Political action arm of the Berkeley Property Owners Association to receive the highest fine in modern Berkeley history

In what should be the final chapter of a long controversy, the Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission (BFCPC) plans to vote on a draft stipulation between staff, the City Attorney's office and a campaign funded by some of the Bay Area’s largest landlords. The proposed fine, $18,900.84, is – by a significant margin – the highest penalty issued in the last 10 years, and possibly in Berkeley history.

If approved on Thursday, the fine would be imposed on agents of the Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition (BRHC), the Political Action Campaign arm of the Berkeley Property Owners Association (BPOA). In the November 2016 election, the BRHC supported two candidates – property owner Judy Hunt and property manager Nate Wollman. 

On November 2, 2016, the BRHC committee made two independent expenditures in excess of $1000 – two $9,450.42 independent expenditure for “campaign paraphernalia” in support of each of these two candidates. Despite a Berkeley Municipal Code requirement to file a disclosure form within 24 hours of each of these filings, the committee failed to do so until January 31, 2017, nearly 3 months later. 

On April 20, 2017, the Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission moved to find probable cause that the committee violated the Berkeley Electoral Reform Act, and on July 20, 2017, after conducting a public hearing, it authorized BFCPC staff to enter into a stipulation with the committee’s signatory. 

The motion was welcomed by affordable housing advocate Christine Schwartz, who volunteered on the successful campaign to elect a progressive team of four Rent Board candidates who were opposed by Judy Hunt, Nate Wollman, and the BRHC. 

“Volunteers like myself knocked on doors all over Berkeley, campaigning the right way,” she said. “It felt like a kick in the stomach to – just days before the vote – see these expensive-looking flyers appear on our neighbors’ porches, and have absolutely no clue how much money was just spent against us.” 

Though the Berkeley Electoral Reform Act requires individual contributions to be limited to $250 per candidate per cycle, these limits do not apply to Political Action Committees. The two campaign expenditures, which totaled nearly $20,000, were raised from just 14 LLCs and individuals, all funneled through the BPOA as its intermediary, according to the filing that was submitted on January 31, 2017. Just five funders – Walnut Creek-based Security Engineers, Inc. at $5,000.00, Berkeley-based Waterbury Properties Inc. at $4,349.50, Nick Pappas of Reno, NV at $1,250.00; Berkeley-based 2324 Bancroft LLC at $1000.00; and Reza Yeganeh of Berkeley at $1000.00 – accounted for $12,599.50 of the total expenditure amount. 

The large level of expenditures on the BRHC’s unsuccessful effort to elect two landlord-backed candidates to the Rent Board was dwarfed by at least $892,540 that the BRHC spent in another unsuccessful Berkeley campaign to try to defeat a modest increase in the business license fee of large property owners that will yield several millions of dollars per year in revenue that can be used to create new and rehabilitate existing affordable housing in Berkeley. Though requiring a simple majority, that measure was approved by Berkeley voters with nearly 75% of the vote, while a competing measure that the BRHC placed on the ballot failed by over 70% of the vote. 

A separate California Fair Political Practices Commission complaint was filed against the BRHC’s ballot measure campaign, though its resolution is unclear at this time. However, the BRHC and its associated organizations have a history of violating campaign law. In 2013 the BFCPC issued the second largest fine in Berkeley history against the landlord-backed, so-called Tenants United for Fairness (TUFF) Slate Mailer Organization (SMO), which was created for the 2012 Rent Board election with the financial and organizational backing of the then-president of the BPOA. In that same year, the state FPPC issued a warning letter to the East Bay Rental Housing Association Political Action Committee for failure to disclose an expenditure of $12,000 in support of the TUFF SMO

The U.S. Census Bureau recently reported new data showing median incomes rising sharply in the San Francisco area. While many in the Bay Area latched onto the promising economic outlook, I was immediately struck by the glaring headline that was missed.

Black households, already far below the average median income in the Bay Area, were locked out of this explosion of wealth.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward metro area jumped by 9 percent from 2015 to 2016, while the median income for black households inched up just 2 percent.

The annual median income for black households in the region stands at $46,571, less than half the $106,919 for whites. 

The income divide hinders black families’ ability to accumulate wealth. Right now, the ratio of the wealth divide between white households and black households is more than 10 to 1. 

That has serious implication. Accrued wealth allows families to start businesses, purchase homes and send kids to college. It also allows families to sleep comfortably, knowing that an unforeseen emergency – like a car malfunction or a hospital stay – won’t leave them bankrupt. 

A recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Prosperity Now reveals that African American middle-income earners (those earning $37,201-$61,328 annually) have a median wealth of $11,000 while white middle- income earners have a median wealth of $160,000. 

While these findings are appalling, they should shock no one. America’s racial wealth divide directly results from generations of slavery, segregation and institutionalized racism. 

If we ever hope to stem the tide of wealth inequality and close the racial wealth divide in our country, we must confront the forces of systematic and institutional racism that have long stunted wealth creation in communities of color. 

Breaking through barriers that prevent wealth creation will require a multi-faceted strategy on the local, state and national level. 

Foremost, we must understand the building blocks necessary to develop wealth in communities with broad-based asset poverty such as African Americans and Latinos. 

Understanding the barriers that stand in the way of wealth creation for those that have been historically economically marginalized — whether it is the lack of steady livable wages or not having the opportunity to build savings — is crucial to eliminating the racial inequality that has always stricken our country. 

We need elected officials to take every step possible to address these inequities and invest in these households. Fixing unfair tax programs, encouraging savings and increasing incomes are just a few examples. 

Finally, we must institute policies that give African Americans and other low-wealth communities the financial opportunity to build wealth. One crucial step is reducing the sky-rocketing cost of housing and increasing access to homeownership — especially in the Bay Area, where gentrification and displacement is threatening the identity of our communities. 

As a parent who once lived on public assistance and struggled daily to make ends meet, I understand the toll and stress that lack of resources can have on families in need. 

