Several events are being held in the Bay Area today in conjunction with a nationwide protest against the Trump Administration's immigration policies, particularly the separation of family members along the U.S. border. 

A group called Families Belong Together, which is organizing the protest, says thousands of people across the country will join marches, rallies and vigils to protest what they allege is "the administration's cruel and inhumane treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers." 

The group says it's concerned about "the current crisis of families being separated at the border and of children being put in detention." 

Organizers of Families Belong Together said in a statement, "As parents, it is unconscionable that the U.S. government is actively tearing apart immigrant families. They are victims of violence, hunger, and poverty and our government's actions re-violate them, causing untold damage." 

They said, "Children as young as 18 months are torn from their mothers' arms by our own government. This is violent abuse and as concerned citizens and voters we state, unequivocally, that this is not in line with American values." 

Organizers added, "We are disheartened by the lack of leadership in Congress, whose job is to be a check on the federal government when it overreaches and abuses its power. We are calling for immediate reforms and an end to this barbarism." 

Jess Morales Rocketto, the political director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and chair of its immigration campaign, said "The outrage and opposition will only keep growing if the Administration continues this cruelty of separating families." 

Rocketto said, "Families belong together. This shouldn't be up for debate. No one should accept babies being torn from their mothers' arms or children being locked away from their parents." 

There will be events at 6 p.m. today at the San Jose City Hall at 200 E. Santa Clara St. in San Jose and at the El Cerrito Plaza at 513 El Cerrito Plaza. 

At 4:30 p.m., there will be an event at the Watsonville City Plaza at 358 Main St. and at 5:30 p.m. there will be an event at Todos Santos Plaza at 2151 Salvio St. in Concord. 

A list of events around the Bay Area and nationwide can be found at https://familiesbelong.org.

UPDATE, 3:26 pm, 6-14-18:

Latest figures confirm that Beckles will be the the November candidate.

---

t looks Jovanka Beckles has edged out Dan Kalb for second place in the Assembly District 15 race.

About 8500 more votes in the AD-15 race were counted in Contra Costa County and those put Jovanka Beckles back in the lead by 300 votes. A very small number of votes were counted in Alameda County from AD-15, probably not more than about 100; Kalb gained 5 votes reducing Beckles lead to 295. Very few votes remain in Alameda County: only 252 as of 10:35 p.m. last night so today’s update is probably it. See Unprocessed Ballots Status on the Secretary of State’s Web site: https://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status. Provisional ballots appear to remain in Contra Costa County but those are not going to help Kalb.Unless the unprocessed ballot numbers on the Secretary of State Web site are wrong, Beckles has come in second behind Buffy Wicks, who spent far more money than Beckles, much of it from out of state. 

Buffy Wicks 

Alameda County: 24,655 32.5% 

Contra Costa County: 11,896 29.8% 

Total: 36,551 

 

Jovanka Beckles 

Alameda County: 11,123 14.6% 

Contra Costa County: 7,009 17.5% 

Total: 18,132 

 

Dan Kalb 

Alameda County: 14,770 19.4% 

Contra Costa County: 3,067 7.7% 

Total: 17,837 

 

Judy Appel 

Alameda County: 10,714 14.1% 

Contra Costa County: 2,673 6.7% 

Total: 13,387 

 

Turnout to date, Jun 13, 5:01 p.m. Alameda County: 39.7% 

Turnout to date, June 13, 3:30 p.m. Contra Costa County: 37.7% 

AC turnout so far reported exceeds that of the 2014, 2012 and 2010 primaries, though falls short of 2016 presidential primary between Clinton and Sanders (49.3% in AC) 

Contra Costa results: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Contra_Costa/75371/Web02.195726/#/ 

Alameda County results: https://acgov.org/rovresults/235/1414.htm 

Secretary of State has not yet (as of 5:15 pm) updated to include latest update from CC, but look here for the latest: https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/15 

A suspect has been arrested in connection with a shooting in Berkeley late this morning that seriously wounded a victim, police said. 

At about 11:30 a.m., police got a call about a person who was in the middle of the street in the 2100 block of Essex Street screaming that they had been shot. Responding officers found the victim suffering from gunshot wounds, Berkeley police Officer Byron White said. 

White said the victim was taken to a hospital but he didn't know the victim's condition or gender. 

The arrest was made at about 1:30 p.m. today but police aren't yet releasing the suspect's name.

TO: Mayor Arreguin and Council Members Maio, Davila, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Worthington and Droste

City Manager Dee Williams-Ridley

Director Timothy Burroughs, Planning and Development Department

FROM: Shirley Dean

SUBJECT: June 12 Council Meeting, Item 48

Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision

I am deeply disappointed to learn that City staff has placed this item on the Action Calendar of your June 12, 2018 Council Meeting. I have had a long history of experience with the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance: first working as a co-author of the Ordinance; then as a person who worked hard to gain approval from the Council in 1974; followed by being a Council Member for 19 years, and serving as Mayor for eight years. Today, after working since 2002 to turn back various attempts by the previous administration to weaken the Ordinance, the community once again faces yet another challenge to its provisions. In this instance, my concerns are twofold: 1) procedural; and 2) substance issues. 

Procedural Issues: This item has not been properly managed by the City 

An item, which is worded the same as the subject item #48, was reviewed by the Council's Agenda Committee on May 29, 2018. At that time, the item was shown on the proposed agenda for June 12 as Consent Calendar Item #21. The website report of the Committee's actions indicates there was no objection, and the June 12 agenda was approved. 

This was improper on its face since items placed on the Consent Calendar are supposed to be non-controversial and likely to be approved without any discussion. It should go without saying that when City staff seeks to modify a recommendation approved by five votes of a board or commission, that item does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the Consent Calendar. 

Secondly, the Commissioner's Manual clearly states that items submitted by boards and commissions are not subject to change when put on the Council agenda. The Manual makes it clear that while the item from a board or commission must be the work of the board or commission in its entirety, City staff may also submit comments as they wish. This item, however, was not presented as a LPC item. It was submitted primarily as a staff item with the Commission's item as an attachment. Additionally, the staff item substantially confuses the issues by leading the public to believe that the LPC landmarked the view which is incorrect. The Notice of Decision (NOD) dated May 29, 2018 for this LPC action states 

"Campanile Way (UC Campus)" 

"Landmark initiation application (#LMIN2017-0006) for the consideration of 

City Landmark designation status for a site on the UC campus. 

