Brilliant jazz singer Kalil Wilson, a North Oakland native, will perform swinging standards, ballads and original songs from his new album 'Time Stops,' this FridaySATURDAY, June 27, 8 to 11 p. m. backed by his trio--Grant Levin on piano, Aidan McCarthy on bass and drum prodigy Genius Wilson--at The Sound Room, 2147 Broadway at 22nd Street, Oakland, a block north of the Paramount Theatre and 19th Street BART. Tickets: $20-$25 at www.soundroom.org or (510) 496-4180.
The Elizabeth Warren for President Campaign is organizing a party for watching the Democratic Debate on Tuesday. If you'd like an invitation, you can write to opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com and we'll forward your request.
In 1953 the CIA/MI6 orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favor of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953 and handing over Iran’s oil to Britain who rebranded Iran’s oil company, British Petroleum (BP). By so doing, Britain and America violated one of the most important and basic tenets of Christianity whose teachings they both claim to revere.
Exodus 20:17 17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Or, in the modern vernacular, “do not covet or steal another country’s resources!
The blatant theft of Iran’s oil and the brutal rule of the US puppet, the Shah, caused seething resentment leading to the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Shi’a cleric.
“This may come as a shock to Americans, who don't like to think of their country as an empire. But what else can you call America's legions of soldiers, spooks and Special Forces straddling the globe?” Michael Ignatieff, New York Times, Jul. 28, 2002
Fast forward to 26, March 2015 when foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, China, the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran signed the nuclear accord limiting Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) group of scientists made scheduled visits to Iran and confirmed that Iran was in strict compliance. Enter President Trump, the “master deal makers” who vented his racist, anti-Obama anger to the delight of his adoring fans, and declared America was withdrawing unilaterally from the agreement. He imposed crippling sanctions on Iran in a vain and futile attempt to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table to usher a “better deal” and regime change (oh, how America loves regime changes) . War hawks John Bolton, his national security advisor, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Saudi Arabia and Israel prodded the windsock president to do their bidding.
The once mighty independent Britain is once again dancing to US war drums rejecting their commitment to the nuclear accord. Forgotten is their foreign policy blunder accepting US bogus claims of WMD’s leading to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Hijacking an Iranian tanker and then expressing outrage when Iran returned the favor. Sadly, Britain has fallen into the tit-for-tat seizure of tankers trap set by US hawks that could easily spin out of control leading into a devastating conflict.
Shortly after British forces seized Grace 1, Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell confirmed the capture of the tanker was carried out under direct orders by Washington.
Despite its earlier misgivings, Britain has been co-opted and is on a collision course with Iran. It’s time for the P5+1 members of the nuclear accord adhere to their earlier commitments and resist the bullying of Trump and his war hawks and stop taking orders from a highly dysfunctional Washington.
I, we, should all offer appreciation to investigative journalists, continuing their barely-remunerative labors in a country that has recently voted to abjure truth. But even in the event these embattled professionals suffer the extirpation apparently designed for them, we can still live with some grasp of reality simply by investigating the open and direct statements of "public figures" crawled out to assume their roles like cockroaches from hidden channels in America's woodwork.
So, let us consider justice and humanity at our southern border -- how are we doing? One of the most recent gluttage of arrogant, incompetent temporary deputy assistant choughs raised up to jobs they have only promised to abhor -- even as much as decent folks abhor the spectacle of their performance -- this bozo, nameless for the moment, appeared before Congress to excuse his, and all our disgrace, by launching a two-fold claim: first, he notes that criminals, upon arrest, are separated from their children by a rightful and long-standing policy (although it never entailed putting toddlers into cages till now), but now, as the claim unfolds into its second chapter, we have ended the policy. So it was OK in the first place because we always did it, and it's doubly OK now, because we aren't doing it any more. Can't these morons at least hire middle schoolers to logic-check their lies?
I was never a fan of Jacques Derrida till now, but every dog must claim his day.