The racial wealth divide is devastating the African American community and our country. Recent studies found that if current trends persist and the racial wealth divide remains unaddressed over the next eight years, median Black household wealth could hit zero by 2053. 

This alarming possibility makes one thing clear: We are running out of time to close the racial wealth divide in America. With urgency, immediate action and bold policies on the local, state and federal level, we can close this divide and clear a pathway to the middle class for all Americans.

Gun shots again? How many more Americans have to die before our governing body will listen to the pain and cries of those who lost there loved family members? It is very painful to hear the cries of those community members who don’t have the power to pass the laws to put an end to the gun violence.  

I wish we had very strict laws to own a gun. Those who have not been cleared by law enforcement authorities as being law-abiding good citizens and by a doctor as a sane person should not be allowed to possess any firearms. We are already facing many problems today. We have violence, protests and social unrest. 

It is very important for our government to make those policies, which will be good for all. Even our foreign policies should be good for our country as well as for the international community. 

Let there be strict background checks for people who like to buy guns for personal safety only. No mental patients or criminal should possess guns. Gun sales are hurting our communities every day. 

Let us revise our policies about gun ownership. Guns save less and take more lives.

One person was arrested and one is at large following a strong arm robbery Friday morning in Berkeley across the street from the University of California at Berkeley, university police said today.  

At 11:59 a.m. two people entered Caffe Strada at 2300 College Ave. and one stole a laptop off the table of a person using it in the cafe.  

Police said the victim chased after the suspects on Bancroft Way. One of the suspects stopped and knocked the victim down causing minor injuries. 

The suspects ran into a parking garage. A group of good Samaritans stopped one suspect who was later arrested. 

Police said the other suspect got away with the laptop.

Police at the University of California at Berkeley are investigating a sexual assault that occurred over the weekend, police said Wednesday. 

At 2:07 a.m. Monday, a female victim reported to campus police that she was sexually assaulted on Saturday in a dorm room in Unit 1, police said. 

According to police, the victim met the male suspect at a fraternity party.  

Further details were not immediately available and the case remains under investigation. Anyone with information about the case or any recent and similar crimes can contact UC Berkeley police at (510) 642-0472 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or (510) 642-6760 at all other times.

Berkeley firefighters have posted a graphic video of their service in Santa Rosa on YouTube. You can see it below: 

Berkeley’s homeowners include those who have a secure backyard, those who have-not, and those who wonder how long before they lose what they have now: sunlight, a patch of nature to call their own, privacy, and some peace and quiet.

Those who have a secure backyard own a home in the R-1 zone, located in the northeast hills and foothills; a patch around San Pablo Park (the result of down zoning in 1963), another patch surrounding upper Sacramento Street, and the Claremont, both lower and upper.

Homeowners in the R-1 and other residential zones are allowed to build a small backyard cottage limited to 750 square feet or less, known as an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) that is regulated by an ordinance finalized by the City Council in March, and explained in a flow-chart with Q and A. Since then, an ADU task force has developed under the aegis of Councilmember Ben Bartlett. 

Joanne Sullivan, one member of the task force, explains on the Smart Senior website. “To assist in the rollout of the ADU regulations, newly elected city council member Ben Bartlett formed an ADU Task Force. I am on that task force, as well as other realtors, architects, planners, developers, mortgage specialists and others. May 31, 2017 was the public kick-off for Berkeley’s ADU campaign. We held a panel discussion at the Oakland Berkeley Association of Realtors, which was attended by about 100 realtors. Later that afternoon, a group of us met with the new UC Chancellor and staff from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation to talk about how ADUs could help ease the faculty housing crisis at UC Berkeley.” 

Councilmember Bartlett and the task force held a well-attended community workshop on September 28 at the South Berkeley Senior Center, and six days later at the October 4 meeting of the Planning Commission, a revised ADU ordinance was presented in draft form. The changes include extending the right to build an ADU to owners of a single-family dwelling in the mixed use residential (MUR) and the commercial (C) zones but not the manufacturing zones: the M, MM, MULI; as well as the ES-R and the U. The other proposed substantial change is the height from a maximum of 14 feet to an average of 14 feet. Maximum height is measured to the ridge of the roof, whereas average height is the mean between the ridge and the wall at the eaves. The ADU and the primary unit must each have 400 square feet of usable open space, the entrance to the ADU can be at the front of the house, and other minor policy changes. Other proposed language revisions add clarity. 

In addition, the ADU task force suggested further changes contained in other documents filed for the meeting including greater heights to 18 feet average, modification of the owner occupancy requirements, ease of conversion of other structures like a garage to an ADU, adding building separation, and removing ADUs from the bedroom count. 

These changes arrived at the Planning Commission just two weeks before the final discussion on zoning changes in the R-1A scheduled for Wednesday October 18, a meeting that impends a mighty rumble that will attract NIMBYs, YIMBYs, and a variety of real estate interests explaining to the Commission and the staff their vision of what dwellings belongs in West Berkeley backyards. Who knows what Chair Gene Poschman and company are going to do with this mish-mash of visions from the mini to the maxi. 

The origins of overbuilding 

The homeowners in the R-1A have very little security that they will be able to maintain their backyard sun, peace, and privacy because the current rules allow their neighbors to build a three story building to 28 feet on the average in the rear of a lot, and that height can go higher to 35 feet with an AUP. This allowance known as “uniform height limits” pertains to all residential zones including the low medium density R-2 and the medium density R-2A. Where did such maximum heights originate? 

As I relate in my paper on the history of West Berkeley zoning, the area was zoned R-2 and R-4 in 1949 and downzoned to R-1A in 1963, but in doing so, staff removed the 700 square foot size of the backyard cottage without replacing the restriction with new standards. In 1991, the Council imposed “uniform building heights” of 28-35 feet for all buildings without consideration of their location on a parcel, included in an ordinance that revised standards for building additions. However, the uniform building heights had not been vetted by the Planning Commission, as required by state law, and property owners were not noticed. It’s questionable that the Council itself understood the effects of its actions, although they promised to consult with the Zoning Adjustments Board to “develop written guidelines as to what constitutes an ‘unreasonable obstruction’ of sunlight, air, or views.” 

