Numbers 

The City spent $3 million in direct services last year and nobody really knows how much on indirect, the reason being is that there is no line item budget or accountability. This must be corrected in the interests of fiscal responsibility 

Over the next year any contract awarded must have performance benchmarks The program either does what it says it's going to do or gives the city back its money. 

The budget must reflect prioritization and embrace the concept of providing a hand up and not a hand out. 

Youth – YEAH year around shelter 

Services related to youth represent 49% of the budget. This is based on information received by Council member Capitelli. Maintaining this level of funding cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination. It's nice that the City currently pays another organization to have people sitting around painting pretty pictures but it reminds me of the phrase starving artist. 

YEAH - $60,000 

This amount is above their main contract to provide year long shelter to youth. This additional funding is restricted to developing an employment assistance program. 

It will include a mechanism for finding temporary work through the creation of a labor hall 

It will include job development including but not limited to job placement 

It will provide all job development services including but not limited to writing resumes, developing interview skills. 

It will provide 60 total referrals per month to either temporary or permanent employment opportunities. 

Seniors – year around shelter 

Homeless senior citizens are probably the most underserved segment of the homeless population. The Streets of Berkeley have become the new retirement home. 

Due to age this population is very vulnerable to life threatening sickness. Something as minor as a cold could lead to a painful and slow death. 

Many inhabit Berkeley’s doorways due solely to the fact there is no housing available at a price they can afford. Obviously Council does not presently have the resources to house the entire population immediately. On the flip side of the coin neither can Council afford not to provide some type of shelter. 

West Berkeley senior center is largely unused due to the fact financial resources are not available to maintain its operation as originally intended. The unused shelter should be converted to a year around shelter for 100 Senior citizens. During inclement weather it can double as an emergency shelter at a minimal additional cost. 

Liabilities 

Staff: 

Two full time positions $60,000 (2 positions x $30,000 year = $60,000) 

One part time position $30,000 

Maintenance supplies $30,000 

Total liabilities: 

$120,000 per year 

$10,000 per month 

$335.00 per day (Rounded up. based on $10,000 per month divided by 30 days in month) 

$3.35 per resident per day ( based on 100 residents ) 

In order to keep operation costs at a minimum residents are responsible for all maintenance chores. This is a system employed by Seattle Housing And Resource Effort 

( http://www.sharewheel.org/indoor-shelter-f-a-q-s) 

All potential residents will be screened by the HUB. The Hub will maintain a day to day roster. 

Residents are required to develop a plan of action and work with available case managers with the specific goal of attaining alternative housing. 

In lieu of program participation resident may choose to pay one third of their monthly income. 

Rules of conduct are very simple 

No Drugs,alcohol or drug paraphernalia. If you show up intoxicated you will not be allowed into shelter. 

Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. On site monitors will issue one warning and one warning only. Next incident means you leave for the night. 

Residents are allowed two nights out per month. Absence on a third night will be interpreted as resident no longer needing space and it will be assigned to next person on waiting list. 

This forms the basis of operation. Final needs to be developed by either staff or homeless commission with the focus on encouraging self – reliance and self – governance 

Working Poor – Bunkhouse 

The working poor are people who spend 27 weeks or more in a year “in the labor force” either working or looking for work but whose incomes fall below the poverty level. ( https://obamacare.net/2016-federal-poverty-level/ ). By referring to the HUD Income Guidelines ( http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/BHA/Home/Payment_Standards,_Income_Limits,_and_Utility_Allowance.aspx ) we discover a more specific definition 

Unfortunately the Point in Time count does not provide a definitive answer to how many working poor populate our streets. Common sense though leads us to conclude the population does exist. While this proposal deals specifically how we address homelessness among the working poor in the future we must also examine displacement prevention stratifies. 

Liabilities 

Staff: 

Two full time positions $60,000 (2 positions x $30,000 year = $60,000) 

One part time position $30,000 

Maintenance supplies $30,000 

Total cost 

$120,000 per year 

$10,000 per month 

$335.00 per day (Rounded up. based on $10,000 per month divided by 30 days in month) 

$3.35 per resident per day ( based on 100 residents ) 

Assets: 

Rent payment – per month individual $400.00 

This assumes individual paycheck is $15.00 per hour multiplied by 40 per week total per week Total income equals $600.00. 

