Well, it looks like Nancy Pelosi is headed for another term as speaker. She got the endorsement of House Democrats this week, with a few rightish-leaning spoilsports casting what were essentially protest votes. It would be—over-used word—amazing, in the true sense, if the same surly suckers jumped ship and voted with the Republicans in the actual speaker election next week.

These anti-progressives already have a couple of ringleaders, both distinguished by how undistinguished they are. They are from two branches of the Democratic tradition, each manifesting his own brand of entitlement. 

Seth Moulton is from the old school Massachusetts patrician class, exemplified by the Kennedy family, John Kerry and many more of their ilk. He actually went to Andover and Harvard, topping off with a Harvard MBA with a side of Marine Corps.  

Bred to rule, right? Time was when that resume guaranteed you a shot at being president. 

Presumably this background is what gives him the— what in other contexts might be called— chutzpah to believe that two terms in Congress without his name on any meaningful legislation qualify him to replace a woman believed by many to be the most skillful congressional leader they’ve ever seen. His district does include Salem, a place which historically had a negative take on powerful women. 

Tim Ryan is another shade of smug. His district includes Akron, where I went to Get Out the Vote in 2016. Campaign workers in our part of town, which we carried comfortably, were primarily the kind of middle-aged (and older) African-American women who have the deserved reputation of being the backbone of political effort in lots of winning races. I did notice that the muckety-muks who hung around the courthouse without doing much work were prototypical old white guys, not to indulge in identity politics or anything, of course 

Some of these local honchos were young white guys like Ryan. He went to Youngstown State University on a football scholarship, an achievement which sometimes creates a sense of entitlement in males. He makes nice with the increasingly ineffective unions. 

His Wikipedia bio does not credit him with any legislative achievements. But he too seems to think he deserves to knock off Pelosi. 

Oh please! What are people like this thinking? 

In my on-again-off-again involvement in electoral politics, I’ve often ruefully observed that Our Side Can’t Count. All too often my team has been the 47 percenters, so close and yet so far.  

What’s different about Pelosi is that she can count. That’s why she was able to cobble together enough votes to pass the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare but which more accurately should be Pelosicare.  

This might be because she had a whole first career as the mother of five children before she entered politics. With a lot of kids you do have to be able to count, as I know from watching my aunts juggle six and seven respectively. Yes, I expect there were nannies and possibly housekeepers and even cooks. But that develops management and delegation skills, and her children turned out well. 

Since no one has cast any specific aspersions on Pelosi’s effectiveness in the speaker’s job, what’s up with the naysayers? 

There’s a phenomenon familiar to many women who are in managerial positions after they’ve passed the age of 40. All too often they go from being the office pet to being the Old Witch—youthful charm is helpful for women, but if they have power when they’re older it frightens co-workers, men and even other women. 

Nancy Pelosi annoys both as a woman and by being by some standards too old, even though she’s done a bang-up job until now. It’s no surprise that those trying to dump her are young men plus the occasional woman. Their main argument seems to be “Now it’s my turn!”, rather like small children fighting over access to a swing.  

(On the local scene, we see their counterparts: the YIMBYs who whine that society owes them homes in the Bay Area like those their middle class parents provided for them back in Philly or Topeka. They're eager to hustle Boomers off to the old folks home to get their houses.) 

In the last couple of weeks Pelosi has frequently been quoted as saying that nobody gives you power, you have to take it. What she hasn’t taught her young challengers is exactly how you go about that. 

I always told my own children that if nobody seems to be in charge, you are—advice which is handy in all kinds of chaotic situations. But the reverse case, when somebody is definitely running the show, is more complicated.  

The advantage that old people like Nancy Pelosi and me have over younger people is that we’ve been 40, but they’ve never been 78, or anything in between. The older I get, the more I appreciate what I’ve learned through doing many different things, having several kinds of jobs, living various places. It’s hard to experience that kind of learning vicariously. 

It is a real shame that just as Barack Obama has had a chance to learn a few things the hard way, he’s barred from future shots at the presidency. I admire the kind of vigorous young person he was when he first ran, but I think he might be wiser now. Having made a few mistakes, he might have learned from them and done even better. 

That’s why I think an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders or even an Al Gore could legitimately be considered for president. Younger people grouse about Baby Boomers, but let’s hear about some viable candidates in their sixties if there are any. It’s easy to like fresh-faced newbies like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, but they need time to ripen and learn. 

But back to Pelosi. I met her only once, at a 2016 campaign party that was small enough that I managed to get her ear for a nanosecond. For some reason I asked about an Ohio campaign that my Akron buddy was working on, an obscure state race that she had no reason to know anything about. Instantly, without missing a beat, she produced a shrewd fact-based statistical prediction that turned out, come election day, to be spot on. 