When the zoning ordinance was updated in 1999, these heights became codified as an allowance for two “main buildings” that can reach three stories on lots as small as 4500 square feet, granting extraordinary rights to applicants at the expense of existing neighbors, many of whom feel that their property rights have been violated since these heights were imposed. 

Neighbors have had few protections in the zoning code other than findings of detriment as required in 23B.32.040: Findings for Issuance and Denial and Conditions 

A. The Board may approve an application for a Use Permit, either as submitted or as modified, only upon finding that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use, or the construction of a building, structure or addition thereto, under the circumstances of the particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 

The criteria for determining detriment have never been precisely defined, even though the City Council in 1991 promised to do so. New state laws (the Housing Accountability Act and SB 35) require objective design and development standards rather than subjective estimates of detriment, which throws Berkeley’s approval practice into question, even for low-density projects in the R-1A. For decades, Berkeley has been wedded to a cumbersome two-stage approval process, in which the ZAB not only reviews the design of small projects but also rules on detriment. This is costly to the applicant, who often must pay the architect to redo the plans and suffer the expense of delay. 

An outlandish allowance of two large houses on small lots is unfair to existing neighbors, although staff seems to equate such breadth as “flexibility” while the delay in determining detriment through appeals is unfair to the applicant. Clearly the time has come to better define building standards in the R-1A, with the R-2 and the R-2A to follow. Because conditions can vary, the ZAB should retain the power to review and adjust such standards in particular cases, but more precision is badly needed to achieve a balance of property rights and to satisfy the purposes of the district. 

ADU v. condo  

The search for new standards for a second dwelling is complicated by the ADU whose standards and rules seem to be a moving target if the ADU task force has its way. But it’s doubtful that Councilmembers Wengraf and Droste, who represent primarily R-1 neighborhoods, would support an enlarged two-story ADU. 

The Mayor and his allies are unlikely to waver in their prohibition against renting the ADU short-term (less than 14 days), even though that’s a relatively quick way for an owner to recover the cost of construction. 

The state ADU law sets minimum standards including the intent that an ADU be rented, not sold; Berkeley law prohibits the sale of an ADU as a condo. Parking can be omitted for an ADU; whereas Berkeley requires an off-street parking spot, typically 8'x18' plus specs for different driveway lengths. 

If an owner has the motivation, skill, and capital, it’s more cost efficient and profitable to build a larger backyard house, which can be sold separately as a condo that commands a price of $1 million and more. Smaller or derelict houses are demolished, the lot scraped, and two condo-houses are built for a significant profit. Because of the opportunities that lax building allowances have created, developers snatch up any available lot, and the prices have been going up as a result, placing tremendous pressure on lower income homeowners to sell.  

So while the ADU task force has admirable goals of empowering neighborhoods by encouraging owners to build small cottages, it’s questionable whether lower income owners can qualify for a home equity loan to build them. The situation holds many hazards for neighborhood preservation and control. 

The Friends of R-1A have put forward standards that mimic the best of the ADU: one story but not limited in square footage, which would be regulated by an overall floor area ratio (FAR) for the parcel. Of the 856 parcels that currently have a single family dwelling and qualify for a second unit, 198 are cottages less than 1,000 square feet, so they could only build an ADU that is 75% of the existing square footage. They could build additions, including an attached unit to create a duplex, which is even cheaper to build than an ADU because the foundation, services, and utilities are already in place. 

Both of these options, the duplex and the ADU, preserve more of the parcel’s open space. 

Off-street parking is one of the most destructive requirements for the condo option, as the cars get precedent over family open space and often take up the most precious sunny places. One backyard condo on 2421 Ninth Street is surrounded on two sides by parking, and 1737 Tenth Street has two parking spaces smack in the sunny middle of the lot. Encouraging cars in an area served by public transit runs counter to our climate action plan, and permeable paving is not required, adding to the runoff problem in neighborhoods that are prone to flooding. 

The staff proposal doesn’t address these environmental issues and perpetuates the problem of detriment by not changing the development standards enough to deflect appeals. Residents have a choice to have your voices heard. You can attend the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday October 18 at 7 PM at the North Berkeley Senior Center, sign the Friends of R-1A Move-on petition, and/or write to the Commission Secretary Alex Amoroso with your concerns: aamoroso@CityofBerkeley.info. 

Toni Mester is a resident of West Berkeley 

For years before Hurricane Maria’s direct hit devastated much of Puerto Rico’s infrastructure in a matter of hours, the officially-bilingual U.S. territory’s economy had been in freefall and was subject to strict austerity measures imposed by the U.S. (and its bankers) which had caused schools to close and a mass exodus of the island’s youth.

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but it has no representation in the Electoral College, so its people cannot vote in general presidential elections. It has one delegate in the House of Representatives who serves on and votes in committees but cannot vote on the House floor; that position is currently held by Jenniffer González-Colón, a Republican.

Puerto Rico pays taxes to the U.S. In 2011, Puerto it paid $3.3 billion in taxes to the U.S., more than some states, in the form of Social Security, payroll, import, export, and commodity taxes. Most people in Puerto Rico do not pay federal income taxes, but they do pay local income taxes, which are often higher than what federal income taxes would be. Although Puerto Ricans pay into the U.S. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security systems, they cannot collect the same benefits as citizens in the 50 states, which shifts more of their health care costs onto the territory’s government. 

Since the recession on the island started 10 years ago, nearly half a million people (about 12% of the total population) have left to work in the U.S. Many of those who have left have young families with children, so the school-age population has plummeted, adding pressure for education cuts on an already strained system. 

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled (Puerto Rico v. Franklin) thatthe territory and its municipalities could not declare bankruptcy unlike states of the union, so a financial austerity plan was imposed under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act of 2016 (PROMESA), which created a board to oversee fiscal restructuring in Puerto Rico. President Obama appointed the seven members of the board, which overrides the constitutional powers of Puerto Rico’s government by taking fiscal control. The board has called for the closure of more schools and other education cuts. 

