On Thursday, 2/14, more than 100 housing rights activists, allies, and public officials convened at The California Endowment for Can’t Build Our Way Out: Community-Based Solutions to the Bay Area Housing Crisis. The East Bay Community Law Center and Urban Habitat formally released their joint report, Rooted In Home. 

This commentary is in response to an op-ed in the Daily Cal titled "UC Berkeley must prioritize community voices in future People’s Park housing plans" (February 12, 2019). Following the party line laid down by Chancellor Christ long ago, the authors call for a "justice-based approach to development [that is, razing]" of People's Park. The authors say that they surveyed Park users to identify what "services" the University ought to replace when razing the Park. It is unclear if respondents to the survey were informed of the political use to which their answers would be put. The authors, in the end, do little more than add an air of false respectability to the University's already existing plan to rob the community of the Park with the consolation of some vague, token "services". (The Daily Cal deleted a copy of this response from the comment section on the op-ed. Inquires made to the editorial staff about why the comment was deleted were not returned.) 

There is no just way to raze the Park. The Park can not be reduced to just the most controversial users (i.e. poor people). The community can not be reduced to a set of "services" to be replaced. 

Nor is there any practical reason to raze the Park. For that matter, there is no practical reason to build on the research field on Oxford. When the Chancellor's office embarked on this farce they turned a blind eye to alternative sites such as the SW and NW parking lots on Clark Kerr. They ignored the part of the Oxford parcels with the older (run down) buildings. Those are just two examples - there are more. And to add insult to injury, they are proposing to build privately profitable housing that will gouge students and taxpayers. It's an enormous wealth transfer from public education to already rich people. These facts alone should make students skeptical that UC is speaking with them in good faith. You're being ripped off. Again. In yet another way. When do you stop trusting this institution? 

The history of the Park matters. It was, once upon a time, housing. The housing was largely occupied by counter-culture households, many not-affiliated with the University but influential on student life. This context is vital to understand the past 50 years of struggle: 

The University had taken some bruises, from their perspective, in that very conservative time. They had taken bruises from student involvement in the Civil Rights movement, from the Free Speech movement, from the anti-war movement, and from the growth of revolutionary politics and radical environmentalism. Students today can check out some deep (and academically very serious) history in Seth Rosenfeld's "Subversives: The FBI's War on Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise to Power". Students today can find source materials about Park history in the on-line archives of the Berkeley Barb (content warning: no shortage of sexist and race-insensitive content in those old issues - but you'll also find plenty of evidence of the positive good that was going on, really, at that time). 

Where the Park stands today there was housing. The housing was largely occupied by unaffiliated counter-cultural types the University saw as a political threat. 

Back then, the University found a flimsy excuse (a false promise to build student housing, ironically) to take that housing by eminent domain, evict the counter cultural residents, raze the buildings, and salt the earth by leaving behind a huge dirt patch. Meanwhile, the University continued its oppression of students who questioned and challenged the society around them, and the institution that processed them like commodities. 

The Park grew out of student and community frustration and anger, and the something-in-the-air of the times that sought out solidarity, positive creation, much needed earth-loving, and the spontaneous discovery of the power of positive direct action. Watch some of the videos of the Park being built -- and of the military counter-attack - to get some sense of the times. 

Incidentally, the much beloved Ohlone Park in North Berkeley grew out the very same process of direct action. It was initiated in a moment of response to the murder of James Rector and the maiming and injury of others by the literal occupying army sent to suppress the People's Park movement. The Park is sacred for many reasons. 

For 50 years, the University has done everything it can to interfere with the Park's positive development. You write of "services" the Park provides? You have no idea how much more extensive the mutual support was in the Park before the University cracked down on it. If it looks shabby and beat down today -- keep in mind that the sticks used to beat it down were wielded by the very powers you think you are now negotiating with. 