Rent payment calculated assumes income of $2,400 per month. Rent of $400.00 per month equals 15% (approx) of monthly income. One third of monthly income ($2,400.00) equals $800.00. Half of this is $400.00. 

Rent payment – per month total resident population of 100 multiplied by $400,00 individual payment is $40,000.00 

Rent payment – per year total resident population of 100 multiplied by $40,000.00 total population payment per month is $480,000.00 

Equity 

The following schedule assumes that Bunkhouse will be located at existing city property. In the event it is not please see exception schedule 

Liability per month - $10,000.00 

Assets per month - $40,000.00 

Equity per month - $30,000.00 

Liability per year - $120,000.00 

Assets per year - $480,000.00 

Equity per year - $360,000.00 

Exceptions 

Assuming that no suitable site can be found that is presently controlled by the city it becomes necessary to lease space. A reasonable expectation that the City should pay is $5.00 per square foot. 

For the sake of simplicity feasibility is determined by taking year equity as determined previously, subtracting potential rent payment with the result being adjusted equity. 

Exception #1 

Equity per year - $360,000.00 

Rent payment per year - $180,000.00 

3,000 square feet @ $5.00 square foot. 

Adjusted equity - $180,000.00 

Exception #2 

Equity per year - $360,000.00 

Rent payment per year - $300,000.00 

5,000 square feet @ $5.00 square foot. 

Adjusted equity - $60,000.00 

NOTE: Further cost reduction can be realized by purchasing space i.e. a warehouse 

In order to keep operation costs at a minimum residents are responsible for all maintenance chores. This is a system employed by Seattle Housing And Resource Effort 

( http://www.sharewheel.org/indoor-shelter-f-a-q-s) 

All potential residents will be screened by the HUB. The Hub will maintain a day to day roster. 

Residents are required to develop a plan of action and work with available case managers with the specific goal of attaining alternative housing. 

All potential residents will be screened by the HUB. The Hub will maintain a day to day roster. 

Residents are required to develop a plan of action and work with available case managers with the specific goal of attaining alternative housing. 

In lieu of program participation resident may choose to pay one third of their monthly income. 

Rules of conduct are very simple 

No Drugs,alcohol or drug paraphernalia. If you show up intoxicated you will not be allowed into shelter. 

Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. On site monitors will issue one warning and one warning only. Next incident means you leave for the night. 

Residents are allowed two nights out per month. Absence on a third night will be interpreted as resident no longer needing space and it will be assigned to next person on waiting list. 

This forms the basis of operation. Final needs to be developed by either staff or homeless commission with the focus on encouraging self – reliance and self – governance 

Detox Facility – - $250,000 

Currently the City does not have a dedicated detox facility where inebriated people can be placed. Thus they are either left on the street to terrorize the community or taken to jail. From a moral standpoint this is totally unacceptable. When we transcend the moral and realize the economic disruption this situation causes we realize that this situation mandates a solution. How long can we afford to have people sleeping in Starbucks or on the sidewalks before we realize that revenue is potentially lost because of such behavior. Because of the potential impact on revenue generated I urge the council to immediately craft and issue a RFP. 

Mental Health - $250.00 

Currently there is inadequate mental health services such as a peer respite program. This must be immediately corrected in order to address this significant growing sub -population 

To conclude I would like to point out that the total expenditure if all items are put into play is no more then $620,000.00. The City's return on this investment is that you have a the start of a strategic plan. A by product is that you provided direct services to every aspect of the homeless community. 

By adopting this proposal the Council is sending a clear message that it will only fund those programs which provide a hand up and not a hand out. In short if you want money for your clients to sit around and paint pretty pictures GO AWAY. 

I want to thank you very much for taking the time to read this proposal and in advance for your help. 

As always if there any questions need for more information please do not hesitate to contact me immediately. 

Respectfully submitted; 

Mike Lee 

Candidate for Mayor: www.oldbumformayor.org 

Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward 

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

After securing the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump promised a “tell all” speech about Hillary Clinton. On June 22nd he delivered a slanderous collage of all the Clinton lies and innuendos the rightwing has circulated over the last 24 years – imagine a speech written by Ann Coulter. Those of us who believe Clinton would be a better president should be forewarned: there’s more coming from Trump. Here’s how to defend Hillary.