Her most recent achievement was using her coattails in the midterms to bring in eight new California congressional seats. I don’t have real data, but my personal anecdote is that I got a call before the election from T.J. Cox (whom I’ve never met), soliciting contributions for his 21^st District campaign. I’d heard that one of the California candidates was dissing The Leader, and I didn’t want to support that person, so I asked Cox who he would vote for.  

“Pelosi of course”, he said. My kinda guy, so I promised him a modest sum. I bet many more California progs did the same—there was a big story in the Fresno Bee about his support for her. Cox’s race was just called in his favor, and you can bet Pelosi’s backing, both endorsement and funding, put him over the top. 

I seriously doubt that Moulton or Ryan could do the same, and I don't want to give them the chance to prove me right. 

 

 

 

 

Who among us lucky enough to live in a charming mixed-use residential and commercial neighborhood Berkeley doesn't want the sidewalks cluttered with enormous glowing screens that flash ads all day? 

What? Not you? Even if "IKE" offers an "interface" that collects your information if you use it? No? What a disappointment this will be to the Economic Development Department and the City Council, both of which honestly thought you'd be thrilled. And if you write and phone to try to protect your neighborhood you'll be told maybe if you make a good case at a meeting somewhere someday and the room isn't full of "IKE Smart City" shills you can avoid having one planted where you see it from your bedroom window --maybe. 

Unless you're 4th Street. 4th Street's representatives seem quite sure they'll never have to put up with the big, glowing "way-finding" screens in their lovely, carefully designed and aesthetically congruent area. They're not sure how it happened, but they just said no and somehow it took.  

So don't worry if the Economic Development fellow tells you there's no "opt-out" policy for the passionately disinclined to participate. There is. They just would prefer that you don't know about it because they already signed a contract to plant these things all over town and if you don't want one they end up with two in their front yards. Those of us who somehow weren't invited to the initial meetings about this extraordinary electronic imposition, these sidewalk ad-flashing billboards, are really hoping they all end up in the mayor's front yard. After all, he signed the papers. 

 

Among the important lessons we learn from history is that the winners in any political struggle often influence our outlook in ways that are congenial with the perspective of the winners. Take for example the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has done immensely important work to protect immigrants. In fact, to the ACLU's credit, it just persuaded a District judge to at least temporarily overturn a ruling by President Trump that would tremendously limit the number of undocumented immigrants that could apply for asylum.  

Yet the ACLU and other progressive organizations have agreed that the United States (U.S), like every nation, has the right to control who enters the country and who is allowed to remain. As the ACLU states, the U.S. "has the right to deport persons in the country who are not authorized to be here". So although the ACLU gets an "A" for advocacy, it shares with the establishment the view that deporting unwanted immigrants is legitimate as long as those who are adversely affected have been able to access the legal rights they are entitled to. That is what due process is about. 

Could there be anything wrong with this perspective? Yes, because decisions that may seem legally justified often don't stand up when we take a deeper, historical look. The problems that Mexicans confront as immigrants has a long history. In the mid-19th century, the doctrine called "Manifest Destiny" played an important role justifying an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Wealthy citizens asserted that God supported the effort of the U.S.to expand territorially and to spread capitalism. It was the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, coined in 1845, that provided the U.S. one year later with an excuse to engage in an unprovoked imperialist war with Mexico (1846-1848).  

As a result of the war, the U.S. obtained 55 percent of Mexico's territory, which included what became California, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Western Colorado. Mexicans, of course, made up a substantial segment of the population of these stolen states. So the political establishment was committed to preventing the Mexicans from playing an effective political role. From the very beginning they were treated as outcasts by those who stole their land. When the political bigwigs seem to be doing the right thing legally, then and now it is often only window dressing. The challenge is to avoid being taken in by establishment intrigue. 

The contempt that Mexicans have experienced has continued unabated. During the Great Depression, for example, about 300,000 Mexicans living in the U.S. were deported. According to the historian, Francisco Balderrama, who studied deportation issues, It was a way of denying New Deal welfare benefits to Mexicans. 60 percent of the deported Mexicans were U.S. citizens! The political leaders referred to the deportation as "repatriation" to give the impression that they departed voluntarily. 

In the 1950s Mexicans were victims of the largest mass deportation in American history. An estimated 1.3 million Mexicans were unjustifiably deported. They were arrested and dumped elsewhere in Mexico by American immigration officials. The Mexicans paid the heavy price of losing their jobs and disrupting their lives That the deportation was brutal and illegal did not inhibit American officials. 

President Trump would like to continue this practice. In a speech Trump gave, he praised the past policy of dumping undocumented immigrants in Mexican territory. Apparently, the president has no problem evicting immigrants from what had been their own land. Clearly, he wants to make sure that these immigrants do not have a permanent and secure future in the U.S. So the President, who has undoubtedly recited many times the Pledge of Allegiance, should be continually reminded of its famous message, which advocates "liberty and justice for all". 

