On Tuesday I received one of the increasingly frequent press releases that the Berkeley Police Department has been sending out. Many if not most are trivial feel-good PR: “Coffee with a Cop” and the like, so I tend not to read them. But from time to time these press releases are entitled “Cases of Community Interest” and I do check those out. 

Most of the time, they amount to nothing more than a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations, though some do result in charges by the District Attorney’s office and once in a while even convictions. 

This one caught my eye on Tuesday: “January 26^th at 4:31 pm, a resident was inside his home on the 2600 block of Sacramento Street when he was startled by the sound of something thrown at his front door. When the resident went to investigate, he saw that there was a package at his door. Seeing the postal carrier now across the street, the resident walked over and asked the postal carrier not to throw his packages. The postal carrier responded by cursing and threatening the resident, who ran back to his home and called 911.Officers located the postal carrier (Lamonte Travoy Earnest, Male, 44 years old, Berkeley, CA) a block away and arrested him on suspicion of making criminal threats as well as an outstanding arrest warrant for animal cruelty.” 

LaMonte Earnest, the disputant named in this BPD press release, is a family friend, and I was pretty sure that there was something wrong with this picture.  

Let’s just deconstruct this police account, shall we? 

“a resident was inside his home on the 2600 block of Sacramento Street when he was startled by the sound of something thrown at his front door. When the resident went to investigate, he saw that there was a package at his door. Seeing the postal carrier now across the street, the resident walked over and asked the postal carrier not to throw his packages.” 

Already, this seems to be the kind of classic “he said, she said” account beloved of law school professors trying to teach students how to evaluate evidence. Two participants in a dispute give conflicting accounts, and there’s no third party to say which one is telling the truth. What actually happened? 

How do we know whether the package was actually thrown, or if the resident was simply startled out of a nap by the package being dropped on the porch? What did the postal carrier say about what happened? If the package was actually thrown, was the porch easily accessible, or was there some impediment? 

The postal carrier responded by cursing and threatening the resident, who ran back to his home and called 911.  

Says who? Shouldn’t it say instead “the resident claimed that the postal carrier …..” 

“Cursing and threatening”? As we know, there are all kinds of curse words, and the First Amendment protects our right to use most of them most of the time. What exactly did the resident allege was said? 

“Seeing the postal carrier now across the street, the resident walked over and asked the postal carrier not to throw his packages.” This sounds to me like the resident provoked a confrontation as the postal carrier was walking away. Did he ask politely or was his request couched in provocative language? 

While inside his home calling 911, the postal carrier entered the residence and started recording him with his cell phone—threatening that he now knows who he is.” 

This sentence is very hard to understand because it’s grammatically challenged, but the writer seems to be saying that the postal worker forced his way into the resident’s house. Really? 

If he’d done that, shouldn’t he have been charged with some more serious crime, like trespassing or assault or burglary or something? 

Officers located the postal carrier (Lamonte Travoy Earnest, Male, 44 years old, Berkeley, CA) a block away and arrested him on suspicion of making criminal threats … 

Here’s a good little primer on the “crime” of making criminal threats: 

https://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html#1.2 

A pertinent warning from this site: 

“Because there is no requirement that the victim suffers any physical injury, criminal threats is a crime which is ripe for false accusations. Anyone who is angry, jealous, vengeful, spiteful or trying to escape his/her own criminal liability could easily falsely accuse another person of this serious crime. This is especially true when the accusation is of a verbal threat, with no written or electronic recording.”  

And how about this? “ …an outstanding arrest warrant for animal cruelty.” 

Postpersons and dogs: traditional adversaries. We have a fluffy little yellow rescue dog who devoted years of his life to waiting for the postal worker to show up every day so he could defend the house by furious barking. Cute, but if he were instead one of those pit bull mixes beloved of paranoid residents, postal workers would be justifiably afraid of him. The USPD gives employees a spray canister to use in such situations, which might look cruel to the dog owner, who might well file charges.  

And in fact, that’s exactly what LaMonte Earnest says happened. Three years ago he sprayed a dog which attacked him while he was delivering mail in San Mateo. The dog’s owner, a policeman, managed to get a warrant issued for LaMonte's arrest which he’d never heard about until the Berkeley police pulled it out of a computer when they detained him on Tuesday. 

Yes, reader, I actually called LaMonte and asked him about the report. Not only that, I talked to his wife, criminal defense attorney Kate Hallinan. [Full disclosure: she’s the niece of Planet columnist Conn Hallinan and the granddaughter of my friend, Berkeley Arts Festival founder Bonnie Hughes.] 

As it happened, Kate and LaMonte were in the process of putting together a press release giving his side of the story. We’ve reprinted it here in full, clearly labelled as such. 

Why did they have to issue a press release denying the charges? Because a local “news source”, whatever that might mean, had published the police press release as part of an article, to which they added LaMonte’s booking photo, which shows clearly that he is, yes,African-American. (Why are we not surprised?) 

And now we come to our main beef with this story as it’s been reported. It is accepted good journalistic practice to clearly label accusations as such. Here’s the story as written by experienced reporter Jeff Shuttleworth for rock solid Bay City News, to which we subscribe: 

Jan 29, 2019 - BCN37:BERKELEY: POSTAL CARRIER ARRESTED FOR ALLEGEDLY THREATENING CUSTOMER 

BERKELEY (BCN) 

A postal carrier has been arrested on suspicion of making criminal 

threats for allegedly threatening a Berkeley man who complained when a 

package was thrown at his door, police said. 

The man was inside his home in the 2600 block of Sacramento Street 

at about 4:30 p.m. on Saturday when he was startled by the sound of something 

thrown at his front door, according to police. 

When the resident went to investigate, he saw that there was a 

package at his door, police said. 

The man also noticed that the postal carrier was across the street 

so he walked over and asked the carrier not to throw his packages, according 

to police. 

But the postal carrier responded by cursing and threatening the 

man, who ran back to his home and called 911, police said. 

While the man was inside his home calling 911, the postal carrier 

entered the residence and started recording him with his cellphone and 

threatened the man by stating that he now knew who he was, according to 

police. 

Officers located the postal carrier, who was identified as 

44-year-old Lamonte Travoy Earnest of Berkeley, a block away and arrested him 

on suspicion of making criminal threats as well as an outstanding warrant for 

animal cruelty, police said. 

Note Shuttleworth's liberal use of qualifiers like “allegedly”..”police said”…”according to police”….etc. 

That’s how real professionals do it.  

So I called Officer Byron White, BPD’s current public information officer, who sends out these releases. I asked why only one person was arrested in what seemed like a “he said, she said” two-person dispute with no impartial witnesses. He told me it was a “private person’s arrest”, that is to say a signed complaint made by one person against another. He said that in a case like this “we are legally bound to take him into custody”. 

I asked him what allegedly had been said which would constitute “making criminal threats.” He said that the accused suspect had called the other guy “a swear word” and said he knew where the guy lived. I told him I was an adult and could stand to hear the actual language. He said the postal worker called the resident a “motherfucker”. 

Of course that’s a word you can hear on any middle school playground any day of the week, and of course LaMonte knows where the resident identified as the victim lives because he is his mail carrier. Even if the accuser’s account is true this doesn’t seem to add up to much of a credible lthreat. And it probably isn’t true. Again, no witnesses or recording. 

I asked him why BPD had released LaMonte’s booking picture. He said a news organization had asked him for it, and if they asked BPD was legally required to give it out.  

Who asked for it? Berkeleyside.com, he said. 

He told me these press releases (formerly known as “the police blotter”) are a selection by the BPD of some of what’s been happening locally, not everything. 

One might question the judgment of whoever selected this particular item for BPD to publicize, but you can certainly question the professional judgment of any news organization which would publish unsubstantiated allegations like this, including LaMonte’s name and photo, without doing the minimal due diligence of getting both sides of what was clearly an argument between two annoyed individuals at worst.  

