The CENA meeting on Wednesday night was interesting!

Lori Droste started by pointing out that Chris Stine, the head of the Berkeley Police Association, was present. And it sounded like she brought him along. I don't know if he lives in the neighborhood, but I'm guessing he was there representing the police union. Which doesn't seem very appropriate for an endorsement meeting.

She said the police union is "heavily invested" in getting her reelected, and that lots of City of Berkeley employees are endorsing her.

I mentioned that I don't think it is appropriate for elected officials to take money from anyone whose contract they negotiate, and that Ms. Droste took money from the BPA. 

When she got the microphone, she said something to the effect of me not knowing what I was talking about, that she doesn't take money from BPA. 

While the others were answering questions, I got out my phone and went online, and when the mic came back to me, I apologized for looking on my phone during the meeting and pointed out that on October 27, 2014, Lori Droste took $250 from the Berkeley Police Association. 

I heard some kind of noise from the audience at that point. I'm not sure what it was, I was focused on answering the next question before I ran out of time. But I got the feeling they didn't appreciate her sorta lying to them. 

Later, she was going over-time, I think it was her closing statement, and she said it was too bad she was out of time because she had so many more things she wanted to say. 

The moderator told her "yes but you don't have the right to say them" in a rather confrontational tone. 

The meeting when for over 2 hours, with just the 4 of us talking. So it was much more intense than the usual endorsement meetings that cover Districts 1, 4, 7, 8 and maybe rent board and auditor. 

The crowd didn't look very happy. Alfred stayed positive throughout the meeting, but Mary Kay and I both confronted Droste about not representing everyone in the district, and Droste accused Mary Kay of going door-to-door misleading people about the issues. 

Droste also said that Nancy Skinner has offered her a seat at the table with the new Governor talking about keeping Alta Bates open. She implied that is a reason to vote for her, that she has some kind of inside track working with Skinner. I am going to call up Skinner this afternoon and ask whether I will be invited if I am elected, or whether this is some kind of smoke-filled-room deal that is only good between her and Droste. 

Personally, I think Droste's attempt to lie her way out of taking money from the police union fits with her approach of not really listening to the people in District 8 and just doing whatever she wants to do. Lying to her constituents seems to be another aspect of her lack of respect, bordering on contempt, for us.

It is no secret that some police officers sleep in their vehicles behind old City Hall or in their vehicles on nearby streets. It's more convenient than dealing with the traffic congestion from their homes in other cities. And there's plenty of room in the parking lot behind old City Hall. It's not strictly legal, but you know how it is in this town. How much anybody cares depends on who complains about whom.

Let's be sensible. Let's have at least one small area behind old City Hall set up for short-term stays for anyone who needs it. It is hypocritical that the police are doing this but treating anyone else who does it as criminal. Vehicle and tent sweeps without tent and vehicle alternatives are deeply unfair, especially considering the recent Martin v. City of Boise decision, which dives into deep detail about self-reporting shelters' honest gauntlet of requirements, inconveniences, and simple unavailability if, for instance, you don't get there in time to sign up during seasonally changing hours. What is characterized by our city manager and city council as "availability" is often, as described in Boise, a cruel facade unnavigable by disabled or homeless people .

Each district of the city should be obligated to find a similarly accessible setting and arrange for sanitary facilities, so that each district can play a role in addressing this simple necessity. Sleeping in doorways isn't just unfair to people forced to do so- it's entirely avoidable in a city with our wealth and imagination. Districts which have successful experiments can assist other districts, create partnerships as needed until we have working interim arrangements during this obvious housing crisis. 

The necessity of addressing our housing crisis, which hits police officers, students, and, well, everybody, is not going away. The Mayor and the Berkeley City Council are poised to implore the police force to crackdown on even sitting in the renovated BART plaza at their opening City Council meeting this Thursday, September 13, 2018, 6:00 pm. Instead, they could agree that the BART plaza should be open to everyone, and that each district should work cooperatively to harbor creative living arrangements until more permanent solutions are available. 

