Congratulations on a terrific mailer.

First of all, congratulations on keeping your finger prints completely off of it. I am sure no one connects you to the East Bay Health…Affordable Housing, etc.PAC.

Second, the artwork is great, just enough shading on the dark pages that recipients will know Jovanka is Black.

And all the great hit facts that are here to read, way too late to give Jovanka time for rebuttal. I live in Berkeley and I know our leaders would NEVER allow a meeting to “stretch past midnight.” Really bad!

I hope you don’t mind if I send this in to the Lee Atwater Foundation for its annual Willie Horton Award for best campaign ad.

---

Editor's Note: We believe that the author intends this letter to be satire.

The Jovanka Beckles for AD 15 campaign urges East Bay progressives to rally with Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Jovanka at 10 a.m. on Saturday, October 27, 2018 at the Berkeley Community Theater (on the grounds of Berkeley High School). 

“We need a government by the people, by the many people, not the few,” Jovanka said. “That’s what Bernie Sanders and Barbara Lee believe, and so do I. As Nina Turner says, ‘Everything we love is on the line!’” 

Bernie is already electrifying enthusiastic crowds and packed auditoriums on his nation-wide tour, so far in Indiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Iowa, and Wisconsin. He’s on his way to Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and California to mobilize the vote in the upcoming crucial mid-term elections. 

Bernie is sweeping to regions vital to his progressive agenda. His Berkeley rally will be held in concert with Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA-13) as they energize support for progressive candidates and progressive causes in the November 6 general election.  

In Ames, Iowa, Bernie challenged his base to get out the vote. “I’m doing everything I can to make it happen. But one thing I will absolutely guarantee you: it will not happen if people are sitting back and are cocky and talking about how sure they are of winning.” 

Congresswoman Lee announced her endorsement of Jovanka on October 10. Jovanka had previously been endorsed by Our Revolution, whose President Nina Turner rallied with her in September, and by the Democratic Socialists of America, 28 nation-wide, state, and union locals, eleven environmental organizations, and a long list of state, regional and local activist organizations and leaders . 

Rally with Bernie and Barbara Lee 

10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. 

Berkeley Community Theater 

1930 Allston Way Berkeley 

 

Tickets: https://act.berniesanders.com/event/rally/50/signup/?akid=&source=

In her October 17 op-ed urging a Yes vote on Berkeley’s Measure Q, Debbie Sanderson writes: “Because the rents [in Accessory Dwelling Units, a.k.a. granny flats] are typically low, California now allows cities to count ADUs toward their low-income housing construction requirements.”

It’s true that, since 2003, the state has allowed cities to count ADUs toward low-income housing. But where’s the evidence that ADU rents are usually low?

A new study authored by University of Massachusetts Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Professor Darrel Ramsey-Musolf, “Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain,” says no such evidence exists.

Published in Urban Science on September 5, the study examined a random sample of 57 low-, moderate- and high-income California cities. The researchers counted 750 potential ADUs as low-income housing. They found that “[even] though 759 were constructed, no units were identified as available low-income housing. In addition, none of the cities’ zoning codes enforced low-income occupancy.”

In summary: 

"The confluence of a lack of oversight and the unproven efficacy of ADUs as low-income housing means that California has low-income housing units that exist on paper, but not in operation. This is the heart of California’s Faustian Bargain. This compromise was necessary in order to appease cities that were resistant to increasing their low-income housing inventory. Without long-term covenants similar to those found on regulated low-income housing units (e.g., tax-credit, voucher subsidized, or publicly owned), can ADUs serve as actual low-income housing? The answer is no. ADUs may increase local housing inventory and may be more affordable than other market-rate housing types due to the unit’s small size; however, ADUs may not be priced for or available to low-income households. This paper argues that for every count of potential ADUs towards low-income housing needs, a bona fide low-income unit that would have been situated in a regulated multifamily or voucher housing unit was lost." 

Berkeley voters should be clear about Measure Q’s effects on ADUs. As Sanderson writes, Measure Q “guarantees owner-occupied single-family properties the rent control exemption homeowner-occupants need to build an ADU with permits,” thereby “remov[ing] one of the most significant obstacles to homeowner construction of ADUs.” Its passage would mean that homeowners, “not the Rent Board, will manage [homeowners’] tenants.” As Mayor Arreguín and other Measure Q supporters argue in the official ballot, “[t]his will allow owners to age in place and increase housing opportunities.” 

That’s different from generating low-income housing in our city.

Please cast a NO vote on Measure FF. A NO on Measure FF will stop funding of millions of dollars to clear-cut hundreds of thousands of healthy trees and turn these fire-abating trees into dried, flammable kindling in the East Bay Hills. David Maloney, Fire Prevention Chief, Oakland Army Base, “Dried grass provides the most flammable ground fuel,” and, “There‘s no if’s, and’s, or but’s… every single tree is a wildfire mitigation factor…. Trees block wind, drip fog onto grasses, and block sun so grasses stay moist.” 

A NO on Measure FF will stop the spraying of poisonous herbicides to tree stumps. Families and pets living nearby or hiking the park trails will be exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup or Dow Chemical’s Triclopry, both linked to cancer. Multitudes of animals depend on trees for habitat, food, and protection will be injured or killed. 

A NO on Measure FF will help mitigate climate change. An article dated 10/5/2018 from Mother Jones states: ‘Science Says Saving the Planet Could Really Be as Simple as Saving Trees.” Furthermore, FEMA calculated that the clearcutting of over 400,000 trees in the San Francisco East Bay will release 17,495 metric tons of greenhouse gasses. And that is on top of the loss of annual carbon sequestration. Do not fund the destruction of our majestic and beautiful trees. Save our trees, animals, plants, humans, and pets by voting NO on Measure FF. 

For more info: www.SaveEastBayHills.org

Those of us who attended the “emergency” City meeting on traffic circles some weeks ago signed up to be on the mailing list for future meetings. As one of the attendees who requested notification, I did not receive the mailing. Unfortunately, Lack of notification from City staff seems to be all too typical but thanks to friends and word of mouth a notice was forwarded to me. Here is what it said:

Dear Community Member,

You are invited to participate in a Public Works community meeting regarding Traffic Circle Landscaping on October 23rd from 6:00pm to 7:30 pm at the Frances Albrier Community Center at 2800 Park Street. The primary purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the community to help inform the vision and maintenance plan for landscaping in all City traffic circles.

Agenda:

6:00 to 6:15 Welcome

6:15 to 6:30 Public Works Overview of Traffic Circles including history, safety, future signage, future landscaping, volunteer opportunities.

6:30 to 7:30 Traffic Circle Workshop to identify Traffic Circles for pilot testing drought tolerant decorative plantings and determine next steps for ongoing community involvement.

Sincerely, Joy Brown, Senior Managment Analyst, Public Works Department, City of Berkeley

We are frequently negligent, often clumsy, always self-centered. When something bad occurs due to our negligence we rarely admit responsibility. When someone gets hurt, only a fool accepts any blame. Within sight of the incident is a billboard: "Injured? Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx!"