It seems highly unlikely that the Alameda County District Attorney will file any charges in this shaky case. If that happens, someone owes LaMonte and Kate an apology, at least. 

LaMonte Earnest, a 13+ year veteran of the U.S. Postal Service, is facing false accusations of criminal threats and animal cruelty after a customer claimed he had kicked down his door, entered his home, and threatened to kill him. Mr. Earnest was taken into custody after the police determined he had an outstanding warrant for animal cruelty. That warrant, which Mr. Earnest was unaware existed, stemmed from a dog attack three years before while Mr. Earnest was delivering mail in Daly City. 

Mr. Earnest, who is black and an honorable veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard with no prior criminal record, was delivering mail to the 2600 block of Sacramento Street Saturday afternoon when he threw a package containing a heavy book on to the porch of [a resident]. The package hit the door and made a large bang. [The resident] who is white, exited his house wearing no shirt or shoes and accosted Mr. Earnest screaming at him about the package. Mr. Earnest believed that [rhe resident] was accusing him of damaging his door. 

Concerned that [the resident] would call his work and complain about damage, Mr. Earnest took two photographs of the door to show the lack of damage while standing on the sidewalk. He then continued with delivering mail. Unbeknownst to Mr. Earnest, [the resident] had already phoned 911 and falsely reported that Mr. Earnest had kicked in his door, filmed him, and threatened to kill him. The Berkeley Police Department arrived within a few minutes and detained Mr. Earnest, before arresting him on the outstanding warrant. 

Mr. Earnest had been charged with animal cruelty as a result of an incident 3 years prior when a dog owned by a white police officer lunged at his hand, while it was stuck in the mail slot at the dog's home. Mailmen have been known to lose fingers and suffer terrible injuries as a result of dogs biting their fingers through mail slots. On the USPS website, it says to make sure your dog cannot get within 3 feet of the mail slot to protect mailmen's fingers and keep your dog safe. 

Mr. Earnest employed his USPS issued "dog repellent" to repel the dog. The dog’s owner ran out of the house yelling "you black bastard" and other racially charged insults. Mr. Earnest called the police to report the incident. He never heard anything else about it, until he was arrested January 26, 2019. 

These are not the first false accusations Mr. Earnest has faced while delivering mail. Once, when Mr. Earnest was working late around the holiday season, someone called the police to report a suspicious black man walking quickly from house to house with a light on his head. Another time, a customer falsely accused him of wielding a knife. A lengthy investigation cleared Mr. Earnest of all wrongdoing. 

As a result of these false accusations, Mr. Earnest is now facing two separate criminal prosecutions (for criminal threats in Alameda County and animal cruelty in San Mateo), and is suspended from his job without pay. Mr. Earnest is a dedicated, veteran mail carrier who takes his job seriously and strives to be professional and efficient. Mr. Earnest lives in the same neighborhood where he is a carrier. He and his wife, attorney Kate Hallinan who grew up in the same West Berkeley neighborhood, have been together for 14 years, and have a three year old daughter. Mr. Earnest unequivocally denies all criminal allegations against him, and looks forward to the opportunity to clear his good name and restore his reputation which has been so terribly maligned.

Tuesday evening was an uncommon, decidedly rare event; the Hearst Avenue neighbors won against lead developer Mark Rhoades in the Berkeley City Council appeal of 1155-1173 Hearst Avenue. The final vote was 8 to 1 to support the appeal by requiring an Environmental Impact Report before the Zoning Adjustment Board reconsidered granting the 5 special permits needed for the project. Arreguin, Bartlett, Davila, Harrison, Hahn, Kesarwani, Robinson and Wengraf voted for the Hahn-Arreguin motion. Droste was the lone dissent.

Hahn’s detailed analysis of the legal case, which supplemented and corrected a weaker one from the City staff, as contrasted with the toe-dancing of developer Rhoades, was spectacular. Hahn validated the meticulous documentation supplied by appellants and neighbors and the experts they hired. Look for the full motion and video later this week https://cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/

Thursday, January 31, 6:00 pm, at 1231 Addison, the City Council will hear the appeal of 2190 Shattuck Avenue, the development that will block 75% of the view from Campanile Way at the base of Sather Tower.  

Putting preservation of views in context, the Berkeley City Council spent somewhere between 1 1/2 and 2 hours on September 20, 2018 on protection of the private view of the Golden Gate from a private residence in the Berkeley Hills. Maio, Hahn, Wengraf, Droste and Arreguin voted to require modification of a proposed addition to preserve the private Berkeley Hills view. 

But on the next agenda item, the preservation of the public view of the Golden Gate from Campanile Way through landmarking, Maio, Wengraf, Worthington, Droste and Arreguin voted against the public. 

Lurking behind the scene in this decision was the proposed 2190 Shattuck Avenue development , which will privatize the Golden Gate view by adding an over-size new building to block it, leaving only a sliver for the public to see. 

Stopping the privatization of public resources is a continual battle, and that fight has come home to roost in Berkeley. Please come Thursday evening January 31 at 6:00 pm! It is the only agenda item and it will be a tough fight. 

v

That’s what can happen on Thursday, January 31, when the City Council will hear an appeal of the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to approve Shattuck Terrace Green, an 18-story building with 274 residential units and a “lush” private roof garden, over the existing Walgreen’s on the old Penney’s/Ross/Walgreen’s site, 2190 Shattuck Avenue. The proposed building at this specific location pits preservation of a national heritage landmark feature against the need for housing.

It doesn’t need to be that way. We CAN HAVE BOTH -- housing AND preserving Berkeley’s heritage landmark, and that’s what we, the four appellants to the ZAB decision, want to happen.

The developers are Texas-based Mill Creek Residential, a national company that has built high rise “apartment homes” throughout the country. Berkeleyans are just getting to know them since they recently purchased the long dormant Acheson Commons permit and have started construction of 205 units at University and Shattuck. You may also remember Jason Overman who served as an elected Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner from 2004-2008. In 2006, he ran for the District 8 Council seat against Councilmember Gordon Wozniak and lost. His treasurer for that election was fellow Rent Board running mate and Commissioner, now Mayor, Jesse Arreguin. Since then, Mr. Overman has become a partner in Lighthouse Public Affairs which describes him on their website as their “political Swiss Army knife.” He is now a highly visible part of the developer team advocating for this project.

The landmark that’s involved is Campanile Way on the UC Berkeley campus with its view westward to the Golden Gate. Campanile Way was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. After a long and involved series of conflicting reports by City Staff over the meaning and extent of this designation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission in April 2018 voted to clarify the issue by giving additional local landmark status to Campanile Way, and specifically identifying the View as a “significant contributing factor.” However, the Council turned that recommendation down on the basis that placement of Campanile Way on the National Register was all the protection needed and that local designation was redundant.

When the project came to the ZAB, members were informed by history and planning experts that Campanile Way is one of the nation’s best examples of American Beaux-Arts planning and further that because of intense campus development during and since the 60’s, it is the last remaining place on campus the public can see the Golden Gate. Additionally, that blocking the View from Campanile Way would likely result in its removal from the National Registry.

Today, thousands of students, alums, school children, residents and tourists pause or gather throughout the year at the steps of Sather Tower to enjoy this unique, emotional and compelling visual experience. The View has emerged as the symbol of the culture of a world-recognized premier public university. It is also noteworthy that not only UC, but the State of California and the City of Berkeley, all use symbols that include the westward Golden Gate view. One expert likened the importance of blocking this view to a real-life proposal which would have blocked the view of the Statue of Liberty.

There’s pretty much agreement across the board that the building, as proposed, blocks this View -- photo simulations provided by the EIR, written assessments that 75% of the view would be blocked from the Campanile steps, city staff reports, and testimony by the developer’s attorney and ZAB members who acknowledge this fact, but say that it doesn’t matter.

