In this their 30^th season, American Bach Soloists performed Handel’s Messiah for the 21st consecutive year in San Francisco’s inspiring Grace Cathedral. Along with the American Bach Choir, American Bach Soloists were led by their founder, Jeffrey Thomas, in three performances of the Messiah, December 12-14. At the December 12 concert, I was struck anew by how much the text of Handel’s Messiah by Charles Jennens suggests Christianity’s debt to earlier religious beliefs and practices. After an overture in the French manner that opens slowly then becomes faster in the second section, the tenor follows with a recitative and aria. Here the tenor was Aaron Sheehan, and he launched into the florid aria, “Ev’ry Valley shall be exalted.” The words of this aria had always mystified me. Yet, suddenly, it dawned on me that this was a celebration of the coming of spring, when, indeed, ev’ry valley blooms miraculously, and the earth is renewed. Moreover, the fact that we celebrate Christ’s Resurrection at Easter, i.e., at the coming of spring, is no coincidence, for Christianity simply incorporated far earlier religions’ celebration of earth’s renewal in spring. What better way could there be to begin a celebration of the Messiah than by invoking the age-old agrarian cycle of earth’s renewal? 

Countertenor Eric Jurenas provided a sweet-voiced set of arias in the opening section. Especially beautiful was his “O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion,” set to lilting violins over a bass line, music that was then passed on to the chorus. Though Jurenas was at his best in high notes sung fortissimo, he did not fare so well when singing softly in his lower register, and this was especially noticeable when the orchestra tended to cover his voice. Baritone Jesse Blumberg offered a suitably gloomy rendition of “The people that walked in darkness.” The chorus then delivered a perennial highlight – “For unto us a child is born,” sung exultantly. Another perennial highlight ensued with the coloratura aria “Rejoice greatly,” gorgeously sung here by soprano Mary Wilson. The tender lyricism” of “He shall feed his flock” was performed here as a soothing duet between countertenor Eric Jurenas and soprano Mary Wilson, followed by a brief chorus to close Part One of Handel’s Messiah. 

The second part begins with a chorus, “Behold the Lamb of God.” There follows the utterly forlorn “He was despised,” beautifully sung here by countertenor Eric Jurenas. Accompanied by spare introductory notes in the violins, Jurenas’s singing in the A section of this ABA aria was inconsolably sorrowful and utterly expressive. However, the B section of this aria offered heavy orchestral accompaniment that tended to cover the countertenor’s voice. The chorus then begins “Surely he hath borne our Griefs” with an attack on the word “Surely.” A bit later comes another highlight, the soprano aria “How beautiful are the feet,” sung gorgeously here by Mary Wilson. A baritone aria and a tenor aria lead inexorably to the great “Hallelujah Chorus,” a masterpiece of contrapuntal writing that inevitably brings the audience to its feet.  

Part 3 opens with a soprano aria, “I know that my redeemer liveth.” As I listened to Mary Wilson sing the words to this aria, I had another glimpse of the debt this text owes to older agrarian ritual cycles. At the words “For now is Christ risen from the Dead, the First-Fruits of them that sleep,” I was suddenly struck by the resemblance here to the ancient Greeks’ celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries, evoking earth’s renewal in spring when Persephone emerges from the Underworld to rejoin her grieving mother, Demeter, who then joyously causes the dormant seeds of winter to bloom forth upon the earth, bringing bounteous plenty to humankind and a promise of eternal renewal, i.e., eternal life.  

After a brief chorus comes yet another highlight of Handel’s Messiah, the aria “The trumpet shall sound,” sung here by baritone Jesse Blumberg accompanied gorgeously by Kathryn James on trumpet. A brief duet ensues for countertenor and tenor, “O Death, where is thy Sting?” One last aria follows, “If God is for us, who can be against us?”, beautifully rendered here by Mary Wilson. Then comes the monumental closing chorus, “Worthy is the Lamb,” with its fugal section leading to an exultant “Amen,” punctuated by excellent work from timpanist Henry Reed. 

Throughout this Messiah, conductor Jeffry Thomas led the musicians in a wonderful performance, one sensitive to the dynamics of loud-and-soft and the varieties of fast-and-slow. The American Bach Chorus sang beautifully throughout. Perhaps especially worthy of praise was the soprano section of the Chorus, whose soaring voices rose majestically to the uppermost vaulted arches of Grace Cathedral. 