It’s worth noting that a month before the U.S. entered World War I, Woodrow Wilson granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans and then started drafting them to help with the war effort. Currently, more than 10,000 active duty military personnel from Puerto Rico serve across the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces (Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration). Since 1917, more than 200,000 American citizens from Puerto Rico have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, serving in every conflict since World War I (Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration). 

Without a federally-backed investment plan to not only rebuild the island’s infrastructure but also revamp its basic human services (like schools, communications, and hospitals), and replant its crops (of which about 80% have been destroyed), the only option for residents will be mass migration to the U.S. This will not only be disaster for the island and its heritage, but it will create an immigration strain on the U.S. that it is not likely to accept in the current political climate. The pragmatic solution is to grant Puerto Rico statehood and funnel investment into the island so that its people can benefit from the contributions that they have made to the U.S. for over a century. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is extending a health advisory and Spare the Air Alert due to unhealthy air quality from the wildfires in the North Bay. 

The fires are causing unprecedented levels of air pollution throughout the Bay Area, officials said. 

Air quality is expected to be impacted for many days to come. It will be variable and unpredictable and may improve at times but get worse very quickly. 

Bay Area residents, especially in Napa and Sonoma counties, are advised to protect their health from the impact of heavy smoke by staying indoors and wearing N95 respirators if available. 

Concerned residents can check for real-time air quality readings at https://go.usa.gov/xnxhb. 

Residents are asked to avoid additional air pollution by curtailing air polluting activities.

Adoption fees waived through October 22

As North Bay shelters take in strays that the disaster has separated from owners, shelters have also taken animals unable to go to evacuation sites with their owners.  

Those pets need to remain in the North Bay to more easily reunite with their owners. We can act locally to create animal shelter space in the North Bay.  

Berkeley's animal shelter, known as Berkeley Animal Care Services, has started to take adoptable animals who don't have owners from North Bay shelters. If you've been considering adopting a pet, this is a time that could have a bigger impact. 

On Wednesday, our shelter took in more than a dozen animals, including two rabbits and 11 adult cats, such as Beatrice and Paris (pictured). We'll take on more as space allows. Come down and visit us! You may fall in love with one of our animals - and help the North Bay relief effort in the process. 

All of these new pets available for adoption now. To make it easier, Berkeley Animal Care Services is also waiving adoption fees on all pets through October 22^nd.  

Berkeley Animal Care Services is the only shelter in Berkeley that opens its doors to any dog or cat that needs a new home. We also take on injured wildlife, which we transfer to wildlife rescues. We provide comprehensive veterinary care, socialization and training to ensure that our dogs, cats and other animals are ready for their new homes. Our hundreds of volunteers make sure they are well loved during the preparation process. 

Finding forever homes for the many deserving cats and dogs in the shelter is always the top priority. Right now, adopting a pet a BACS not only helps a shelter animal, but allows us to rescue more pets from the fire affected areas as well.

“A somber President Trump mourned the victims of the Las Vegas attack and called it “an act of pure evil” during brief remarks at the White House late Monday morning.

“Speaking directly from a prepared statement, the president reached for unity and struck a religious tone that is unusual for him, though more common when he reads prepared remarks.” (from an article in The Atlantic).

You can always tell when the twerpish Steven Miller has written one of Trump’s occasional teleprompter speeches, because Miller’s had enough of a (rejected) religious upbringing to manipulate the lingo. His boss didn’t even have that.

Donald Trump’s only exposture to something resembling moral thought was the Norman Vincent Peale “Power of Positive Thinking” feel-good pseudo religion. In the current administration, you could say that Miller plays The Devil to Trump’s Faust, except that the incumbent president lacks Faust’s initial innocence.

In a week where Evil has reared its ugly head all over the planet, Donald Trump has earned the Pure Evil of the Week award for his tweets about Puerto Rico. 

His deliberate destruction of the Affordable Care Act is bad, though arguably based on economic ignorance rather than Pure Evil. The firestorm in Northern California is catastrophic, but probably not his fault. But as the expression of pure unmitigated capital E Evil, these expressions of malice take the prize: 

"Puerto Rico survived the Hurricanes, now a financial crisis looms largely of their own making… A total lack of..... ...accountability say the Governor. Electric and all infrastructure was disaster before hurricanes. Congress to decide how much to spend.... ...We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!” 

Is there a more classic example of a cowardly evil-minded bully than viciously kicking someone when they’re down? 

Three weeks! Twenty-one days! That’s how long the American citizens of Puerto Rico have been getting totally inadequate aid from their federal government. The citizens of New York and New Jersey are still getting help for losses in hurricanes which happened 10 or 12 years ago. 

As I looked today for the very first time at the TrumpTwitter page (a terrifying experience), I saw this one, a tweet to #ValuesVotersSummit: 

In America, we don't worship government - we worship God. 

Oh sure. Just exactly what god is that, Moloch? It’s a stunning insult to the God of the three desert religions, presumably the one Trump thinks he’s referring to, to imply that Trump’s attack on Puerto Rico is anything but morally bankrupt. 

In a New York Times profile of speech writer Steven Miller this week, the rabbi of his high school days plaintively wondered how he’d turned out so badly. 

“ ‘ We did our best here,’ said Mr. Miller’s rabbi, Jeff Marx, ‘to teach Jewish ethics and talk about our need to reach out to the strangers, to those less fortunate than we are.’ “ 

That’s not just Jewish ethics, it’s a sentiment also endorsed by Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, and Moslems of all sects (not to mention the plethora of world religions which didn’t arise in the Middle Eastern desert.) The unholy allies Miller and Trump claim to worship that very same God, but in fact they are enthusiastic disciples of Pure Evil. 

This is not the first time that the name of God has been invoked as a cover for evil-doing. It’s happened over millennia, and it’s happening now all over the world. And not surprisingly, it’s often linked with what we mostly call racism. 