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hear, APPROVED the following designation: 

DESIGNATION: City of Berkeley Landmark" 

The NOD gives no further information as to what was approved except to state:"ZONING DISTRICT: R-4(H)-Multi-Family Density Residential District/Hillside Overlay" While it does include a link for further information, this is hardly an accurate description for the LPC's action which was to landmark Campanile Way and designate the view from Campanile Way as a significant contributing element to that historic resource. 

Somewhere along the line, Consent Calendar #21 was changed to Action Calendar #48 for the June 12 agenda. The City's standing-practice has always been to place LPC decisions on the Information Calendar of Council agendas. One need only look at the Council's agenda for May 1, 2018 to see this when five Information Items: #27 through #31, all Notice of Decision (NOD) items from the LPC were presented to the Council with the standard explanation that Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.160 requires that a copy of the NOD be placed on the next regular meeting, and giving the Council the opportunity to set the matter for appeal.  

The NOD for this matter states that the appeal expiration date is June 13, 2018, although the Council could appeal on its own motion, if clear and concise written information is submitted by the deadline. No appeal has been filed by anyone. Moreover, the item is misleading in its recommendation to "certify" the LPC decision and sent the matter for public hearing.  

"Certify for Council review the decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate Campanile Way as a City Landmark and direct the City Manager to set a date for a public hearing to discuss the matter." 

Substance Issues: 

There is no need to certify the landmark decision as the process has always been that if no action is taken prior to the NOD expiration date, "certification" is automatic. The only action open to the Council is to accept any appeal and set a date for a hearing. The recommendation by staff is not explicit enough as to what is being set for public hearing and what is being certified. 

Staff states in its opposition that it is neither "true or factual" that preservation of the views from Campanile Way is within the purview of the LPC and that views can be a significant contributor to a historic resource. This belies the fact that views are real, most particularly in communities like Berkeley where views are important to the entire city. 

Nothing in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance prohibits consideration of views. They lend value to public and private property. They are important attractions to the public as people travel for miles to enjoy specific views. They are so important that they often help establish an identity for a building, a university campus, or a whole community. Berkeley's General Plan acknowledges this importance throughout the document. Berkeley's Municipal Code makes reference to views. In every area of this City, citizen after citizen have raised concerns about views in uncounted numbers of land use issues that have come before the Council. Just because a particular view has not been named as a "significant contributing factor" to an historic resource does not mean it can't be done, or shouldn't be done. Berkeley long ago rejected building tall buildings on the waterfront that would block our historic views of San Francisco Bay. How can Planning Department Staff not recognize this? 

Letting the LPC's decision stand as it was approved does not mean that you shouldn't begin to discuss all of the ramifications regarding view issues. For example, it is way past the time by about 15 years when Berkeley should have started the conversation to consider solar and sunlight access to neighboring properties. However, that is no reason to not let the LPC decision made on April 5, 2018 regarding Campanile Way and its views stand in its entirety. It won't be the first time that the city of Berkeley has acted on something that hasn't previously been done, and it won't be the last time, either. 

 

I had hoped to attend the June 12, 2018 Council meeting, but now find that due to health reasons that will not be possible. I apologize for the lateness of this communication, but I did not know about Item #48 until recently, and I thank you sincerely for your consideration of these views. 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE: June 11, 2018, 7:30 p.m.

Buffy Wicks (Dem)32,557 votes ,31.9%

Dan Kalb (Dem) 16,297 votes ,15.9%

Jovanka Beckles (Dem) 15,504 votes ,15.2% 

---

UPDATE: 100.0% ( 341 of 341 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 11, 2018, 4:57 p.m. Nothing's changed. 

State Assembly District 15 - Districtwide Results - June 10, 2018, 8:19 p.m

Oakland Councilmember Dan Kalb has pulled ahead of Richmond Councilmember Jovanka Beckles in the race for the second position on the ballot in November for State Assembly District 15. Alameda County turnout now exceeds Contra Costa County turnout 32.9% to 29.6%, so it is not surprising that Kalb, an Alameda County resident and officeholder, is ahead and will probably remain so as the count continues.

100.0% (341 of 341) precincts are reporting, but many are still showing partial totals:

Buffy Wicks (Dem) 29,827 votes, 31.8 %

Dan Kalb (Dem, 14,651}votes, 15.6%

Jovanka Beckles {Dem} 14,076 votes, ] 15.0%

100.0% (341 of 341) precincts are reporting, but many are partial totals.

Buffy Wicks (Dem) 25,279 votes, 31.5 %

Jovanka Beckles (Dem) 12,135 votes,15.1 %

Dan Kalb (Dem) 11,851 votes, 14.8 %



The numbers are new for the State Web site but nothing new has been counted, the state has just caught up; the county totals are the same as they were at 8 p.m. Friday.

Because Contra Costa County (CC) turnout is now at 29.6%, while Alameda County (AC) turnout is at 25.1%, and because it’s reported that there are a lot more uncounted ballots countywide in AC than countywide in CC and because more AD-15 voters live in AC than in CC, I would expect Kalb to overtake Beckles when the rest of the vote is counted.

In AC, he’s at 19.4% to 13.9% for Beckles. This is an improvement for Beckles because it was at the end of election night 19.3% for Kalb and 13.2% for Beckles in AC, but it’s not a huge improvement.

In CC, it’s 13.9% for Beckles and 7.6% for Kalb, only a slightly bigger margin than in AC.

Of course, provisionals might favor Jovanka, so after Votes by Mail are counted the remaining provisionals might swing things back a bit for Beckles. For Beckles to win, I think the remaining AC votes have to be disproportionately from areas where she did well. Votes handed in at the polls are, I assume, counted after votes that were mailed in. If there's a late shift toward Beckles, maybe she’ll end up the winner. But if I had to bet, my money would be on Kalb.