It is immensely important that American citizens learn about the tremendous disparity between words and deeds with regard to the treatment of undocumented immigrants. Mexicans particularly have a moral and legal right to live in the U.S. and be employed in any job they could qualify for. And it is about time that they are granted citizenship. Among the benefits, they could then participate politically by voting and running for office. It is about time. After all, they were among the original settlers.

Randy Shaw is promoting his new book called "Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America?" Recently, he was interviewed on Berkeleyside.com. In a Nov. 26 interview by Frances Dinkelspiel, With zoning and neighbor veto power, Berkeley is pricing out the non-rich, says author of new book, Shaw reveals his thinking about housing policy in Berkeley. [Quotes in boldface are from that interview.]

I care quite a bit about housing policy in Berkeley. I even asked to be appointed to the Housing Advisory Commission where I try to work hard on these issues. (I represent District 2 and was appointed by Council member Cheryl Davila.) I read the interview with keen interest.

Frankly, Shaw's reported opinions disappoint and anger me. We have some very serious housing crises. In my opinion, we need less, not more, of the junk economics and false narratives Shaw is pushing. Just about everything he is says or is quoted as saying in this interview is wrong: 

"During his 40 years as a housing activist, Shaw has also watched as governments punted their obligations to ensure there was housing for all residents, not just those who can afford to pay the highest rents."  

That is ahistoric - the government has always favored private investors over public provision of housing. Every public investment in housing has been limited, as a result. Housing insecurity and poor quality housing for poor people have been the U.S. norm throughout the development of industrial capitalism and still to this day. It is disgraceful. But it is also not some recent, generational conflict. 

YIMBYs sometimes do favor a false narrative in which the current housing crisis supposedly originated in the 1960s and 1970s. Presumably this is Shaw's stance: 

In the YIMBY story, some changes to zoning law, in some some cities, caused today's crisis. For example, Berkeley's 1973 Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance is often blamed—and Shaw later joins that chorus—for today's housing crisis in Berkeley. Similarly, a modest increase to setback and light requirements on Manhattan, in 1961, is in YIMBY-world blamed for the effects of massive white flight from Manhattan in the 1960s and 1970s. It sounds funny when you lay out it out that plainly but this is their seriously-meant claim. 

What they tend not to mention is that the NPO was itself, in part, a response to an ongoing, serious housing crisis. The NPO was not merely about the nostalgic preservation of brown-shingles. It was also about the preservation of affordable housing stock that was being torn down and replaced with housing that was not only ugly and cheaply built, but expensive to rent. (Similarly, what they tend not to mention about 1960s Manhattan is that demand contracted so much that one point apartment buildings were being abandoned at a rate of about 10,000 units per year.) 

Shaw is quoted as saying: 

"When did it become acceptable for America's politically progressive and culturally diverse cities to price out the non-rich?"  

That is vicious, manipulative nonsense. Logically, it comes in two parts. 

First, Shaw asserts that "cities" set market prices when he says "for ... cities to price out the non-rich". As if cities have a policy lever on market prices. 

Second, Shaw asserts that his policy prescriptions ought to be adopted unless progressives want to be (according to Shaw) hypocrites. Hey, you're a progressive, aren't you? I mean, you say you are and yet I don't see you following Shaw's orders here.... He may as well say "The people of Berkeley really intend to be kind people but, frankly, if they were actually kind they would deregulate land-use!" 

YIMBY rumors and the heated claims of a few prominent economists aside, theories that land use regulation created present housing unaffordability are poorly supported. Empirical research shows that where "compact city" policies have made the most progress, housing affordability and the quality of housing available to lower income households tends to be worse, not better. 

What is generally true of these dense cities? For one thing, these days, they are great playgrounds for the rich and there is a lot of money to be made in real estate there. What else do they have in common? Some of the largest ecological footprints on the planet — utterly unsustainable — at least in the affluent cities. 

Berkeleyside summarizes a few of of Shaw's policy prescriptions this way: 

"Cities must allow the construction of more housing and must mandate that new complexes contain a percentage of affordable units. (Berkeley currently requires that 20% of the units in any project be set aside for affordable housing or that developers pay a $37,962-per-unit in lieu fee.)" 

In fact, YIMBYs are currently asking state legislators to limit inclusionary unit requirements to no more than 15%. Meanwhile the inclusionary units system, and the in lieu fee alternative, are shams: 

On the one hand, adding stock with only 20% priced below current market prices guarantees that Berkeley will become less economically diverse. Today's market prices are unaffordable to a majority of the incumbent population. Even a whopping 20% inclusionary requirement amounts to a plan to thin out and disperse the current community. 

On the other hand, the lucky few in those inclusionary units are not so lucky after all. The prices of these units are tied not to costs — but to area median income. The more gentrified the region becomes, the higher grows the allowable price of these so-called "affordable" units. 

(When in lieu fees are spent on traditional, HUD-style affordable housing, the outcomes are similar.) 