From 1994 or earlier, Liebeck v. McDonald's (the "scalded crotch lady" case) we saw we can turn injury into millions. Since 1994 no American can buy a coffee in the U.S. without a java jacket and a lid. The favorite targets of opportunistic lawsuits: local governments and school districts. They are rained upon by such suits. Why not? "I want to be a millionaire!"

I always believed a thoughtful populace like that of Berkeley would see through some banalities of American culture. But maybe time has dulled our eyes. A couple years ago a driver hit and seriously injured a pedestrian on Ellsworth. They and their law firm declared that neither driver nor pedestrian were at fault. A tree was at fault. Hence the owner of the tree - the City of Berkeley - is at fault. (Note that the tree did not fall upon anyone. It just passively did what trees do.) A judge endorsed their thinking. Our city agreed to pay $2.1 million to these two and their attorney, Lamb and Frischer. Moreover, as apparent penitence, the city agreed to cut down all the trees in all the traffic circles in Berkeley. Both staff and elected council regard this as normal.  

What disturbs me more than the anticipated loss of all the trees and our anticipated higher taxes is the acquiescence to this "logic." It makes me ashamed to be an American, and now ashamed to be a Berkeley resident. 

When I am outside the U.S. and must accept the consequences of my human negligence, rather than turning it to opportunistic profit as the "liability" of someone else (with deep pockets) - I feel I am among humans who are more intelligible to me.

Subsidizing corporate interests to influence campaigns; collusion between candidates at public expense

This is the first election in Berkeley with public financing of campaigns. If candidates limit their contributions to $50 (instead of $250), Berkeley will provide $6 in matching funds (using taxpayer dollars) for each $1 dollar contributed up to a total campaign cost of $40,000 for a City Council race.[1]

How is this working so far in Berkeley? We now have a first look after the candidates for Berkeley’s four City council races filed their Form 460 with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The good news is that the vast majority of reported campaign expenditures are for valid costs such as voter software, campaign signs, mailers, and the obligatory bagels and pizza for volunteers. The bad news is the lack of safeguards in the program has encouraged wasteful and/or self-serving expenditures, has not taken the effect of big money out of politics, and has allowed candidates to gang up on a candidate. The following focuses on District 4.

Party at Magofna’s

The use of public campaign funds should serve as a budget on training wheels for a candidate. How they manage $40,000 of the public’s money is an indication of how they’ll manage Berkeley’s $300 million budget. The honor of the most self-indulgent use of campaign funds clearly goes to Greg Magofna. His “campaign kickoff” luncheon cost the public $1,491.59[2], four times more than the next candidate, and 100 times the $14.25 for “Pasta and chips for fundraising events” Alfred Twu reported in District 8.[3] To this add $483.58 to buy a “personal printer and toner supplies”[4], just under the $500 limit for capital expenditures.[5] Even if he doesn’t get any votes, Greg will get to keep the printer. No wonder Greg is being quoted in Berkeleyside as being “grateful for the public matching funds.”[6] 

Similar to Donald Trump, Greg seems to want to plaster his name on everything. While every other candidate sends their volunteers out with campaign literature stuffed into recyclable Target and Trader Joe’s bags, Greg spent $687.18 for custom-designed tote bags emblazoned with his name. While most every other candidate has opted for cheaper peel-off campaign stickers, only the metallic ones will do for Greg ($1,021.79, including the roughly $300 cost for a banner).[7] Add in $203.60 for business cards[8] (Krishna Copy will give you 500 for $39.95) and the excess and ego become apparent. 

Failing to Get Corporate Money Out of Politics 

The ballot arguments in favor of Measure X1 adding the public financing option for Berkeley had a goal of getting special interest money out of politics. 

For the candidates that have run before (such as Kate Harrison and Ben Gould), their donor lists show a significant overlap of persons who contributed to both their last and current campaign. Thus, a significant number of donors who previously gave the candidates $250, could now give them only the $50 maximum contribution, and have it matched with $300 of public campaign financing. 

An unidentified side-effect of this is that corporate interests, who previously had to pony up the full $250 contribution, now are only giving $50 and the public is not only picking up the $200 difference, but throwing in an additional $100. The public is directly subsidizing corporate interests seeking to influence and promote their favored candidates. 

The degree of “special interest” money in the candidate’s Form 460 filing is telling. Pro-development candidate Ben Gould for example has received $550 from developers and real estate interests matched by $3,300 of public funding. A recent Berkeleyside article, with 3 of the 4 authors being contributors to Ben Gould’s campaign, seemed to focus on the City Council’s opposition to development projects from one of these developers. Greg Magofna’s campaign shows a similar pattern with $500 from these interests. Combined, the public is now paying upwards of $6,000 for real estate interests to donate and try to influence campaigns. Although stating he is supportive of rent control, Greg has taken money from Lakshmireddy Lakireddy of Everest Properties, one of the largest landlords in Berkeley. In contrast, Kate Harrison had no contributions from developers or real estate interests. Igor Tregub, the only candidate running for Council who has not chosen to take public financing, also has refused to accept contributions from any entity (such as developers) that would come before the Council. 

Tag Teaming Kate Harrison  

Another flaw in the campaign finance laws is the concern that two different candidates each file for public financing, and then coordinate their campaign against a third candidate. A September 5, 2018 complaint to Berkeley’s Fair Elections Commission stated: “In District 4 there are two candidates [Ben Gould and Greg Magofna], who both represent the same developer interests and basically have many of the same endorsements. The candidates are running a tag-team - endorsing each other - while getting public financing. What this allows them to do is get twice the public financing giving them a 2-1 money advantage over their opponent [Kate Harrison].” 

This conclusion seems supported by the inter-twined nature of Ben Gould’s and Greg Magofna’s campaigns. Ben has donated to Greg, along with his campaign manager Alex Sharenko, and Greg Magofna has returned the favor. Twenty-seven donors have given to both candidates. In what seems an orchestrated campaign, although the Berkeley Democratic Club has endorsed Ben Gould, many of their members such as Lori Droste, Laurie Capitelli, Darryl Moore, and Rashi Kesarwani have given to both. 

This tag teaming is apparent not only in the Form 460 forms but also in campaign strategy. Ben Gould and Greg Magofna recently sent out a joint mailer essentially endorsing each other. Ben Gould has also been seen at endorsement meetings, such as at the East Bay Young Dems and Asian-American Pacific Islanders, urging the committee to endorse his supposed opponent. Apparently, before these groups Ben does not think he is qualified for the job. 

Conclusion 

While noble in purpose, it is not clear that public financing is working as intended. The argument in favor of the measure in the voter handbook in 2016 pointed out that more than half of Berkeley’s campaign funds came from fewer than 350 households, a minute percentage of the city’s residents. However, the absence of safeguards in use of public funds can lead to its abuse: many of the same persons who gave before continue to give, and special interests continue to contribute, although now the public is matching these contributions six to one. More troubling, candidates who accept public financing with the best intentions may end up harming their chances as opponents game the system to skirt campaign limits. 