Lost in this discussion is mention of the fact that the View from Campanile Way is the ONLY place on the Berkeley campus, or in the Downtown, where the public can access this View, at no expense, 24/7. It’s a much-loved destination for the public that in addition to preserving a more than 100-year landmark, also increases revenues and contributes vitality to its surroundings when people make a visit to a destination site. Stealing that View from the public and privatizing it solely for the residents of 2190 Shattuck Avenue was not considered a detriment by ZAB.

The developer’s attorney holds that it doesn’t matter anyway since the City doesn’t have a view ordinance, we can’t take this View into consideration. This completely dismisses the fact that the City of Berkeley has been regulating the height of buildings on private property for decades because of view considerations. Last year the City Council spent several meetings minutely reviewing two cases of view impacts from private homes in the Berkeley Hills. Whether the City has always gotten it right in each case is another issue, but the record is clear – the City always has, and still does regulate property based on view considerations.

Let’s be clear – appellants are not arguing for no housing, especially this close to transit. We support new housing here of all types. Using the developer’s chart, if the building height was reduced by six levels, the building would have 239 units, a reduction of a little less than 15%. If the building’s height was reduced to 9 levels, the building would still provide 172 units, still a substantial number of new housing units. Both reduced size projects would make this one of the largest apartment buildings of any type ever built in Berkeley.

The land slopes westward from the steps of Sather Tower, so a building somewhere within these height levels, even with a roof garden, could be constructed at the location in question that would not block the View.

We also note that the proposed building is 100% market rate, and that since the City is shamefully short of its Regional Housing Goals for all income categories except high incomes, we would hope this building would include within the building at least some low to moderate income rentals instead of paying in-lieu fees that result in years of delay for the actual production of such units.

We cannot, nor should we even try to design the building at an appeal hearing, nor should the Council do that. We cannot accurately indicate what exact height level would be appropriate, including a roof garden and all the necessary mechanicals without expert study.

Therefore, we are asking that the Council uphold this appeal and send the project back to the Zoning Adjustments Board, without additional fees, to consider a new proposal that protects the View, as well as issues such as why such a building would need any auto parking at all along with a wide driveway that has the potential for traffic and pedestrian safety problems.

To protect the public’s heritage View we ask you to write or call your

Councilmember, and speak in favor of our appeal at a Special Meeting of the Council, Thursday January 31, at the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street. The meeting starts at 6:00 pm and we are the only item on the agenda. 

On Thursday, January 31st, Council will hold a vote on 2190 Shattuck (the current Walgreens building on Shattuck and Allston). The Zoning Adjustments Board approved this project 6-2 on October 25th and four residents filed an appeal three weeks later. This project would involve demolition of the current retail and office space and construction of an 18-story, 274-unit apartment building. This project is in the heart of District 4, and so we want to hear from you. Please attend the Council meeting at 6pm on January 31st at 1231 Addison (BUSD Board Room).

Two years ago, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) invited me to be part of the Steering Committee for CASA, a committee dedicated to identifying and acting on regional solutions to the Bay Area’s housing affordability crisis.

At Urban Habitat, we knew this was important work. Everyone is feeling effects of the housing crisis, and we saw participating in CASA as an opportunity to advance racial equity, raise consciousness around historic and continued regional segregation, and fight displacement.

We worked with our partners at every step. We co-convened the 6 Wins for Social Equity Network and, together, advocated for a “tenant protection first” approach. We knew it was critical to first stabilize gentrifying communities so that existing residents can prosper in place, and then work to preserve and produce deeply affordable housing.

MTC is currently collecting signatures for the final CASA Compact from the Co-Chairs and Steering Committee. My signature will not be on it.

Unfortunately, while the final Compact includes much-needed tenant protections and affordable housing revenue proposals, it falls short in protecting vulnerable communities from the risk of continued displacement.

Policymakers need to put in place strong tenant protection policies before introducing any up-zoning and streamlining of market-rate housing. In addition, no up-zoning or streamlining should take place in communities at risk for displacement and gentrification. These places should be identified based on a geographical analysis developed with meaningful community engagement.

Elements of the CASA Compact will now be turned into state bills. As these bills move through the state legislative process, we must continue advocating for solutions to the housing crisis that are rooted in racial justice, self-determination, and de-commodified housing alternatives. Beyond CASA, Urban Habitat will deepen our collective political analysis so that we can develop visionary land and housing strategies, and stop false solutions that continue to tear apart low-income communities and communities of color.

The United States never seems to learn from its past mistakes. We have attempted regime changes in Iran (to steal their oil), sold weapons to Iraq in their civil war with Iran, invaded Iraq with bogus claims of WMD’s, sold weapons to Saudi Arabia resulting in the devastating famine in Yemen, overthrew Kaddafi in Libya resulting in complete chaos . . .John Bolton, National Security Advisor, admitted that a regime change would benefit US oil. In our latest effort to maintain our impeccable record of regime change failures, the Trump administration is beating the war drums to replace President Maduro of Venezuela with his unelected contender, Juan Guaidó. 

Secretary of State Pompeo’s appointment of Elliot Abrams to lead the US imposed changes is an exceeding bad choice. He is a right-wing hawk whose resume is full of dark deeds. In 1991 he was convicted for lying to congress during the Iran-Contra scandal and narrowly escaped the “orange suit and shackles” by a pardon from President H.W. Bush. He defended mass murderer and torturer, Guatemalan dictator General Efraín Ríos Montt, who was later convicted of genocide of indigenous people in Guatemala in the 1980s. Abrams was also deeply involved in the attempted coup of Hugo Chávez and supporting the right-wing government in El Salvador. 

The Democrats should speak up against this administration’s effort to draw us into another civil war. The crippling sanctions should be lifted and Venezuela must accept the offer of Uruguay, Mexico, and the Vatican to mediate in the crisis and request the IMF’s help in bringing down hyperinflation. For more go to http://callforsocialjustice.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, 1/22/19, the day of the march in protest of decimation of healthy trees in People’s Park, maybe 40 of us gathered and headed out of the park to go down Telegraph to UC first day of classes, to let people know what had occurred. We had two massive banners, one at the front, and one at the back of the march. It was a perfectly peaceful march until a young driver for whatever reason (entitlement? Out-of-control and not fit to be on the road? Perhaps drugged?) headed into the back of the march at the intersection of Durant and Telegraph. 

Suddenly, I heard shouting such as, “What the hell are you doing?” and “Stop! Stop!”. Our little march was a bit spread out and I was maybe in the front third. I was maybe 50 feet north of Durant. Obviously, something bad was happening and I tried to get to the intersection as quickly as possible. I was trying to get down the sidewalk full of students and others so I did not witness him driving into Jake’s bike and totaling it, but once I got back to the NW corner of Durant and Telegraph, I heard Tony howling in pain. Jake came up from the curb cut and said this guy had rammed into his bike and that, he’d had to jump out of the way to avoid being run over himself. His bike was completely mangled. The fork of the bike was bent far out of shape, as was the front wheel, which clarified the speed/velocity of the driver in the car. Jake was holding part of the car’s fender which had fallen off after the driver smashed the bike. 

When I had turned from where I was north of the intersection, I saw this driver stopping and starting (like a bucking bronco) and then I saw him turn the wrong way onto Durant. By the time I got closer to the intersection I saw the driver hop the curb and then when I got to Durant I saw people trying to block this person after he'd driven over Tony's feet. They were yelling at him to stop, and people were yelling, “Get his license plate number!” Finally, this out-of-control driver succeeded in careening down the street wrong way, past anyone trying to stop him. 

Several of us stayed around well past Tony being taken by ambulance. We were trying to give witness statements and most of the cops there were beyond uninterested. I was stressing the out-of-control aspect of this driver's actions. Totally impatient with a little march (probably 40 of us). I was pointing out that when I taught my 3 young people to drive I stressed again and again that if something's going on, just pull over and cool out before ever getting on the road again. 