As of 6 p.m.Friday: Adding latest Contra Costa numbers to latest Alameda County numbers:

Wicks: 22,505

Beckles: 10,718

Kalb: 10,151

Appel: 7,906

Contra Costa County updated today; Alameda County did not (as of 6 p.m.) When AC updates again, there will probably be some shift toward Kalb and he may take the lead again. Turnout in AC is only at 21.62 so far while turnout in the latest update in Contra Costa County is at 29.61% suggesting that most remaining votes are in AC, which has favored Kalb over Beckles 19% to 13%. If these percentages hold, he could pick up 60 votes for every additional thousand counted in the AC part of AD 15, and the number of uncounted votes numbers in the thousands. It’s likely to be close.

AC: https://acgov.org/rovresults/235/1414.htm

CC: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Contra_Costa/75371/Web02.195726/#/cid/740

CA Secy of State (behind county counts not up to date as of 6 p.m. ): https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/15http://http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Contra_Costa/75371/Web02.195726/#/cid/740

In San Francisco, Mark Leno is ahead of London Breed but only by 144 votes after today’s count.

City workers in Berkeley voted to authorize a possible strike on Wednesday, though if or when a strike would happen remains undetermined.  

Service Employees International Union Local 1021 announced the results of the strike vote today, saying that 99 percent of workers who voted during a day of demonstrations outside Berkeley City Hall on Wednesday authorized a strike.  

According to the union, the city's maintenance and clerical employees have been in negotiations for two months and negotiations are scheduled to end on June 16.  

Workers are seeking more compensation, better health and safety protections and a community outreach program the union has proposed, according to union officials.  

The union also made allegations today that city managers had conducted surveillance on employees and intimidated workers but did not elaborate. A union spokesman did not immediately return a call for clarification.  

Regarding safety, the union is arguing that the city has not sufficiently protected workers' safety after a garbage truck driver, Johnny Tolliver, was killed in 2016. Tolliver was pinned between his truck and a utility pole while working on his regular route.  

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health eventually imposed a $31,810 penalty on the city, which was reduced from nearly $100,000 after an appeal.  

City spokesman Matthai Chakko said in a statement that the city and union have not reached an impasse and have three meetings scheduled before the 15th.  

Chakko argued that city employees were well compensated and receive generous compensation packages and ranked very favorably when compared to comparable city and county agencies.  

But the city is also facing rising pension and healthcare costs along with other economic challenges, he said. Chakko's statement did not include information about the content of any offers the city has made in negotiations.

Ninety-nine percent of the hundreds of city workers who voted at Berkeley City Hall authorized their bargaining team to call for a strike. A strike date has not been set. 

Contract talks between Berkeley’s maintenance and clerical employees--including sanitation workers, mechanics, and clerical staff—and City administrators have failed to reach an agreement. City workers have filed charges against Berkeley managers alleging intimidation of workers, unlawful surveillance, and interference with employees’ protected right to protest. 

In addition to the unfair labor practices committed by City administrators, Berkeley workers’ calls for safer working conditions remain unanswered. Following the 2016 death of Johnny Tolliver, a Zero Waste Truck Driver, workers responsible for difficult, dangerous, and dirty work maintaining city streets and facilities want stronger safety protections. The City of Berkeley has been fined by Cal OSHA nearly $100,000 for the accident and the conditions surrounding the accident. 

“Our jobs are one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the nation. City administrators are ignoring our plea for improved safety on the job. We don’t want another person to suffer another death because of deteriorating working conditions,” said Danny Walker, a Solid Waste Truck Driver and President of the Maintenance Chapter of SEIU 1021. 

Contract negotiations for Berkeley's maintenance and clerical employees have been going on for two months and are scheduled to end June 16. 

---

SEIU Local 1021 represents over 54,000 employees in local governments, non-profit agencies, health care programs and schools throughout Northern California. SEIU Local 1021 is a member-driven organization with members who work to make our cities, schools, counties and special districts a safe and healthy place to live and raise our families.

Garbage truck horns blared, workers chanted, Aretha Franklin's "Respect" blasted and hundreds of city workers demonstrated for safer conditions and better pay outside Berkeley City Hall today. 

Billed as an opportunity for the city's maintenance and clerical employees to vote on whether to go on strike, the 12:30 p.m. downtown event was a combination picket line, rally and block party. 

The block of Milvia Street where City Hall is located was blocked off between Center Street and Allston Way. Before the event began, about six white city trucks rolled down the street, horns blasting. About 13 city parking enforcement vehicles parked up and down the block. 

"Make some noise!" Sandra Lewis, an accounting technician and clerical staff union leader, yelled to the crowd as she stood by the entrance to City Hall. 

Contract negotiations for Berkeley's maintenance and clerical employees have been going on for two months and are scheduled to end June 16, according to Carlos Rivera of the Service Employees International Union Local 1021. 

The three points of contention are health and safety processes, compensation and a community outreach program proposed by the union, according to Rivera. 

The approximately 1,500 members of the local include trash collectors, mechanics and parking enforcement officers. The union passed out burritos and bottled water today and members stepped up to a sidewalk table and voted on whether to strike. 

"It's health and safety. One of our own was killed," Jenny Seay, an accounting technician, said in an interview. 

Seay was referring to the death of 52-year-old Johnny Tolliver, a city of Berkeley sanitation worker who was killed when he was apparently pinned between a garbage truck and a utility pole while on his regular route in the Berkeley hills in 2016. 

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health issued six citations after investigating the death. Initially, the agency imposed penalties of $98,805, but the city appealed and the penalty was reduced to $31,810, Frank Polizzi, a spokesman for Cal/OSHA, said in response to an inquiry. 

In response, Matthai Chakko, a city spokesman, said, "Safety of employees is paramount. The city has proposed additional safeguards that Zero Waste drivers are required to immediately report and cease driving any vehicle that may be unsafe until cleared by the mechanic staff." 

As Wednesday's event rolled along, workers walked a picket line outside City Hall, carrying signs including, "Support the union - a livable income in the most expensive state." 

Chakko said that the city "deeply values its employees," saying that Berkeley pays 100 percent of all medical premium costs based on the Kaiser premiums for employees and their families. 

Also, Chakko said, out of 11 comparable city and county agencies, SEIU 1021's clerical and maintenance members are in the top two of the highest compensated such workers. 

Out of the 11 agencies surveyed by the city, only Berkeley and Santa Clara County use the highest pension formula offered for employees, Chakko said. 

The spokesman said Berkeley is challenged with pension costs that "are expected to rise over the next five years to unsustainable levels." 