My metaphor for what even the well meaning author's of this piece propose is an ugly one: It reminds me of those horrific photos of trophy hunters gloating over dead elephants, rhinos, and big cats -- the kind you see flying around social media. You may mean well but if you think "just development" means anything more than giving some very mean folks a trophy photo, please reconsider.

President Trump claims that he doing what he can to discourage illegal immigration to the United States (U.S). He has expressed concern about the adverse impact it has on providing jobs to American workers. In turn, he has won the support of particularly white members of the working class. This explains why the polls report that the public believes he is doing a good job. He has insisted that not only should illegal immigrants with criminal records be arrested and deported, which was Obama's approach. Instead, all illegal immigrants, including those without a crime record, should be targeted. 

The business community, on the other hand, loves and thrives on low paid, vulnerable labor. Shouldn't crossing the border by immigrants be encouraged rather than dissuaded from coming to the United States? Why is Trump taking ostensibly a different position? Or is he really? 

The mass media is trying to convey the impression that the U.S. government is serious about discouraging illegal immigration. So we learn that the number of arrests of non-criminal immigrants who had successfully crossed the border was up substantially in 2017 from the prior year --an increase of 40 percent, from 5,498 to 13,600. What has not been widely covered is that although the percentage increase is large it is a small fraction of the immigrants that cross the border undetected. In fact, the number of those who have been apprehended before they cross over is the lowest in 46 years, and 25 percent fewer than the year before. As a result, between 300,000 to 400,000 are able to evade the border patrol annually.  

Moreover, border crossings are not the only source of unauthorized foreign labor. Substantial numbers, including those who arrive here as tourists, students, and workers overstay their visas. The visa overstays make up 42 percent of all undocumented persons in the United States. Since 2007 overstays have exceed those entering illegally every year. In 20116, 629,000 overstayed their visas. According to federal statistics more people have overstayed on expired visas than have been arrested crossing the southern border.  

That the federal government is not really interested in clamping down on those who are overstaying is suggested by its absence of a system for tracking visitors who leave their countries although several nations, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong have done so. Also, although it is a misdemeanor to enter the country illegally it is not a crime to overstay a visa. 

In reality, the government works with employers to make available low wage, foreign labor, whether legal or not. The public learns from the media that ICE, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has been arresting illegal immigrants who have been residing here. What is not as publicized is that Homeland Security issued 15,000 guest visas to employers, which they justified by claiming that there was not enough qualified U.S. workers. Translated, these employers are seeking to replace American workers with low wage foreign labor. 

Despite the propaganda, the majority of the public is not being fooled. According to a poll by a major pollster organization (Rasmussen Reports), most likely voters are convinced that the policies and practices of the federal government promote illegal immigration. Since the current staff of 20,000 border patrol agents is almost double the number it was, say, in 2004, when more immigrants were intercepted, the suspicious perspective of the role of the federal government certainly makes sense. 

But what about Trump's claim that his anti-immigrant policy reflects his commitment to protect jobs for American workers? Consider Trump's perspective on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which protects young people from deportation who have been brought to the United States illegally by their parents when they were young children. A substantial number of the approximately 700,000 young people who have been enrolled in the DACA program have been college students. Many of these students, 78 percent born in Mexico and 9 percent in Central America, have been able to obtain middle class jobs. 

When Trump was campaigning to become president he promised if elected on repeal the DACA program on "day one". He was not joking. As president, he made a serious effort to repeal the program, but he was unable to do so because of tremendous opposition from the business community , including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was supported by the courts. Among the many corporations that support the DACA program and who has high praise for DACA students is Wall mart. And for a good reason. These vulnerable employees who had been enrolled in the DACA program are much less likely than American workers to be troublesome. 

Although Trump has so far lost the battle, doesn't it at least indicate that he cares about American workers? Not really. His actions certainly speak louder than his words. With regard to who obtains the good jobs, which many in the DACA program enjoy, he wants a white America. Unquestionably, Trump is a racist and is proud of it. In his own words, Trump asks "What do we want Haitians here for? What do we want ? Why do we want all those people from Africa here? Why do we want all these people from shithole countries?" Trump also includes among the shithole countries El Salvador, which is mostly Hispanic.  