And Let’s Not Forget the Aprons 

Perhaps the most unique, and perhaps most effective, reported expenditure is from Alfred Twu. His campaign spent $360 for campaign aprons, worn by his campaigners regardless of gender and creating a personalized and distinctive campaign image. This campaign effort was so successful that a second $360 order for more aprons soon followed. As Alfred is running a bare bones campaign he seems to be keeping a tight rein not only on the purse but also the apron strings. 

 

HERE YE, HERE YE! A park will be built this Sunday between Dwight Way and Haste. The land is owned by the University, which tore down a lot of beautiful houses in order to build a swamp.

That was how People's Park began—with a small announcement on page 2 of the Berkeley Barb.

"We want the part to be a cultural, political freak-out and rap center for the Western world," the article proclaimed. It was signed: "Robin Hood's Park Commissioner." [aka local Yippie activist Stew Albert.]

What could be more innocent than a public park? And, given the volatile, vanguard habits of the Berkeley community, what could be more revolutionary?

We took barren land, scraped off the trash, turned it green with banners of rolled sod, saplings and lots of happy sweat. They hit us with everything they had—Highway Patrol, County Sheriffs, National Guard, batons, teargas, shotguns, and martial law. For the sake of a park, blood was ripped from flesh and Berkeley became an Occupied Town.

"If they want a bloodbath," Governor [Ronald Reagan) said, "Let's get on with it."

-- Gar Smith, The Berkeley Barb, April 26, 1979

[See the full article and thousands of other stories, photos, and illustrations archived at www.berkeleybarb.net and www.berkeleybarb.org.] 

Some History 

Forty-nine years ago, the people built a park. 

In response, the University of California erected a chain-link fence around the newly restored open space. Barricading the park outraged the people. The outrage lead to a peaceful march to the fenced-off park on May 15, 1969 and culminated in a police riot—aka "Bloody Thursday"—that injured hundreds and left one bystander dead. 

Before there was a park, the block had been filled with scores of redwood-shingled houses with apartments occupied by students and former students. In 1968, UC Berkeley cleared the housing from the land in a mass removal that was a small-time version of Israel's notorious Nakba—"the Disaster." The UC administration brought in the bulldozers to clear-cut a counter-cultural outpost that the university disdained—a community of "off-campus agitators" and Free Speech Movement veterans. 

When students and residents marched to protest the fence and demand access to the park, they were met by armed police. The streets quickly filled with clouds of teargas. When it was over, the Alameda County Sheriffs had gunned down 150 unarmed people in the streets of Berkeley. Some were shot in the back. One (a local carpenter named Alan Blanchard) was shot in the face and blinded. Another, a bystander named James Rector (an innocent spectator from out of town), was mortally wounded while watching from a Telegraph Avenue rooftop. 

In 1976, a group of volunteers lead by Brian Thiele and East Bay Community Law Center lawyer-activist-artist Osha Neumann banded together to commemorate "The Battle of People's Park" with a mural, painted on the north side of the building housing Amoeba Records. At the time, Neumann reflected, the idea of creating a public mural depicting actual people engaged in an historic event was both "revolutionary and visionary." 

 

Osha Neumann (September 14, 2015) 

Redidicating the Restored Mural 

At high noon on October 14, Neumann, Thiele and others—including local poets, activists, and a Black Panther vet—gathered on Haste Street to rededicate the restored mural, recall the events of the Sixties, and raise funds to preserve the artwork "for another 100 years." 

Neumann noted that, in addition to cleaning up the faded paint, his small crew of volunteers made one historical correction to the mural. In the original version, Free Speech Movement student activist Mario Savio was depicted wearing shoes while standing atop a police car surrounded by protesting students. 

In fact, on that fateful day, Savio set a respectful standard by first removing his shoes before walking onto the roof of the immobilized squad car. Other speakers followed suit. So Neumann and crew replaced Mario's painted shoes with some freshly painted socks. 

Reflecting on the university's harsh crackdown on the park-builders, Neumann called It a "seizure of the public commons"—the same thing that happened repeatedly to the Native Americans of this continent. Except this time: "We were the Indians." 

"UC did nothing with the lot for nearly two years," one speaker recalled. It was only when the community spontaneously arose and magically transformed the abandoned, trash-strewn lot into an inviting public park that the University paid notice—and "brought the full force of the state" down on the backs of the park-builders. 

Survivors of "Bloody Thursday" 

"I remember being shot here and arrested here," said one of the speakers. 

Park co-founder Michael Delacour recalled how the violence on that day was triggered by a small team of provocateurs who hurled objects at the police, thereby creating a pretext for the shotgun-armed sheriffs to open fire. 

 

It was later revealed that the sheriffs had descended on Telegraph Avenue with their shotguns already stacked and pre-loaded apparently as part of a premeditated plan to exact punishment on "the reds, commies and leftists" in Berkeley. The police assault began with birdshot and then escalated to potentially deadly rounds of "00" buckshot. 

The sheriff's department initially lied about the use of buckshot but eventually justified the use of larger rounds by claiming that the only alternative was to "abandon the city to the mob." Sheriff Frank Madigan attempted to further excuse the violence by explaining that many of his men were Vietnam War veterans and may have targeted the protesters "as though they were Viet Cong." 

Nearly a half-century later, Delacour was unforgiving. "I want an apology," he told the Haste Street crowd, "I want justice." 

 

People's Park 1969. Fred Fischer

The Imperiled Future of People's Park 

Osha Neumann recalled the many people shot that day and introduced at least two commemoration speakers who still carried the scars of bullet wounds from the police riot. Civil rights lawyer Jim Chanin (who went on to help create Berkeley's Police Review Commission) was one of those hit by a police round. Chanin noted that, by targeting the park for "development," the University of California was once again dismissing the needs of the communities of poor and minority residents. 

Activist Carol Denney recalled being labeled "an extremist" and being jailed for three days after writing the word "Shame!" in chalk on the surface of a new UC volleyball court built inside the park in an attempt to route the homeless residents. 

"When you get called an 'extremist' for writing a word in chalk," Denney observed, "that's the University talking." Denney then performed a song she penned to commemorate the incident. Pumping a small concertina while a friend held a microphone, Denney (with a nod to Hank Williams) launched into a tune titled, "I Saw the Light at the North County Jail." The song ridiculed a justice system where "talking is 'defacement' and roses are a weapon." 

One of the speakers was Reggie, a well-spoken gentlemen who claimed he had spent the last 32 years living in People's Park. He had a simple wish: to see the park protected and preserved as a State Historical Landmark. 

A number of poets read their works and Who Owns People's Park?", a poem by FSM activist and political organizer Frank Bardacke was also recited. 

Among those present in the crowd was Berkeley City Council District Seven candidate Aidan Hill, who has openly expressed his support for protecting People's Park. 

The next-to-last speaker introduced himself as a former Berkeley architecture student who was shot in both legs on Bloody Thursday. Unlike the previous speakers, however, he was not a firebrand. Explaining that, "I'm not that naïve," he predicted that UC Berkeley would eventually get its way and build its housing on the historic parkland. "The best we can hope for," he argued, was to "save the mural on the bathrooms and a small portion of the land." 