Chakko added that 74 percent of the city's general fund budget is dedicated "to funding employees who provide quality service to city of Berkeley residents."  

Pension and health care costs are rising by 2.27 percent, or $5 million, starting this July, in addition to increases currently being negotiated, he said. 

He also noted that there are currently more retirees receiving medical contributions than active employees. The city's retiree medical costs have seen double-digit increases in healthcare premiums over the past two years, he said. 

"The city is developing a plan to begin funding these costs to ensure that the employees' retiree medical program is sustainable," Chakko said. 

The deadline for voting on the strike was 5 p.m. today and the results should be known by Thursday afternoon, according to Rivera.

Under the aegis of The San Francisco Early Music Society, the biennial Berkeley Festival & Exhibition opened on Sunday, June 3, and runs through Sunday, June 10. This much-loved festival brings together musicians, scholars, instrument-makers, and just plain folks who cherish early music. As in past years, I plan to attend as many main-stage events as I can, beginning with the Monday evening concert I attended in St. Mark’s Church featuring soprano Christine Brandes and Baroque violinist Elizabeth Blumenstock. Rounding out the instrumental ensemble were Mary Springfels on viola da gamba and Katherine Heater on harpsichord. The program featured two French cantatas centered on notorious women who enacted violent retribution against their male counterparts.  

Opening the concert was the cantata Judith by Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de la Guerre. Born in 1665 to a family of musicians and instrument-makers, Jacquet de la Guerre showed such early musical talent that at age 15 she was taken into the court of Louis XIV and placed under the tutelage of the king’s mistress, Madame de Montespan. Later she became the first woman to compose an opera in French, Céphale et Procris, based on the myth told by Ovid. Jacquet de la Guerre’s cantata Judith was based on the Biblical tale of Judith severing the head of Holofernes and thereby saving the people of Israel. Christine Brandes used her crystalline soprano voice to bring the human character of Judith to life, and the instrumental accompaniment was exquisite. Likewise, the program’s second work, Marin Marais’s Sonnerie de Sainte-Genevieve, was given an exquisite rendition by Blumenstock, Springfels, and Heater.  

After intermission, the instrumental ensemble performed Sonata in A Major by Jean-Marie Leclair (1697-17764), then accompanied Christine Brandes in the cantata Médée by Louis-Nicholas Clerambault (1676-1749). In this version of the Medea story, Medea’s violence is turned not on her own children by the unfaithful Jason but only on his new bride. Christine Brandes brought great intensity and expressiveness to her vocal portrayal of Medea, and there were moving instrumental passages from Elizabeth Blumenstock on violin, Mary Springfels on viola da gamba, and Katherine Heater on harpsichord.  

If this excellent concert is any indication of what is to come, this year’s Berkeley Festival & Exhibition promises many glorious opportunities to hear fine performances of early music. Among many highlights are performances by Philharmonia Baroque Chamber Players on Thursday, June 7, Voices of Music performing Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas, and the Belgian chorale ensemble Vox Luminis in two concerts June 8 and 10.

On June 1st at about 6:30 pm, BPD received several reports from the community about hearing gun fire in the area of Sacramento Street and Oregon Street. 

Officers responded to the area and stopped a vehicle near San Pablo Avenue and Ashby Avenue that they believed may have been involved in the gunfight. Officers discovered that the occupant of the vehicle had been shot and called for medical aid. During a search of the vehicle, officers also located a handgun. The occupant was subsequently transported to a local hospital with non-threatening injuries. The occupant (Darelle Antoine Kimball, 27 years old, of Vallejo, CA) was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and carrying a loaded/concealed firearm. 

As the investigation of this incident continues, the Berkeley Police Department is asking for the community’s assistance with this crime. Anyone who lives in the area and has surveillance is cameras is asked to review their footage. If they witnessed the crime or have information regarding the case, they are asked to contact the Berkeley Police Homicide Detail at (510) 981-5741.

So I’ve been waiting to share my meditations on the electoral process until we got a final vote count for Assembly District 15, but I’m realizing that it could be a long time coming. If you want the latest version, possibly even the final, click here for the very competent web site which will tell you the latest numbers.

As I wait, I’m realizing that it really doesn’t matter much. The short answer is that well-endowed newbie candidate Buffy Wicks got a short third of the votes, less than 20,000 as the polls closed, and all the others, some of them very plausible, got all the rest. At the time of writing Dan Kalb and Jovanka Beckles, both well qualified in their own ways, were divying up another 19k or so, with a ~300 vote margin pointing to Kalb as Wicks’ November opponent, but that could change. Another short 20k was divided among candidates Katz, Bartlett, Appel and Pardue-Okimoto, all knowledgable East Bay officeholders, each with appeal to various segments of the progressive voter populations.

How many more votes are out there, still to be counted?

I posed this question to Berkeley voting statistics maven Rob Wrenn of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance. He opined that based on trends in Alameda and Contra Costa counties from 2014 to 2016, with only 20% of possible votes reported when the polls closed on Tuesday, there could easily be a third of the total still to be counted to get close to the 50% who voted in the 2016 presidential primary. 

 

Most voters I queried in the progressive circles I frequent were having a hard time deciding between Kalb and Beckles, which is reflected in the tally so far. A couple of less-engaged “regular” Democrats of my acquaintance were swayed by Buffy’s fresh face and flood of glossy mailers, especially the one with the Obama selfies, which hinted at but did not actually claim an Obama endorsement. 

Supporters of the other candidates, those with totals somewhere in the thousands, are likely to be on the progressive end of the spectrum, especially as regards certain specific issues: education (Appel), health care (Pardue-Okimoto), environment (Katz) or diversity (Bartlett). 

If the rough percentages from this election hold up, it seems likely that in the fall either Kalb or Beckles will get a significant percentage of the vote from the 60+percent of the remaining not-Buffy candidates, almost all of whom are more progressive than Wicks. The fact that Wicks has been heavily funded by the neo-Liberal and conservative donors to the Govern for California independent PAC will not work in her favor if word gets around. 

There’s no reason that supporters of any five of the six quasi-progressives in the race won’t be willing to vote for either Kalb or Beckles, especially because many of them (myself included) had trouble choosing between those two in the first place. Anyone with any sense could live with either of the two. 