But bringing low wage labor from abroad means including workers from "shithole countries, Trump and the business community are on the same side. 

About Trump's proposal to send 2,000 to 3,000 national guard troops to the border to stem the flow of immigrants is nothing more than bombast. All parties involved, including the Trump administration agreed that the national guard members would not be allowed to have any physical contact with aliens. Trump thought that troops could for surveillance purposes fly planes over the territory. It is not just that flying planes would not justify sending such a large contingent of troops. The border patrol has already been flying drones for this purpose. 

Incidentally, Governor Brown has agreed to deploy up to 400 National Guard members but just to combat criminal activity. His condition for sending troops is that there would be no expectation to enforce immigration laws or participate in the construction of any new border barrier. 

That Trump and the business community generally favor prefer foreign labor is unquestionable. A program called the Optional Practical Training program allows undergraduates and graduate students to work for at least one year at jobs that compliment their education. Incredibly, the government rewards employers if they hire foreign rather than American workers. The incentive it offers is to provide a tax break of 8.25 percent only to employers who hire foreign graduates. The program drains about $2 billion annually from the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. The purpose is to keep the best of these students in the country because they would work at a lower salary than paid to American workers  

What else is the Trump and the business community thinking about to favor low wage foreign labor? The Trump administration has been recently meeting with the Mexican president to revive the notorious Bracero program (1942-1964) which supplied cheap manual labor for American farms. Almost five million were hired. Their low wages were eroded because they had to pay for their own food, clothing, and lodging even though these amenities were supposed to be free according to the agreement reached both by the Mexican and American governments. Also, the hours were long and the working conditions were dangerous. Although public officials were aware of these and other violations and conditions they did virtually nothing about it. So it is certainly no surprise that Trump is interested in working with Mexico to craft a similar guest program.  

What these various attempts to recruit working people have in common is the proclivity to replace American with Foreign workers, who are willing, often out of desperation, to work at lower wages and poorer working conditions than what American workers have been accustomed to. With the decline of labor unions, employers have more options and working people have less. Any political program to reverse current trends requires rebuilding the labor movement. Undoubtedly, achieving this accomplishment is a long road ahead

The media recently reported that former Vice President Joe Biden expressed regret for supporting the drug crime laws because they have disproportionally and unfairly impacted African Americans. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics found that although 16 percent of those who sold drugs were blacks, they made up 49 percent who were arrested. Moreover, African Americans constituted 74 percent of those who went to prison just for possessing drugs. And they were much more likely to receive longer sentences.  

When Ronald Reagan became president, he pushed though legislation that added 29 new mandatory minimum sentences. That certainly limits the sentencing discretion of liberal judges. However, the federal courts have imposed prison sentences on black men that are almost 20 percent longer than those received by white men who had committed similar offenses. Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate that is 5 times more than white Americans. In some states, that rate is 10 times more. Moreover, in 35 states that have complete data, blacks also serve disproportionately longer sentences. 

The length of sentences depend on the particular drug and the quantity possessed or sold. The federal penalty for possession could be as high as 40 years. A second offense could be for life. Indeed, the enactment of three strike laws yielded very long prison sentences, including for life, even if each violation for possession was relatively minor. The federal government and 24 states have some form of three strike laws. The aggregate result has been an  

increase in the prison population from 500,000 in 1980 to over 2,200,000 currently. Undoubtedly, poverty and unemployment, and more generally a sense of hopelessness have contributed to the temptation to use illegal drugs. But the widespread use of drugs could not be contained because of the lack of adequate oversight by agencies that are responsible for putting a stop to drug trafficking. Instead, many officials have been ignoring the trafficking of drugs for a long while. The laxity in enforcement probably explains why there are substantially more drug addicts on the streets of San Francisco, as the SF Chronicle reported, than students enrolled in the city's high schools (1-30-19). 