That prescription proved too much for the crowd to swallow. When a tsunami of critical groans began to well up from the street, he attempted to walk back his pessimism by saying: "I'm just trying to tell you . . . ." 

This prompted Carol Denny (who was sitting directly in front of him) to retort loudly: "And I'm telling YOU!" 

Their conversation resumed immediately following the end of the rededication ceremony. 

As the band, Franklin's Tower, prepared to entertain the crowd at the blocked-off intersection, Denny laid out some facts that the architect confessed he wasn't unaware of. 

"The university has 10 different options for sites to build student housing," Denny said with a patient smile, "But UC wants to start at People's Park. You can look it up!" 

Visitors who wish to check out the restored mural should also look for the Berkeley City Landmark plaque that was installed on the Park's 30^th anniversary. The inscription—which serves as a guide to the many images in the extensive and complex artwork—concludes with this "vision of liberation": 

"Within inches of a homeless young woman sitting on the sidewalk, a tree breaks through the gray cement. Entwined in its branches, a triumphal procession, shedding the clothes of the past as it proceeds, dances its way down Telegraph Avenue into the future." 

--- ---  

Save People’s Park: Free Concert and Rally 

People’s Park, 2556 Haste Street 

Saturday, October 20, 2018, 1-5 PM 

People’s Park is under threat once again. Join us and show your support for free speech and open space! Reserve the whole day for a FREE concert on the historic People’s Park Free Speech Stage. Four hours of diverse local music! Four fabulous bands! Free speech speakers! MC Lefty the Clown! Grow Trees! Gardening 

ACTION: For the latest news on the struggle to defend People's Park, visit: http://www.peoplespark.org/wp/ 

Last week I got an email from a friend in Contra Costa County who doesn’t usually read the Daily Planet:

“We've been getting negative ads about Beckles in the mail. I don't know if you've gotten them but they are playing with racism (implying that Beckles is crazy and badly behaved, etc). The tactic only serves to make mainstream democrats look bad (would Obama approve of them?), and could alienate progressives still further. Does Wicks approve of these mailers? I find it all very disturbing...”

My somewhat snarky response: You should read the Berkeley Daily Planet.

But really, I also find it very disturbing. In last week’s editorial, I reprinted Wicks’ email address from her website, prompting reader Chris Adams to send her this sarcastic letter with a copy to us:

Dear Buffy Wicks,

Congratulations on a terrific mailer.

First of all, congratulations on keeping your finger prints completely off of it. I am sure no one connects you to the East Bay Health…Affordable Housing, etc.PAC.

Second, the artwork is great, just enough shading on the dark pages that recipients will know Jovanka is Black.

And all the great hit facts that are here to read, way too late to give Jovanka time for rebuttal. I live in Berkeley and I know our leaders would NEVER allow a meeting to “stretch past midnight.” Really bad!

I hope you don’t mind if I send this in to the Lee Atwater Foundation for its annual Willie Horton Award for best campaign ad.

The piece my friend received was attributed to "Coalition for East Bay Health Care Access, Affordable Housing and Quality Public Schools, supporting Buffy Wicks for Assembly 2018," , an Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee whose management has been traced to a conservative Republican lawyer in Sacramento. That might have given Buffy plausible deniability, but so far she hasn’t renounced their support.

But the glossy item that came in my mail today was even more …well…depressing.

This one was clearly paid for by “Buffy Wicks for Assembly”. Banner headline: “Buffy Wicks for Assembly is endorsed by the East Bay Express...”

Now, that’s just a lie. A plain, flat lie.

Here’s what the East Bay Express’s website now says, one more time:


“15th Assembly District: No Endorsement

This was also a tough choice for us. We co-endorsed Buffy Wicks, a former Obama White House aide, in the June primary with Oakland Councilmember Dan Kalb. But we've been greatly disappointed in several of her policy stances since then, particularly her decision to oppose Proposition 10, which would allow cities like Berkeley and Oakland to enact tougher rent control laws in order to reduce displacement of longtime residents who can't afford to live here. We view Prop. 10 as one of the most important issues on the ballot. We're also disappointed in her decision to accept independent expenditure help from billionaire, charter-school backers.

Lying has become the fashion in Washington, where Wicks has spent a lot of her time, but it’s still somewhat frowned on in the East Bay.

The piece also devotes a full 8x11 color page (one of four) to an equally dishonest misstatement of Jovanka Beckles’ positions, the same easily rebuttable fake facts, accompanied by authentic appearing fake footnotes to partisan op-eds on obscure web sites, one of which is the Richmond Standard, the FauxNewsSource PR mouthpiece for Chevron.

Yes, it’s disturbing all right.

I fear that Wicks will be elected to represent wealthy developers instead of East Bay citizens in the California Assembly, given the vast sums being spent by them on her behalf.

I’m going to leave last week’s editorial online below, since sadly nothing much has changed. Read it and curse if you want to.
 

---

Am I the only voter who is flabbergasted, not to mention repelled, at the flood of very expensive mail coming from or on behalf of one of the candidates for California Assembly District 15? Not to mention by the content of said mailings. But the one that came today takes the cake, or perhaps it’s the pie in the face of East Bay voters. 

 

First, let’s just notice that among about 50 words of text on this piece, “serious” is used three times. Why does anyone think we’d doubt her seriousness, given the heft of the big bucks she’s carrying around her neck? One is tempted to think that this is covert stereotyping, just because she’s a blonde, but not really…Buffy Wicks means business—seriously. The one that came yesterday also said that she’s “serious”. Okay, we get it, not just another Barbie, but “serious”.

If you weren’t already worried, “housing” and “crisis” are used twice each in today’s version. This might have gotten her some extra Brownie points from the only lobbying group listed on this piece, the organization AKA Yimbys, AKA SF BARF, now optimistically re-labelled East Bay for Everyone. (Perhaps Everyone might fit into the East Bay, but maybe some of Everyone might need to live in Mountain View or somewhere else, right?)

In addition to “housing advocates”, a group with only one member, EBFE, it’s claimed that three corporate newspapers “ENDORSE BUFFY!” That would be the Hearst Chronicle (no, really?) Dean Singleton’s East Bay Times (Quelle surprise!) and Whoever’s East Bay Express .

But wait! I looked that last one up on the internet, and not to be too harsh or anything, not quite true. In fact, false.

Here’s what they actually said about endorsements over at the Ex:

“15th Assembly District: No Endorsement

This was also a tough choice for us. We co-endorsed Buffy Wicks, a former Obama White House aide, in the June primary with Oakland Councilmember Dan Kalb. But we've been greatly disappointed in several of her policy stances since then, particularly her decision to oppose Proposition 10, which would allow cities like Berkeley and Oakland to enact tougher rent control laws in order to reduce displacement of longtime residents who can't afford to live here. We view Prop. 10 as one of the most important issues on the ballot. We're also disappointed in her decision to accept independent expenditure help from billionaire, charter-school backers.”