The outcome of this race points once again to the superiority of ranked choice voting to the insane and expensive top-two method. It’s a good bet that a healthy number of the ~40k non-Buffy voters in this election were ready, willing and able to choose a second choice last Tuesday, saving the public a lot of money which will now go into the runoff. 

The problem, of course, with ranked choice, is that it’s counter-intuitive for American voters brought up on the two-party system. It’s the same reason that third parties no matter how virtuous have never gotten anywhere in this country, despite Europe’s success with multi-party systems. I did a term paper in high school (more than a couple of years ago now) on the dreary history of third parties, and remarkably little has changed. Americans think binary where elections are concerned, even if, as in Berkeley, the two choices in my time here have been captioned roughly moderate vs. progressive, since we’re almost all some kind of Democrat at heart (even the Berniecrats) or at least never Republicans. 

In Buffy Wicks some voters will believe they have a standard issue Democratic Central Campaign Committee candidate—or maybe not exactly. From the Govern for California website: “…courageous legislators cannot win without the support of political philanthropists.”  

Really? And what will she do with their support? 

She will appeal to fans of charter schools, backers of Costa-Hawkins-type limits on rent control, and those who applaud efforts by Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner and their allies to shift control of land use away from cities like Berkeley to those Sacramento legislators and their "philanthropists". 

With Wicks on the right flank, the other candidate, whoever he or she turns out to be, might be tempted to drift toward the center. We’ll just have to remind them that, in the immortal words of Jim Hightower, There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. Fortunately, whether it’s Beckles or Kalb on the ballot, progressive voters in AD15 are fully capable of doing just that. 

---

UPDATE: As of Friday night, Rob Wrenn now believes that votes counted after the polls closed on election night will probably end up being closer to 45% of the total, maybe close to a half, rather than a third. To see what remains to be counted in Alameda and Contra Costa counties: https://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status 

AD-15 is made up of only parts of these two counties, so many of the uncounted votes are from other Assembly districts. Even so, because there are a lot more in Alameda than Contra Costa, Wrenn says he thinks Kalb is likely to win.  

 

 

 

 

 

We call to your attention the case of Ani Mauck, an 80-year-old American ordained Buddhist nun of the Tibetan Buddhist Karma Kagyu lineage, who received teachings and empowerments from the 16th Karmapa, KaluRinpoche, and Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, among others. Ani has been homeless in Berkeley for over 5 years and has been a member of the First They Came For The Homeless (FTCFTH) encampment community for the last year. Although she had fallen through the social services safety net, she was welcomed into that community. FTCFTH provided her shelter, and to the best of its ability, accommodations for her special dietary and physical needs. Ani not physically well. For quite some time she has been afflicted with severe diabetes, has suffered several small strokes, and recently broke her toe, which significantly exacerbated her mobility problems. Although she very much appreciates living with the FTCFTH community, she believes she will not survive another winter living on the street. 

On Monday, May 21^st, Ani was pushing her wheelchair in the Ashby BART station. The trip there had exhausted her, and because she lacked the energy required to push her chair to the elevator, she boarded the flattened ramp of an out of service escalator, believing that its slope was gentle enough to accommodate both her and the wheelchair. However, once aboard, the device jerked into motion and she fell backward fracturing her skull and severely bruising her sacrum. She was taken unconscious to Highland Hospital. 

FTCFTH put out a missing person report, and a member tracked her to the hospital, and found her weak, but clear-headed. By Saturday she had improved enough to be transferred to Oakland Heights Nursing Facility, where she is enjoying their care and amenities. Visitors are welcome (2361 E 29th St, Oakland, CA94606). 

Part of this tragedy is the City of Berkeley’s “inability” to come to the assistance of this woman. Once released, this frail 80 year-old will return to a tent in Berkeley. The Mayor's office and the City Council have been made aware of Ani’s distress repeatedly and of the FTCFTH community's fear that a woman in her condition would incur a serious accident or illness. When informed last winter that Ani had been soaked by the rains, the Mayor's office stated that it could not do “anything. We have hundreds of people just like her out there." 

The Mayor and several Council members visited the FTCFTH encampment to meet Ani and other residents. Many of the homeless are disabled, some of them severely, and a number of them get around in wheelchairs. Others without disabilities, including an increasing number of senior citizens, have been priced out of their homes and left without a place to live. Increasingly, the face of homelessness will be people who look like our mothers and fathers, rather than our children. 

The real tragedy here is the indifference of our “progressive” Democrats. If one of them ever writes The Conscience of a Liberal, it will be a very thin book. 

Berkeley failed Ani as it has failed many others. Instead of seeing less fortunate individuals as valued members of their community, our politicians label them and criminalize them. This cannot continue. Berkeley must develop a conscience.  

 

Is Donald Trump losing it? It appears that there was complete agreement at the conclusion of the G7 meeting. Trump professed to be pleased, calling the summit wonderful and rating his relationships with other leaders as ten out of ten (the G6 members rated it as a zero). 

Yet barely ten minutes after the official communiqué was published, he abruptly changed his mind instructing his officials not to endorse the communiqué. He admonished Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister for making “false statements” and renewed his threat to impose tariffs on automobiles supposedly “flooding the U.S. Market!” 

A flummoxed spokesman said Mr. Trudeau had said nothing at the news conference that would explain the thin skin Trump’s volatile outburst. The more mature members of the G7 had tiptoed around the radioactive Trump wary of his unpredictable behavior. His combination of bullying rhetoric and aggrieved victimhood is well-known. The ‘art of the deal’ maestro is rarely persuaded by facts. 

Perhaps the most jarring moment during the meeting was Trump’s insistence that the ‘big bad wolf, Russia, be readmitted to the group that had excluded it in 2014 after its invasion of eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. The drumbeat of Russia-Trump collusion seems to be getting louder. 

In contrast to the other members of the G6 who came well prepared Trump’s desk was bare. The Cirque du Soleil “knotty” performers who entertained the G7 leaders were not the only ones tying extricate themselves from the knots of the “US Spiderman”.

According to a recent Gallup poll President Trump achieved a 46 percent approval rating with regard to his role in making the United States (U.S.) prosperous. Although there is certainly disagreement about Trump's accomplishments, he nevertheless commands considerable support. A main reason for his high rating is his stance on immigration. Most of all, Trump has apparently convinced many Americans that he will work to improve the economy and provide good paying jobs primarily for American workers. Trump claims that he is not only unhappy about illegal immigration. He also wants to impose more restrictions on legal immigration as well. In his own words, "We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people. We're going to take care of our workers".