Take for example the Winter Hill Gang in Boston, which was heavily involved in trafficking drugs. Some FBI agents claimed that they did not attempt to restrain the organization because the Winter Hill gang provided the FBI with information about a rival gang. That explanation was just an excuse that gave the gang the ability to traffic in drugs with impunity. In fact, according to law enforcement officials, drug trafficking organizations have been operating in at least 230 U.S. cities. And for the most part they have been able to do so without interference from authorities. 

The obvious question is why are enforcement agencies so lenient in enforcing drug laws. The highly acclaimed civil rights lawyer and legal scholar, Michelle Alexander, claims persuasively in her book, "The New Jim Crow", that the main reason for imprisoning African Americans reflects the establishment's backlash against the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was not only very unpopular with the establishment. It was resented by many whites, particularly in the south, who looked unfavorably at the various gains, including voting rights, that African Americans achieved. To win white votes, Republicans pursued a racist strategy. 

Richard Nixon played a major role developing the war on drugs in order to subdue the militancy of black activists. After many years as a top Nixon aide, John D. Ehrlichman acknowledged to a journalist that criminalizing blacks was a major motive for Nixon's war on drugs. What he admitted is worth quoting in full:  

"You want to know what this was really about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying. We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did". 

Nixon was credited with initiating what he called the "War On Drugs". He certainly pursued it with a vengeance, claiming that drug abuse was "public enemy number one". But actually it was Lyndon Johnson's support for an anti-drug policy that preceded Nixon. Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act mainly in response to the successful militant struggles led by MLK Jr. and blacks generally. During his first 20 years in office (1937-1957) he always voted with the South. But he changed his position beginning in 1957, which was shortly after King and the black community won the Montgomery Bus Boycott battle. 

The political pressure of black civil rights activists did not only have an immense domestic impact. The international community was also concerned about this country's racism. Images of armed soldiers blocking nine African American high school students from integrating a public high school in Little Rock, Arkansas sent shock waves to many countries abroad. The Soviet Union was delighted with the bad publicity the U.S. was getting. The U.S. representative to the U.N. warned Eisenhower that the international repercussions were damaging this nation's influence. So Johnson along with a congressional majority of both Democrats and Republicans supported the civil rights act mainly because of the immense political pressures that were both domestic and international. 

What is not widely known is the duplicitous role that Johnson played. Before leaving office Johnson stated that the government needed to make an effort to curtail the social unrest in the country. He thought that the focus should be on illegal drug abuse. He took some organizational steps to facilitate the coming war on drugs. So although Johnson supported civil rights legislation, he also endorsed a strategy to undermine the militant character of the civil rights movement and the opportunities to make additional advances. Nixon, who succeeded Johnson, mentioned that it was important to take Johnson's advice.  

As already mentioned, Biden said that he realized the drug laws were a mistake. That's a good first step. Now he and others who have been troubled by the injustices that blacks have suffered should also demand the release of all those who are in prison for possession of drugs. The addiction to drugs deserves treatment not punishment. It is hazardous to the health of the addicted and their families. In fact, last year over 72,000 died from drug overdose. Also, treating addiction would certainly be a lot less expensive than imprisoning addicts. It would cost at least $20,000 less per person than incarceration.  

A humane approach would undoubtedly make some members of the establishment very unhappy. But it would certainly improve the quality of life of many Americans and would be best for our society as a whole.

Since 2013, the Bay Area has been trying to transform Alameda County Sheriff Ahern’s Urban Shield from a highly militarized SWAT competition and weapons expo devoted mainly to policing into a community-focused safety and resilience exercise.

And now we are almost there. After six years of struggle on the streets, before government entities, and in the court of public opinion, Urban Shield may end on February 26.... with your help.

The second Alameda County task force has completed its work and issued a long and thorough list of recommendations that include ending a weapons expo that features military-grade weapons and high-tech spying and crowd control gadgets, ending the violent SWAT competition to focus on training other first responders, and directing $5 million in new funding to health and social services. 