Modern racism, while often based on skin color, is one aspect of a more complex phenomenon, the fear of the Other, which frequently has religion as well as race at its core. Moslems in ex-Yugoslavia looked just like the Christian neighbors who despised and persecuted them. The Buddhists in Myanmar are now slaughtering Rohinga, who have lived among them as Moslems and Hindus for centuries. In this week’s London Review an article attributes the success of the Conservatives to centuries of anti-Catholic sentiment. And so it goes. 

Color counts, as does culture. The most likely explanation for Donald Trump’s disdain for Puerto Ricans is their dark skin tones, which reflect African ancestry, but their Spanish language plays a part too, part of his general animus against Latin immigrants. He can’t close the borders to Puerto Ricans since they’re birthright citizens, but he might be able to starve them out by withholding aid. 

Regardless of its cause, his attempt to do so is Pure Evil Incarnate. 

He gave a speech today to the Values Voter Summit, a gathering of Christian conservatives, about which NPR reported : 

" ‘We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,’Trump said to applause.” 

Would that it were true. 

It’s hard to believe that in that whole big crowd of churchly people there was no one able to recognize Trump’s hostility toward suffering Puerto Rico as exactly that, an attack on Judeo-Christian values. 

I wonder if the Little Sisters of the Poor, whose name he invoked in his speech because their lawsuit about not paying for employees’ contraception is in the courts now, agree that denying aid to the poor of Puerto Rico is right and good? 

Somehow I doubt it. Although I don't agree with their stand on contraception, I don't think they've sold their souls to the Devil. 

On their website, they say that "our MISSION is to offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they will be welcomed as Christ, cared for as family and accompanied with dignity until God calls them to himself." 

Does that apply to the elderly poor of Puerto Rico? One would think so. 

Maybe the good sisters should be encouraged to speak up to Trump on behalf of needy Puerto Ricans. Why don’t we ask them to do so? 

From their web page: “For General Inquires contact the Communications Office at serenitys@littlesistersofthepoor.org”. 

Just shoot them a quick email suggesting that they take a stand, why don’t you? 

You might quote Edmund Burke: 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” 

That applies to women, too. 

the wind can change direction
and a bullet-ridden bar
snows across a quiet vineyard
under an orange sky
you brush a wedding dress
from your hair
and sweep polished garden tools
from your windshield
just trying to leave paradise
the valley's treasure boils upward
then settles in drifts along the fences
the wind can change direction
the body knows before the mind
that something unexpected is in store
bring your fiddle with you
and take the road you know

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) at UC Berkeley in fall 1964 involved upwards of 20,000 students before it was over, and more than 800 of the Berkeley faculty voted in support of its demands at its Academic Senate meeting on Dec. 8, 1964. The FSM coalition spanned the political spectrum at the time from the Young Republicans to the Young Socialists, to communists, to students variously affiliated with civil rights, religious, and environmental groups. As a result the Regents of the University of California revised their regulations that had previously banned communists and “controversial speakers” from visiting the campus, and prevented students from holding rallies, distributing literature, and posting fliers. 

The Regents affirmed that henceforth their regulations would not go beyond the purview of the First and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. Only the time, place, and manner of speech would be subject to regulation so as not to disrupt classes or the flow of pedestrian traffic and so forth. Registered student organizations, departments and so on needed only to request permits for their events in a timely manner. This movement effectively marked the end of the last remnants of the “McCarthy period” in which scores of faculty had been fired for refusing to sign “loyalty oaths,” and in which hundreds and thousands of folks across the country had lost their jobs and been blacklisted. From this point of view, historians generally mark FSM as a kind of watershed in re-establishing democratic traditions and First Amendment rights in the country. 

FSM is also often cited as the first mass movement of what became the New Left, riding on the strength of the black-led civil rights movement that climaxed with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. FSM was credited with inaugurating northern student protests against the Vietnam War. For these reasons, among others, Berkeley emerged as an iconic symbol of radical and liberal politics. 

Within weeks of the inauguration of Donald Trump, therefore, it is not at all surprising that the “alt-right” led by Milo Yiannopoulos determined to hijack the issue of “free speech.” Acting on invitations from a rightist student organization, he and Ann Coulter tried to speak on campus in February 2017. While hundreds and hundreds of students assembled to peacefully protest their presence because of their racist, homophobic, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic hate speech, a smaller group known as antifa—shorthand for anti-fascist—engaged in disruptive street actions that shut the events down altogether because the university felt it could not “guarantee their safety.” 

Shortly after this, Yiannopolous was widely denounced and forced to resign his position as a senior editor of Breitbart News when he condoned and seemed to advocate the legitimacy of sexual relations between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women. The Conservative Political Action Conference cancelled an invitation for him to speak, and Simon and Schuster publishers cancelled their book contract with him. Neither Yiannopolous nor anyone else accused the Conservative Political Action Conference or Simon and Schuster of infringing on his rights of free speech. Presumably, however, UC Berkeley, as both a public university and an iconic symbol, falls under a different standard. 

In August, Yiannopolous announced that he was coming back to UC Berkeley under auspices of a student group called Berkeley Patriots. And as provocatively as possible, garnering considerable press, announced that many others from the “alt-right” would join him including Coulter, Ben Shapiro, and Steve Bannon, lately of the White House, for what he called a “Free Speech Week.” He also declared that he was going to award Coulter the first Mario Savio Free Speech Award (Savio led the FSM in 1964). At the same time, and with the same kind of deliberate and provocative bravado, he proclaimed that, “Mario Savio Is Dead.” For those of us who knew and loved Mario, including his widow, Lynne Hollander, these were particularly vicious statements. Buttons appeared on the campus a few days later, in the blue and white colors of FSM that proclaimed, “Mario Lives.” 

In this uproar, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ said the campus would provide whatever security was necessary to guarantee the “alt-right” their right of free speech. In the end the campus spent more than $800,000 for “security.” Whether or not this was necessary, one can see that the real purpose of the “alt-right” was to attack the integrity of the university itself under the guise of free speech. 