The Downtown Berkeley Association has declared its intention to continue ripping down community fliers on September 1, 2018, citing a memo (see below) which concludes, "removing signage posted on public infrastructure is outside the scope of the City's contract with the DBA." They have included no new information. There does not appear to have been any effort to involve commission input, etc.

Director Caner also plainly states in the letter below that he and his cleaning crew intend to make content-based distinctions between fliers, choosing which can and can't remain in places where it is legal to post according to their content. This violates the First Amendment.

Could the City Council please put a moratorium on the DBA's destruction of community fliers? It is election season and a back-to-school time of year when promotions and events need all methods of outreach. My own perhaps imperfect understanding is that the city may have the right to outlaw all fliers, but cannot make distinctions based on content without violating the Constitution. 

Thank you,

Carol Denney
1970 San Pablo Avenue #4
Berkeley, CA 94702
510-548-1512


-------- Forwarded Message -------- 

Carol, 

We were told by the City Manager’s office a couple weeks ago that the prior City Attorney’s OFF-AGENDA MEMORANDUM Re: Removal of Fliers still stands and we can reinstate removal of flyers. Therefore we plan to start removing flyers again starting September 1, except for “temporary signs concerning noncommercial events in the form of posters, placards, cards, stickers, or fliers…that are affixed to City-owned utility poles and lampposts in a manner consistent with standards promulgated by the Department of Public Works” as allowed by city ordinance. In addition, I have also told our Ambassador staff to be particularly mindful about NOT removing ANY election related material through election day. 

Best, John 

John Caner, CEO
Downtown Berkeley Association
2230 Shattuck Ave., Suite C
Berkeley CA 94704
510.549.2230 x12
jcaner@downtownberkeley.com 

From: Carol Denney
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM
To: John Caner
Subject: Re: FW: Removal of Flyers in the Downtown 

Dear Mr. Caner,

I haven't heard back from you or the City Manager about the flier issue, and want to make sure we're all up to date - is there
any progress? Thanks,

Carol Denney
510-548-1512 

On 5/24/2018 12:26 PM, John Caner wrote: 

Here is my email of May 10 

From: John Caner
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:44 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Brea Slimick , "Klein, Jordan" , Dee Williams-Ridley , Carol Denny
Subject: Removal of Flyers in the Downtown 

Dear Mayor and City Council, 

We are in receipt of Ms. Denny’s letter to Council yesterday, date May 9, 2018 

On Tuesday this week (May 8) I received a call from Breanne Slimick regarding a complaint regarding DBA Ambassadors, and later that day received a unscheduled visit from Ms. Denny. I told them both that we would immediately suspend taking down flyers until we can get clarification from City. I also told them that we had a policy of not taking down nonprofit and political flyers (i.e., noncommercial) as per city regulations, but will be review the policy with City before taking down any more flyers. Moreover, Ms. Denny requested an written confirmation of this suspension. I wrote her the attached email and gave her a hard copy before she left our office. 

In response to this issue regarding removal of flyers in the Downtown: 

1) I would like to draw your attention to City Attorney Zach Cowan’s Off-Agenda Memorandum re Removal of Fliers.  

In his memo he states, “…BMC section 20.16.010.A generally prohibits signs on public right of way, including utility poles and light poles, subject to some limited exceptions. The relevant exception here is temporary signs concerning noncommercial events...” He also writes in a footnote that “The exceptions are not required by the First Amendment – a city may completely ban all signs on the public right of way…” 

2) The Scope of Services from our contract with the City does not provide specific permission to remove flyers, but states that our environmental enhancements will include “:Maintenance teams that sweep, scrub and pressure wash sidewalks, remove litter and graffiti, increase the frequency of trash removal and maintain landscaping throughout the District.” Neither does it give us permission for animal and human waste removal, and other cleaning and maintenance functions, but we do it within the general scope to maintain a clean and welcoming Downtown. 

Similarly the DBA contract with the City does not give us specific permission to weed planters or tree wells, but states we will provide "Beautification and placemaking improvements that make Downtown Berkeley more visually attractive, which might include enhanced, landscaping, holiday décor, way-finding signage, trash receptacles, streetscape, planters, urban design plans, bike racks, programming of BART Plaza and other public spaces, etc.” Hence we weed planters and tree wells to maintain the overall the overall visually attractive appearance of the District. 