On July 24, Donald Trump reportedly took a day off from ruining the country [Note: not a typo] to spend most of his "executive time" crouched in front of a TV screen tossing cheeseburgers at the image of Robert Mueller as the Special Prosecutor responded to questions from the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.
Trump is not a happy camper these days. Signs that he is loosing control (and just might be held accountable for a long list of crimes) do not sit well with Trump's overblown sense of autocratic narcissism. So, to compensate, our increasingly unhinged former game-show host is once again entertaining fraught Apocalyptic fantasies.
Trump vs. Afghanistan
Sitting alongside Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in the Oval Office, Trump recently proclaimed: “If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. I just don't want to kill 10 million people.” Asked to elaborate, he added: “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth. It would be gone. It would be over in—literally in ten days. And I don't want to do that. I don't want to go that route.”
Turning to Khan (whose nuclear-armed country has fought three battles with nuclear-armed India over the past century), Trump winked conspiratorially: “If we wanted to, we could win that war. I have a plan that would win that war in a very short period of time, you understand that better than anybody.”
It's beyond troubling that Trump equates "winning" with "total annihilation."
Trump's swagger did not set well with Washington's startled Afghan allies who were understandably alarmed and demanded clarification. An agitated note from the office of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani advised America's self-proclaimed "stable genius" that Afghanistan "will never allow any foreign power to determine its fate" and reminded Trump that "foreign heads of state cannot determine Afghanistan's fate in absence of the Afghan leadership."
Trump vs. Iran: Anger Management Issues
In his relationship with Iran, Donald Trump resembles a cheating spouse.
He starts off by agreeing to a union with Iran to constrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (At the same time, Trump is "cheating" on Iran by playing nuclear-nookie with his own personal arsenal.) Then Trump declares he has decided to divorce Iran (which has remained obedient and atomically chaste) citing unexplained "irreconcilable differences." Trump unilaterally announces he is breaking his vows—vows solemnly overseen by the international community—and storms off in a huff.
He then turns on his former mate, accusing Iran of infidelity and threatening to punish his former partner for the divorce he himself initiated.
Trump then announces he will refuse to pay alimony and he takes steps to seize all the financial assets claimed by his ex.
Next up, Trump mounts a blockade around the entire Iranian homeland to further punish Tehran by impeding the delivery of fuel, food, and medicines. He threatens any allied nations that might try to supply his former partner with groceries. (All under the theory that Iran is like a family home and destroying the household economy will promptt the children—trapped in their foodless, barren rooms—to rise up and kick their parents into the street.)
He berates his rejected partner and boasts of new conquests with more deserving companions. Trump gleefully informs Iran and the rest of the world's jilted leaders that Kim Jong Un "wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love."
Like other frustrated male malcontents obsessed with exerting power over a former partner, Trump tweets endless insults directed at Iran and quickly becomes a stalker, sending massive armadas to float menacingly off Iran's doorstep. He launches drones to peer in the bedroom windows to look for signs of "Russian influence."
Trump's angry tirades directed at Iran resemble the taunts of spousal abusers, especially as they raise the stakes to include threats of violence. Trump calls Iran's leader, Hassan Rouhani "very ignorant and insulting." He threatens Washington's former partner with "overwhelming force" and the threat of "obliteration."
In a just world, Iran would have the option of applying to the International World Court for a restraining order to protect the country from Trump's on-going-and-visible threats of armed violence.
Given the possibility that Trump might trigger a war that could go nuclear, it's time for the citizens of our country and our political leaders to issue that "restraining order." Let's remove Trump from office and get this hands away from the nuclear buttons.
Trump Hate-slams Four Congresswomen
Donald Trump continues to vent his rage at "the Squad"—Progressive Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich).
On July 17, the Associated Press Fact Check watchdogs reported that Trump had intentionally "misrepresented words from Rep. Ilhan Omar to make her sound like an al-Qaida sympathizer."