Finally, if you can’t make it to Grace Cathedral for the ABS performances of Handel’s Messiah, you have one further opportunity to hear it on Saturday, December 15, in Weill Hall at the Green Music Center in Rohnert Park. 

Wicks won by 250 votes; Prop 10 won big

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters has certified the results of the November Election and released the Statement of Vote with a breakdown by precinct and city.

Berkeley votes supported affordable housing funding in November, voting overwhelmingly for Proposition 1 which authorizes $4 billion in bonds for affordable housing, and for the local affordable housing bond measure, Measure O. State and local bond funds, along with County affordable housing bond funds approved in 2016 and Measure U-1 revenues, will be able to help fund a substantial amount of below market affordable housing in Berkeley. 

Berkeley also affirmed strong support for rent control by supporting Proposition 10. Alameda County and San Francisco County were the only counties where a majority of voters supported Proposition 10 to repeal the Costa Hawkins bill’s ban on extending the power of local governments to enact additional rent control measures. The percentage voting Yes in Berkeley, 64.7%, was the highest in the state. As previously reported in the Planet, the Tenant Convention slate of Rent Board candidates swept all five seats, their victory aided by the absence of a full slate of candidates running against them. 

Proposition 10 and Statewide Races

Berkeley 64.7% 

Inglewood 61.6% 

Los Angeles 57.6% 

Santa Monica 57.4% 

Davis 56.2% 

Richmond 54.5% 

Burbank 53.9% 

Glendale 53.6% 

Santa Cruz 53.0% 

San Francisco 52.9% 

Alameda Co. 51.8% 

Majorities in some smaller cities in Los Angeles County also supported Prop 10, which came close to passing in L.A. County, with 49.5%. 

Berkeley voters overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates in all races for statewide offices. In the race for the U.S. Senate, where two Democrats made the November runoff, incumbent Diane Feinstein was supported over Kevin DeLeon, with DeLeon winning in some flatland precincts. Outgoing AD-15 Assembly member Tony Thurmond was elected statewide over Marshall Tuck for Superintendent of Public Instruction, with 51.9%. Here in Berkeley, Thurmond received 80% of the vote. In the race for Governor, Republican candidate John Cox only managed 5.3% of the vote, though that is an improvement over the 3.2% Trump received in the 2016 presidential election. 

Berkeley voters backed Proposition 3, State Water Bonds, by 52% to 48% margin. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups opposed Prop 3 which lost narrowly statewide, 50.7% to 49.3%. Berkeley voters strongly rejected Republican-backed measures to reduce taxes, rejecting both Prop 5 and Prop 6, which both failed statewide. A majority of Berkeley voters also voted for Prop 8 to regulate kidney dialysis treatment charges; that measure failed statewide by 60%-40%. 

How Berkeley Voted, Selected State and Local Races

Berkeley voters easily passed Measures O & P to fund affordable housing and homeless services. Measure O fell short of the two-thirds required for a bond measure in only a few of the City’s most affluent precincts, including in one precinct above Claremont Ave. in District 8 and in a few precincts in the Northeast Berkeley hills in District 6. There was overwhelming support for the bond measure throughout the flatlands. 

Berkeley City Council 

In Berkeley’s City Council races, the two incumbents seeking re-election, Kate Harrison, in District 4, and Lori Droste, in District 8, won re-election by comfortable margins, finishing first in every precinct in their respective districts by solid margins. 

In District 1, the closest race for Council this year, for the seat held since 1992 by Linda Maio, Rashi Kesarwani, who fell short of 50% of first choice votes, defeated Igor Tregub by picking up more support than Tregub from supporters of third place candidate Margo Scheuler. Igor came in ahead of Kesarwani in four of the District’s 14 precincts and was one vote short of Kesarwani in one other West Berkeley precinct. 

In District 7, the student super-majority district, represented since 1996 by Kriss Worthington, Rigel Robinson, a recent UC grad, easily defeated Ces Rosales, 56.5% to 34.5%. Rosales won two of three South of Dwight precincts, the ones that have substantial homeowner populations, while Robinson won all the near campus student precincts north of Dwight Way. Turnout was poor in District 7. Only 3,259 people cast ballots, of only 6,014 registered to vote, resulting in a turnout of 54.2%. By contrast, in District 1, with a hotly contested Council race, 11,070 were registered to vote and 8,609 ballots were cast, a turnout of 77.8%, above the citywide average of 73.7%. 