“Hillary Clinton… is a world-class liar.” Consider the source. The award-winning fact-checking website, Politifact, rated Hillary the most truthful of all the 2016 candidates. By contrast, Politifact rated Donald Trump the least truthful with 75 percent of his statements “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire.”

Trump’s June 22nd speech contained at least 40 lies or gross distortions.

Those of us who defend Clinton should use Kevin Drum’s article “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy” as our bible. 

“Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.” Trump’s not-so-subtle tactic is to sway voters with the stance: “Clinton represents politics as usual; I am the outsider untainted by ties to special interests.” 

Trump’s attack on Clinton had three parts: accusations about her life before her tenure as Secretary of State, during her tenure, and afterwards. Regarding her life before becoming Secretary of State, Trump asserted, “[Clinton] has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests.” The New York Times labeled this assertion “mostly false.” 

Early in her career, Mrs. Clinton worked for the Children’s Defense Fund and as a lawyer for the House impeachment inquiry against President Richard Nixon, and later worked at the private Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, focusing on intellectual property and other cases. Much of her career has been devoted to government service, as first lady, United States senator and secretary of state.

With regards to Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State, Trump asserted, “She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash.” Trump based his claims on the debunked book Clinton Cash. In 2015, the book’s author told NBC News "No, we don't have direct evidence [of a quid-pro-quo}.” 

Trump repeated claims that Hillary was responsible for the Benghazi deaths. “Our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens… was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed.” Impartial observers have said that Hillary Clinton monitored the situation as soon as the Benghazi attacks were reported. Trump’s claims about Clinton and Benghazi have been discredited by multiple sources. 

Finally, Trump said, “Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and ... she let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property.” This assertion is absurd and easily discredited; for example, Politifact reported that Chinese hacking occurred in 2015 after Clinton had left the State Department. 

Regarding her life after resigning her post as Secretary of State, before she announced her presidential candidacy, Trump asserted, “Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia… and millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman…” These funds went to the Clinton Foundation – to fight infectious diseases – not to Hillary directly. 

Trump could not ignore the Clinton email scandal, noting “Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments… putting all of America in danger…. So [our enemies] probably have an blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States.” This is false; there is no evidence the Clinton email was hacked. 

Even if all of Trump’s claims about Hillary are false, is he a righteous outsider? 

Hardly. In his June 22nd speech, Trump introduced himself: “I started off in Brooklyn New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business worth over 10 billion dollars.” The New York Times noted: 

This [claim] substantially understates the financial assistance that Mr. Trump received from his father, Fred, a major real estate developer in New York City. The decades-old “loan” was for $1 million, a handsome sum that is by no means “small.” But the elder Mr. Trump did not stop there: He handed his son control of a large company with significant property holdings across the city, whose substantial value is difficult to quantify or overstate.

Trump’s personal life and business practices have come under scrutiny multiple times, the latest being the Trump University lawsuit. 

After Trump’s June 22nd speech, Hillary Clinton quipped, “He’s going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance [of my proposals].” True. But the underlying reason seems to be that Trump is a pathological liar, unqualified and unworthy of being President of the United States. 

U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy (D.CT) filibustered in the Senate for 15 hours in an effort to move forward gun safety policy. On June 20, the Senate, as expected, failed to pass four gun-control related measures in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub massacre. The four measures - - two by Democrats and two weaker ones by Republicans -- included: 

A bill to enhance universal background checks, closing the loophole which allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without any checks; 

A bill to ban suspects on terrorism watch lists from buying guns; 

A bill that would allow the US Attorney General to delay a gun purchase by a known or suspected terrorist, but law enforcement would need to determine the charge within three days; and 

A bill that would alert the FBI of terrorism suspects who have purchased a gun, without blocking the purchase outright.  

The obvious omission was a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons ban that expired in 2004. As you remember, Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, used a .233-caliber AR-15-type assault rifle that he could not have purchased if the ban had been in effect. 

It didn't seem to matter that the Orlando shooting was the 133rd in the U.S. in 2016. It was the 15th mass shooting in Florida this year, and the fourth in Orlando or that a latest CNN/ORC poll shows that 55% of Americans favor stricter gun control laws.  

Unfortunately, no reasonable gun control legislation will pass in this Congress, but at least we know who voted for and against this legislation and we can vote accordingly this November.