Berkeleyside further summarizes Shaw's recitation of YIMBY party lines: 

"Cities must also push for new housing aimed at low-income residents. Permit regulations must be streamlined so new projects don't face years and years of delay."  

Shaw would be hard pressed to point to any recent "years and years" of delays for low-income housing projects. Even the infamously contentious senior housing project at 2517 Sacramento Street was quickly approved — twice. It was not delayed by the City but by private lawsuits. 

The long-delayed BRIDGE housing project on Berkeley Way is another example. The City, as directed by Council, is throwing money and staff at that project trying to get it built ASAP. The delays have resulted not from City obstacles but from lack of a definite program for the building, lack of a viable funding and business model, slipped deadlines by the developer, rapid and large cost increases, and the slow funding cycles of county and state financing programs. (It appears we will also get terrible leverage for City money if the project is eventually built but that's a tale of woe for some other day.) 

"Single homeowners should not be able to block a project, as they can in San Francisco, writes Shaw." [Berkeleyside 11/26] 

Surely Shaw knows that in neither San Francisco nor Berkeley law can a single homeowner unilaterally block a project. If perhaps he means that homeowners should not sue, well, perhaps or perhaps not, but in any event their right to sue is not subject to City override. 

"There also must be stronger protection for tenants, including providing public funds to fight off Ellis Act and unjust evictions."  

I wonder if Shaw is aware that Berkeley has significantly increased its budget for tenant legal defense. It was one of the first things Council proposed, and we at the Housing Advisory Commission endorsed, after the 2016 passage of measure U1 (the tax increase on residential rents). 

"Zoning laws need to be changed to allow higher density in single-family-home-zoned neighborhoods, Shaw says." 

Again, empirical evidence shows that greater density is associated with worse, not better affordability for low-income households. There may or may not be good reasons for greater density, but density won't promote the outcome Shaw says he wants. 

Meanwhile, my envelope assumes 1 household per 5000 square feet for a Berkeley R-1 district. At 2.3 people per household, that works out to 186% as dense as the Tokyo metro region, and about 80% as dense as metropolitan Tokyo itself. Sure, Berkeley is no Manhattan but it is plenty dense already. 

More: 

"Shaw believes that neighborhood preservation groups — such as the ones that formed after Berkeley passed its pioneering Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance in 1973 — must assume some of the blame for the rising housing prices that are squeezing out artists, teachers and others." 

This is a quite extreme accusation. Since Shaw is basing this on false ideas about density and housing affordability, and false ideas about the reach of City policy, Shaw is making a baseless, harsh, personal attack on particular Berkeleyans. 

I understand it might sell books but this is nothing more than economic scapegoating—attributing the failures of capitalism to an out-group whose influence must somehow be demonized so that it can be purged. 

I am all for neighborhood groups stepping up to help mediate the housing crises but to blame it on them goes beyond the pale. 

More accusations from Shaw: 

"Neighborhood activists routinely fight against the construction of apartment complexes because they say it will change the character of an area. But since cities are mostly made of up neighborhoods, that approach means not much housing can be built, argues Shaw." 

What comes to my mind as a recent example of neighborhood resistance to multifamily construction is the project at Adeline and Russell (a project to build apartments on the former AW Pottery site and an adjacent parcel). 

For years, neighbors in this area were told that their input to a planning process was needed and valued. Unequivocally, at the top of their demands: a need for affordable housing in this area. 

The proposed project had already caused displacement before the first permit application was submitted. And the proposed project will deliver next to no affordable housing. 

Public resistance in this case did not delay a project. Public enthusiasm for the construction of affordable housing got steamrolled by a City Council that was eager to approve a project that is a poor fit for community housing needs! 

More: 

"Those who already own homes benefit as their property values soar. But people trying to break into home ownership are squeezed out of places like Berkeley when the home prices are so high." 

Shaw's nostalgia for mid-20th century housing markets is simply reactionary. What is going on today? 

Ownership of urban residential real property is becoming increasingly consolidated. A scattering of data points: 

• In 2006, a single company (Page Mill Properties) bought up the majority of apartment units in East Palo Alto. (The eviction rate subsequently skyrocketed.)

To this day, even through a bankruptcy and multiple sales, the entire portfolio remains under a single owner. 

• In the aftermath of 2008. thousands of single family homes in the flats of Oakland were scooped up by a handful of real estate equity firms. (Eviction rates subsequently skyrocketed.)
• A recent report from financial research firm Prequin confirms that private equity real estate firms focused on North America have $70 billion in "dry powder" — cash equivalents ready to go to buy up properties. The amount of reserve has grown year over year and continues to grow.

That means that at today's inventory levels and prices, these firms collectively can afford to buy every single residential property that becomes available for sale in Berkeley and it would make but a minor blip on their balance sheets. 