What? Do the anonymous authors of this mailer, who list a Sacramento mailing address, think East Bay voters are fools? Yes, I know that the independent expenditure PACs that the Ex decries don’t need the candidate’s permission to lie on her behalf, but she should IMMEDIATELY disavow the Faux News that the East Bay Express endorses her, because it doesn't. 

About those PACS: I’ve just gotten a link to an amazing piece of sleuthing on the part of the Democratic Socialists of America, who claim, and I have no reason to doubt them, that one of the PACS which paid for this and other pro-Wicks mailers was secretly helmed by a right-wing Republican. 

Headline: Meet the Pro-Kavanaugh Republican Running the Newest Buffy Wicks PAC. by Frances Reade. 

 

“Voters in AD15 received a deluge of political mailers this week, so one in particular probably didn’t stick out. It's a glossy sheet 8.5" x 11" sheet with a huge picture of a frothing Donald Trump and a small picture of a smiling Buffy Wicks. The cover says, “With the Right Leaders, CA CAN DO A LOT TO STOP DONALD TRUMP.”  

“You can’t tell from looking at it, but this mailer, suggesting that Buffy can protect us from Trump, was conceived in an elite Republican law firm in Sacramento and paid for by an unholy alliance of right-wing billionaires, anti-public education crusaders, and big healthcare PACs. 

 

“The whole process was overseen by Ashlee Titus, president of the Sacramento Federalist Society, who recently signed a letter in support of accused sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh. “The mailer discloses it was produced by a PAC with the convoluted name "Coalition for East Bay Health Care Access, Affordable Housing and Quality Public Schools, supporting Buffy Wicks for Assembly 2018," an outfit which has spent $442,890.31 in the last 20 days on mailers, polling, and ads supporting Buffy, per its filings with the California Secretary of State*. It appears the PAC exists solely to coordinate the spending of other PACs' money on Buffy’s behalf in AD15. (And there is a lot of spending going on in AD15. Check our site buffywicks.money to learn who’s spending over $2 million on Buffy’s campaign.)  

“Taking a look into the backers of this Buffy Coalition PAC reveals an extremely disturbing cast of characters, none of whom have any intention of doing "A LOT TO STOP DONALD TRUMP." In fact, they are backing Buffy because in a deeply blue state, corporate Democrats like her are the best Republicans can hope for to accomplish their agenda.’ 

 

That’s just the beginning. This amazing piece of opposition research goes deep into the weeds of party politics, illustrating, if you have any doubt, that the East Bay Express was right in refusing to endorse Wicks because she’s in bed with these clowns. Read the whole thing—lots of names and numbers. 

 

It’s quite possible that in a parallel universe Buffy might be a fine candidate for something, perhaps Oakland City Council if Dan Kalb retires (she’s bought a nice house in Rockridge), but given the diverse texture that the East Bay prides itself on, she’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. The tons of glossy promos that arrive daily in our mailboxes are just plain annoying, featuring as they do her prize collection of selfies with every candidate who has ever employed her. 

She’s transparently the candidate of California’s calcified Democratic establishment. Jovanka Beckles, her opponent, is endorsed by the Democrats’ nascent progressive leadership, including Bernie Sanders, and now today by Kimberly Ellis, who recently came within an eyelash of being elected state Democratic Party chair. 

Here’s the press release containing the Ellis endorsement: 

 

“Today leading California Democratic Party Activist Kimberly Ellis issued a long statement endorsing Jovanka Beckles’ candidacy to represent Assembly District 15 in Sacramento. Her conclusion is ‘I’m voting for Jovanka because she is the most qualified candidate - with a voice and perspective that is desperately needed in our halls of power.’ “Kimberly Ellis has been called the most powerful unelected Democrat in California. In a close contest in 2017 she nearly won chair of the party on the basis of a strong campaign to establish single payer health care. She has served on the California Democratic Party Finance Committee and also on the California Democratic Party's African American Caucus as Recording Secretary.  

“Ellis was supported for Party Chair by the California Nurses Association, which supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Presidential primary, and by Our Revolution, which grew out of the Sanders campaign. 

“Ellis issued the following explanatory statement: 

“*** First, this is not a short statement - nor should it be *** 

 

‘For those who don’t know, I live in AD15. This is my home district. Not only can I endorse in this race, more importantly, I must decide for myself who is the best person to represent my neighborhood. ‘Our AD15 primary had an embarrassment of riches with respect to great candidates. As someone who doesn’t believe in putting a thumb on the scale, I wasn’t about to play favorites in the primary, believing instead that the voters should narrow this very crowded field.  

‘But with returning absentee ballots about to flood election offices next week, the time has come for me to make public my endorsement. 

‘Having been on the receiving end of a few dual endorsements in my Chair’s race, I gotta tell you, I’m not a big fan. And while I know both candidates to be capable and I have shared friendships with both, I’m only backing one of them in this contest. 

‘Hell, just me saying that both women are capable is gonna ruffle feathers. That’s OK. I’m a mom of two kids and sometimes Even/Steven ain’t possible. 

‘In their quest to make it to the state legislature, the two candidates clearly bring different talents and perspectives to this race. It’s no surprise that I’m not a fan of many of those currently in Sacramento, though there are some great exceptions (hat tip to Holly Mitchell, Lorena Gonzalez and Dr. Shirley Weber) - and these women are the types of leaders we need. Honorable MENtion to Rob Bonta. 

‘At the end of the day, life is all about making decisions: big ones; little ones; important ones; inconsequential ones. But decisions, nonetheless. 

‘Ultimately, when you have two capable candidates, the decision for me comes down to perspective... the life experience that each one brings to the current make-up of the decision-making table at which they will be seated. 

‘In short, I’m endorsing Jovanka Beckles because I believe her voice is most needed, especially at this moment in time. 

‘I believe that our life experiences form our judgments, and while I know that Buffy has a tremendous amount to contribute, elections force us to choose just one. 

‘From Oakland to Berkeley, Albany to Richmond, Assembly District 15 is the heart and soul of progressivism. We’re the district that keeps California honest. 

‘Jovanka has done everything we say we want our leaders to do... 

‘She has been an active and engaged member of the community for decades; she has served on commissions; she has run successfully for elected office (twice) and even served as Vice Mayor; she has helped spearhead the positive transformation of the city of Richmond. 

‘I know Jovanka’s tremendous impact because I’ve witnessed it firsthand as her constituent. 

‘And now, Jovanka is asking for a promotion. And she’s the right person to do the job. 

‘I’ve listened to the various reasons non-supporters give: she’s too radical; too extreme; too militant; too leftist; raises her fist too much; not polished or savvy enough. Doesn’t ‘get along’ with some people. 

‘As a Black woman who has run for office, I know that oftentimes these ‘reasons’ are code for ‘she’s not one of us’. 

‘Far be it from me to inject race into this conversation, but let’s be honest, for too many liberals, Jovanka is just too ‘Black’ (literally and figuratively). 

‘And if that’s the case, and some folks are more comfortable with and have a preference for white women in sensible shoes, then at least have the courage to admit it to yourself, if not to others. 