Meanwhile, a considerable number of Berkeley faculty called upon the administration to ban the “alt-right,” citing, with considerable credibility, their hate-filled, racist and trans-phobic speech. Progressive students meanwhile, with tremendous effort and keen political acuity, put together a coalition of more than 30 student organizations. They, in fact, held a rally of hundreds from noon to 2 p.m. on Crescent Lawn against white supremacy and to “Defend Our Campus/Reclaim Free Speech” on Sept. 25. At the same time, press reported that 25-30 people attended a speech by Yiannopolous on Sproul Hall Plaza that was not sponsored by anyone, and therefore had no sound amplification. The student group, Berkeley Patriots, had withdrawn its invitation. There was no Free Speech Week, and the speakers announced as part of it had either never heard of it, or had declined the invitation (except for Shapiro, a Breitbart writer, and a lawyer). Over the next couple of days, the “alt-right” held impromptu rallies with a handful of people, marched to People’s Park, and back to the campus, and three anti-fascist organizers, including Yvette Felarca, a veteran of the anti-racist group BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) were arrested on misdemeanor charges. And an “alt-right” provocateur was arrested on felony charges for carrying an illegal weapon, a leaded stick. 

I have carefully rehearsed this sequence of events, and placed them in the context of the legacy of the Free Speech Movement in order to demonstrate as clearly as possible that the alt-right hijacked the issue of free speech, about which they know nothing, and could care less, as a huge distraction. Their aim seemed to be to attack the university itself, embarrass progressives, and garner as much publicity as they could while essentially engaging in a provocative, hate-filled, racist bluff. As in Boston, when they tried a similar tactic in early summer, their non-events were dwarfed by the hundreds and thousands of people, of all hues, ethnicities, genders and political persuasions, who came out to affirm an anti-racist, pro-immigration, pro-gay free speech agenda. 

In my view this is how to deal with the alt-right and their ilk. Dwarf their events with non-violent mass movements of unprecedented size and inspired coalition. 

I believe we must affirm and protect the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution with everything we have. Under these amendments all the rights we have won, however contested they may be now, from the civil rights laws, to voting rights, to affirmative action, to gay rights, to reproductive rights and many more are under the aegis of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 

And our right and ability to organize, assemble, protest, publish, and freely practice religion are protected by the First Amendment. The alt-right, and Trump ideologues, the neo-Nazis and Klan surrogates would have us fall into a trap to limit the purview of protections. Once limited it will be the progressive and radical movements, the anti-racist, and pro-immigration movements, the gay and lesbian and transgender movements that will be its first victims. Even while these amendments are still intact the U.S. Supreme Court, in its new fall 2017 session, is deluged with legal efforts to further gut even the limited protections of civil and human rights that have been won. 

Hold firm to the First and 14th. With warmth and strength.

Since Congress failed to take Obamacare away from 20 million people, the current President issued an executive order allowing young, healthy people to opt out and buy cheaper health insurance. This benefits them with cheaper payments, but as they might learn the hard way, you get what you pay for. Young and healthy doesn't protect one from something unexpected, like a car crash, injury from a hurricane's wind, or the stray bullet from an unregulated shooter's gun.  

Even healthy people sometimes get sick, might pop a shoulder from slipping and falling, might suffer food poisoning due to underfunded FDA inspectors. If that happens to you, and you have the cheap-o medical insurance, you might not be covered; you might have an enormous co-pay; you might go bankrupt; and you certainly will end up with a pre-existing condition that would preclude you retaining Trump-o health insurance.  

Health insurance works because everyone pays into it, and anyone can get the medical care they need. It is fair when everyone participates, young and older, healthy and sick. It will be useless and unfair if craven politics distort the system into a scam.  

We've seen Republican lawmakers hooting, hollering and jumping up and down about how Obama's executive orders overreached his authority. Let's see how they react to trump's attempt to bust the health insurance laws.  

Sure, ACA needs some improvement (like Medicare-for-all); we don't need its uninformed destruction.

About that second amendment that allows people the right to bear arms, a much more sensible idea would be to allow the political right to arm bears. Although bears do not have an exemplary reputation, I have never come across a bear that has engaged in las Vegas style mass murder. And to the best of my knowledge, no bear has ever assaulted any President of the United States. \What about the second amendment? The only issue I believe where there is unanimous agreement is that the second amendment comes after the first. 

Otherwise, there are two positions. First, in the interest of remaining a democratic society, the National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that the gun industry has a right to make lots of money. Also, since all branches of government support the right to own guns, this proves that our government, unlike communist governments, completely respects civil liberties. 

NRA acknowledges that there should be some restrictions. It is opposed to the indiscriminent use of water pistols. NRA worries that getting people wet makes them very uncomfortable. 

The rest of us take the opposite position, which is that only water pistols should be allowed. We realize that this violates the right to free choice. Our problem is persuading the public about the necessity at times of adopting Un-American ideas. We should do a survey as soon as possible.

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! 

Ballingarry, Republic of Ireland—

This tiny village in the heart of County Limerick, with its narrow streets and multiple churches, seems untouched by time and untroubled by the economic and political cross currents tearing away at the European Union (EU). But Ireland can be a deceptive place, and these days nowhere is immune from what happens in Barcelona, Paris and Berlin.

Ballingarry—the place my grandfather emigrated from 126 years ago—was a textile center before the 1845 potato famine starved to death or scattered its residents. Today it houses five pubs, “One for every 100 people” notes my third cousin Caroline, who, along with her husband John, live next to an old Protestant church that has been taken over by a high tech company.

When the American and European economies crashed in 2008, Ireland was especially victimized. Strong-armed into a “bailout” to save its banks and speculators, the Republic is only beginning to emerge from almost a decade of tax hikes, layoffs, and austerity policies that impoverished a significant section of its population. The crisis also re-ignited the island’s major export: people, particularly its young. Between 2008 and 2016, an average of 30,000 people, age 15 to 24, left each year.