As previously reported in the Planet, Jenny Wong was elected Auditor with 92% of the vote; and Ty Alper, Ka’dijah Brown and Julie Sinai ran far ahead of three other candidates in the School Board race. 

Assembly District 15: Wicks edges Beckles in Berkeley 

In the hotly contested race for Assembly District 15, Buffy Wicks, who broke all previous records for spending in an AD-15 race, and who benefited by independent expenditures made by special interest groups that paid for hit piece mailers, edged Richmond City Councilmember Jovanka Beckles by 250 votes. Voting following the usual pattern in Berkeley. Beckles defeated Wicks in the five flatlands covering Downtown, Central, South and West Berkeley, and in student areas, which have historically favored more progressive candidates, while losing in the City’s most affluent districts, 5, 6, and 8, which include the Berkeley Hills, which have traditionally voted for more moderate candidates. Beckles won majorities only in her home town of Richmond, in San Pablo, and in some of the unincorporated areas of the Contra Costa portion of the District. Beckles lost badly in more affluent areas like Kensington and Piedmont. Turnout in Richmond was poor compared to turnout in Berkeley and the part of Oakland in AD-15. 

Richmond, Rollingwood, East Richmond Heights. El Sobrante and 

Kensington, also unincorporated places, are listed separately and 

not included in total for “Unincorported CC”. 

Vote for Beckles and Wicks  

by Berkeley City Council Districts 

Turnout in Berkeley was at record levels for a non-presidential year. More than 18,000 more votes were cast this year than in 2014. This year’s count fell a little more than 7000 votes short of the number of votes cast in the 2016 presidential election. Vote by mail ballots accounted for 71.3% of ballots cast in Berkeley this year as voting at the polls continues to decline. 58.1% had voted by mail in 2014 and 64.8% in 2016. 

Official Results from Statement of Vote 

Berkeley City Council -November 6 Election 

These results are slightly different from the results published on the Planet site on November 19, which were based on the final update when counting finished. 

It’s time for us all to get in touch with our inner Grinch. For some reason, it seems to be okay to get grinchy on the subject of Christmas, but many other sacred cows are protected territory. I’ve got my eye on one of them.

Friday’s Chronicle (I no longer call it the Comical since the news got so bad) has two stories which, when juxtaposed, are profoundly irritating.

First, on the front page, we learn that, because of some funny accounting, “All of a sudden, San Francisco has an extra $181 million to spend. It comes from excess education funds, and some officials hope that’s exactly how it will be spent: on education. Specifically, teacher pay raises.”

In your dreams, Josephine. Life is hard in the big city, and both mayor and supervisors have already thought of a passel of non-education ways to spend the money, all of them virtuous but none of them moving teachers any closer to a livable income in a place where it’s too expensive to live.

But tell that to the protagonist of story #2. This one can be found in the section of the Chronicle that’s handy to line the cat box, easy to find because it’s printed on green paper. Here we learn that an employee of the University of California at Berkeley, my very own alma mater, is getting a raise, from $1.5 million annually to about $3.25 million, give or take some chump change. He should be able to live on that.

And no, Josephine, he’s NOT a teacher. What’s he done to deserve this bonanza? 

He’s gotten our school into the Cheez-It Bowl. No kidding! Cheez-Its, that yummy conflation of carbs, fat and salt which are probably not even allowed in the lunchrooms of the San Francisco public schools.  

(I love clichés, especially this one, so useful these days: You Can’t Make This Stuff Up.) 

What does this guy do at our university? He enables a select group of students from diverse backgrounds to bash their brains out on a regular basis in front of a cheering crowd. And to spend the winter holidays promoting Cheez-Its on TV.  

According to the article, his predecessor in this job was paid a mere $2.825 million on average, and when that guy was fired, presumably because the team missed the Cheez-It chance, he got a $5.8 million consolation prize. You could also live on that amount, even in San Francisco.  

Just imagine for the moment what sums like these could do for public school teachers.  

And have you seen any of the stories published in the last couple of years, about how many football players end their lives with tragically damaged brains, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)? Why in the name of righteousness is the once-proud Cal going forward with a “sport” that causes too many participants lifelong grief? 