The point is this: the prospect of home ownership as the American dream is not in retreat because some homeowner in Berkeley enjoys the sunlight in their yard. The dream is receding from sight because real wages are have become so meager in relation to the amount of money accumulating to capital. 

Shaw's looseness with even recent history is displayed when he says: 

"Berkeley puts housing developers into a labyrinth of public hearings and appeals that either kills projects or makes them less affordable. I describe in the book the senior housing on Sacramento Street, and the three-unit Haskell Street project on a site zoned for four where neighborhood opposition subjected the developers to years of costly delays." 

"Years of costly delays"—no. Shaw is misrepresenting the record. As I said above, the senior housing project on Sacramento was quickly approved— twice— by the City. It got delayed by private action. 

What about those three units on Haskell Street? 

The applicant completed his application in January 2016 and the project was initially approved in March of 2016. An appeal was quickly heard and Council attempted to remand the project back to ZAB with strong encouragement to make some concessions to the neighbors. 

After a lawsuit and settlement, the project was finally approved in February 2017. 

Even that extraordinarily contentious example took a mere 13 months, not "years" to approve. As for its costs, it was the applicants' choice to stiff-arm neighbors when preparing the application, and to react to the remand not by finally trying to work with the neighbors, but by suing the City. 

As the interview goes on, Shaw pulls out all the stops and unleashes a full on theatrical level of bull: 

"I see boomer homeowners dominating the opposition to new housing, and a new millennial generation finally offering a long overdue pro-housing counterbalance. Groups like East Bay for Everyone are equalizing what has long been a one-sided, boomer-dominated debate." 

To summarize, per Shaw: 

• Boomers (born between between around 1946 and and 1964) — the parents, uncles and aunts of most millenials — are greedy mean people who created the many crises of capitalism.
• Progressives are hypocrites because they don't like to sell out to multi-billion dollar real estate funds. This proves they hate racial equity.
• A plucky group of lobbyists based in Oakland, known for mentioning people's age as a form of insult while spouting the same kind of nonsense theories about density Shaw likes, they are the future, man.
• P.S.: Give more funding to tenant assistance organizations like Shaw's.

Classy, Shaw. Classy. 

Another dark chapter is unfolding in the reign of Donald Trump. He has already dragged America into the gutter trashing old alliances, obsessed with maintaining his power and disparaging his critics. His latest target was Rep. Adam Schiff who he insulted calling him “little Adam Schitt”. He ignored CIA conclusions that there was a high probability that Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) was guilty of ordering the strangulation and dismemberment of Washington Post reporter, Kashoggi. 

The Saudi’s “vehement” denial of MBS’s involvement was good enough for Trump who earlier boasted he and Jared Kushner had made millions from their relationship with the demonic MBS. As Mueller’s dragnet grows tighter, Trump has abandoned any attempt at civility and has become more and more incoherent lashing out at reporters and muttering, “witch hunt, no collusion.” An innocent person should have nothing to fear but Trump’s actions seem consumed with guilt. 

He and his silent supporters have delivered an unmistakable message to the world’s autocrats that the US is no longer concerned with human rights and the rule of law and the plight of Saudi dissidents imprisoned and tortured. The Bible and Christ’s teaching have long been abandoned. The evangelicals have become totally irrelevant by their failure to challenge the antichrist rhetoric and actions of Trump.

hFinally, the Senate is flexing its atrophied muscles by voting to advance a resolution to end military support for the Saudi-led, U.S.-backed war in Yemen. This marks the first time in U.S. history that the Senate has resurrected the War Powers Resolution Act to end the monstrous illegal war in Yemen. This is also a rebuke of President Trump’s handling of the murder of journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis soiled their reputations by urging the senators to vote against the resolution. 

Senator Sanders countered Pompeo and Mattis by demanding that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen be addressed and urged the US to end the “despotic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that we will no longer be part of their destructive military adventurism.” 

The Saudi led war in Yemen has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with 14 million of Yemen’s 28 million people on the brink of famine and facing a huge cholera epidemic. A recent report by Save the Children estimates 85,000 children under the age of five have died from acute malnutrition brought on by this genocidal war. Once Mohammed bin Salman assumed power he has been flashing his oil money to attract Western allies groveling for his attention and wealth. The US and our many European allies have supplied Saudi Arabia’s with weapons of war and are therefore complicit in their war crimes. This MUST stop.  

For more go to, http://callforsocialjustice.blogspot.com/

The November 9, 2018, issue of The Jewish News of Northern California, includes an article about Mayor Jesse Arreguin’s objections to the appointment of Hatem Bazian to the City’s Peace and Justice commission by Council member Cheryl Davila. In addition to objecting to Prof. Bazian’s appointment to the Peace and Justice commission, the Mayor “vowed to oppose Davila’s nomination of Bazian as her standby officer in case she is unable to serve during an emergency or disaster.” The Mayor is quoted as saying: “There’s documentation showing things he has said that are very offensive and inappropriate and anti-Semitic,” Arreguin told J. “And on that basis, I think it’s a very serious issue about whether this person should be in public office.” 