‘On Tuesday, November 6, I’m voting for Jovanka Beckles... not because she’s Black... or because she’s a woman. 

‘I’m voting for Jovanka because she is the most qualified candidate - with a voice and perspective that is desperately needed in our halls of power.” 

 

Amen to all that. 

 

 

---

P.S. Another glossy hit piece came Monday, even scuzzier than the above, a personal attack on Councilwoman Beckles. I looked up Ms. Wicks' web site, and scrolling way down I found this statement attributed to the candidate: 

 

I am happy to answer any additional questions you may have about me or my campaign. You can email us at hello@buffywicks.com or call me directly at 510–545–3997. 

Why not give Wicks a call and let her know what you think? Ask her if she's willing to disavow the support of this disgraceful right-wing PAC.

Who’s in charge here anyway?

Someone just texted me what seems to be a copy of a mailer. It shows a picture of an unsightly makeshift tent with a superimposed title, “Berkeley CAN do Better””, plus a headshot of District 4 Councilmember Kate Harrison, captioned “Kate Harrison Pushed for City-Approved Homeless Encampments in Berkeley” and the slogan "Vote Anyone But Kate". And here’s the kicker. "paid for by the Berkeley Police Association PAC".

What? Is that the Political Action Committee of the same organization which collectively bargains with the city of Berkeley, and just got the cops a hefty pay raise?

Yes, it is. From the BPA web site:  

The Berkeley PA Serves The City of Berkeley And Its Members With Honor and Pride  

The Berkeley Police Association was founded in 1953 by the sworn officers of the Berkeley Police Department. The goal of the Berkeley Police Association is to partner with the community and provide quality police service through community interaction, emphasizing the highest degree of cooperation, professionalism and ethical behavior, and to create an atmosphere of safety and security. Our community policing approach helps neighborhoods keep safe by working with our police officers daily. 

 

Tell me just exactly how sending out this snarky attack on one of Berkeley’s elected officials aids in achieving such high-minded goals. NOT. Is this "partnering with the community"? I don't think so. 

This just in: Councilmember Harrison did not cause homelessness—she’s only been in office for a fraction of a term, and it’s a problem bigger than Berkeley. Many of us are not one bit fooled. It’s widely recognized that what some—not all—Berkeley police have against her is that she favored Berkeley’s withdrawal from Urban Shield, the militaristic “training” exercise run by the Department of Homeland Security. The BPA, aided and abetted by the city manager, was able to veto the vote of the Berkeley City Council to withdraw from the program by dragging out contract negotiations long enough to miss the deadline for exiting from the program. 

Presumably the action against homelessness favored by the BPA is the kind of raid on homeless encampments repeatedly ordered by the city manager and executed by the Berkeley Police Department, sweetened by extravagant overtime for participants. That's so much more profitable for the cops than the policy they attribute (without documentation) to Kate Harrison: “city approved homeless encampments”. 

And anyhow, why is that such a bad idea? It's being tried in all sorts of places, except Berkeley. 

Putting on my First Amendment hat, I recognize that even as city employees members of the Berkeley Police have the right to express negative opinions of those elected by the citizens to govern Berkeley. On the other hand, the Hatch Act, on the books since 1939, has always prevented federal employees and now even some local employees who are paid with federal funds from participating in partisan politics, and it’s not hard to understand why many favor this restriction. Certainly my respect for the Berkeley police dropped a notch when I saw this disingenuous document. 

Here we might also take brief note of two other recent actions by city employees to disregard the wishes of many of their employers,who just happen to be us taxpayers: 

This memo from the City Clerk’s office went out on October 16: 

 

“All campaign signs in street medians within the City of Berkeley must be removed no later than Friday, October 19, 2018 due to regularly scheduled maintenance. If not removed, the City will need to remove the signs which will result in thousands of dollars of maintenance staff costs and Parks Tax Funds being diverted toward the removal of these illegally placed signs.  

“As a reminder, Title 20 of the Berkeley Municipal Code governs the placement of campaign signs on public property in the City of Berkeley. Committees, or any person acting on behalf of the committee, are prohibited from placing campaign signs of any kind on wooden utility poles, public sidewalks, crosswalks, median strips, curbs, hydrants, trees, fire alarm or police alarm systems or any traffic control fixture of the City.”  

 

Election signs on median strips, especially on Sacramento on the old Key System right-of-way, are a time -honored Berkeley tradition. They are a harmless way of reducing the ridiculous cost of running for local office. Previous administrations have simply left signs alone until after the election—did anyone ask the City staff to change that policy? Will two more weeks make a big difference? 

 

The way you can tell that this edict is designed to chill political expression is the memo’s reference specifically to campaign signs, whereas the cited code section actually covers all kinds of signs. This raises a classic First Amendment issue. Government cannot regulate the content of speech, so since city staff ignores the real estate ads which are often on medians while enforcing the law regarding campaign signs, they’re asking for a lawsuit. 

And one more example of the current city staff’s disregard for long-established public policy: their completely unnecessary agreement to mess around with the landscaped traffic circles, a civic amenity which are a point of pride in flatland neighborhoods. As a correspondent today aptly points out, accepting this provision in the settlement of a liability suit for a traffic accident was completely unnecessary, the product of lazy negotiation on the part of some city employee who should know better. Is it too late to get the plaintiff to waive this? 

There's a meeting about this tomorrow from 6:00pm to 7:30 pm at the Frances Albrier Community Center at 2800 Park Street. Come and speak your piece, but don't necessarily expect the City staff to listen. That doesn't seem to be part of their job any more.

We were shocked when we read the October 10, 2018 Opinion piece on Berkeleyside.com claiming that Kate Harrison’s housing policies result in making housing less affordable We have known Kate since she was on the Housing Advisory Commission. We would never describe her in the way that this editorial did. We have continued to work with Kate on affordable housing policies once she was elected to the Council. Let us explain why we disagree.

First, the opinion piece implies that Councilmember Harrison’s position on community benefits is one of the reasons why there is not more downtown development. We have worked on and researched community benefits in many other contexts and we could not disagree more. These benefits have been carefully negotiated between the City and the development community over several years in Berkeley, following passage of the Downtown Area Plan in 2010 (Measure R). Kate has said repeatedly that she supported Measure R and was not in favor of later measures to amend it.

The concept of community benefits stems from the theory of “Land Value Recapture” which is explained in a White Paper we co-wrote: "When land is up-zoned or a plan updated to allow greater intensity of development, the value of the land generally increases. Most of this increase in value is the result of a public action (such as the approval of the downtown plan) and not the landowner’s. When understood in this light, a strong argument can be made for the public to receive a reasonable share of the increased land value, to be used for community benefits.” 

Since there are impacts on the existing community from high rise developments, public benefits are needed. One example of community impacts is to require that new projects either provide affordable housing units on-site or pay housing mitigation fees. Other benefit categories include arts and culture, street and open space improvements, environmentally friendly infrastructure, and social services. 

It is important to remember that before a development is required to provide public benefits, economic (or pro forma) analyses are conducted by a third party, so that the benefits will not impede development. This seems like a “win-win” for both the developer and the public. 