The lucky coach specifically thanks Chancellor Carol Christ for her trust and confidence in him—doesn’t she know better than that? Can’t she process the scary data? Yes, I know she was an English Major at Rutgers, but I majored in Comp Lit at Cal and I know my way around enough STEM to process simple statistics about the longterm health cost of football to players. 

When I was an undergraduate, way back in the class of 1961, our foot ball team almost never won anything, and we were very proud of that. We knew that we beat Stanford on a regular basis, not in any Big Game but in Nobel prizes. I never knew anyone who went to football games except a girl in my French classes whose mother forced her to join a sorority, and she was taking French so she could escape to Paris as soon as she graduated. Myself, I never even learned the rules for football. 

School’s gone to hell, says my inner grinch.  

While we’re channeling grinches, how about the mammoth debt UCB has incurred tarting up the football stadium and building an attached Special Person Gym? 

The old Planet covered the best efforts of the widest possible range of Berkeley citizens, from Zachary Running Wolf to a doughty trio of old lady heroines, to tell UC it was making a big mistake with that stadium project, but they built it anyway and now they’re stuck with it. 

See, from the Daily Cal: UC Berkeley to pay $238M of Cal Athletics debt from stadium renovations.  

$238 million—even more than the $181 million windfall San Francisco schools are lusting over. 

Here in Berkeley, the swimming pool at Willard Junior High has been filled in with dirt for many years now. That happened on the watch of former Mayor Tom Bates, an old football player himself who’s proud of once playing in the Rose Bowl. 

Just one or two of those millions would probably get the Willard kids back in the water. Priorities? 

What about the fans? I’ve been told that boys just like to have fun, or at least some old boys and some old girls too. There have always been people who enjoy watching football games, including my late mother right up until her death at 98. But knowing as we do now that the players are risking permanent injury to their brains, perhaps it’s time to find some other entertainment for fans. Basketball is fun to watch, isn’t it?  

It certainly should not be the role of a would-be prestigious state university to enable students in such a dangerous pursuit to the tune of multiple millions of dollars a year. The claim is that alumni are paying the salary of the coach, but they’re getting a lot of hoopla in return. 

I’m one alumna among many alumnae and alumni who could afford to make a modest contribution to our old school, but don’t do it because of stories like these. Since the footballers are getting big corporate bucks from Cheez-Its and their ilk, we can assume that they don’t need our money anyhow.  

It's simple. Public sidewalks are too crowded for homeless people, but wide enough for waddling robots and monolithic, data-sucking electronic sidewalk billboards with 65-inch screens. Public sidewalks are dangerously over-filled with backpacks and bedrolls but have a sad aura of being deserted without unpermitted signboards, tables, chairs, and rolling racks of commercial merchandise. Personal belongings must not exceed a certain square footage on a sidewalk - for public safety's sake - but those same sidewalks would be downright lonely without scooters.

There's no inconsistency here. The visible presence of poverty makes people sad and makes governments look inadequate. People trying to panhandle enough for a night's shelter at the low-rent hotel make the 9.3 million expenditure on the renovated BART plaza look like a questionable set of priorities. Moving around the deck chairs is otherwise at least mildly entertaining.

The Berkeley City Council's agony over blankets and bedrolls blocking public sidewalks necessitating a raft of bewildering new restrictions was nowhere to be found in their haste to make way for 65-inch electronic screen kiosks spewing ads slated for those same public sidewalks. The necessity of having even more refinements on the six-feet-from here, four-feet-from there, only-so-many-dogs carnival of sidewalk restrictions which only seem to apply to a rarified few was a serious issue, their earnest discussion implied. Imagine if somebody tripped and fell. 

The electronic sidewalk billboards came no closer than the scooters did to visiting the various relevant community commissions. This was apparently an urgent matter. The latest sidewalk regulations similarly flew through the air and touched down first at the City Council because only the business improvement districts' opinions, after all, really matter. The community commissions' perspectives on matters before the Council, like the public's, are probably welcome. But apparently unnecessary. Mayor Arreguin has begun to telegraph his decisions even before opening public comment, in case you were under the curiously comic impression that your opinion was playing a role. 