The Irish economy is growing again, but the country is still burdened by a massive debt, whose repayment drains capital from much needed investments in housing, education and infrastructure. But “debt” can be a deceptive word. It is not the result of a spending spree, but the fallout from of a huge real estate bubble pumped up by German, Dutch and French banks in cahoots with local speculators and politicians, who turned the Irish economy into an enormous casino. From 1999 to 2007, Irish real estate prices jumped 500 percent. 

People here have reason to be wary of official government press releases and Bank of Ireland predictions. The center-right government of former Prime Minister Enda Kenny crowed that the economy had grown an astounding 26 percent in 2015, but it turned out to be nothing more than a bunch of multinationals moving their intellectual property into Ireland to protect their profits. The forecast has since been labeled “Leprechaun economics.” 

Former U.S. Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill—whose ancestors hailed from County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest—once said, “All politics are local,” and that’s at least partly true here. The news outlets are full of a scandal about the Irish police, the Garda, cooking breathalyzer tests to arrest motorists, an upcoming abortion referendum, and a change of leadership in the left-wing Sinn Fein Party. There is also deep concern about the Brexit. Britain is Ireland’s number two trading partner—the U.S. is number one—and it is not clear how London’s exit from the EU will affect that. There is also the worrisome matter of the now open border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, accompanied by fears that Brexit will undermine the Good Friday peace agreement between northern Catholics and Protestants. 

But even the Irish have a hard time focusing on themselves these days, what with the German elections vaulting Nazis into the Bundestag and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s auto da fe against the Catalans. Watching Spain’s Guardia Civil using truncheons on old people, whose only crime was trying to vote, felt disturbingly like the dark days when Gen. Francisco Franco and his fascist Falange Party ran the country. 

There is an interesting parallel between Catalonia and Ireland. Dublin is still awash with the100th anniversary commemorations of the 1916 Easter Rebellion. At the time the rising was opposed by many of the Irish, but when the British authorities began executing the rising’s leaders, sentiment began to shift. In 1921, the British threw in the towel after 751 years. 

It is a lesson Rajoy should examine. Before he unleashed the Guardia Civil, polls showed the Catalans were deeply split on whether they wanted to break from Spain. That sentiment is liable to change rather dramatically in the coming weeks. 

There are a number of cross currents in Europe these days, although many of them have a common source: an economic crisis in the European Union and austerity policies that have widened the inequality gap throughout the continent. The outcome of the German elections is a case in point. 

Going into the Sept. 25 vote, the media projected a cakewalk for Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union alliance. What happened was more like a train wreck, The major parties, including the Social Democratic Party (SDP), dropped more than 100 seats in the Bundestag, and the openly racist, rightwing Alternative for Germany took almost 13 percent of the vote and 94 seats. 

In some ways the German election was a replay of the British election last June, but without the Labour Party’s leftwing turn. Faced with the British Conservative Party’s numbingly vague platform of “experience” and “order,” voters went for Labour’s progressive program of tax the rich, free tuition, and improve health care and education, and denied the Tories a majority. 

Merkel ran an election not very much different than the British Conservatives, but with the exception of the small Die Linke Party (which was itself divided) there were not a lot of alternatives for voters. The SDP were part of Merkel’s Grand Coalition government, making it rather hard to critique the Chancellor’s policies. The SDP leader, Martin Schultz started off campaigning against economic inequality, but shifted to the middle after losing three state elections. In their one big debate it was hard to distinguish Schultz from Merkel, and both avoided climate change, housing, the Brexit, and growing poverty. 

There was certainly ammunition to go after the Chancellor with. In Merkel’s 12 years in power, the chasm between rich and poor in the EU’s wealthiest state has widened. In spite of low unemployment, almost 16 percent of the population is near the poverty line. The problem is that many are working low paying temp jobs. 

Under normal circumstances that would be a powerful issue, except that it was Chancellor Gerhard Schoder and the SDP who put policies in place that led to rise of temporary jobs and reduced wages. Suppressing wages boosted German exports but left a whole section of the population behind. 

It is a continent-wide problem. According to the European Commission, almost one-third of Europe’s workforce is part of the “gig” economy, many working for under minimum wage and without benefits. The replacement of employees with “independent contractors” has allowed companies like Uber to amass enormous wealth, but the company’s drivers end up earning barely enough to get by. 

In short, German voters did not trust the SDP and looked for alternatives. Given the hysteria around immigration, some choose the fascist Alternative for Germany. As odious as it is to have the inheritors of the Third Reich sitting in the Bundestag, it would be a mistake to think the Party’s program was behind its success. The Alternative has nothing to offer but racism and reaction, and neither will do much to close the wealth gap in Germany. 

Dublin has turned over a wing of its National Library to an exhibit of the great Irish poet and playwright, William Butler Yeates, who is much quoted these days. A favorite seems to be some lines from “The Second Coming”: “Thing fall apart; the Centre cannot hold…the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” 

On one level that seems a pretty good description of the rise of Europe’s extreme rightwing parties, and the precipitous decline of center and center-left parties. It is an attractive literary simile, but misleading. It was the “Centre” that introduced many of the neo-liberal policies that wiped out industries, cut wages, and abandoned whole sections of the population. When French, British, German, Spanish, Italian and Greek socialists embraced free trade and wide-open markets over strong unions and social democracy, is it any wonder that voters in those countries abandoned them? 

When center-left parties returned to their roots, as they did in Britain and Portugal, voters rewarded them. After being dismissed as a deluded leftist who would destroy the British Labour Party, suddenly Corbin is being talked of as a future prime minister. In the meantime the alliance of the Portuguese Socialist Party with two other left parties is rolling back many of the more onerous austerity policies inflicted on Lisbon by the EU, sparking economic growth and a drop in the jobless rate. 

Visually, Ireland is a lovely country, though one needs to prepare for prodigious amounts of rain and intimidatingly narrow roads (having destroyed two tires in 24 hours I was banished to riding shotgun half way through our trip). But while the meadows sweeping down from dark mountains in Kerry look timeless to the tourists who pack the scenic Ring, they are not. Ireland’s modern landscape is a deception. 