Once downtown projects are approved, it still takes many years to start construction. An example of such a project is Modara Acheson Commons. It is now under construction, five years after it was approved.. Also under construction is a high rise hotel. Given that there are two downtown buildings that are under construction and which are providing negotiated benefits, requiring public benefits by itself is not a public policy that renders a project infeasible. 

Secondly, another type of residential development referred to in the Opinion piece are new subsidized properties that contain only affordable housing units. Kate has championed for these types of developments by increasing the housing mitigation fee (required of market rate projects that do not provide affordable units on-site).  

Kate is also responsible for encouraging a transfer tax measure that is now on the November ballot (Measure P) that will raise taxes for services for the homeless, among other uses. ) Dr. Wolfe worked with Kate to do the background research on the transfer tax, which was suggested by her and the Mayor’s Housing Task Force as an important strategy.  

Although there is an affordable bond measure (Measure O) on the ballot that residents should support , funds from Measure P can be used for services and operations and not only for capital expenditures which is what Measure O would fund. 

It is absurd to declare that Kate Harrison is against affordable housing. What the writers of the opinion piece are really objecting to is that she does not rubber stamp any housing development that comes in front of City Council, regardless of the impact that the development might have on the City’s Quality of Life. Community benefits, parking ratios, height limits and other planning regulations are there to protect our communities in the face of growth and should not be sacrificed. And by the way, in the case of true affordable housing projects, Kate is certainly willing to reduce regulations, reasonably. 

Finally, the Opinion piece mentions two of the commissioners that Kate appointed and by association, the Opinion article assumes that their views are hers as well. Although commissioners are appointed by city councilmembers, commissioners are independent Berkeley residents and make their own choices. As commissioners, we may not always agree with the councilmember who appoints us, and this independence is one of the positive outcomes of a democracy. We should not “label” our councilmembers based on commissioners that they appoint. 

A decision-maker has to balance conflicting public goals. Kate has already demonstrated that she is a hard working leader who is excellent at relentlessly pushing for more affordable housing while protecting our “Quality of Life” in Berkeley. 

---

Marian Wolfe, Ph.D. is Acting Chair of Berkeley’s Housing Advisory Commission, an RCD Board Member, occasional lecturer at UC Berkeley, and an Affordable Housing Consultant. 

Nico Calavita, is Professor Emeritus, San Diego State University and a Berkeley resident.

The Marriott Hotel chain, which is the largest in the country, is being struck by workers who earn a poverty wage. The strike has been authorized by 8,300 workers at 23 Marriott hotels. The Marriott in Oakland and San Francisco are among the striking hotels. Those who have been employed by the Hotel chain from one to four years are earning a bit under $11 an hour. Longer term employees, from five to nine years, are averaging a poverty wage of about $12 an hour. Among the severe consequences of the low wages is that many workers are being forced to hold two jobs. Appropriately, they insist that "One job is enough". 

However, despite attempts at negotiating, the Marriott has refused to budge on key issues. It is not only the very low wages that concern employees. Their jobs have been becoming increasingly insecure due to new technology. From the perspective of the hotel's employees, they are not opposed to new technology. But rather than taking their jobs away, they want the technology to help them do a better job. Also, they want to be assured that they receive a fair severance if they are laid off. The housekeeping workers are also seeking a reduction in their heavy workload. 

Also, Marriott has been adopting what it calls a "Make a Green Choice Program". It sounds like an environmental program but actually, its purpose is to reduce staff. In short, it permits guests to receive various benefits if they decline housekeeping services. The result is that the program has been reducing housekeeper hours. 

The Unions during the recession years agreed to forgo pay increases. But now the chain is making huge profits. In the second quarter, profits increased 25 percent from the previous year to $610 million. The hotel chain can afford to pay much better wages and still earn a substantial profit.

Ignoring evidence of Khashoggi’s gruesome murder, Present Trump rushed to defend his friend, Crown Prince Mohammed (MBS). Both Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and President Trump accepted verbal assurances from MBS that he had no knowledge of the killing and would conduct a thorough investigation. Oh really? The alleged perpetrator investigates his own crime? As the president went to bat for his Saudi pals, more details have emerged that paints a grisly picture of what actually happened. Turkish findings differ significantly from Trump’s rosy narrative. Mr. Khashoggi wasn’t interrogated. He was beaten up, drugged, and dismembered by a mafia style Saudi hit squad. The message to other Saudi dissidents was stark. If you persist apposing or criticizing the autocratic Crown Prince Mohammed you will suffer a similar fate. Let us see if President Trump follows through on his promise to unleash severe consequences on those responsible for Khashoggi‘s gruesome murder.

Life is temporary. A thousand years from now, excavators might dig up our remains, study them, and possibly put them in a museum. Once we are gone, that might be "it"--and our consciousness is gone. Even if you believe in an afterlife or in reincarnation, there must be a life expectancy for the soul. Souls will not last forever either. Someone who studied ghosts estimated their life expectancy to be about 700 years. 

(Most psychiatrists don’t believe in the existence of ghosts or an afterlife, from what I have seen. Their tendency is to stick to the physical sciences as they currently exist. Anything that can’t be measured with present-day test and/or diagnostic equipment, or that can’t be proven through tangible evidence, they believe, doesn’t exist. I believe the physical sciences are still in their infancy, and in future centuries, people will look on the present day as a time of ignorance.) 

No one can dispute that life is limited. People get so upset at the prospect of death. But it is something we do not control. 

Suicide is a crime. This is so because those left behind must deal with the aftermath and the mess that is left. Not to mention, the unnecessary passing doubtless will cause a lot of pain for family and loved ones. Suicide should not be considered glamorous. People might believe it is within their rights to do away with oneself; it isn't. Even though it is one's own life, nonetheless it is a crime. Additionally, killing oneself creates a bad example for both old and young. 

There may be some exceptions to the above, such as where a person is terminally ill and in a great deal of pain. 

Another consideration: a failed suicide attempt could lead to living as a far more disabled person, mentally and/or physically. Failed suicide attempts may well cause permanent damage, leading to living under even more horrendous conditions than beforehand. 

CNN is capitalizing on the suicide death of Anthony Bourdain, in ads that promote the airing of his final season of "Parts Unknown." I object to this. But my eyes are glued to the show despite this. 

(Bourdain gave us a look at the insides of other countries and other places, and this is something most Americans have lacked. Bourdain's television show is important. It makes the viewer realize that people are human, including when people are not from the U.S. His absence deprives Americans and others of something very valuable.) 

Many people who are caregivers, or who are otherwise involved in mental health, seem to accept it as a given that we have short lifespans and that it is doubtful we will outlive our parents. This should not be accepted. We need more effort to make the lives of mentally ill people better, and longer. We should not dismiss the life of a person with mental illness as necessarily limited. 

There are some mentally ill people who live a normal lifespan; you should not rule that out. For this to happen, we probably need to live under acceptable conditions. This would include a nutritious diet, the absence of substance abuse, not being subjected to homelessness, and numerous other elements of a good living situation. And, let’s not forget, there needs to be sources of gratification in one’s life. A dismal outlook in life due to lack of gratification and/or lack of purpose will shorten one’s lifespan. 