The BART plaza renovation renewed the debate over whether public places were cluttered to the point of jeopardizing public safety or, as the BART plaza revitalization jargon implied, were in need of "activation" necessitating even more public funds, programs, and organized activities to displace whatever horror might happen more naturally. "Controlled space" is the new black. 

Note that at these hearings the start-up in question never really has to make a case. They just have to be patient so it looks like there's a process. Everybody on the inside knows the decision is already in the bank. And that if the whole enterprise plays out to be an embarrassment, the way those bright little donation boxes did, they'll disappear equally quietly so that nobody counts up the staff time and the other costs and brings it up at an inconvenient electoral moment. 

After all, anybody who isn't enchanted with and salivating over scooters is probably some old fart who needs to make way for the latest jargon on transportation. It's kind of a cult. If they spend enough money on taming and cultivating their scooter concept through a pilot program, if they "educate" the public and constrain the complaint processes, they may, they just may, end up with something at least half as useful as the bus. 

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the economy next year in California and the rest of the nation is likely to slow. Why? Among the important reasons the Chronicle gives is because the economy "is running out of workers". The following day the caption in the Chronicle's front page claims that there is a "serious shortage of Muni Drivers". What do we make of these claims? 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the main source of labor force data. Those who follow their reports regularly and carefully realize that the BLS has a strong bias toward underestimating the problem of joblessness. And the fiction that it regularly manufactures finds its way into the mass media. To cite one important example, if an unemployed worker has not actively searched for work in the last 28 days, they are not counted as unemployed. No extenuating circumstances are considered. Perhaps job seekers are waiting to hear from one of the employers they contacted. Or they searched for work in ways that the BLS does not consider as an active search. Yet if someone worked only one hour in the survey week they are counted as employed. 

The BLS does estimate the number of jobless persons who want a job. But if they offer reasons other than saying their search for work has been unsuccessful, then they are not counted officially as unemployed. If they explain that they are not working because they are handicapped, for example, they are not included in the unemployment count. Yet the number of those who are not working but want a job is substantial. In October of this year, over 5 million out of work persons stated that they want to work. That is over 100,000 more than in October, 2017. Clearly, these are the" hidden unemployed" . 

So when the SF Chronicle earlier this week claimed on its front page that there is a "Serious Shortage of Muni Drivers", we have reason to be skeptical. The article claims that it has almost 1900 full time drivers, which results in a shortage of slightly more than 400 drivers. However, the shortage reflects not a lack of enough qualified employees. Rather, it has too many dissatisfied employees. According to Muni operators. low wages and dangerous working conditions are the problem. So as many as 600 drivers are absent on a given day. According to the company's drivers the low wages and poor working conditions are chasing Muni workers off their jobs. 

For Muni and many other businesses, their prime problem is how to recruit workers completely on their own terms. Isn't it about time for executives to realize that the best way to deliver quality service is to provide working people with quality working conditions as well as a living wage?

The corporate economy is an impoverishment machine. When prices go up, the people who have to pay those prices get poorer. When rent levels rise, renters are impoverished. The corporate economy inherits this from capitalism. In capitalism, profit levels depended on keeping wage levels low. Today, inflation, which has become an economic norm, amounts to a pay cut. Those who organize unions in order to make up for their loss of pay are called greedy, but they are only fighting to stay in the same place. Those who build more market rate housing are acclaimed for meeting a need in a so-called housing crisis. But the real crisis is that those who need housing can’t afford market rate. There is only an affordable housing crisis, as more people are impoverished by corporate economics. 

A travesty on Ashby  

After 5 years of neighborhoods going to city council explaining that they need affordable housing (which, according to HUD, should be no more than 30% of one’s income), City Council votes to allow more market rate housing to be built. Their latest is on one of the most absurd corners of the city. At Ashby and Shattuck, some developer now will build 7 stories of bedrooms. Each bedroom, 6 to an apartment, will be rented separately, starting at $1300 a month. That comes to $7800 a month. Just another impoverishment machine. It has nothing to do with a housing crisis, but only with what the banks think will give them the greatest return. 

And Ashby, by the way, is the site of the oldest traffic jam in the city of Berkeley. There will be no parking in the building. To deliver a package, a truck will block an entire lane of traffic. The gurus of our local impoverishment process actually think that maybe, or perhaps, or who knows, this will coax some people out of using cars. Then the city can pat itself on the back for having done its bit to slow global warming. Meanwhile, a line of idling engines a mile long sit waiting for a light somewhere to change. 