I waited and waited to give a witness statement. Let me stress here that, these cops were not calling out anything such as, “If you witnessed, please stay and give us a statement.” I basically had to foist myself upon them to get them even to take a statement. I cannot emphasize enough that though there were a few around, they were not actively trying to take statements, only relenting when people said we needed them to take our statements. But in what I saw that Jacquelyn McCormack sent out, you’d have no way of knowing what went on, in spite of people trying to get info to the people who are supposed to be taking statements. There was a sense of hostility from the cops. Someone had just been run over and they didn’t want to be bothered. 

I was giving a statement to two cops, and the one said in a harsh way, as though to be interrogating me, someone who’d waited around for quite awhile to give a statement, something like, “What’s your contact info?” I gave him my business card which has on it my phone number and my website info. He demanded my address. You tell me why he would need that? But I have nothing to hide, so gave it, and he walked away as I was trying to give them both my statement. 

Here’s what struck me: 
 

- They showed zero compassion about Tony
- They showed zero compassion about Jake losing his means to his work
- They showed zero interest as I talked about witnessing this person stopping and starting, bucking, obviously out of control
- They showed zero interest in my describing seeing this guy jump the curb, though I did not witness him actually running over Tony since there were so many people on the sidewalk at that NW corner of the Durant intersection. Tony was sitting on the ground, but I could see the car as the driver was speeding across the sidewalk before jumping back into the street (wrong direction)
- They showed zero interest in listening to Jake as he described how he would have been run over, too, had he not jumped out of the way. He tried to hand the cop the piece of the car fender which had fallen off when the driver smashed into his bike. He certainly showed zero compassion for Jake’s distress over losing his means to working for his job 

The one who stayed around when the other one had walked off after interrogating ME about my address, showed zero interest in hearing my description of this driver being obviously out of control, and even less interest as I tried to get him to understand this from a mother’s point of view. I explained that, as a person who's taught my children basic driving skills, I feel it's important to stress that this person made every mistake on the books, completely totaling the bike of someone who uses it for his work (and lucky that guy jumped out of the way), and more importantly careening over a sidewalk and running over a human being’s shins/feet. Tony was in dire pain, moaning, howling in pain. And this guy careened down Durant the wrong way once he drove back off the sidewalk. 

- HOW DO I COME TO THE CONCLUSION THERE WAS NO INTEREST? IN SPITE OF MY EXPLAINING WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE NOTES ABOUT WHAT I EXPERIENCED AS A PARENT WHO’S TAUGHT KIDS TO DRIVE, AND WHAT I SAW BOTH FROM ABOUT 50 FEET AWAY, AND THEN FROM THE NW CORNER AND THEN RIGTH BY TONY, HE TOOK NEXT TO NO NOTES, AND AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, DID NOT TAKE MY NAME. THE OTHER ONE DID BUT WALKED OFF, BUT IF THEY ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED 14 PEOPLE, ARE THEY GOING TO MATCH NOTES ABOUT WHICH NAMES GO WITH WHICH STATEMENTS? HE WAS TOTALLY DISMISSIVE AND YOU MIGHT ASK HIM WHY. NO STATEMENTS ON PAPER ALLOW A COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS REPORTING AND THEN ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY. YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU’RE WORKING WITH HERE 

No wonder other city people have no clue what happened. Yes, Tony is black and homeless and disabled. Apparently some of those who run this town see him as expendable, because that is how at least a couple of the cops acted, and how dismissive some city people were when they got a report. A younger cop seemed to be trying to take down some notes from some others, but if he wrote anything that told the story of what actually had gone on, it seems not to have been included. And nothing from my statement was included in what went out to city people. The idea of collecting witness statements is to put together a full picture of what occurred. The cops were completely negligent, and some apologist parent is helped to let his out-of-control son apparently get completely off the hook.  

- PLEASE INTERVENE AND DO NOT LET THIS KID JUST WALK AWAY. THE DAD BLAMING OTHERS FOR DAMAGE TO HIS CAR? WOW! MAYBE MAKE THE KID PAY FOR THAT $2000 THE DAD SAYS IS THE COST OF DAMAGE
Consider that THE DAD MADE TIME THAT VERY DAY TO GET THE CAR ASSESSED FOR DAMAGE COST BUT APPARENTLY, HAS NO INTEREST IN THE PEOPLE HIS SON HAS DAMAGED  

- PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS BE THE OUTCOME OF SUCH GREAT ENTITLEMENT. WE DO NOT WANT THIS KID ON THE ROAD. HIS LICENSE SHOULD BE YANKED, ANGER MANAGEMENT THERAPY SHOULD BE ORDERED, AND THE FAMILY NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF THE DAMAGED INDIVIDUALS. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SON, Mister 

So many disabled people are hit in this town by drivers texting, altered by Wifi and GPS/WLAN (here’s an excellent short video of an experiment from Mainz University in Germany: https://vimeo.com/244746945 ) and in this case who knows what other factors are at play, but the father’s reaction as reported makes very clear that, he believes his son, and apparently cannot imagine his son doing anything bad, or is a complete enabler of his son doing anything he pleases 

Some of the powers-that-be seem to be conspiring NOT to look at the truth, and NOT to hold accountable an out-of-control young person who runs over a human being and then does what? Blames people for marching to demand an end to the decimation of the trees in a park? We've had decades of trying to hold off the university's disingenuous moves to encroach on the park, the needed green space and meeting space of thousands over decades (we're hitting 50 in April). Just as a reminder, UC owns a lot of Berkeley and has many places to plunk down YES... needed housing. It does not have to be there, just like their tennis courts didn't need to be there (and are a block away), just like their volleyball courts were not wanted by actual users of the park (UC PAID UC students to play volleyball there in '91 as no one else would. They wanted media saying it was needed. Eventually, we succeeded in getting the world's biggest litterbox out of the park. 

The lie UC keeps stating is many decades old: students don't use the park. When I hear anyone say that, I know they are unlikely ever to have set foot in the park. Because students are out there all the time enjoying the grass, the sun, the shaded areas (so much less shade now). 

Let me register here that, I am completely offended at the negligence and at the seeming lack of any compassion for a lot of people threatened with harm, with one whose work life is harmed and could have massive emotional harm at being so nearly run over himself, and above all for a person already facing really tough circumstances (he's homeless, he's disabled, he's black) who was run over, was in tremendous pain, and while he was turned back out onto the streets from the ER, probably will suffer longterm soft-tissue damage which could further complicate his life. 

Today was a lovely Saturday in California Assembly District 15, and its lovely residents were out in full force in Emeryville. The occasion was the election of delegates to the state Democratic Party convention, and the cheerful and handsome voters were on display as they waited in line to get their ballots.

This might seem like an odd way to choose delegates, sort of an endurance test, since one estimate was that almost 1700 district voters, registered Dems all, showed up to stand in line. But the atmosphere was more like a small-p party than a Party meeting, with participants greeting each other enthusiastically, even those who were pretty sure they were endorsing different slates. It seemed like a good percentage of everyone I’ve ever known around here showed up, and even some notables like Josh Kornbluh that I don’t know but have seen around.

There were just two slates for 26 slots, divided somewhat peculiarly into half self-identified women and half not-women. When these rules were set up, not that long ago, this may have seemed fair, but with fluid gender identities all the rage it doesn’t seem quite fair anymore, does it?

The overall good humor was undoubtedly influenced by the good news from DC. A woman who was furloughed from her security guard job got it right in a TV interview. Even though she was having trouble making the rent, she was sure that Speaker Pelosi was doing the right thing:

“Miss Nancy won’t let him have that wall!” she said, and she was right.

Miss Nancy gave that bad boy the timeout he needed—a triumph for grannies everywhere, a fair number of whom were in that line in Emeryville with big smiles on their faces as they discussed what happened on Friday.

The winning slate, in the end, was the one that could have claimed Shirley Chisholm’s old slogan, Unbossed and Unbought: the Progressive Labor Slate. Their counterparts in the 18th AD , which holds its election on Sunday, call themselves the Unbossed Slate.