We will work with City staff to get further clarification on this issue, so we abide by the City regulations to protect temporary signs concerning noncommercial events, but also meet the goals of a clean, vibrant and welcoming Downtown. 

I think most of us would agree that having the our street poles and other fixtures in Downtown and other commercial districts covered with commercial flyers is not in the general interest of the Berkeley community. 

Sincerely, 

John Caner, CEO
Downtown Berkeley Association
2230 Shattuck Ave., Suite C
Berkeley CA 94704
510.549.2230 x12
jcaner@downtownberkeley.com 

The issue of homeless encampments keeps coming up. The reason is the insistence on the part of the police of Berkeley on raiding encampments, dispelling the groupings of the homeless, disrupting their comunities, and thereby forcing them to move, to resettle themselves, to figure out new procedures for survival.


During the Obama administration, the Dept. Of Justice formulated an argument for how and why and under what circumstances this practice of raiding and disbanding homeless encampments is unconstitutional, in violation of the 8^th Amendment. The 8^th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” It therefore limits what can be punished and what not. In particular, certain conduct can be punished, but mere status cannot be under certain circumstances (such as illness, poverty, unemplyment, etc.). To the extent homelessness is a (involuntary) status, camping cannot be punished unless a city provides an alternative, such as shelter.


What I include below is an edited (by me) version of a writ introduced into a trial in Boise, Idaho, in 2015, on this issue. It was a case in which the homeless of Boise had filed suit against the city, and the US government had filed an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs (the homeless). I have redacted the footnotes and references in the interest of length, and to make the text more palable to those who would have trouble wading through all the legal citations and rhetoric. I tried to only leave the meat of the government’s argument there. For those who have no trouble with legalese, and would like to look at the precedents and citations, the name of the case is Bell vs. City of Boise, its trial number is 1:09-cv-00540-REB, held on 08/06/15. And the full text of the government’s writ can be found here – https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download 

******************** 

Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-540-REB 

Bell vs. Boise, Idaho 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES 

On any given night in the United States, half a million people are likely to be experiencing homelessness. …These individuals must find space in a public shelter or sleep on the street. For many homeless people, finding a safe and legal place to sleep can be difficult or even impossible. In many cities, shelters are unable to accommodate all who are homeless. 

In [the case before us], Plaintiffs are homeless individuals who were convicted of violating certain city ordinances that prohibit camping and sleeping in public outdoor places.⁷ They claim that the City of Boise and the Boise Police Department’s (“BPD”) enforcement of these ordinances against homeless individuals violates their constitutional rights because there is inadequate shelter space available in Boise to accommodate the city’s homeless population. Plaintiffs argue that criminalizing public sleeping in a city without adequate shelter space constitutes criminalizing homelessness itself, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

The parties disagree about the appropriate framework for analyzing Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs encourage the court to follow Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (vacated after settlement, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007)), which held that enforcement of anti-camping ordinances may violate the Eighth Amendment on nights where there is inadequate shelter space available for all of a city’s homeless individuals. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that Plaintiffs’ reliance on Jones is “heavily misplaced, factually unsupported, and immaterial to this case.” 

Because the summary judgment briefing in this case makes clear that there is a significant dispute between the parties on the applicability of Jones and conflicting lower court case law in this area, the United States files this Statement of Interest to make clear that the Jones framework is the appropriate legal framework for analyzing Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims. Under the Jones framework, the Court should consider whether conforming one’s conduct to the ordinance is possible for people who are homeless. 

INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES 

The United States has a broad interest in ensuring that justice is applied fairly, regardless of wealth or status. In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Office for Access to Justice (“ATJ”) at the Department of Justice to address the access-to-justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice systems. 

The United States also has an interest in breaking the cycle of poverty and criminalization. Numerous federal initiatives are tasked with reducing the criminalization of homelessness and promoting alternatives to incarceration that are more cost-effective, efficient, and fair. 