What is more de-mazing (aka negative amazement) is that ZAB (Zoning Adjustment Board), traditionally the developer’s friend, had actually turned the project down, having heard what the neighborhood said about it. When City Council approved the developer’s appeal (Nov. 27, 2018), they were in effect flipping the bird at their own local regulatory agency. Apparently, after ZAB had taken off their anti-democratic blinders, council stooped to pick them up and put them on. 

Anti-democratic???  

Well, yeah. Seventy percent (70%) of residents in Berkeley are renters, but our elected body can’t seem to represent them. Every time ZAB approved a developer’s market rate project, it was acting against the majority of residents. In this case, when ZAB heard those of the neighborhood, and rejected the project, the City Council stepped in and reinstated the developer in controlling position. 

As an elected body, when the City Council acts for the tiny minority (developers) against the majority (renters), it affirms (or refuses to countermand) the process that leads to higher rent levels. In other words, the economic is not the only domain of impoverishment. We have only to look at Berkeley City Council to see political impoverishment. 

City Council has no power over market rent level. They are determined by a real estate industry that announces such levels through its glossy publications, telling landlords what they can expect to get away with – that is, what they can gain by booting out their present tenant and raising their rents. That is the source of the displacement crisis that no one talks about any more. People simply get moved out of the city – by “the market.” 

Those glossy magazines forget to count all the “For Rent” and “Now Leasing” signs that one sees on so many new buildings. Even as vacancies accrue (with people still looking for housing), the rent levels don’t come down. A little bird whispers in our ear, saying “they never will.” It is an impoverishment machine. 

The Costa-Hawkins Act is a state law that bars cities from regulating rents (we’re not even talking about “rent control” here, just regulation). Seventy percent (70%) of residents in Berkeley are renters. That means that city government cannot act in the interest of its majority (on rents). Its de-mazing how a supposedly "democratic" state government could have passed laws that make democracy impossible. It is further de-mazing that somehow, Californians failed to repeal that law, which Prop 10 would have done. In short, we sit here on our hands. 

Take it out on the homeless  

This council is not thinking any better about how to shelter the homeless. They had a beuatiful chance (to set up a "shelter" in Old City Hall), and couldn’t do it. There were nay-sayers. So against them, City Council opened it for inclement weather nights only (for 45 days). That will take it to the middle of January. Only 30 beds are provided (though 90 were promised), in a city with 1000 homeless. That is seriously impoverished thinking about how to meet the crisis of real people who remain unhoused and thus deprived of that human right. 

But the City Council will use this as an excuse to close down encampments, which are how the homeless survive in a hostile and impoverishing political landscape. The encampment at Aquatic Park is attacked because it is messy. The city could send some people down to help keep it clean. For the city to do so would be humanitarian, and even democratic (taking responsibility for residents), but it would countermand the impoverishment. And it would eliminate a reason to raid. 

But it won’t use its power to close down developers, to leave economic and political room for non-profits to build affordable housing. At present, in its zoning regulations, it gets a mere pittance from developments for the Housing Trust Fund. And it has done nothing to stop developers from buying their way out of providing affordable housing (mitigation fees). 

You know what it would take? Zoning regulations requiring 80% affordable housing units in new developments, and a mitigation fee of $200,000 per non-affordable unit. The for-profit (impoverishing) developers would leave, and the non-profits could come in and build for the people. 

This impoverishment of political thought goes even further. This City Council refuses to divorce the city from the surveillence state (Federal Fusion Centers, Urban Shield, automated license plate readers, street corner advertising kiosks with cameras, and police lapel cameras that are blurred and uncommunicative when the cop is in motion, like running or punching someone or just pulling his gun. There was this clip shown on evening news of a cop running down a crowded street with his hands in front of him holding his gun, which then went off a few time, and some unidentifiable person in a blurred distance doing something unidentifiable in the clip ended up dead. The council could not even bring the issue of police accountability to the voters. It refused to put a perfectly good measure giving the Police Review Commission some teeth on the ballot in the last election. 

We have no voice. That is political impoverishment. Democracy means that those who will be affected by a policy should be the ones who make the policy. That means that people, those who will be affected by a policy, get to define and articulate the issues, as well as participate in a final decision on it. That principle has long ago been thrown out by representationism. 