Anti-Semitism is defined as: “hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.” Prejudice is defined as a: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” 

If the mayor’s only evidence of Prof. Bazian’s “anti-semitism” is the fact that he retweeted a distasteful message which he subsequently apologized for, then this charge is completely unfounded. Prof. Bazian said in a letter concerning the incident of the tweet: ““The tweet itself is not defensible and does not add to understanding any of the issues related to the Palestine-Israel conflict,” he wrote. “I am deeply sorry for causing pain and anguish to the Jewish community and for lack of careful examination on my part of the specifics of the image and text included.” Prof. Bazian is a scholar and well respected academic in Berkeley who is the co-founder of Zaytuna College of California, the first Muslim Liberal Arts College in America. (http://aaads.berkeley.edu/faculty/hatem-bazian/ ) And Prof. Bazian works closely with many Jewish organizations and has always stood for justice for all. 

And then there is a larger issue here – our elected officials must not conflate anti-Semitism with rejection of Israel’s domestic and foreign policies. 

Amria Hass , a Jewish Israeli journalist, has said: “ Their occupiers, their tortures, their jailers, the thieves of their land and water, their exilers, the demolishers of their homes, the blockers of their horizon. Young Palestinians, vengeful and desperate, are willing to lose their lives and cause their families great pain because the enemy they face proves every day that its malice has no limits.” 

The City of Berkeley needs to have a real discussion about what is happening in the Middle East. Many people in many parts of our country are already having that conversation. We should start very soon.

We are horrified that the U.S. Border Patrol agents firing tear gas to into the crowd to disperse hundreds of Central American migrants in Tijuana who tried to climb over the border fence to enter the U.S. from the Mexican side. Woman and children were among the victims. About President Trump's reaction, he calls the caravan migrants "stone cold criminals" He cited various offenses they allegedly committed. But even the Department of Homeland Security could not find any evidence to back up his claims. 

However, it is not only important that we appreciate the desperation of the migrants. We need to also understand that they are attempting to persuade the Trump administration to obey the law. As one federal judge reminded the president, that the law allows foreigners to enter the U.S. and request asylum. The 1965 Immigrant and Naturalization Act states that any foreigner who arrives in the U.S "whether or not at a designation port of arrival may apply for asylum. As a federal judge remarked, "the president cannot just make the law go away." 

Among the ruses that Trump is attempting is to cut down on the legal access of these immigrants The Administration is limiting the number of asylum requests that will be heard to no more than 100 per day. Because of the huge number of asylum seekers, it could take many months before their claims are considered.  

But the President certainly has the staff to do much better. In fact, to contain the activities of these migrants the president has deployed 500 officers. Many more officers are available. So rather than intimidating the migrants, clearly, their claims could all be heard in just a few weeks. But that would require President Trump to obey the law. In contrast, it is the migrants who are attempting to assure that the law is obeyed.

On Sunday, November 11th, amid the swirl of sundowner-whipped ash and debris battling through the air, several dozen dedicated East Bay citizens gathered for a Veterans' Day commemoration featuring Mayor Jesse Arreguin among other luminaries on the steps of the Berkeley Historical Society. The event was arranged to begin on the eleventh month, on the eleventh day, at the eleventh hour, and at the eleventh minute to honor its 100 year-old Armistice Day origin; the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918. 

And the Mayor was late. His aide had to stand red-faced with his phone in his ear shoulder to shoulder with annoyed observers making wry remarks about the Mayor sleeping in.Which is the least of it. Mayor Arreguin flipped completely on more than one of his campaign promises, including the "housing first" policy he promised to dozens of advocacy groups and houseless people. Two years in he's not erasing anti-homeless laws, creating safe campgrounds, or utilizing empty buildings to get people out of the rain. Police sweeps and citations still rule the day. 

Another broken promise was that he would sidestep the usual; ravaging People's Park to delight the new UC chancellor, as documented on the People's Park website: 

"In 2016 Councilmember Jesse Arreguin said in his campaign platform: “It is not necessary to convert People’s Park into student housing, as there are multiple locations for student housing around the University.”
In 2018 Mayor Jesse Arreguin told the SF Chronicle: “For many decades this [People’s Park] was the third rail of politics in Berkeley, but today I think there is a desire to look at something different.”  

Mayor Arreguin abandoned those promises. But it's much more than that. The Downtown Berkeley Association budget was just over a million dollars when two of its "ambassadors" were caught on video assaulting homeless people. Now their budget is just shy of two million dollars and there's still no oversight. Mayor Arreguin has shown no backbone for reigning in the business improvement districts now firmly in the driver's seat of undemocratic, civil rights-defying, profit-at-any-cost policies literally changing the color of our town while residents hang on for dear life. Mayor Arreguin has calculated that leaving these policies in place works for him. Few people seem bothered by yet another BART plaza reconfiguration at a $9.3 million public cost while others sleep under the overpass. 