These proclamations are perspectives that American workers and their families like to hear. But it certainly doesn't reflect the views of Republicans who value the availability of cheap, compliant foreign labor. We would expect, then, that they would be unhappy with Trump's immigration agenda. Yet according to the polls, 84 percent of Republicans believe that Trump is doing a good job making America prosperous. How is that possible? That's an easy question to answer. The Republicans realize that Trump's message to the public is only propaganda. In fact, this characterizes the posturing of the Republicans generally. Let us take a look at the gap between Trump's rhetoric and what he is actually doing and not doing on behalf of working people. 

Among Trump's allies is the corporate controlled media, which often presents news with a one sided slant. The public has been hearing that the Trump administration is committed to arresting immigrants who have successfully crossed the border. Trump is proud that the increase in arrests in 2017 has climbed from 5,498 in the prior year to 13,000. Although this is certainly a whopping gain, we hear very little about how few are actually apprehended at the southern border. The number of immigrants who have been arrested before crossing the border is the lowest in 46 years, and 25 percent fewer than the year before. The estimate of those crossing the border successfully ranges from 300,000 to 400,000 immigrants patrol annually. There are 20,000 agents on the border patrol. Years ago more undocumented immigrants were arrested with about half the number of agents. Could it be that the decline in arrests currently is deliberate so that employers would have access to more low wage workers? 

But Trump claims he is not giving up. He wants to deploy 2,000 to 4,000 National Guard members to support federal agents along the border. Yet all parties involved, including the Trump administration, have agreed that the troops would not be allowed to have any physical contacts with those who are attempting to cross the border. What then would they be doing? Trump proposed that for surveillance purposes the National Guard members could fly planes over the southern border, which is the main point of entry to the U.S. 

However, It is not just that a large contingent of pilots would be both impractical as well as superfluous. The Border Patrol is already flying drones over the border. Clearly, the National Guard would accomplish virtually nothing no matter how many National Guard troops were sent. Apparently, Trump enjoys taking dramatic steps to project a false image of himself as a hero to American workers. 

Also, Trump has paid virtually no attention to those who come to the U.S. legally but overstay their temporary visas. These include tourists, students, and foreign workers who have been given temporary jobs. Those who have overstayed their visa make up 42 percent of all undocumented persons in the U.S. Moreover, since 2007 overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year. In 2016 an estimated 629,000 visitors overstayed the deadline that their visas specified.  

There are slightly over 11 million undocumented workers living in the U.S. About 8 million are in the civilian labor force. That is, they are either working or looking for work. So even if the border patrol made a substantial dent reducing the number of immigrants crossing the border, there are still plenty of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who want and need to work. 

The bottom line is that the business community with the assistance of the federal government has many options for recruiting foreign labor. Take, for example, the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which as a cabinet agency answers to the president. The mass media has featured many articles on the arrests that have been made by the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is a DHS unit. 

However, less publicized hat been the role DHS has been playing, with Trump's approval, to supply business with low wage foreign workers. The DHS has recently issued 48,000 guest visas to non-agricultural employers. Trump and the DHS have accepted the false claim of the business community that there were not enough qualified workers to fill these job openings. This clamor over a skilled labor shortage is nonsense. There are plenty of workers available. But business is looking for low wage employees by recruiting job hungry foreign workers. That Trump approved the work visas is certainly not surprising. Trump has a long history of using foreign workers in his business ventures. 

Despite Trump's slogan, "Buy American, Hire American," the Administration has done virtually nothing to address the notorious H1-B program. 85,000 work visas are given annually to foreign workers to fill jobs in businesses, particularly high tech. Legally speaking, employers are allowed to hire these workers only because they claim that there are not enough qualified American workers. But in reality there are a substantial number of unemployed high tech American workers who had been receiving high salaries. So the H1-B work visas has made it possible to replace these employees with lower wage foreign workers, 

Take for example the Disney Corporation's layoff of almost 250 employees. The workers who were hired to replace them were trained by those losing their jobs as a condition of receiving severance pay. How outrageous! Not only has the Trump Administration been uninterested in enforcing the law. Nor has the Administration made any attempt to reduce the annual allotment of these work visas. 

A related federal program, called the Optional Practical Training Program (OPT) encourages employers to provide good jobs to foreign students, both undergraduates and graduates, for up to 36 months. The advocates of OPT claimed that the students should have an opportunity to work at jobs that reflected their academic training. The government provides an incentive to employers to hire foreign workers by offering a tax break of 8.25 percent. Incredibly, the program drains about $2 billion annually from the Medicare and Social Security Trust fund. By reducing these trust funds, the government is robbing the elderly on behalf of the business community. 

Under OPT 154,000 foreign students were approved to work on student visas. How do we explain why the federal government has been so generous to these students? Actually, the explanation has little or nothing to do with the best interest of these applicants. The explanation is that Microsoft viewed OPT as a way of increasing the number of lower paid foreign workers that High Tech could hire beyond what H1-B allows. 

To challenge Trump's and the business community's jobs program we should realize that asking the wrong questions will yield the wrong answers. The question "How can we prevent immigrants from crossing the border"? is the wrong question because it assumes that these undocumented immigrants do not have the right to come here without official permission. 

A major reason that undocumented individuals and families are coming to the U.S. is because the highly illegal intervention of the U.S. in Mexico and Central America has deprived many of their citizens of a means to earn a living. For example, the NAFTA agreement eliminated barriers to American crop exports, including corn, which has made it impossible for many peasants in Mexico to continue making a living growing these crops. Consequently, the U.S. has contributed to promoting mass poverty in these countries. 

So the appropriate question, then, is "How long should it take to assure that these non-citizens become citizens?" The only ethical answer IS PRONTO, PRONTO, PRONTO. 

 

 

It started with a slightly salacious lyric that moved quickly through what any woman would recognize as the typical trajectory; he loves her, he kills her, he mutilates her body in an effort to humiliate her and/or cover his tracks. It elicited a couple of nervous laughs, but most of the audience quietly endured it. 