We need to restructure City Council  

Yet people keep going to the City Council meetings, and speaking, trying to get the council to think affirmatively about what real people need. It is the way we are taught to think about politics. Council endures this, ignores it, and votes as it already had decided to vote. Lost in our monologues, we have no structural means of entering real dialogue with those who make the decisions. That is structural impoverishment. 

One place to start would be a restructuring of City Council. Here are a few ways that can be done. 

Political policy is made through dialogue, and especially dialogue with those people empowered by law to make policy. If people cannot dialogue with them, then they are left with a monopoly on power to do what they like. In the absence of open dialogue on issues, only money can break through that monopoly. 

But democracy means that those who will be affected by a policy should be in dialogue with those with the legal power to make policy. People need to be able to ask elected officials how they stand on issues, and discuss it with them in an open domain and try to change their minds, in the open so others can hear. Going to an office and lobbying is like extending the campaign trail. The official can say what s/he likes, and then go to council do do anything. Council meetings should be restructured to allow dialogue and involvement in policy-making. 

As an indication of how far City Council will go to impoverish politics, it recently cancelled the people’s ability to take items off the Consent calendar, so that they can be discussed as Action items. If council agrees among itself that it does not want to discuss an item, and puts it on Consent. The people have no way of countermanding that monopoly elitist decision. 

We are, right now, witnessing a further extension of council’s impoverishment of politics by silencing the people. It is considering a plan to establish “Standing Policy Committees.” Different committees will be responsible for different issues. Their purpose will be to buffer the relation between the council and all those people who have something to say or something to advocate. As the proposal itself states, people can go to these “Standing Policy Committees” to speak, instead of going to council. The Committees will then decide for themselves what they will pass onto the Council. 

Instead of “Standing Committees,” why doesn’t the city set up “Standing neighborhood assemblies” in each neighborhood in which people can talk to each other, come up with resolutions to problems, vote on resolutions of their own making, and present them to the council as the will of the people of that neighborhood? 

One thing the council can do right now is make the agenda flexible so that items for which many people show up to speak would go first. Indeed, there could be a signup sheet in which people would record their main interest, and those items that got the most signups could be put first. Traditionally, they go last, so that the lateness of the hour will persuade many to go home before their issue comes up. 

The fight for democracy is a fight against political impoverishment. Impoverishment is always something imposed by a minority on the majority. 

Finally, 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/

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

In case you missed it, on November 6th, a blue wave washed over California. Democrats took all major statewide offices, elected a second Democratic Senator, and seized 46 of 53 congressional districts. Nonetheless, California Democrats won't be satisfied until the Golden State's congressional delegation is totally blue. What will it take to accomplish this?

64 percent of California's eligible voters cast a ballot on November 6th -- more than 12.3 million. Most statewide races weren't close: Democrat Gavin Newsom won the governor's race with 61.9 percent of the vote. California's most controversial ballot initiative -- GOP-sponsored proposition 6 that would have repealed a fuel tax -- was defeated by a 13.6 percent margin.

In preparation for the midterm elections, California Democrats focused on seven congressional districts where, in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton prevailed but a Republican incumbent was retained: CA 10, 21, 25, 39, 45, 48, and 49. When the dust settled, Democrats had taken all these seats. 

It's useful to consider what it will take for Democrats to win the remaining seven Republican congressional seats: CA 1 (La Malfa), CA 4 (McClintock), CA 8 (Cook), CA 22 (Nunes), CA 23 (McCarthy), CA 42 (Calvert), and CA 50 (Hunter). Most of these are historically Republican rural districts. 

The largest of these congressional districts is CA 1 which covers the northeast portion of California: Butte, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, and Tehama counties — plus portions of Glenn, Nevada, and Placer counties; its largest city is Redding. It's notoriously conservative; if you travel through this area -- on interstate 5 -- you'll encounter signs welcoming you to the independent state of "Jefferson." 

In 2016, Doug La Malfa won this district with 59.1 percent (Trump had 56.2 percent). In 2018, La Malfa got 54.9 percent of the vote. 

Republican La Malfa is a conservative Republican who has faithfully followed the Party line; he voted against Obamacare and for tax cuts. 