Now the recommendations come before the Alameda Board of Supervisors – who commissioned the task force - and we need to make the adoption of them by the Supervisors a reality. That means countering the Sheriff's Department all-out defense of the status quo with pressure of our own. 

You can take action right now:  

• Write to the Board of Supervisors with this easy one-click action and share it with others.
  
• Join the opposition to Urban Shield at the Alameda Administration Building on February 26 at 10:45am as the issue comes before the Board of Supervisors. Shield: 1221 Oak Street, 5th Floor Oakland.

As a parody on a passage in the “Good Book”, “What profit a man when he gaineth access to social media but loses his privacy?”

A recent editorial in the SJ Mercury exposed the latest egregious actions of Facebook targeting young minors paying them $20 per month to capture everything they do on their phones. Facebook offers a weak defense of its actions claiming they were providing informed consent to their young users. Really? Are children as young as 13 mature enough to make such decisions? $20 is a cheap way to invade a youngster’s privacy. The stolen information may haunt them for the rest of their lives. This offer was introduced as early as 2013 action under the radar of parental control.

This mimics the wicked actions of tobacco companies attempting to get young people hooked on their products by handing out free packs of cigarettes. 

This makes Zuckerberg’s appearance in Congress, feigning openness and sincerity - a complete sham. Celebrating its 15th anniversary, Facebook has effectively hijacked much of the world’s eyeballs with its social media platform, photo-sharing app, Instagram and the messaging product, WhatsApp. 

Around two-thirds of Americans move around like zombies using its social network product. All these new trends in making “Friends” is beautifully encapsulated in Roger McNamee, forthcoming book, “Zucked.” 

Many accuse Facebook of fanning teenage narcissism, short attention spans ng anxiety, depression and insecurity. A staggering 59% of Americans claim of being bullied or harassed online. Facebook’s business model is simple - mine users’ private data and sell it to companies for profit. 

The Cambridge Analytica fiasco is a prime example of how customers’ data was used for political purposes and very likely impacting the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. The ongoing threats of privacy scream of government oversight. Thus far the government has chosen to give Facebook a free pass. 

Displaying PEOPLES-PARK.docx. Page 1 of 1

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and President Trump reached a deal whereby Trump would sign the bipartisan budget and McConnell would support a declaration of a national state of emergency by Trump, which would allow him to divert funds to build (or finish) his wall on our Southern border with Mexico. The bipartisan agreement provides $1.375 billion for his wall, not the $5.7 billion he demanded. This deal would avert another shutdown. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history cost the economy $11 billion due to lost output from federal workers, delayed government spending, and reduced demand. That does not, of course, include the suffering of about 800,000 unpaid government workers and their families. 

Under the National Emergencies Act, the President may declare a state of emergency only when "the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency" and if the ordinary laws and government powers are not sufficient to restore peace and order.  

Clearly, that is not the case here. There is no threat at our Southern border. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. fell to its lowest level in more than a decade. And studies have found no link between immigration and crime, and some have found lower crime rates among immigrants. Finally, the best evidence of a lack of a national emergency is the January 29, 2019, Worldwide Assessment of the Intelligence Community, which notably does not include any threat to the nation at our Southern border with Mexico.  

Congress has acted and Trump plans to sign the bipartisan agreement. It would be inconsistent for Trump to sign the bipartisan agreement, which signals his approval, and then turn around and declare a state of national emergency on our Southern border. 

Thus, there is no state of emergency. If there is one, it is one of Trump’s own making. Expect lawsuits if Trump does declare a National Emergency.

February 14, 2018 marks the anniversary of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School—the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that stirred a nation’s outrage at the epidemic of gun violence. The shooter, armed with a military style semiautomatic AR-15 gunned down 17 students, staff and teachers in just three minutes. Several of the students who survived rose to national prominence taking aim at the “hall of shame” - the NRA and the politicians who put profit over people’s lives. Sadly, “Never again” becomes the rallying cry after each mass shooting.  