DISCUSSION 

The “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” Clause of the Eighth Amendment “imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” … The Supreme Court has held that laws that criminalize an individual’s status, rather than specific conduct, are unconstitutional. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). 

[In a precedent case in Texas (1968), one judge] did not rest his decision on the status-versus-conduct distinction … but instead … considered the voluntariness, or volitional nature, of the conduct in question. Under this analysis, if sufficient evidence is presented showing that the prohibited conduct was involuntary due to one’s condition, criminalization of that conduct would be impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. 

For the present case [with respect to the homeless] he explained that, “[f]or all practical purposes the public streets may be home for these unfortunates, … because … they have no place else to go. 

[There is] a division among courts on how to analyze claims regarding enforcement of anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals. … Some courts have adopted the plurality’s strict interpretation, … that the Eighth Amendment limits only the criminalization of status, not of conduct. … Others have considered the voluntariness of the conduct, and whether the conduct is inextricably linked to one’s status, such that punishing the conduct is indistinguishable from punishing the status.  

[In precedent cases], the United States took the position … that criminalizing sleeping in public when no shelter is available violates the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing status. Consistent with the position taken in its previous filings, the United States now urges this Court to adopt the reasoning of Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the Ninth Circuit ultimately vacated its opinion in Jones—pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), not for any substantive reason— its logic remains instructive and persuasive. 

The Jones court considered the enforcement of a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping in public. There, like here (Bell vs. Boise), the court was asked to consider a statute that, on its face, criminalized conduct rather than status. Importantly, the plaintiffs in Jones presented evidence suggesting that there was an inadequate number of shelter beds available for homeless individuals, so many individuals had no choice but to sleep in public in violation of the city’s ordinance. 

The Jones court [in LA] found enforcement of the ordinance to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs because of inadequate shelter space. The court based its decision on its conclusion that, “[w]hether sitting, lying, and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.” Because sleeping is unavoidable, the court then considered whether the plaintiffs had a choice to sleep somewhere other than in public, concluding that they did not: “for homeless individuals in [Los Angeles’] Skid Row who have no access to private spaces, these acts can only be done in public.” Id. at 1136. As a result, the court found that sleeping in public is “involuntary and inseparable from” an individual’s status or condition of being homeless when no shelter space is available. The court concluded that, “by criminalizing sitting, lying, and sleeping, the City [of Los Angeles] is in fact criminalizing [Plaintiffs’] status.” 

Defendants {Boise}assert that reliance on Jones would be “misplaced, factually unsupported, and immaterial to this case.” [They] rely on a conduct-versus-status distinction. Defendants’ position is unpersuasive because the Eighth Amendment analysis is not limited to the plain language of the statute in question. Rather, the practical implications of enforcing the statute’s language are equally important. Those implications are clear where there is insufficient shelter space to accommodate the homeless population: the conduct of sleeping in a public place is indistinguishable from the status of homelessness. 

It should be uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a “universal and unavoidable consequence[] of being human” (having to sleep) violates the Eighth Amendment. It is impossible for individuals to avoid “sitting, lying, and sleeping for days, weeks, or months at a time . . . as if human beings could remain in perpetual motion.” Once an individual becomes homeless, by virtue of this status certain life necessities (such as sleeping) that would otherwise be performed in private must now be performed in public. Therefore, sleeping in public is precisely the type of “universal and unavoidable” conduct that is necessary for human survival for homeless individuals who lack access to shelter space. 

In this way, the Boise anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances are akin to the ordinance at issue in [a precedent case], at least on nights when homeless individuals are—for whatever non-volitional reason(s)—unable to secure shelter space. When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless. 

[An objection has been raised to this approach, namely that it] implicates the knotty concerns with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause becoming “the ultimate arbiter of the standards of criminal responsibility.” 