In AD 15, the other slate, with truth in packaging, called themselves the Union of Progressive Leaders. This was the one endorsed by the Electeds, Sen. Nancy Skinner and Asm. Buffy Wicks. They appeared to be successors to the 2016 Hillary Clinton primary campaign.

I myself did vote for Hillary in June of 2016--that got me some unwelcome phone solicitations for this vote, but I’ve moved on. They offered me free breakfast with Buffy at 9 a.m. (are you kidding?), a ride to the meeting and a chance to register to vote if I hadn't managed to do that by the last election day. The sober identical teeshirts worn by this slate’s staff (there were a lot of them) hinted at plenty of spending money, not necessarily a plus in this area.

People handing out slate cards for the other crowd wore a miscellany of old Bernie and Our Revolution tee shirts and other assorted colorful clothing, presumably signifying a more anarchistic temperament. A crowd pleaser was Alfred Twu, self-identified on the not-woman side, who nonetheless chooses Little-House-on-the-Prairie dresses and sun bonnets for daily wear.

He won, as did almost all of his slate, both female and non-female, as well as Wendy Bloom, their candidate for the Executive Committee. Only Oakland Councilmember Dan Kalb, who ran a credible race again Buffy Wicks in June but then joined her slate, was chosen from the Leaders queue.

All in all, bottom-up proved more popular than top-down: The grass roots have spoken, and the Leaders had better be listening. 

AD 15 Executive Board : Wendy Bloom 

Women : 

Wendy Bloom 

Bobbi Lopez 

Mabel Lam 

Kate Harrison 

Ada Recinos 

Courtney Welch 

Andrea Mullarkey 

Men : 

Xavier Johnson 

Alfred Twu 

Keane Chukwuneta 

Soli Alpert 

Sam Davis 

Devin Murphy 

Dan Kalb from the Union of Progressive Leaders also won. 

PG&E’s systemic problems have gone unchecked for decades. It has now been forced into bankruptcy following California’s devastating wildfires. The company’s wildfire insurance was grossly underfunded to the tune of $1.4 billion compared to actual liability of more than $30 billion not including potential punitive damages, fines tied to future claims. Ratepayers can expect whopping increases in their utility bills. 

In its effort to make the state free from carbon-dioxide emissions, California pushed utilities to buy renewal energy. 

Clean-energy initiatives, such as Solar and wind-energy designed to fight the effects of climate change will be a major casualty. 

Never missing an opportunity to make money from other people’s misery, Hedge funds are already offering to buy settlement claims from insurance companies. 

The filing comes a day after the company announced the resignation of its chief executive, Geisha Williams and three other executives who were paid millions for their gross incompetence. 

Here’s an outline of the incident. It happened on Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2019. There’s a demonstration on Telegraph Ave. for preserving People’s Park. People are in the street, making their case because they are being driven out of the park. A car comes up behind them, and can’t get through. As one commentator says, “The protesters themselves report that the car was not passively behind the march, but was in fact menacing the march in an attempt to drive through.”

In other words, the driver threatens them with the car. Perhaps he is also honking his horn, or yelling at them to get out of his way. Whatever he is doing, it is far from support, and far from being neutral. They turn on him, beat on the car (he is that close to them), and throw stuff at it. He gets pissed, decides to drive around them, show them that they have no business disrupting his world with their damn politics. He drives around them at Durant, runs up onto the curb and sidewalk at Noah’s Bagels, and as he drives down the sidewalk, runs over the legs of a blind homeless black man who is sitting against the wall with his legs out in front of him. The driver then just drives off.

How many crimes were committed here? With respect to a person on foot (aka pedestrian), a car is a lethal weapon. To threaten a person on foot, in the street, on the sidewalk, anywhere, with a car is to threaten them with a lethal weapon. To intentionally hit and kill a person with a car is murder. To intentionally hit and not kill a person on the street or sidewalk is attempted murder. That is the existentiality of it. With respect to a car, a human is unarmed. These “park protectors” are only carrying signs, and food, and their desire to count in this society. Against that desire to count, which goes on foot in order to be seen as human, the machine called a car is nothing but a lethal weapon. 

To drive over a sidewalk to show your scorn for people who are demonstrating a political problem they are having with the powers that be (aka “seeking redress of grievances”) is to commit road rage. To leave the scene, even though the driver says he did not know he had hit anyone, is to commit hit-and-run. But then again, a homeless black man is an entity to which many white drivers are themselves blind. Regardless of this driver’s contempt for the people on the street, to drive on a sidewalk is reckless endangerment. 

All this because people are being thrown out of a park. Leave the park alone, and you won’t find the people who live there marching down any streets. 

Okay, how many felonies are there in that story? Well, it depands on how many individuals the driver threatened with his car when he pushed his car into the group of marches on the street, and which got them so mad that they retaliated. Lets say he threatened two, as a liberal estimate. I count seven felonies. 

You know how many crimes the cops count in their report on this incident? The police released a report the next day which got forwarded through the Mayor’s office. In it, the cops list two or three counts of vandalism and damage to the car. That’s all. Their attention does not go beyond the issue of property. Unless it’s the property of the homeless, in which case they will confiscate it. 

The police report says, “According to the driver, at least two or three people from the group turned towards him unprovoked and began hitting his car.” If they could start hitting the car by turning toward it, then the car was already in the midst of the demo. For the car to be doing that is itself a provocation. But for the cops, the entire incident was an attack on the car. For them, the driver was the victim, and the demonstrators were the perps. For the cops, the man with the assault rifle is the victim, and the people he points it at are the assailants. Well, that fits. When a cop shoots a person in the back because he’s walking away, doesn’t he then say it was self-defense? 

The cops weren’t there, however. They made their story up from video security footage and talking to only one side, namely, the driver. They didn’t get to interview any demonstrators because they weren’t there. Other cops talked to other witnesses who only reported attacks on the car (according to the police reports that this report reported). They apparently discounted what the demonstrators might have had to say, or what witnesses might have said about what led up to the attack on the car. 

Lets look at this idea of the incident being unprovoked. This is California. There are laws here that give pedestrians right of way. To fail to yield right of way to a pedestrian in a cross walk is a moving violation. That’s the law. There are also ethical concerns that accompany that law. A driver must give pedestrians the right of way even if they are not in a crosswalk because the driver has a lethal weapon in his hands. If a pedestrian is in the street, even in a lane, humane ethics say you don’t try to knock him out of the way with your car in order to get by. 

When you encounter a demonstration, you also give it right of way, as a question of political ethics. As a march goes through an intersection, cars on the cross street have to wait for the march to go by. You know why? Two reasons (besides the legal ones). The first is that they are human. The second is that, when people have to get out on the street to make a point, or just to let the world know that they exist, it is because they have already exhausted other means of gaining that recognition, other means of expressing their needs or concerns, or of simply participating in a dialogue. After they petition and are ignored, after negotiations have broken down in threats and ultimatims, after the urgent request that power listen and hear what “the people” are saying, and the request encounters silence, then people organize and get out on the street. The People’s Park issue has been around 45 years, and this latest “to do” about it has been going on for a couple of those years. So after all else fails, and the powers that be start cutting down trees, people get out on the street. 

These demonstrators have to be respected. That is, unless you secretly dream of concentration camps for dissidents. They are people with a purpose, they have a community, they have a certain unity of activity in the world, and they are not out to injure or disparage other people. They are not just spectators on their own destiny, however. They are trying to live life in a society that consciously and intentionally abjures any responsibility for them. Let rents go up, if people can’t keep up, to hell with them. If emergency rooms close and people get hurt or sick, to hell with them. If factories close and move to other parts of the world, and people can’t find jobs, to hell with them. Right? Isn’t that the trajectory of this society today, and for the last 30 years? Why do you think a government shutdown could go on as long as it has? 

So this driver, trying to use the street to get somewhere, decides he has priority over these dissidents, and the cops decide that they will agree with him. To hell with the law. 