The nation owes a debt of gratitude to the organizers of “March for Our Lives” who mobilized the youth vote nationwide for the midterm elections and nearly defeated the pro-gun candidates in the Parkland students’ home state of Florida. Nearly 1,200 children have died from gun violence in the year following the Parkland shooting. That’s three to four a day.  

This is a national outrage. It is time we take aim at the real villain, the SECOND AMENDMENT. This was relevant at the birth of our nation when states had legitimate fears of an overbearing tyrannical federal government but has no place in today’s society. Retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens is a vigorous advocate for repealing the Second Amendment. We should heed his wise words. Finally, it is time we demand revocation of the NRA’s non-profit status. 

Displaying PEOPLES-PARK.docx. Page 1 of 1

limate change is happening here and now – and I'm terrified.

The latest climate report from the UN says we have only 12 years to transform our economy to preserve the stable climate human civilization has depended on for milenia. We need a massive mobilization of every sector of society on par with what science and justice demand. A Green New Deal will keep Americans safe from climate change and create millions of green jobs. It is common sense policy that is overwhelmingly popular with American people, regardless of political party or where they live. Any presidential candidate who wants to be taken seriously on climate and earn the support of young people needs to support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey’s resolution.

“Democracy is like a tram; you get off when you have reached your destination.” The comment by Recep Tayyip Erdogan—made more than 20 years ago when he was first elected mayor of Istanbul—sums up the Machiavellian cynicism of Turkey’s authoritarian president. As Turkey gears up for municipal elections March 31, it is a prophecy Erdogan has more than fulfilled: the prisons filled with the opposition, the media largely silenced, the courts intimidated, the bureaucracy tamed, and more than 150,000 people fired.  

But for all that, there dark clouds on the horizon, much of them largely of the President’s own making. And since it is traditional for the Turkish electorate to use local elections to send a message, Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) may be in for a setback. 

For one thing, the AKP’s bread and butter issue, the economy, is in trouble, and maybe very serious trouble. Industrial production has fallen 6 percent and retail sales 7 percent, and overall growth has dropped from 7.4 percent in 2017 to a projected 2 percent in 2019. Inflation is at 20.3 percent and unemployment is accelerating. The most recent figures show that more than 11 percent are out of work, with almost twice that for young people age 15 to 24, who constitute some 20 percent of Turkey’s population. 

In the past “terrorism” was the major concern for voters, but recent polls indicate that the economy is the number one issue, followed by unemployment and Syrian refugees. 

Erdogan constructed his election juggernaut on economic growth that lifted a considerable section of the population out of poverty and fueled a major growth of the middle class. Much of that economy was centered on the construction industry and mega-projects like shopping malls, bridges and the largest airport in the world. 

For Erdogan an economy built around massive projects was a win-win formula: the AKP handed out lucrative contracts to big construction firms, which, in turn, filled the electoral coffers of a party that went from the margins of the political spectrum to at one point winning almost 50 percent of the electorate. 

But growth fell to an anemic 1.6 percent in the third quarter of last year, and the construction industry is in a recession, with large layoffs almost certain. The crisis of the building trades has had a domino effect on allied industries in cement, steel and ceramics. And the combination of the lira’s fall in value, coupled with the economic insecurity people are feeling, has depressed sales in the automotive industry, electronics and appliances, 

The Turkish economy has long been reliant on foreign capital—so-called “hot money”— to keep the factories humming and living standards rising. But hot money is drying up and the bills are coming due. Since much of Turkey’s debt is in foreign currency, it is harder to pay off those debts with a depressed lira. Ankara has opened talks with the International Monetary Fund to explore a bailout, but IMF bailouts come with a price tag: austerity, not exactly a winning electoral program. 