There's nothing original in such storylines. If you cleared all folk, rock, rap, and ballads of this stuff you'd have a free speech battle and knock out half of both the traditional and contemporary canon. The music was a classic blues riff so there was nothing in the music itself that was particularly original, either. Some of the women in the hall exchanged glances, but most of the hall just quietly waited it out, even giving it reluctant, polite applause. 

But one woman addressed it. She sat quietly at the piano when it was her turn to play, and told the story of her own reaction to hearing the story of another unnamed woman murdered and mutilated played for laughs. She spoke quietly, with no apparent anger. The mutilation song singer tried to interrupt her and someone near him hushed him, pointing out that the woman onstage had not interrupted him during his performance. 

The story-teller onstage did her best to compliment the player's playing. She had no trouble convincing us how hard she had tried to just enjoy what she could of the performance, because we all had tried to do the same. But she just couldn't, she said quietly, and began to sing. It was a song about people from disparate worlds trading perspectives sung and played with elegance, simplicity, and beauty. It was a song about the sometimes complicated path to unity and respect. 

Woman after woman met eyes across the hall during the song, tears running down cheeks, sighs of relief breaking like waves across a barren beach. The dark hall seemed to fill with light, with stars. Without knowing how or why small groups of us nodded toward the lobby after the song ended so we could just cherish the moment, meet each other, be there longer. 

When the mutilation song singer had tried to interrupt the woman onstage he'd said, "no women were hurt in the writing of that song" or something similar, a play on the typical disclaimer in movie credits to ward off critics of animal abuse, etc. He was wrong. Women walk daily through a world where they're thought of as prey and discarded as an inconvenience. The ugly jokes, the songs about digging a hole in the meadow go right by many people; perhaps most people. But women, and the men who care about them and listen to them, have songs capable of putting things right. 

No free speech rights were violated in addressing that night's misogyny. The sad, sapped nature of the mutilation song was the perfect setting for a woman's voice in perfect, resonant, original, powerful response, and a flowering of connections in a crowd of both men and women who knew, after patiently waiting for a long, long time, that a world with a long way to go can, in fact, change when women's voices are included. It may not be all it takes, but it is a powerful way to begin.

Since I am the unnamed 'song writer' referenced in this article, I am puzzled as to why Ms. Denney has chosen to "edit' reality. She has left out the real 'punch line' for some unknown personal reason. The truly remarkable thing about this encounter was that the women who called me out on my song was able to convince me to NEVER sing it again.

Dear Editor,

I did not identify Mugg Muggles as the "mutilation song singer" in my essay "A Song and a Me Too Moment." But I'm glad he outed himself. He apparently thinks it's enough to retire one of his many racist, sexist songs while privately showering me, the one who tried to write about the damage such songs do, with insults and personal attacks, thus missing the point. 

Since the essay's publication he's filled my inbox with hate directed personally at me - the usual effort to intimidate and personalize an issue. Many writers know this moment, perhaps especially women attempting to talk about double standards, and we endure it just like his song, in the same way that women walk a very different path home after a night at the Freight and Salvage. Retiring one egregious song was not my aim although I do not mind. But I will celebrate the day when Mugg stops sending me email calling me "stupid", "dim bulb", "idiot", and "f-ing bitch" for not presenting him as the hero he seems to think he is. 

If he's a hero to anyone out there, that's fine. But those people need to know that it's hard for me to open my email, which is a work tool, without hateful messages from him, and that he has similar songs he may substitute. They should consider that the subject of my piece was not one song - it was, rather, about a culture of intimidation to which he continues his allegiance. But most importantly, it was about her. The woman who, even in a culture of intimidation and threats we both continue to experience, spoke up. 

Sincerely, 

Carol Denney

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! 

Acting like a mafia Don, President Trump has lied and bullied his way to the White House. He pursues a ‘take no prisoners’ approach which has generated a dangerous tribalism. In most of the world religions, most notably Sikhism, God is defined as TRUTH. At the core of Trump’s system of power is contempt of the truth and blatant embrace of falsehood. This is his prescription for political survival. President George Bush and his partner in crime, Vice-President Cheney perfected the art of the big lie falsely claiming Iraq’s existence of WMDs that dragged us into a costly war and plunging the Middle East into utter chaos. 

The Don perfected the art of lying during his corrupt business practices which sank him into perpetual debt and drove him and his sons into the web of Russian oligarchs and into the lair of his “best friend” Vladimir Putin. 

When power dominates truth criticism is interpreted as betrayal and the consequences have been swift and brutal. White House leaks are the safety valve serving as red meat to the media to stabilize the ship of state. Mr. Trump and his pliable Republican members of Congress tout the success of the big tax cut unconcerned that it adds over one trillion dollars to the national debt The regulatory roll back will damage our fragile planet for all future generations. George Mason said it best in 1787, “Shall that man be above justice who can commit the most extensive injustice?”

What would be the principled stance that progressives should take about the status of undocumented immigrants? To answer this question it is important to recognize that the concept "illegal immigrants" is a fiction created by the ruling circles in the United States (U.S). Just before the U.S. declared war against Mexico (1846-1848) wealthy citizens claimed that God supported the effort of the United States to expand its dominion and to spread capitalism. This doctrine, Manifest Destiny, served as the ideological basis for imperialistic expansion. In effect, the U.S. stole land from Mexico that would become the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Southwestern Colorado. and Southwestern Wyoming. Aside from annexing Texas, the U.S. obtained 55 percent of Mexico's territory. 

California is now the home of over two million undocumented immigrants. Close to a quarter of the nation's so called illegal immigrants live in California. About two-thirds have resided in California for ten or more years. Yet they lack the most important asset of living in a democratic society, which is the right to vote. 

In addition, their non-citizen status makes them very vulnerable. As a result of being undocumented, they could be evicted from the state if they act out of line. This dilemma undoubtedly instills fear among many of these non-citizens. Among the consequences is that it discourages undocumented residents from engaging in organizing activities, particularly militant actions on behalf of their interests.  

Clearly, as a result of Mexico losing the war, those who now reside in these illegally confiscated states have lost their rights as citizens. So millions of legal immigrants are living in illegally captured territories. The undocumented residents in California and the other states that were ceded to the U.S. should be immediately given full citizenship.

Can we stop racism and oppression? We do notice unjust treatment of minorities and people of color. I hear long talks about the mental illness of people who harm others, but we don’t address the real issue behind the causes of their harmful behavior.  