Do you think the City Council will demand that the driver be charged? Or will it toady to the police? It should have been actively seeking an equitable outcome to the People’s Park issue – if for no other reason than that the people who live in that park (aka live in the park) are Berkeley residents. But don’t hold your breath. And “hit-and-run” is becoming a little too routine. Why would that be? 

William Barr, who faces a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation as Attorney General should be rejected due to his past transgressions as AG under President H.W. Bush. At that time, Barr strongly advocated blanket pardons to all those guilty in the Iran-Contra affair thwarting independent counsel Lawrence Walsh’s efforts to charge those responsible for a massive cover-up. The arms for- hostages scandal has cast a long shadow on subsequent US administrations up to the present time. Our constant meddling in Middle East affairs has destabilized much of the region. If Barr played such a key role in sabotaging the rule of law under Bush senior it is unlikely that he could be trusted to administer the law fairly under the current president. 

If President Trump is truly under the spell of the Russian leader, it is likely that Barr would be severally compromise in his position as AG. The future and well-being of the Republic lies in the balance and the impartiality of the AG, if confirmed, will be fully tested as the newly elected House members do battle with an embattled presidency. Barr has already displayed his bias stating he would withhold the Mueller report from the general public or have it severely redacted. 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 past session of looking at the web, I stumbled upon a posting, from some corporation--I don't recall what type of business--claiming that ADA legal cases involving mentally ill plaintiffs were among the most easily defeated. 

I believe it is nearly impossible to stop an employer's bigotry from hindering a person's chances of being hired. This is so whether you are a minority, or whether you have a disability which is physical, mental or otherwise. If someone doesn't want to hire you, it is problematic to attempt to force them to do so. And if you did force a bigoted employer to hire you, via litigation or other procedures involving government, at an educated guess, your chances of success in your job are substantially damaged, from the very start. 

For some, it is bread and butter to employ government mechanisms to force employers to comply with laws. However, if you are disabled, it is probably a bit more challenging. 

It is already difficult enough to show up for work every day and function up to a level that might or might not be competitive. If you add the red tape and the numerous other procedures involving bureaucracy, you don't have any oomph left to do your job. Furthermore, you are probably creating a hostile work environment. And, lastly, the employer will find some other way to get rid of you. 

People with mental illness are often subject to discrimination in a job that involves responsibility and/or intelligence. And this is unfair. 

A mentally ill person's profile could have gaps in employment, and other items that could be a red flag for employers. The evidence of this is readily available in today's information age. 

A few decades ago, a prospective employee could put just about anything on her or his application and resume. Yet, now, it is far more feasible for employers to do background checks, essentially with no expense and only a few minutes spent, or via a "robot." Because of utilizing software to prescreen applications, mentally disabled person's application might never reach human eyes. 

Someone who has been mentally ill since early adulthood or late adolescence is less likely than a non-afflicted person to have a college degree. Without a degree, one's chances of being hired for anything good are not promising. 

Thus, mentally ill people are locked out of most of the job market. It doesn't matter so much whether someone at human resources perceives people with mental illness as acceptable human beings; corporate policies are crafted to eliminate anything that doesn't seem profitable. 

I'm not saying that readers should just give up. However, work that is not conventional-type employment is probably our best option. This could be some type of web-based business, such as selling through eBay or Amazon. Or, use your imagination concerning what sort of self-employment situation you want to create. 

{Scams and investing thousands of dollars are to be avoided. Vanity presses (in which a "book company" charges you money to publish your book) are scams. So are companies that advertise to patent and market your invention for you. These are just a couple of examples. Other examples include what is called "multi-level marketing." This is where you go door to door selling a product on behalf of a superior in the chain from whom you've bought merchandise. The person one rung up in turn has his or her superior. The person at the top of the pyramid is the only one who makes any significant money.} 

Discrimination in hiring exists. How we are to get companies to hire mentally ill people--I am at loss to answer. Thus, many of us, if capable of it, may find better results in non-conventional employment, to get a few bucks and to stay out of trouble. 

*** 

Jack Bragen's books are available on Amazon. 

It is that time of year for sports writers to cast their ballots for former baseball players for consideration for entry into the Cooperstown National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It is not run by Major League Baseball. 

Any candidate who receives votes on 75% of all ballots cast will earn election to the Hall of Fame. This year closer Mariano Rivera, designated hitter Edgar Martinez, and pitchers Roy Halladay, and Mike Mussina are this year’s newest members.  

According to the Hall of Fame rules, eligibility for selection is based “upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” Thus, the Hall of Fame as it is stands today is not just a museum where only numbers count, but rather a sort of enshrinement.  

As such, under present Hall of Fame rules, retired ballplayers who are known or suspected to have used performance enhancing drugs like for example Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, do not meet the Hall of Fame criteria for entry. Why, because their use of performance enhancing drugs subverted the central idea of sport — athletes competing on equal terms. Why should those who competed honestly be treated the same as those who cheated. 

The choice is clear. Voters who choose to participate should either follow the Hall of Fame rules and not vote for cheaters, or not participate in the voting at all. 

Either some voters flouted the Hall of Fame rules or believe that Barry Bonds, who received 56.4% of the votes and Roger Clemons who received 57.3% of the votes, exhibited the necessary integrity, sportsmanship, and character for election. 

A few weeks ago, on January 11, Donald Trump flummoxed the press when he responded to questions about his controversial border-barrier/wall/fence by grouching: "[The Democrats] can name it whatever they [want]. Name it Peaches!" 

Peaches!? Where did that come from? I wondered how he came up with such an odd nickname for his precious wall. Best guess: The name popped out because he has the word "impeachment" on his mind. 

"I Have a Bomb Today" 

Northrop Grumman wins the prize for Worst Martin Luther King. Jr. Day Commemoration. The powerful weapons mega-corp—which profits massively from the sale of military goods—posted a note on Twitter featuring a photo of the MLK statue erected along the Potomac River. The bomb-maker appended this quote from MLK: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others." 

In Northrop Grumman's case (and Donald Trump's vernacular), the most likely answer is: "Bombing the shit out of them." 

A more appropriate quote would have been Dr King's condemnation of the US as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world"—an achievement that could not have been accomplished without the services of Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. 

Trump Loves Despots But He Must Hate Monarchs 

Massive decline in number of monarch butterflies could be a sign of an approaching "co-extinction" catastrophe. 

In a 2017 study, scientists estimated that the monarch butterfly population in western North America had a 72 percent chance of becoming near extinct in 20 years. Last year saw an estimated 86 percent decline from 2017, part of a calamitous 97 percent decline in the total population since the 1980s. Now, Donald Trump wants to make it worse for these embattled insects. 

A desperate petition launched by 314 Action warns: "Trump to Trample Butterflies with Bigly Border Wall." Turns out Trump's blight-on-the-landscape would not only be costly and ineffective, it also would require the gutting of 28 critical environmental laws and necessitate the bulldozing of the “most diverse butterfly sanctuary” in the United States. 

Time to go to bat for the butterflies. Write a letter, make phone calls and plant lots of milkweed in your garden. (We did and, sure enough, the Monarchs settled in.) 

#MeToo Hits the Comics 

Who's missing from this list: Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, R. Kelley? 

How about the Fusco Brothers—Rolf, Lance, Al, and Lars. 

The frisky Fuscos are cartoon characters who appear daily in the SF Chronicle. GoComics.com describes them as amusing siblings who "startle and delight readers with their off-the-wall antics and verbal acrobatics." 

Don't know about "startling." J.C. Duffy's long-running strip relies heavily on shallow gags and recurring riffs. One inescapable meme features the line: "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup." The other endlessly recycled cliché features one of the Fuscos staring at a female character and aggressively flirting: "Your lips say 'no' but your eyes…." 

Innocent fun? You be the judge. Here are some recent offerings: 

December 12, 2018: Lance Fusco treats his girl friend, Gloria, to a birthday cake and says, "Make a wish and blow in my ear." When Gloria asks, "What about the candles?" Lars replies: "Let the candles get their own women." 