What do you do when a difficult event takes place, and you have no explanation for it? One tendency for those of us subject to psychosis is to ruminate about it, and produce delusions, in a futile attempt at finding an explanation.  

Delusions often have a hold on the mind of a psychotic person through the emotions they generate. This is so whether the emotions are pleasurable or painful. A painful and scary delusion has just as much power over the mind as does the belief that something good is coming--perhaps more so. The human brain is designed to prioritize anything connected with strong emotions; and people with schizophrenia lack filtering compared to a non-afflicted person.  

Delusions aren't merely erroneous beliefs; they reinforce themselves through the emotional systems in the brain. That's why it is so difficult, or even impossible, to convince a psychotic person that he or she is having a delusion.  

I have more than thirty years of experience resolving delusions with cognitive techniques. However, I must do this in combination with taking antipsychotic medications, since the disease is too powerful to combat with cognitive techniques alone.  

If my delusions have progressed to a point where they could potentially affect business communication, it is a red flag. It means that I urgently need to create some self-imposed restrictions.  

A person in the process of becoming psychotic can often function up to the point where the delusions have finally taken over completely. I have an acquaintance who works, or did work, in a highly professional engineering position, and yet who suffers from a lot of paranoid delusions--but apparently was able to function despite this.  

Back in "the day," when I was nineteen years old, I worked at my job cleaning and polishing supermarket floors, and at the same time, I believed I was having conversations with extraterrestrials. Being able to drive a car, and even being able to function at a job, doesn't automatically mean that a person is not mentally ill.  

{You may have coworkers with a psychiatric illness and not know of this. Some persons with mental illness who maintain themselves with treatment, are able to be essentially normal--that is, hold down a job, raise a family and own a house. Those who function at that level tend to keep closeted about their condition, by necessity.}  

The trick is to catch it before reaching the point of no return. For someone becoming psychotic, the point of "no return" usually means that you are far enough into the delusions that you require hospitalization.  

The Presidential election, and now a number of other global events, are a continuous source of stress, even though it doesn't (at this stage) directly affect me, if I don't want it to. I think a lot of people who are in vulnerable positions in life are probably terrified of the possible outcome of this election. And you can't always get away from it. Turn on the news and there is always something about the election.  

Now, we are also seeing turmoil in Europe, we are seeing North Korea testing ballistic missiles and atomic warheads, we are seeing resurgence of the Cold War with Russia, and the list goes on…  

If you turn on the news, you could be in for a rough ride.  

The above, in combination with life circumstances that aren't perfect, has caused me to feel pressured from a number of vectors. And I already had a tendency to generate a lot of anxiety. 

These are difficult times for a number of persons with mental illness. We need to give ourselves adequate "down time" but at the same time this ought not be spent on ruminating. We need to do specific things to fend off a relapse.  

Not all people with schizophrenia are able to reflect and discern that they are having a delusion. This is a capacity that I have spent not just years, but decades, cultivating. Sometimes medication alone is not enough. Yet without medication, many persons with psychosis, such as I, do not stand a chance, against a disease that resembles a tsunami inside the mind.  

Law enforcement is at least initially calling the horrific Orlando shootings by Omar Mateen as “domestic terrorism.” I don’t believe it was domestic terrorism. Sure, ISIS took “credit” for the shootings but I don’t believe for a minute that Mateen has any relationship to ISIS. He was just looking for his fifteen minutes of hate-fueled infamy. Domestic terrorism focuses on the motive behind the act and it specifies that the motive has to be to coerce people or influence or affect government policy. That doesn’t appear to be the case here.

Mateen’s father, Mir Seddique, claimed this horrible act had nothing to do with religion. “We were in downtown Miami, Bayside, people were playing music. And he saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry,” Seddique told NBC. “They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, ‘Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.’ And then we were in the men’s bathroom and men were kissing each other.”

Thus, what we have here is a homophobic act by a mentally ill person, not domestic terrorism.  

In the aftermath of this latest mass shooting, there is again a loud call for more gun control. Will the deadliest killing in US history of 49 people in Orlando finally be a tipping point, causing the enactment of reasonable gun control legislation at the federal level? I thought the December 2012 killing of 20 children and seven adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School would be such a tipping point but, alas, it was not. Then, surely, the killing of nine worshipers at the historic Emanuel AME church in Charleston, S.C. would be a tipping point. Again it was not. 