While much of Erdogan’s political opposition has been jailed or sidelined, it has not been cowed. In spite of nine parliamentary deputies from the Kurdish-based left-wing People’s Democratic Party (HDP) being imprisoned, that party still managed to get enough votes in the last election to hold their spot as the third largest party in the parliament. A hunger strike by imprisoned Kurdish activists has also generated sympathy for the HDP, and for the first time in Turkish history many of the Kurdish parties have formed a united front. 

The HDP has also decided not to run candidates for the mayoralties of the big cities like Istanbul and Ankara, in order to help elect candidates from the secular center-right Republican People’s Party (CHP). In short, anyone but the AKP. 

The AKP used to get a substantial number of Kurdish votes, particularly from conservative rural areas. But when Erdogan launched a crackdown on the Kurds in an effort to marginalize the HDP, he lost many of those voters. While not all of them have migrated to the left party, they have shifted their votes to other Kurdish parties, now united under the Kurdistani Election Alliance. 

There is a certain amount of irony here. In an effort to make sure the AKP’s ally, the extreme rightwing National Action Party (MHP) made it into Parliament, Erdogan rammed through a law that allows parties form electoral alliances. Even if a party doesn’t reach the 10 percent threshold required to enter parliament, it will still win seats if it is allied with a bigger party. 

But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 

The CHP has formed an alliance with the nationalist Iti (“Good”) Party, and most of the Kurdish parties are under one umbrella. It is likely that those alliances will end up winning seats that they wouldn’t have under the old rules. 

Besides domestic woes, Erdogan’s foreign policy is hardly a major success. The Turkish occupation of northern Syria has failed to scatter the Kurdish-based Syrian Democratic Forces, and it looks increasingly like Ankara has stumbled into a quagmire. Erdogan’s plan was to drive the Kurds out and re-populate the area with Syrian refugees. Instead he is in a standoff with the Russians and the Americans, and, to protect themselves, the Kurds appear to be cutting a deal with the government of Bashar al-Assad. 

There is a strong streak of nationalism among the Turks, and Erdogan may yet harvest it by pressing the Kurds in Turkey’s southeast, Iraq and Syria. But the Turkish army is overextended and still reeling from the purge of officers and rank and file that followed the failed 2016 coup. And there are credible reports that the military is not overly happy with occupying part of Syria. 

The Turkish President did score points in his battle with Saudi Arabia over the kingdom’s murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as well as with his support for Kuwait and Qatar in their dispute with the United Arab Emirates and the Saudis. His willingness to resist US sanctions against Iran is also popular, because it means trade and a lift for Turkey’s ailing economy. 

However, the March vote is not likely to turn on foreign policy, but rather on pocket book issues like unemployment and the wobbling economy. Erdogan is doing his best to head off any unrest over the economy by handing out low-interest loans and giveaways, like paying electrical bills for economically stressed families. 

The opposition also claims that the AKP alliance is stuffing the rolls with non-existent voters. HDP investigators found that one house in Hakkari in the Kurdish southeast has 1,108 registered voters. 

But Turkish agriculture is a mess, and construction and manufacturing are staggering under an enormous debt load. Erdogan has used the power of the state to hobble his opposition, but the state of emergency is alienating foreign investors and many Turks are increasingly weary of it. 

In the 2017 referendum that bestowed almost unlimited executive powers on Erdogan, he lost Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, Turkey’s largest cities. A recent poll showed support for the AKP had dropped from 42.5 percent the Party got in the 2018 election to 35 percent today. 

After 17 years of power, after using every device he could—including stuffing ballot boxes—to build a powerful executive system orbiting around him, it is hard to imagine Erdogan suffering a set back. But tossing people in prison and intimidating opposition has had little effect on repairing the economy or raising living standards. And many Turks may be souring on the “destination” that Erdogan has brought them to, and they could well decide to send that message on March 31. 

(Here's the outline of the "Green New Deal" released by Senator Ed Markey and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline).)

1. Insist that the U.S. judicial process plays out and that Donald Trump and his corrupt associates are brought to justice. Special Counsel Robert Mueller should be allowed to finish his investigation -- into Russia's interference in the 2016 election -- and his report should be made public. 