Any one of us running for Mayor against Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin would send a message. But let's all send that message together. We supported you. We worked on your campaign, we walked for you. Then when we saw the "Bates lite" predictions coming true we wrote to you, we called you, we salted the town with op-ed pieces and kept leaving messages with various administrative aides. 

But we're not the big money Mayor Arreguin is listening to. The high-end, penthouse-heavy development continues its path through our neighborhoods leaving more and more people displaced, especially people of color. The measured, well-researched efforts at enhancing police accountability get tabled or gutted at his hand. The towering pile of anti-homeless ordinances competes with sidewalk and demonstration restrictions for the Jenga prize. 

Even the easy things, like refreshing the ten-year-old smokefree commercial district signage, get swept aside in favor of cluttering the town with sidewalk-clogging evidence of the same tech giveaways most mayors find impossible to turn down or negotiate well: scooters, robots, and the usual greenwashed bike "sharing" or ride-hailing start-ups venture capital loves so much more than your local hardware store. In any fair hearing our own bikes, and real delivery jobs win. So there is no fair hearing. 

Brace yourself for several dozen contract-mandated glowing "IKE"[1] screens flashing ads all day and collecting your data whether you want them to or not, screens which you and your neighborhood have to opt out of, rather than opt in to, and which you're stuck with by contract for at least two years if you miss the crucial opt-out meeting whenever that is. Don't hold your breath that they have any incentive to tell you since they make money off of turning your neighborhood into a running big screen commercial curated by and for profit alone. 

The Police Officers' Association, apparently without embarrassment, spent over $15,000 in the recent election trying to unseat the able representative in District 4 for backing police reforms based in part on the Police Department's own statistics about race-disproportionate stops and practices. That POA message rang like a bell, heard unmistakably by any other council representative inclined to support police accountability measures. The mayor apparently has no objection to the POA's effort to tilt the election. An effort to ban "spit hoods", which guarantee the police can't monitor the breathing of a detainee as required by law, died at the commission level for want of a second despite the obvious danger to public safety. If you're listening for Mayor Jesse Arreguin's outrage, bring a comfy chair and settle in. And I could go on. 

Let's all run. Maybe others are caught in the eddy of hope that Mayor Arreguin will use his clout to save the shell mound, have a change of heart about upholding the landmarking of Campanile Way or at least stop jacking the process behind the scenes. But some of us are done. Mayor Arreguin's course was clear on the day he gathered hundreds together on a cold January morning shortly after his inauguration to make a human peace sign while a homeless police sweep took place only yards away. Most of Berkeley sleeps through this kind of obvious display, or doesn't want to hurt anybody's feelings by mentioning it. But if we all run against him for these and many more obvious reasons, it'll get play. 

Our instant runoff voting will protect any viable candidate offering an alternative course for the city. And an "everybody run" campaign will send a much-needed message to neighboring cities and states, not to mention the similar message our nation just sent, that creating a facade of progressive policies is just not enough. 

It is very important that sidewalks and pathways are kept clean for public safety. 

I think the property owners are expected to ensure that uncovered dirt, dry twigs or branches don’t block the sidewalks. It makes the pathway slippery and may cause the walkers to get hurt. Last week I had to suffer due to a large area of accumulated dry leaves left uncovered on a neighbor’s property. The stormy and rainy weather made it worse. I did not expect my neighbor to keep the common pathway full of dirt and leaves. In my opinion it is the duty of the property owners to keep the pathway free of any overgrown bushes, grass or other compostable items. It would become safer for those who use these pathways on a daily basis. As the weather may be stormy over the next couple of months, I hope property owners will take extra care to keep clear pathways next to their property. They must not ignore their civic duty towards others. I think good neighbors like to comply with rules that help create a safe and healthy environment for their neighbors.

The 2020 presidential campaign began on November 7th, the day after the midterm elections; many Democrats are prepared to work every day for the next two years in order to oust Donald Trump from the White House. For this prolonged effort to be effective, national Democratic leaders should heed these words of friendly advice. 

1.Develop a 50-state strategy: In 2016, the national Democratic leadership abandoned whole swaths of the U.S. and focused primarily on the coasts and the rust belt. In 2018, the Party began to move away from this model and, as a result, fielded competitive candidates in -- what had been regarded as -- deep red states such as Georgia and Texas. (Although a lot of support from candidates like Stacey Abrams and Beto O'Rourke came from organizations outside the traditional Democratic framework -- such as Way to Win (https://waytowin.us/ )). 

In 2020, Democrats must compete in every state at all levels. 