I believe inequality, racism and oppression are the root causes of depression among young people who don’t have the power to express their feelings about social injustice and their sufferings. 

They don’t get the chance to express their needs to someone who is empowered to help them. Some of them even lack the ability to have proper food clothing and shelter. In their everyday lives they see that while affluent young people get all that they desire, they themselves are ignored. In order to forget the real world, they get into drugs and alcohol. It hurts them. Sometimes they do feel that it will destroy their future. Since they don’t know any other way to provide an outlet for their emotions, they become more addicted to these substances, and lose respect both within their families and community. 

Our government and people in power are ignoring the truth about depression. These depressed young people are portrayed as criminals, shooters and robbers. 

How long we will take to remove the cause of their depression which results in other social problems? 

The time is now to help them out of their depression, so in the future, they will follow norms of behavior and will treat others as respected human beings. I hope our country’s leaders will set an example with their own behavior and bring hope and sunshine for all.

Why did it take so long for ABC to cancel its hit show, “Roseanne”? Bathing in the swamp of racism, satanic Roseanne recently tweeted, “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj” which was a disgusting reference to Valerie Jarrett, longtime adviser to President Obama, who’s African-American. She’s made similar racist comments about Susan Rice, resembling her to an ape. 

She also accused George Soros of being a Nazi collaborator and attacked Chelsea Clinton. The decision to cancel Roseanne was made by Channing Dungey, the first African-American president of ABC. Roseanne’s recent disgusting tweets should come as no surprise. Her racist tirades are completely consistent with what she has been saying for many years. She has spewed some of the most vulgar racism against Arabs and Palestinians accusing them of being inferior, being prone to violence, and deserving to be slaughtered. The popularity of her show reflects badly on her listeners who find it amusing to listen to her racist rants.

When I was a technology developer, in Silicon Valley, I adopted the technique of "managing by walking around." Recently I've talked to two outstanding 2018 Democratic political candidates who've adopted this same technique in their campaigns. While it may not be obvious, "politics by walking around" addresses one of 2018's burning political questions: what does the Democratic Party stand for?

"Managing by walking around" was originally developed in the 1970's at Hewlett Packard. I adopted "managing by walking around" because I was working on a large IBM campus, in Santa Clara, and the engineers who were developing different aspects of my product were widely dispersed. While I could have relied upon emailed progress reports or formal meetings, I found it more informative to talk to them in person. (I also thought that engineers were likely to be more candid in a face-to-face conversation.) 

In fact, "managing by walking around" is a technique long-used by community organizers. After returning to India in 1915, Mahatma Gandhi would routinely leave big Indian cities and walk through the sprawling countryside visiting village after village, talking to peasants about their concerns. Barack Obama used this same technique when he was a community organizer in Chicago in the 1980's. 

The basic notion in "managing by walking around" is that one stands a better chance of understanding what is going on by getting out of the office and going to visit folks where they live or work. Interestingly enough, that's the technique being used by two formidable 2018 Democratic candidates: Stacey Abrams, who is running for Georgia governor, and Beto O'Rourke, who is running for Senate in Texas. 

One of the notable political characteristics of 2018 is the fact that a disproportionate number of Democratic candidates are women. Stacey Abrams ( https://staceyabrams.com/) is the Democratic candidate for Governor of Georgia. If I only told you that Ms. Abrams is an unmarried black woman, you'd think she had no chance in this race. But if I introduced you to Stacey -- a graduate of Yale Law School, who is the Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives -- you'd come away believing that she is the most qualified candidate. (On May 29th, Ms. Abrams won the Democratic primary with 76 percent of the vote.) 

Stacey Abrams got to this point by systematically going around Georgia and talking to the folks in its 159 counties. Ms. Abrams is the founder of The New Georgia Project which, for the last four years, has been working to register voters, primarily people of color. (In 2008, Barack Obama lost Georgia by 200,00 votes and there were 700,000 unregistered black voters.) 

While walking around Georgia, Stacey Abrams learned what issues were foremost on the minds of Peach State voters. The first is economic fairness: “building a diverse economy with good-paying jobs and expanding opportunities for families to thrive.” Stacey learned that Georgians are much more interested in economic issues than they are in Republican shibboleths such as "cracking down on illegal immigrants." Another major concern is education: "Georgia must invest in addressing the needs of the whole child from cradle to career – and our investment must extend beyond the walls of a classroom to acknowledge the totality of their needs." 

Does Stacey Abrams have a chance in November? Yes, says the 538 website ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-stacey-abrams-really-turn-georgia-blue/) but she's a long shot: "Georgia is one of the most [inelastic states], its electorate is composed mostly of solid Democrats and solid Republicans, with very few persuadable voters. The result is that Democrats have a tendency to get close in the Peach State, but they have a very hard time getting over the hump to 50 percent plus one." 

Democratic Congressman Beto O'Rourke is in a similar tough race for Senate in Texas (https://betofortexas.com/ ). He's the underdog to incumbent Republican Senator Ted Cruz. The Cook Report classifies this race as "Likely Republican." The 538 website notes: "Texas is about 12 percentage points more Republican than the country overall. If the national environment favors Democrats by, like, 7 points (where the generic ballot has been lately), that might make Texas have a 5-point Republican lean in this political environment." 

If you talk to O'Rourke, you won't know that he is an underdog. So far he's raised more money than Cruz. And he's made himself more visible by traveling to each of Texas' 254 counties -- often going to communities where in recent memory no Democrat has visited. 

Like Stacey Abrams, Beto O'Rourke has learned a lot by walking around his state. This is reflected in his " We should all have a chance to to succeed" platform: "Jobs for Texans who are ready to work and the education and training to be competitive for them. It means that every one of us is able to get healthy and stay healthy..." 

As we approach the critical November 6th midterm elections, many Democrats lament the absence of a unifying national theme. The Dems most recent attempts targets Trump's culture of corruption ( https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/democrats-new-2018-strategy-targeting-trump-s-culture-corruption-missed-ncna880006). 

The campaigns of Stacey Abrams and Beto O'Rourke indicate that rather than adopt some abstract national theme, state and congressional Democratic candidates should instead practice the politics of walking around. Democrats should talk to their constituents and run on their concerns, which differ from state to state and district to district. 

Talking to voters; a winning concept. 

---