Wired reports that there are at least 17 separate investigations into Trump-Russia relationships (https://www.wired.com/story/mueller-investigation-trump-russia-complete-guide/ ). All of these should be brought to conclusion. 

If Trump tries to interfere in any of these investigations, his intrusion should trigger impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. 

Citizens should demand accountability for Donald Trump. 

(By the way, we should also insist that the Federal government do much more to stop Russian interference in our elections.) 

2. Make sure that the blue wave continues into 2020; that Democrats win the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress. The Democrats have fielded a strong contingents of presidential candidates (see my February 1st article, "Top Ten Democratic Presidential Candidates.") Early polls indicate that any of them could defeat Trump. Nonetheless, we've all learned not to underestimate Trump; Democrats need to do everything possible to prevent him from doing more damage to the United States. 

At the moment, Democrats occupy 235 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives -- Republicans have 197 seats and 3 are vacant. Dems have to work hard to maintain their advantage in the House. 

Republicans occupy 53 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate. 22 of their seats are up for reelection in 2020 -- versus 12 for Democrats. The most vulnerable Republican Senators are: Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colorado) and Martha McSally (Arizona). (The most vulnerable Democrat is Doug Jones (Alabama).) Potentially vulnerable Republican Senators are John Cornyn (TX), Joni Ernst (IA), Lindsey Graham (SC), Pat Roberts (KS) -- who is retiring, David Perdue (GA), and Thom Tillis (NC). Democrats must work hard and win a Senate majority. 

Trump has already started campaigning for reelection. He's making no attempt to reach outside his base -- about 40 percent of the electorate (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ ). Trump is planning to inflame his base by touting false accomplishments -- such as his claim that construction of his "wall" has already started ["Finish the wall"] -- and dire warnings about Democrats -- such as, "they want open borders." 

At the same time, Trump will try to suppress the vote of Independents and wavering Democrats by claiming that the Democratic presidential candidate is weak and "a socialist." (Republicans, in general, will try to suppress the vote by tactics such as selective voter "purges.") 

3. Reach out to Trump voters. At some time in the near future, hopefully 2020, Democrats will regain control of the government. But before we can repair the damage that Trump, and his Republican collaborators have wrought, we need to reach out to Trump supporters -- those who view Donald as their last chance to get a shot at the American dream -- and convince them that we are their allies. 

If adequately explained, the new Democratic agenda, with its emphasis on healthcare, education, jobs, and infrastructure, should go a long way towards healing the breech between Democrats and Trump loyalists. Nonetheless, Democrats must take extraordinary steps to quench the anger and hate that Trump has fed. 

Reaching out to Trump voters is the right step, on moral grounds, but it's also a practical reality: to deal with climate change, there's an extraordinary amount of work that needs to be done and Americans have to work together. No one should minimize what a daunting task this will be. While a strong majority of Americans believe that climate change is an urgent problem that must be dealt with ( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/consensus-emerges-climate-change-debate-n950646) only 15 percent of Republicans agree. (In other words, most Trump voters say they are not worried about climate change.) 

4. Support the Green New Deal. As I write this, my travel plans have been disrupted by torrential rains and flooding in Northern California. The pace of global climate change has increased; it's time to declare a "national emergency" to deal with this reality. 

The Green New Deal is the latest attempt to get the U.S. government to doing something about climate change. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html ) The bill references the Roosevelt era, "the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal;" it's a resolution that insists we mobilize now. 

The Green New Deal resolution has a lot in it but what jumps out is the call for a "10-year national mobilization" with several key objectives: 

• "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources." That is, eliminating our dependence on fossil fuel in 10 years.
• "Upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency.
• Working with farmers "to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions ... as much as is technologically feasible."
• "Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."
• A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security" for every American. While this may appear to be a gratuitous add-on, the notion of a guaranteed job makes sense in light of the scope of the national mobilization, which will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.