The advantages you have when older could include more life experience, the possibility (but not the certainty) that you are wiser, more knowledge, and, in some cases, reduced expectations from other people. Someone seeking a fistfight on a Saturday night is less likely to go after an old guy. Someone hiring in an unskilled work position might not push you as hard if you do not appear young and able to bust your butt. 

The disadvantages of getting older, for someone with chronic mental illness, are many. The effects of taking psychiatric medications for decades can have crippling effects on the body. In other instances, these meds can be a contributing factor to a shorter lifespan. 

Because of having a psychiatric illness, most mentally ill people live in poverty and may not be able to pay for a nutritious diet. We may not be able to pay for a good dentist, causing most older mentally ill people to lose teeth—some or all. 

We may have medical conditions that have gone untreated; doctors are less proactive about health when dealing with mentally ill people, and most of us are stuck getting medical treatment at county run facilities. Thus, there are numerous reasons, and I haven’t mentioned all of them, that mentally ill people’s bodies will usually start to fall apart in our fifties or sooner. Living to age 50 is not unusual for someone diagnosed with mental illness. 

For aging mentally ill people, there are no guarantees. Some people may try to impress on us that our lives are over, and we have no hope. If we want hope, we need to disbelieve in people’s negativity. If we want hope, we may need to manufacture it. This is done through deciding not to give up. 

---

Just to remind the reader--I have books for sale, several of them pertaining to mental illness, as well as two fiction collections. To get a look at my books on Amazon, click here. 

The murder of Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, spotlights the moral depravity of Donald Trump. Khashoggi was an outspoken journalist -- an exemplary member of a profession Trump deplores. Khasoggi opposed the Saudi rulers -- friends of Trump. Given this background, it's no surprise that Trump is avoiding meaningful response to Khashoggi's assassination.

In 2017, Jamal Khashoggi, perhaps the most famous journalist in the Arab world, left Saudi Arabia after being banned from publishing or appearing on television because he had criticized the Saudi rulers and Donald Trump. Khashoggi relocated to the United States and began writing for the Washington Post. On October 2nd, Khashoggi entered the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, Turkey, and has not been seen since. There are numerous reports that he was killed by a 15-person assassination team dispatched by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

To understand how this killing became a major Trump scandal, we must follow three threads. The first is the relationship between Jamal Khashoggi and his country. In 1958. Khashoggi was born into an affluent Saudi family. He went to Saudi schools and then came to the U.S., receiving his college degree at Indiana State University in 1982. Khashoggi returned to Saudi Arabia and became a journalist; during the next twenty years he traveled extensively, interviewing many Middle East luminaries including Osama bin Laden (https://www.businessinsider.com/missing-saudi-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-ties-to-osama-bin-laden-islamists-2018-10 ). 

In 2003, the Saudi Ministry of Information removed Khashoggi from his post as editor of Al Watan and he moved to London. In 2007, Khashoggi moved back to Saudi Arabia and again became editor of Al Watan. In 2010 he was fired for criticizing the government. Nonetheless, he continued to write columns, and provide TV commentary, for a variety of media outlets. In December 2016, the Saudi authorities banned him from writing columns or appearing on television. Early in 2017 Khashoggi moved to the United States and began writing for the Washington Post. 

Khashoggi's Post columns were sharply critical of the Saudi government, particularly Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman -- next in line for the Saudi throne. In April 2018 Khashoggi wrote that Saudi Arabia, "should return to its pre 1979 climate when the government restricted hard-line Wahhabi traditions. Women today should have the same rights as men. And all citizens should have the right to speak their minds without fear of imprisonment." He criticized Saudi intervention in Yemen and the government crackdown on media and dissent. Khashoggi even established a Saudi political party, Democracy for the Arab World Now. 

There's strong evidence that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, on October 2nd, at the direction of Mohammad bin Salman. The Crown Prince doesn't like to be challenged. Neither does Donald Trump. 

Trump has made no secret of his contempt for the press. At his campaign rallies he's encouraged his followers to heap abuse on nearby members of the press. He regularly calls out journalists in his Tweets. (By the way, Trump has particular contempt for The Washington Post, Khashoggi's employer. He's called out various Post reporters and the owner, Jeff Bezos.) One of Trump's objectives is to diminish freedom of the press by expanding libel laws to permit more law suits against journalists (https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/trump-wants-to-change-libel-laws-in-wake-of-woodward-book/ ). Since becoming President, Trump has railed at alleged "fake news." In August he began call journalists "enemies of the people." (More than 300 U.S. media outlets have published editorials condemning Trump's words.) 

Given this background, it was to be expected that Trump minimized the importance of Khashoggi's murder. On October 11th, when queried about Khashoggi, Trump responded, "This took place in Turkey, and to the best of our knowledge, Khashoggi is not a United States citizen." (Khashoggi was in the U.S. as a lawful immigrant,) 

However, Trump has stronger reasons to avoid a strenuous inquiry into Khashoggi's death; Trump has financial ties to Saudi Arabia. During the 2015 presidential campaign, Trump boasted: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me... Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much... They buy all sorts of my stuff. All kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundred of millions."(https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/trump-says-no-financial-interests-in-saudi-arabia-but-makes-money.html ) By the way, Trump now denies these financial ties; on October 16th, Trump tweeted: "For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia." (There's also evidence that Trump' son-in-law, Jared Kushner has ties to the Saudis. (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/16/657923244/jared-kushner-faces-scrutiny-for-his-ties-to-the-saudi-crown-prince ) 

Not surprisingly, Trump shows no interest in putting pressure on the Saudis. It's been suggested that he should threaten to withdraw from his touted "$110 billion" arms deal, to force the Saudi's to cooperate. He's unlikely to do this. Since May of 2017, the White House has touted “a $110 billion Saudi-funded defense purchase ... which will grow to $350 billion over the next 10 years.” But it turns out that most of the $110 billion consists of "memorandum of intent" and only $14.5 billion are covered by the firmer "Letters of Agreement." (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trumps-110-billion-saudi-arms-deal-doesnt-actually-exist ) In other words, Trump is lying about this arms deal. 

The Trump Administration isn't going to do anything about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Just like they haven't done anything about the murders of other brave journalists in Russia and other parts of the world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/09/the-guardian-view-on-the-killing-of-journalists-the-truth-in-peril ). They don't support freedom of the press. 

Jamal Khashoggi's last column was published posthumously by The Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/jamal-khashoggi-what-the-arab-world-needs-most-is-free-expression/2018/10/17/adfc8c44-d21d-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html?). Khashoggi observed: "Arab governments have been given free rein to continue silencing the media at an increasing rate... The Arab world is facing its own version of an Iron Curtain, imposed not by external actors but through domestic forces vying for power." 

Donald Trump isn't going to do anything about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi because the crime was consistent with Trump's attitude about the press. He wants to impose his own Iron Curtain. Who will be the first American journalist to die? 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net