The Justices in the [precedent case] declined to extend the Eighth Amendment prohibition to the punishment of involuntary conduct because they feared doing so would allow violent defendants to argue that their conduct was “compelled” by any number of “conditions.” … But these concerns are not at issue when, as here, they are applied to conduct that is essential to human life and wholly innocent, such as sleeping. No inquiry is required to determine whether a person is compelled to sleep; we know that no one can stay awake indefinitely. Thus, the Court need not constitutionalize a general compulsion defense to resolve this case; it need only hold that the Eighth Amendment outlaws the punishment of unavoidable conduct that we know to be universal. Moreover, … Its punishment would serve no retributive purpose, or any other legitimate purpose. [The thrust of this] interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause is that criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act [or] has engaged in some behavior which society has an interest in preventing.” 

Using this reasoning, the vital question for the Court becomes: Given the current homeless population and available shelter space in Boise, as well as any restrictions on those shelter beds, are homeless individuals in Boise capable of conforming the necessary life activity of sleeping to the current law? If not, enforcing the anti-camping ordinances and criminalizing sleeping in public violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is no different from criminalizing homelessness itself. … 

The realities facing homeless individuals each day support this application of the Eighth Amendment. … Regardless of the causes of homelessness, individuals remain homeless involuntarily, including children, families, veterans, and individuals with physical and mental health disabilities. Communities nationwide are suffering from a shortage of affordable housing. And, in many jurisdictions, emergency and temporary shelter systems are already underfunded and overcrowded. 

Criminalizing public sleeping in cities with insufficient housing and support for homeless individuals does not improve public safety outcomes or reduce the factors that contribute to homelessness. As noted by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, “[r]ather than helping people to regain housing, obtain employment, or access needed treatment and service, criminalization creates a costly revolving door that circulates individuals experiencing homelessness from the street to the criminal justice system and back.”¹⁷ Issuing citations for public sleeping forces individuals into the criminal justice system and creates additional obstacles to overcoming homelessness. Criminal records can create barriers to employment and participation in permanent, supportive housing programs.¹⁸ Convictions under these municipal ordinances can also lead to lengthy jail sentences based on the ordinance violation itself, or the inability to pay fines and fees associated with the ordinance violation. Incarceration, in turn, has a profound effect on these individuals’ lives.¹⁹ Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities. 

Conclusion: The Court should adopt the analysis in Jones to evaluate Boise’s anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances as applied to Plaintiffs in this case. If the Court finds that it is impossible for homeless individuals to secure shelter space on some nights because no beds are available, no shelter meets their disability needs, or they have exceeded the maximum stay limitations, then the Court should also find that enforcement of the ordinances under those circumstances criminalizes the status of being homeless and violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. 

Submitted this 6th day of August, 2015. 

Sharon Brett - Attorney for the United States of America 

Israel’s high court has long lost its independence has become a tool of the Israeli government. Its latest ruling issued an order to demolish Khan al-Ahmar village impacting 180 Palestinians. 

The Palestinian Authority said the decision to “raze Khan al-Ahmar village consolidates Israel's "colonial project" of building an arc of settlements" that effectively cut off occupied East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. This illegal decision uncovers the colonial DNA of Israel's institutions that work to confiscate Palestinian lands effectively alienating it from the West Bank and killing any hopes for a future contiguous Palestinian state.” The removal of the Bedouin village bisects the West Bank in two. The villages were despondent with the court ruling.  

According to the United Nations, Israeli authorities have approved a minuscule 1.5 percent of all permit requests by Palestinians between 2010 and 2014.Hagai El-Ad, director of Israeli rights group B'Tselem, denounced the court's ruling as “cowardly, immoral, and outrageous.  

The decision only demonstrates the Israeli High Court is working not in the service of justice but is simply working in the service of the occupation. This is yet another example where we can see that the occupied people cannot find justice in the courts of the occupiers." The forced relocation would violate international law. El-Ad said “displacement and settlement expansion have been the policy of many Israeli governments but the current one is acting with a glaring green light that it sees from Washington".This is an absolute travesty! 

Attitudes on global warming are massively different between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Addressing global warming is difficult, because Americans and China, among other countries, rely heavily on fossil fuels to make people's lives easier than it would otherwise be. It will take a lot of work on the part of millions of people for us to switch to forms of energy that do not put carbon into the atmosphere. In addition, we are up against the oil and energy mega-corporations, who feel threatened by solar, since it is harder to make a profit on a decentralized energy system. This is despite the fact that if the U.S. decentralized our energy source, it would be to our military advantage. 