In 1845 the population of Kerry was 416 people per square mile, compared to 272 in England and Wales. Those sweeping meadows that the tourists ogle were crowded with cottages before three years of potato blight swept them all away, “Look at those great grass fields, empty for miles and miles away,” wrote the Bishop of Clonfert in 1886,”every one of them contained once its little house, its potato ground, its patch of oats.” 

It is ironic that Europe is so befuddled by the flood of immigrants pounding on its doors, or that Europeans somehow think the current crisis is unique. Between 1845 and 1848, one and half to two million Irish fled their famine-blackened land (another million—likely far more—starved to death) in large part due to the same kind of economics Europe is currently trying to force on countries like Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain and Cyprus. 

“God brought the blight, the English brought the famine,” is an old Irish saying, and it is spot on. The Liberal Party government in London was deeply enamored with free trade and market economics, the 19^th century version of neo-liberalism, and they rigidly applied its strictures to Ireland. The result was the single worst disaster to strike a population in the 19^th century. Between 1845 and 1851 Ireland lost between 20 and 25 percent of its people, although those figures were far higher in the country’s west. 

Today, the migrants are from Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, fleeing wars that Europeans helped start and from which some make a pretty penny dealing arms. Others are from Africa, where a century of colonialism dismantled existing states, suppressed local industries and throttled development. Now those chickens are coming home to roost. 

Ireland is a small player in the scheme of things, but it has much to teach the world: courage, perseverance, and a sense of humor. When the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in 1921, the people of Galway pulled down a statue of Lord Dunkellen and tossed it into the sea, while a band played “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles.” 

And Europe would do well to pay attention to some if its poets, like Patrick Pierce, who was executed at Kilmainham jail for his part in the Easter Rebellion: “I say to the masters of my people, beware. Beware of the risen people who shall take from ye that which you would not give.” 

American cultural history offers many images of walking through difficult times: "Going down the road feeling bad," "You got to walk that lonesome valley," and Psalm 23, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." At the moment, Donald Trump is marching us "through the valley of the shadow." 

To say the least, it's a nerve-wracking journey. Thanks to Twitter and the mainstream media, daily we're subjected to Trump's tantrums. For many of us this is profoundly disturbing. 

On September 15th, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote that Trump had caused an alarming rise in Milbank's blood pressure. Milbank quipped that he was now afflicted with "Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder" (THUD). In a followup column Milbank reported that his readers reported a number of THUD-related symptoms: "Disturbed sleep. Anger. Dread. Weight loss. Overeating. Headaches. Fainting. Irregular heartbeat. Chronic neck pain. Depression. Irritable bowel syndrome. Tightness in the chest. Shortness of breath. Teeth grinding. Stomach ulcer. Indigestion. Shingles. Eye twitching. Nausea. Irritability. High blood sugar. Tinnitus. Reduced immunity. Racing pulse. Shaking limbs. Hair loss. Acid reflux. Deteriorating vision. Stroke. Heart attack." These comments came from those who disapprove of Trump. From Trump supporters, Milbank received vitriol: "Hurry up and die already! . . . just see a dr. You know, Dr Kevorkian." Milbank concluded, "Trump is causing, or at least aggravating, mental-health problems on both sides." 

Milbank is not alone in this observation. Health professionals tell me that, since the election, they have seen a dramatic increase in client ailments triggered by the behavior of Donald Trump. Several factors contribute to this "THUD epidemic": 

1. Trump is omnipresent in the news. (He's far and away the most commonly searched for Google topic.) Nine months after Trump entered the White House, it's clear that he wants to dominate the news every day. To say the least, Donald has an enormous need for attention. 

2. A common response to Trump overload is to turn off the news. But, in the long term, that's not a satisfactory answer because, whether we like it or not, Trump is President of the United States and has enormous power. He can affect our lives in many different ways: starting a nuclear war, ignoring the threat of global climate change, mishandling a natural disaster, shutting down a critical governmental service, and on and on. 

Trump is marching us "through the valley of the shadow." We've been thrust into an abusive relationship. 

3. Trump is moody and volatile. From one day to the next, we don't know what Donald will do. Occasionally he seems presidential, as when he went to Las Vegas and comforted victims of the terrible shooting. On many other occasions, Trump acts like a petulant child and lashes out at whomever he believes is disrespecting him. 

For many Americans, Donald Trump is a difficult person whom we cannot get away from. In effect, we're trapped in an abusive relationship. It's not surprising that so many of us experience THUD. 

What should we do about this? 

When a healthcare professional is confronted with evidence of an abusive relationship, they advise the victim, "get out." A doctor or therapist will tell the abuse victim to leave the abuser and go somewhere safe. Indeed, many of us know people who, because of THUD, have left the country. However, for most of us leaving the US is not an option. 

Three options remain. One is to check out. Many Americans have absented themselves from all political discussions. In effect, they are pretending that Trump doesn't exist or that he cannot affect them. 

Another option -- popular in Washington -- is to pray for intervention. After Trump was elected, rumors circulated that his family -- particularly his daughter, Ivanka -- would keep him check. When this hope proved to be foolhardy, some suggested that the Republican Party "elders" would keep Donald in check -- somehow Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan would limit Trump's damage. Recent months have proved this hope also to be foolhardy. 

At the moment, the dominant intervention fantasy involves "the good generals": Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly (both retired Marine Corps generals). The notion is that Mattis or Kelly will stop Trump from a catastrophic action caused by a fit of pique; for example, they will keep him from bombing North Korea because Donald feels disrespected by Kim Jong Un. Nonetheless, it's obvious Mattis and Kelly have no influence on domestic policy: they haven't intervened to stop Trump from repealing DACA or rolling back environmental protections. 

If direct intervention with Trump seems inconceivable, there remains the possibility of blocking him in Congress. That is, the notion that in 2018 Democrats will regain control of the House or Senate and use congressional power to check Trump; for example by passing legislation to defend "Dreamers"or to strengthen environmental protections. This is the most viable remedy for all of us who suffer from "Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder;" work to ensure that Democrats win in 2018. 

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." To walk without fear we must take action to block Donald Trump.