January 5, 2019: Lars Fusco tells a young woman: "The ladies tell me I speak with a silver tongue. Is it beginning to get to you?" 

January 7, 2019: Rolf Fusco approaches a woman studying a menu in a café and says: "Hi, I'm Rolf and I'll be your waiter this evening. All we need to do now is relocate to my house." 

January 14, 2019: Al Fusco is in a restaurant. The waitress asks: "Were you undressing me with your eyes just now?" Al replies: "No, I was picturing an open-faced sandwich…." 

January 16, 2019: Rolf leans in close to a female cartoon character and declares: "Of course, you can't really get to know someone completely until you walk a mile in their shoes, but I believe you can get to know them well enough by walking to the bathroom in their bedroom slippers." 

And how's this for "verbal acrobatics"? In a December 23, 2018 strip, Rolf's dinner date thanks him for not trying to "play footsie like you did on our last date." Rolf replies: "I believe in respecting a date's wishes, Sally. Just for the record, however, I'd like you to know that I don't play footsie for lascivious reasons. I just enjoy playing innocent games at dinner. For instance, right now I'm solving a Rubic's cube with my buttocks." 

And what do the targeted women have to say in response to these sexually charged micro-aggressions? Not much. In most cases, the woman's only response is a helpless, mute stare while exclamation points and question marks pop up in the air over her head. 

Looks to me like a Chronic case of clueless, sexist misogyny. 

Rudy Giuliani Was Right: "Truth Isn't True" 

Trump insider, Nixon acolyte and self-described "dirty trickster" Roger Stone has mis-invoked (is that a word?) the Ninth Commandment. Stone, now facing jail for a number of political indiscretions, has vowed not to “bear false witness” against Donald Trump (aka "Individual 1"). But, hold on, Roger: telling lies about Donald Trump is not the issue. The question is: are you willing to tell the truth? 

And then there's Trump enabler Paul Manafort, who faces a 7-10-year sentence for lying to the FBI (to wit: "intentionally providing false information"). Manafort's future, however, may be salvaged by a bit of lawyerly ingenuity. Here's the argument: while Manafort is “hypothetically” guilty of "breaching" his plea deal by fibbing to prosecutors, the fact is that people oft-times unintentionally utter statements that are contradictory or are remembered differently at a later date. Thus, the legal argument goes, Manafort may escape the full hammer of the law because he lied in "good faith." 

Trump Relates 

During a presidential shout-fest early in his self-imposed government shutdown, the press asked the Reprimander-in-chief if he had any concerns for the workers stripped of their paychecks. "Many of those people that won’t be receiving a paycheck, many of those people agree 100 percent with what I’m doing," Trump declared (without a shred of evidence, as per usual). As to the plight of the individual works, Trump replied: "I can relate. And I’m sure that the people that are on the receiving end will make adjustments. They always do." 

The Shutdown Lowdown 

Donald's Trumpestuous shutdown of a good portion of the government exposed a lot of raw truths. Who knew that so many of the 800,000 government workers were being paid so poorly that they were living "paycheck to paycheck"? If the US economy is booming as loudly as Trump believes, shouldn't federal workers be receiving wages that allow them to accrue savings—at least enough extra dollars to put aside for health emergencies, food, retirement—or the next Trump-ordered shutdown? 

The word "furlough" doesn't cover workers who are expected to continue working without receiving paychecks. I believe the correct economic term for that situation is . . . "slavery." Forcing workers to labor without pay is not "shutting down the government," it's stiffing the working class. 

The next time Trump dares to impose a "shutdown," federal workers can put a quick end to it by announcing their own shutdown—in the form of a nationwide strike that will bring business as usual (including air travel) to a grounding halt. 

In the recent shutdown, the revolt of the air traffic controllers union and TSA agents (who signaled they were sick of Trump's antics by calling in sick) marked the impending collapse of air travel in the US. This clearly played a major role in Trump's capitulation. 

So if Trump can't rely on another shutdown, his only recourse is to declare a "national emergency." That act of tyranny, however, would be challenged in the courts. In the meantime, Michael Moore has suggested that the best way to respond to the mere attempt to declare a national emergency would be for millions of Americans to show up in Washington and build a "Human Wall" around the White House. 

VETO NATO  

We have a challenge. America's unquestioned Pro-NATO mindset is more deeply embedded than I would have thought. Two recent examples: 

(1) Congress voted to pass a "NATO Support Act" that requires the US to remain committed to NATO. 208 Democrats in the new "Blue Wave" House voted for the US to remain wedded to NATO and its global mission. 54 Democrats abstained from voting—including Barbara Lee, who stood alone in voting against granting George W. Bush the power to start the never-ending "Global War on Terror." 

(2) In his January 15 Late Show monologue, Stephen Colbert openly praised NATO. 

In a segment called "TrumpNATO," Colbert characterized Trump's call to leave NATO as an act of treason: 

"Destroying NATO has been a long-term goal of Russia…. The gift of the century for Putin." Also on Putin's gift-wish-list, according to Colbert: "… Western Ukraine." 

Colbert went on: "The idea of leaving NATO is so crazy that when Trump first brought it up, senior administration officials were 'unsure that he was serious,' Yes, maybe Trump is a traitor undermining democracy'...." 

Undermining NATO is undermining democracy? 

No-to-NATO Note 

A near-weeklong series of pro-peace events—including music, speeches, art, marches, and nonviolent protests—is set to greet NATO on its 70 anniversary in Washington DC. The events climax on April 4. More info at: https://worldbeyondwar.org/notonato/>https://worldbeyondwar.org/notonato/ 

Protect the Violence Against Women Act 

Since 1994, the VAWA has offered protection against the threat of domestic violence while providing services to women injured and traumatized by spousal abuse. The act traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support because it provided funding to operate shelters and agencies to protect the rights—and lives—of victims. The VAWA was credited with reducing acts of domestic violence by 67%. 

But when the GOP gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress, they refused to reauthorize the act. Now, the new "Blue Wave" that hit the House in January is prepared to hold the Senate Republicans and their House colleagues to account. You can help apply some heat by signing this petition, calling for the VAWA to be reauthorized and fully funded. 

A Leafly Lefty Flick to Flack 

Mark Kitchell, the award-winning director of Berkeley in the Sixties, has been hard at work on a new film and now he needs a hand to wrap it up 

According to Kitchell, his new opus, href="https://evolutionoforganic.com">Evolution of Organic, "brings us the story of organic agriculture, ld by those who built the movement. A motley crew of back-to-the-landers, spiritual seekers and farmers’ sons and daughters reject chemical farming and set out to explore organic alternatives."  

Thanks to this small band of dirt-loving rebels, organic food has become mainstream and continues to expand the practice of sustainable agriculture. 

Narrated by Oscar-winning actor Frances McDormand, the nearly completed version of Evolution of Organic has been shown at more than 100 screenings. And now, Kitchell says, "we’re down to the last stage of this campaign—https://www.documentary.org/film/evolution-organic">buying the rights to five songs"—a list that includes classic pieces by the Grateful Dead, Country Joe & the Fish and Bruce Springsteen. Here's a trailer: 

Loren Ipsum Meaning Whatsum? 

Art directors and magazine editors know it well: a familiar line of Latin that's used as a placeholder in page design. As authored by Cicero, it runs as follows: 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut efficitur congue ultricies. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique 

Lorem ipsum is derived from the Latin "dolorem ipsum," which means "pain itself." And the rest of Cicero's intentionally garbled stretch of gibberish certainly is a pain, grammatically. 

What does it mean? Well, here are some epic fails from two established online translators. (Note: Just attempting to translate the first line: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit). 

Google Translate: 

Planning to become a classroom. Nutrition residents soccer sad 

Translate.Yandex.com 

As it evolved across the glass. Beating dwell the sicknesses the sad 

Got some time on your hands? See what your favorite translation app comes up with. 