However, the mental resources required to put a stop to nuclear proliferation, are easily attainable, and world leaders need to have a meditation session or something.  

My guess is that leaders of countries perpetuate their nuclear arms races in large part because it helps them remain in power over their populations. If they didn't have a good way of frightening their citizens and being in a position of "protector," it would be harder to extinguish civil unrest. 

Secondly, countries have a collective "agreement" that we are all enemies of each other, we need to be frightened of each other's nukes, and we need our own nukes to keep us safe from attack. This is based on fear. Nobody feels as though they can disarm their nuclear arsenals without the consequence of being invaded. 

Third, some leaders of countries, such as president Putin, have ambitions of world domination. I have no understanding of this. 

Leaders of countries, we might assume, are somehow superior individuals compared to an ordinary person. However, this idea does not bear out. Leaders are more efficient at accomplishing tasks and at commanding others, compared to an ordinary person. They do not fade as easily from stress and fatigue. They tend to have a higher intelligence compared to most people. However, they are not inherently superior. If they were, we would not be facing the continuous threat to all life forms on Earth; tens of thousands of nuclear bombs on a hair trigger. 

What would it take to get world leaders to sit with each other at the United Nations and come to terms with this common threat to all humanity? It would require bravery. And it would require that leaders would give a damn about their fellow human being rather than only being concerned with their own power, prestige and affluence. It would require taking a chance. The risk is that if there were one or two nations who did not abide by the agreement, it wouldn't work. However, it is a risk that leaders must take. The alternative is the near certainty of doom for life on Earth. 

This is why I suggested a "meditation session." If world leaders could use cognitive techniques in order to upgrade their level of consciousness, it would be possible for what I have described above to actually happen. 

If total universal disarmament isn't realistic, do it in increments. Do it with verification. But we have to do this. And U.S. citizens are in a unique position, because we have the First Amendment, to put pressure on government to initiate something like this. 

Some countries are a genuine threat to the U.S., and to other nations. And those in positions of power, often, aren't interested in doing the right thing. Some are ruthless, and we wouldn't want to cross paths with them or make them upset with us. How do we address this? 

We live in unique times and in uncharted waters. The internet, social media, and artificial intelligence, are tools that could be used to deal with our precarious situation. The "why" of this is clear; we are trying to prevent the destruction of life on Earth. The "how" is accomplished by changing people's minds. And this begins with the readers changing their own minds. We must meditate and use cognitive methods to remove fear from our central nervous systems. When we do that, it is like turbocharging. We become smarter, more effective people. 

Obviously, leaders of countries won't voluntarily relinquish the perceived power of atomic bombs. Thus, we need a movement, and it has to be bigger and stronger than any movement in human history. And I invite Silicon Valley leaders to initiate this. The alternative is that human beings will become extinct within another few decades.

Recently, I read the best-seller, "Everything Trump Touches Dies" (http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies/Rick-Wilson/9781982103125 ) by Rick Wilson -- a noted Republican consultant and strategist, and #nevertrump stalwart. It's alternately terrifying and hilarious. At the conclusion Wilson offers suggestions for the "recovery" of the Republican Party. They are worth considering for what they suggest for the Democratic Party. 

A Party of Hope, not Hate: Wilson says, "Republicans need to become a party of militant optimism about the future. Right now we are a party of doom and gloom..." 

Of course, this is a knock on Trump's perspective: "Make America great again" and "We're losing everywhere..." But it's also a reminder that Democrats have to offer a positive agenda. It's not enough to run against Trump and Republican corruption, in general. Democrats must offer a hopeful message that says, in essence, the United States is a prosperous country and it's possible for everyone to share this prosperity. 

Reform from within: Wilson warns about political corruption and advises the GOP to adopt: "strict ethics rules for elected Republicans..." and forbidding "members of Congress from lobbying after they leave. We need to tighten up financial disclosure rules so members voting on legislation that benefits their own bottom line face sanctions." These are prudent suggestions and Democrats would be well advised to adopt them. 