2.Learn from 2018. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the 2018 elections; the national Democratic leadership should spend the time and money to study what worked and what did not work. For example, Montana Senator John Tester was Trump's number one target; yet Tester won by 3 percentage points in a red state. How did Tester accomplish this when other red-state Democratic Senators got stomped? 

As another example, in Ohio. incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown won by more than 6 percent while Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray lost by 4 percent -- competing for an open seat. Why the discrepancy? 

Each state has races that deserve a detailed study. For example, in California where Dems captured 46 of 53 congressional seats, two dreadful Republican incumbents won: Devin Nunes (CA 22) and Duncan Hunter (CA 50). Why? 

3.Deal with voter suppression. In several states, notably Georgia, voter suppression was a major problem for Democratic candidates. (Democrat Stacey Abrams lost the Georgia gubernatorial race by 55,000 votes and there's reason to believe that several hundred thousand votes were suppressed by Republicans.) 

As part of their 50-state strategy, Democrats need to assess the voter suppression problem on a state-by-state basis and start working to combat this. For example, on November 27th, the Georgia "Fair Fight" PAC. "filed a federal lawsuit against Georgia election officials asking a judge to order fixes to what it says are deep-seated problems in the state's election system.(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/27/stacey-abrams-fair-fight-action-georgia-election-lawsuit-brian-kemp/2128540002/ ) 

4.Convince their (unelected) "stars" to run again. Several charismatic candidates, such as Stacey Abrams and Beto O'Rourke narrowly lost in 2018. National Democratic leadership should convince them to run again: Abrams for Georgia Senate versus Republican incumbent David Perdue and O'Rourke for Texas Senate versus incumbent John Cornyn. 

The demographic tide is running in a direction that favors Democrats. Candidates such as Abrams and O'Rourke can win if they start their campaigns now, by registering new voters and dealing with voter-suppression issues. 

5.Recruit exciting candidates. This was a change election and one of the primary changes was the election of many women and people-of-color. This trend must continue. The Democratic Party needs to look like America. 

National Democratic leadership needs to embrace diversity. 

6.Expand the use of ballot initiatives. In 2018, one of the many reasons that Democrats prevailed was their intelligent use of state ballot initiatives, For example, in Michigan, a state where Democrats retained a Senate seat (Stabenow) and added a governor (Whitmer) Dems boosted their turnout with three initiatives: legalizing marijuana for recreational use, creating an independent redistricting commission, and adding additional voting policies to the state constitution -- including automatic voter registration. These ballot initiatives furthered Democratic objectives and increased voter participation. (The statewide turnout was 57.5 percent, the highest midterm-election participation in more than 50 years.) 

7.Develop a rural strategy. A recent Alternet article (https://www.alternet.org/its-official-first-time-history-gop-has-become-party-rural-white-voters?src=newsletter1098031 ) declared: "If there was one demographic group that blunted the force of the 'blue wave' in this month’s midterm elections, it was rural white voters." The CNN exit polls indicate that 56 percent of rural voters favored Republicans (versus an even 49-49 percent split in the suburbs and only 32 percent in suburban areas). 

Alternet notes: "As the suburbs have turned against the Republican Party of President Donald Trump, rural whites have embraced the Party’s new message of economic protectionism, immigration restrictions, and an 'America First' foreign policy." [emphasis added] 

There's a way for Democrats to sway some rural voters: convince them that Donald Trump's economic policies are not working. In other words, change them frame of the discussion from ideological to practical: "Donald Trump has deceased your income and opportunity." 

8.Talk to White Evangelicals. One of the most surprising 2016-election statistics was that 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump. In 2018, Pew Research found that 75 percent of white evangelical Christians voted for Republican candidates (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/ ). 

Writing in the Washington Post, Sociologist Janelle Wong explains Donald Trump's hold over this segment of his base: "I find economic anxiety isn't [their] primary reason for supporting Trump. Rather, white evangelicals fear losing racial status. White evangelicals’ perceptions they’re the targets of discrimination – more so than other groups — influence far more than simply their votes for Trump." 

There's no simple strategy for appealing to white-evangelical Christians except to find ways to talk to them and seek common ground. We know that conversations about Trump, immigration, and feminism are unlikely to succeed. Possible positive topics are health insurance (pre-existing conditions), education, and infrastructure-related jobs. 

9.Anticipate Trump's fear initiative. Trump's go-to strategy is to appeal to fear. At the conclusion of the 2018 election campaigns, when Trump thought that Republican control of the Senate was in doubt, he invented an immigrant "invasion," blew it out of proportion, and used this fear to motivate his base to vote. 

Why didn't the Democrats anticipate this? Why didn't they come up with an effective counter measure? 

10.Counter Trump's Tweet of the Day. It's part of Trump's persona to dominate the news each day. Usually with a series of early morning tweets but sometimes with impromptu news conferences. Heading into the 2020 presidential election, Democrats have to find a way to counter this. (Sigh.) Democrats have to have more message discipline. 

---

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