When you open a violin recital with the magnificent but notoriously difficult Chaconne from J.S. Bach’s Partita No. 2 for Solo Violin in D minor, you’re making a doubly bold and incautious move. First, you need to get the Bach Chaconne right, which is no easy task, or else you risk undercutting the recital from the outset. Second, if you play the Bach Chaconne successfully, what can you possibly offer the audience after this summa cum laude of works for violin? Happily, in her recital of Sunday, January 27 at Zellerbach Hall, Scottish violinist Nicola Benedetti answered both of these issues with a superb – and superbly planned -- recital, which also featured her long-time collaborator Alexei Grynuk on piano. Suffice it to say that in this recital Nicola Benedetti scored hit after hit, beginning with Bach but also including Prokofiev, Wynton Marsalis, and Richard Strauss.  

I have heard Nicola Benedetti before, most recently last Valentine’s Day when she performed with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment at the Paramount Theatre. At that concert, I was impressed with her performance of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto. Interestingly, in the Beethoven I was most impressed with Ms. Benedetti’s handling of the extremely high tessitura of the Larghetto. With this in mind, nothing in that earlier concert prepared me for the sumptuous beauty I heard now in the Bach Chaconne in Nicola Benedetti’s tone in the lower register of her instrument, a Gariel Stradivarius of 1717. I don’t think I have ever heard a richer, more sumptuous lower register tone from any other contemporary violinist, and that includes my highly regarded Bach interpreter Hilary Hahn. Nicola Benedetti not only has the technical chops to give a riveting performance of Bach’s famous Chaconne, but she also enveloped this outerstellar music in the richest, most luxuriant tone! The effect was compelling, especially when the plangent lower register was offset by the gossamer notes of the very top of the violin’s register. 

After this auspicious start, the program next offered Sergei Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 2 for Violin and Piano in D Major, Op. 94a. First completed in 1943 as a Sonata for Flute and Piano, this work immediately attracted attention of violinists, who persuaded Prokofiev to make an adaptation for violin. Thus, Prokofiev premiered his Sonata No. 2 for Violin and Piano in 1944, and it has gone on to achieve more fame as a violin sonata than as a flute sonata. Performed here by Nicola Benedetti on violin and Alexei Grynuk on piano, this sonata opened in a lyrical, almost wistful, vein. A second subject offered more agitation. The second movement was a virtuosic scherzo, and the third movement, an Andante, provided Nicola Benedetti and Alexei Grynuk with ample opportunities for expansive lyricism. The closing Finale was a playful rondo based on the dancing melody of the violin’s opening measures. All told, in the capable hands of Nicola Benedetti and Alexei Grynuk, this Prokofiev sonata came across as one this composer’s sunniest, most accessible works. 

After intermission, Nicola Benedetti turned to the work of her close friend Wynton Marsalis. Known foremost as a jazz trumpeter, Wynton Marsalis has also compiled an impressive discography of classical recordings of music for trumpet. Perhaps less well known, Marsalis also composed in 2015 a Violin Concerto for Nicola Benedetti. Marsalis and Benedetti, close friends who find mutual inspiration in each other’s work, here teamed up as Benedetti performed Marsalis’s 2018 work, Fiddle Dance Suite for Solo Violin. In this piece, Marsalis, born and raised in New Orleans, takes the Creole tradition of Arcadian Scottish fiddle music and gives it a new twist. This suite opens with a reel, a dance style popular in New Orleans. Especially beautiful was the second movement of this suite, a wistful lullaby, gorgeously played by Nicola Benedetti. Then came a jig, followed by a traditional Scottish dance. The finale was an old-fashioned barn-dance, complete with hoe-down fiddling from Nicola Benedetti. Interestingly, this piece by Wynton Marsalis worked superbly as a mixture of Celtic roots, classical style, and jazzy overtones. 

To round out this intelligently varied program, the final work performed was the Sonata for Violin and Piano in E-flat Major, Op. 18, by Richard Strauss. Composed in 1887-8, this sonata reveals the classical training Richard Strauss assimilated before he began assaulting all classical models in his revolutionary works around the turn-of-the-century. As this piece opens, a heroic proclamation from the piano asserts itself forcefully. The violin answers supportively, but without emphasis. Next the violin offers a high, lyrical contrasting theme, elegantly performed here by Nicola Benedetti. A second movement starts out as a violin melody that is achingly sweet. Through many variations, this melody is elaborated. The finale revives the bold, quasi-symphonic style of the opening movement, culminating in a fiery coda.  

As an encore, as if one were needed in such a recital, Nicola Benedetti and Alexei Grynuk performed the gorgeous Intermezzo from the opera Thais by Jules Massenet. 

Worth Noting:

Appeals to City Council of Projects Approved by Zoning Adjustment Board

Tuesday (agenda item 14.) - 1155-1173 Hearst - location in Strawberry Creek Watershed prone to seasonal flooding, rehabilitation/development adds 11 units and eliminates 6 (currently occupied) rent controlled units and rented house,

Thursday 6:00 pm – 2190 Shattuck – 18 story @ Allston & Shattuck obstructs view of Golden Gate from Campanile Way Plaza (base Sather Tower). Appeal to lower building height to preserve view, appellants support development of lower height mixed-use building at site

The deadline to comment on the Local Hazard Mitigation plan draft (the Plan for preparing for natural disasters and reducing the impacts) is February 28.

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Mitigation/#Download_the_First_Draft_2019_LHMP


Sunday, January 27, 2019

No city meetings or events found 

Monday, January 28, 2019 

Public Works Commission –Subcommittee Measure T1, 1:30 pm – 3:30 pm, 2180 Milvia, Cypress Room, 1^st Floor, Agenda: T1 prioritization 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Public_Works_Commission_Homepage.aspx 

Children, Youth and Recreation Commission, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 2800 Park St, Frances Albrier Community Center at San Pablo Park, Agenda: 10. Community Agency Grant Application Review 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Children_Youth_and_Recreation_Commission/ 

Zero Waste Commission, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 1901 Hearst Ave, North Berkeley Senior Center, Agenda: 8. Types of Plastics accepted in recycling, 9. Hazard mitigation Plan, 10. Deconstruction Building 802 at Oakland Port video on you tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6F0JRUH8WI&feature=youtu.be 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Zero_Waste_Commission_Homepage.aspx 

Tax the Rich Rally, Mon, 4:00 pm – 5:00 pm, Rain Cancels Top of Solano in front of the closed Oaks theater (soon to be a climbing gym), 

Tuesday, January 29, 2019 

Berkeley City Council, 6:00 pm – 11:00 pm, 1231 Addison Street, BUSD Board Room, Consent Agenda: 7. Guidelines for Developing and writing Council agenda Items, 12. Vision Zero elimination pedestrian, bike traffic injuries/fatalities, Action Agenda:13. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) sections 5^th Street, MLK Jr. Way, 14. ZAB Appeal 1155-1173 Hearst, 15. Density Bonus, 16. a.&b. Living Wage Ordinance, 17. Resolution denouncing white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups including actions, 18. Sanctuary Contracting Ordinance 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/01_Jan/City_Council__01-29-2019_-_Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board – Tenant Rights Workshop, 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm, 2090 Kittredge, Berkeley Central Library, 3^rd Floor Community Room, 

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/rent/ 

Wednesday, January 30, 2019 

No city meetings found 

Thursday, January 31, 2019 

Berkeley City Council, 1231 Addison Street, BUSD Board Room,  

4:30 pm – Closed session Anticipated Litigation 

6:00 pm – ZAB appeal 2190 Shattuck, corner Shattuck & Allston (Walgreen’s) 

https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/01_Jan/City_Council__01-31-2019_Special_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 

Friday, February 1, 2019 

No city meetings or events found 

Saturday, February 2, 2019 

No city meetings or events found 

Sunday, February 3, 2019 

No city meetings or events found 

_____________________ 

The meeting list is also posted on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website. 

http://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html 

When notices of meetings are found that are posted after Friday 5:00 pm they are added to the website schedule https://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html and preceded by LATE ENTRY