And gun control does work. A study found that states with higher rates of firearms in the home have disproportionately correlative big numbers of gun-related homicides. The findings suggest that measures to make guns less available could cut the rate of killings. 

Mateen used an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon. As Stephen King remarked, “Semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell ‘yeehaw,’ and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use -- their only other use -- is to kill people.” 

Will 49 dead in Orlando finally be the act to wake up Congress to finally pass meaningful gun control legislation? Unfortunately such efforts will probably be doomed again because too many members of Congress are in the pockets of the NRA lobby, in tandem with gun makers and importers, military sympathizers, and far-right organizations. 

And after all the sound and fury is over, the cycle of killings, hand wringing, and mourning will likely continue ad infinitum.

The San Francisco Symphony brought its season to a close with four performances of Gustav Mahler’s Second Symphony, Wednesday through Saturday, June 29-July 2, at Davies Hall. Mahler linked his Second Symphony to his First Symphony, stating that the hero of the First is borne to his grave in the funeral music of the Second and that “the real, the climactic dénouement [of the First] comes only in the Second.” With this in mind, I must observe that while I love Mahler’s First Symphony, I find his Second somewhat disjointed and problematic. The first and last movements of the Second are the biggest by far, in length but also in sheer volume of sound, and they tend to overwhelm the inner, softer movements. This was indeed the case in Maestro Michael Tilson Thomas’s reading of Mahler’s Second Symphony.  

To make matters even more problematic, there is a long stretch of music toward the end of the Second Symphony, between the radiant “Urlicht” song and the final choral “Auferstehung,” that always strikes me as sheer bombast. Here, as to a certain extent in the first movement, Mahler unleashes his huge orchestral forces with great blasts from strings and brass, savage outbursts from the timpanist, and shrieking violins and trumpets. It’s all a bit much. At this stage of his career, Mahler had not yet successfully assimilated his admiration for Bruckner’s symphonic architecture, with the result, here in his Second Symphony, that he strung together seemingly antithetical elements, hoping they would somehow hold together. To my mind, unfortunately, they don’t. 

With these reservations in mind, there are a number of shining moments in Mahler’s Second Symphony. The first movement, which Mahler initially intended as a stand-alone work, is entitled Totdenfeier (Funeral Rites) and is structured as a funeral march. The key of C minor recalls Beethoven’s memorable Marche funebre in his Eroica Symhony. Mahler here experiments with surprising tempo changes and contrasting dynamics, urging his string players to switch back and forth from “a violent onslaught” of fortissimo to slow moments of soft pianissimo. (This, too, is a characteristic effect Mahler borrowed from Bruckner.) The second movement opens with a tender, melodic theme, then turns quite dramatic before embarking on a fairly extensive passage of pizzicato plucking which starts in the violas and spreads throughout the strings. The third movement offers a symphonic take on Mahler’s Des Knaben Wunderhorn song about Saint Anthony preaching to the fishes. The sardonic scherzo seems to undercut this Christian tale, exposing its absurdity.  

Eventually, this scherzo slides to a halt, and the “Urlicht” song begins. Sung ravishingly here by mezzo-soprano Kelley O’Connor, this song, also from Des Knaben Wunderhorn,” is a quiet but fervent plea for a guiding light to illuminate the way to eternal life. Kelley O’Connor made this song the highlight of the piece, endowing it with tonal lushness and amazing breath control that enabled her to sustain the song’s long melodic lines.  

Then, alas, came the bombast. And it came with a vengeance. It just goes on and on, shrieking at the top of its orchestral lungs. I can find no rhyme or reason for this over-indulgence on Mahler’s part. Not even the taut reading led by Michael Tilson Thomas, impressive though it was, could salvage this bombast in my view. Fortunately, peace and sanity returned with the soft choral opening of the “Auferstehung” (“Resurrection”). Incidentally, it is this song which caused others, not Mahler himself, to call this Second Symphony the “Resurrection.” The large Symphony Chorus, directed by Ragnar Bohlin, began this Resurrection song very softly, then gradually built in fervor and volume, with soloists Kelley O’Connor and soprano Karina Gauvin adding their voices to this inspired plea for immortality, which reaches a transformative ecstasy in the words “Sterben werd’ich, um zu leben” (“I will die, that I might live.”)