The Constitutional Operating System: Wilson notes, "Republicans need to restore the divisions between the three branches of government. Under Trump, Congress has abandoned its role as a coequal branch and acted like a Trump houseboy." 

Talk Main Street -- And mean it: Wilson wrote, "The vast and increasing disparity in wealth in this nation has been shrugged off by Republicans... We've been parties to bleeding dry the middle class in this country, confusing "good for business" with "good for people." Amen. 

If the GOP is the Party that's "good for business," then Democrats have to be clearly identified as the Party that's "good for people." 

The Rule of Law: Wilson observes, "[Trump's] constant attempts to obstruct justice in the Mueller investigation with only the slightest pushback from Republicans are so dangerous that we haven't even seen the possible scope of the damage yet... a commitment to restoring respect for the law is fundamental." Another amen. 

Democrats have to be clearly identified as the Party that carries forward the vision of the Founders. 

Build a diverse Party: Wilson spoke to the GOP, "By increasing our ideological diversity we'll expand the places we can compete, offer Americans more choices in more communities, and enrich the scope of candidates who enter politics. With that in mind, it's time to make real efforts to recruit African American, Hispanic, and female candidates..." 

Republicans would be well advised to listen to what Rick Wilson has to say. At the moment, Democrats are more welcoming to women and racial/ethnic minorities. But, we also have to be accepting of ideological differences. 

Purge racists, conspiracy nuts, and lunatics from our ranks: Wilson writes, "the Republican Party has a race problem and pretending it doesn't exist has become impossible... the single greatest risk to conservatism, the Republican party, and the nation is if the alt-right virus spreads deeper into the political system." Wilson adds, "Conservative authors, news outlets, and broadcasters need to outgrow the fever swamp of conspiracy and madness." Wow. Rick Wilson calls out Republican crazy. 

Decency, humanity, and tolerance: Wilson observes, "The fashionable cruelty of the Trump era... aren't the character of a president or of a party deserving of respect and support... The increasingly hideous tone of the GOP is a long-term brand killer." Yeah. 

Respect and honor American institutions: Wilson writes, "Donald Trump is wrecking our institutions in ways more corrosive, insidious, and permanent than the wildest visions of our worst enemies... Trump has corrupted and broken the entire idea of the American presidency." 

Wilson continues, "Restoring faith in institutions rests on accountability." Democrats must become the accountability Party, politicians with the highest ethical standards. 

Govern like grown-ups: Wilson notes, "Trump's raging, vulgarian insult-comic shtick wore thin for most Americans during the campaign... [nonetheless] for far too many Republicans the desire to emulate Trump as a play to the base was all too tempting." 

Wilson prescribes: "The House and Senate leadership must... discipline their members in areas ranging from ethics to affect." 

Kill crony capitalism: Rick Wilson writes, "Americans know and feel that the deck is stacked against them when it comes to Washington offering the biggest, wealthiest, and most irresponsible players the power to define markets, protect themselves from risk, and leave taxpayers with the bill. It's time to stop it." Amen. 

If Democrats are truly the Party that's "good for people," they must stop all aspects of crony capitalism. 

Stop fighting the last wars: With regards to issues such as gay marriage and marijuana use, Wilson observes: "It's time to tell the evangelical cohort in the GOP that that since they've shown their true colors by giving Donald Trump a series of mulligans on his port-star-screwing, pussy-grabbing, serially adulterous life, they've lost their moral authority to scream at the rest of us." We can only hope that the adults within the GOP evangelicals will read Wilson's book and change their behavior. 

While this is an impressive list, there are (at least) two more suggestions that all Democrats would do well to consider. We can't continue to spend so much on "defense." In 2018 the U.S. spent more than $600 billion on defense spending; more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. That's ridiculous. 

We must take action to head off the impact of climate change. This seems so obvious that it amazing that it has to be mentioned. But it does. Trump doesn't believe in climate change and the GOP has followed his lead. 

By the way, everything Trump touches dies.