CA 4 covers much of eastern California, along the Sierra Nevada range; Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mariposa, and Tuolumne counties — plus portions of Fresno, Madera, Nevada, and Placer counties. Its largest cities are Auburn and Truckee. 

In 2016, Tom McClintock won this district with 62.7 percent of the vote (Trump had 54 percent). In 2018, McClintock got 54.2 percent of the vote. (By the way: McClintock does not live in CA 4.) 

McClintock is a conservative Republican and faithful Trump supporter. He voted for Trump's tax cuts and supports his immigration policies. Nonetheless, McClintock has been an uninspired congressman and, overtime, has lost favor in his district. 

CA 8 encompasses most of California's eastern desert regions; it consists of Inyo and Mono counties plus most of San Bernardino County. It largest city is Victorville. 

In 2016, Republican Paul Cook garnered 62.3 percent (Trump got 54.7 percent). In 2018 Cook did not have a Democratic opponent. 

Cook is a conservative Republican who has had a predictable but undistinguished congressional career (for example, he voted against Obamacare and for tax cuts). He's done nothing for the bread-and-butter issues confronting his impoverished constituents. 

CA 22 is an agricultural district in the lower San Joaquin valley: areas of Kings and Tulare counties. Its largest cities are Clovis, Tulare, and Visalia. 

In 2016, Devin Nunes garnered 67.6 percent (Trump had 52.1 percent). In 2018, Nunes garnered 52.7 percent. 

Republican Nunes is a long-term conservative and one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters in the House of Representatives. Nunes was on Trump's transition team and strongly defended him while chair of the House Intelligence Committee. CA 22 residents have criticized Nunes for spending too much time defending Trump and not enough time on local issues, such as water distribution concerns. 

CA 23 is the most Republican district in California. Located at the bottom of the San Joaquin valley, it spans parts of Kern and Tulare counties. Its largest city is Bakersfield. 

CA 23 is represented by Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader and, at the moment, the most powerful California Republican. In 2016, McCarthy garnered 69.1 percent of the vote (Trump had 58.1 percent). In 2018, McCarthy had 63.7 percent. 

McCarthy was an early Trump supporter and backs him across-the-board 

CA 42 is in Riverside County, in southern California. Its largest city is Corona. 

CA 42 is represented by Ken Calvert. In 2016, Calvert garnered 58.8 percent (Trump had 53.4 percent). In 2018, Calvert got 56.7 percent of the vote. 

Calvert has been in office since 1992 and has little to show for it. 

CA 50 lies primarily in central and eastern San Diego County. Its largest city is Escondido. 

CA 50 is represented by Duncan Duane Hunter. (In 2008, he succeeded his father, Duncan Lee Hunter.) In 2016, Hunter garnered 63.5 percent of the vote (Trump got 54.6 percent). In 2018, Hunter was narrowly reelected with 51.8 percent after he accused Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar -- a Christian -- of being "an Islamist" and "security threat." 

In August, Duncan Duane Hunter, and his wife, were indicted by the Department of Justice for allegedly spending more than $250,000 in campaign funds on personal expenses. Their trial is scheduled for September of 2019. 

Summary: These seven Republicans are vulnerable on three issues: the first is climate change -- they're all climate-change deniers even though there's ample evidence in California: drought and horrendous fires. (La Malfa continues to deny climate change even though the Paradise fire happened in his district.) 

All seven voted against Obamacare -- which is very popular in California. 

Finally, all seven voted for the Trump tax cuts and, in general, have represented the special interests in their district and neglected their less affluent constituents. This is particularly a problem for La Malfa, McClintock, Cook, and Calvert, who represent very poor districts and have shown no interest in job-creation initiatives. 

In 2020, it's easy to imagine Democrats picking off Calvert (CA 42) and Hunter (CA 50) because they have personal issues and undistinguished records. (White non-Hispanic voters will soon be in a minority in CA 42). 

With good organizing, and a 24-month campaign, it's reasonable to imagine Democrats winning CA 1, CA 4, and CA 8. 

The most difficult targets are Nunes (CA 22) and McCarthy (CA 23). They both have strong connections to wealthy GOP donors and, as a result, millions to spend on reelection. Their vulnerability is their tight connection to Trump. If Donald goes down the drain, it's possible to imagine Nunes and McCarthy going down with him.