Trump falsely claimed that Omar said: "You don't say 'America' with this intensity. You say 'al-Qaida,' it makes you proud. Al-Qaida makes you proud. You don't speak that way about America." According to Fact Check, Omar "did not voice pride in the terrorist group."
In a tweet he demanded an apology "for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!" The inflammatory tweet was devoid of specifics.
During the rally, Trump falsely accused Omar (who has criticized Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine) of “launching vicious anti-Semitic screeds" and called Omar a "Radical Left Congresswomen" who, he implied, somehow supported the September 11 attacks. He then stood by as the crowd reacted to his false claims by chanting, “Send her back.”
In July, Presidential Son Eric Trump went on Fox & Friends to boost his dad's Dem-demonizing.
“I love the tweet: 'If you don’t love our country, get out, leave,'” Eric declared. “If you complain about our country [you should] go experience somewhere else in the world. I’m telling you, 95% of the country is behind him in this message.” (Fake News Alert: A USA TODAY/Ipsos poll found 68% percent of respondents found Trump's tweets offensive and 59% characterized them as "un-American.")
Young Trump continued to pile on insults, calling the young congressmembers “the most hate-filled group I’ve ever seen before.” And then he proceeded to falsely accuse them of made-up crimes: “They’re letting ICE offices get stormed, and have the American flag ripped down and have the Mexican flag put up. They say anti-Semitic things every single day.”
Eric ended his screed by accusing the four representatives of engaging in (of all things) "name-calling."
Reckless, inflammatory speech has consequences. On July 22, two Louisiana police officers were suspended after suggesting on Facebook that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez should be shot. Ocasio-Cortez has revealed that she is regularly getting "hateful messages" and a "flood of death threats." Meanwhile, USA Today quotes Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund telling lawmakers: "We continue to see the threat assessment cases we're opening continue to grow."
No president should be allowed to shout falsehoods that put people's lives at risk. Trump's false accusations, slurs, and insults seem designed to turn his critics into targets of a partisan rage that he (and now his sons) are stoking.
Such actions are usually met with defamation lawsuits. But, given Trump's position and power, these heedless attacks go even further, amounting to an "incitement to violence" that should be treated as a crime.
People crowded around the parklet in a Service Road that ran along North Shattuck on a sunny afternoon, trying to get the Mayor’s attention. He and the local councilmember sat facing about 20 people, in a kind of ad hoc townhall called to discuss fire safety and wildfire prevention in Berkeley. The climate crisis had made the issue imperative. Whole towns had been decimated recently. And in 1923, fire had swept from the hills as far down as Shattuck Ave. itself. The important information was to clear away ground level brush, trim low tree branches, and create space between trees and houses.
Then the discussion turned to RV s, and to those now living in RVs, and then it got hot. A fire of bigotry and paranoia swept through the ground level speeches and, for at least half the crowd, it swept away the humanism that had (once upon a time) been built. It was a hot forceful wind that seemed to come from nowhere that got expressed. These, after all, were people who mostly lived in the hills, where RVs don’t generally venture. But the vision of people reduced to sleeping in cars somehow muddied the waters of morality for them. “Get rid of them” was the sentiment that got applause on that lovely Sunday afternoon.
One man sat there and declaimed against a bunch of guys living in their trucks who go to work every day, and on the weekends go rock-climbing. How dare they, his tone of voice said, live a life like that and add nothing to city revenue? He was outraged – in his calm, practiced, sub-liberal way. Had he spoken to them, that he knew their life-style that well? They were evidently Berkeleyans with jobs. But a few months earlier, they would have been parked in the Marina (from which all RVs were expelled unceremoniously). What had brought them to this pass of living in RVs? Why did he look at them as such outsiders, strangers, freebooters, low-life trespassers on "our" civilized city.
It is true, many RV dwellers have jobs. Many even have university education and advanced degrees. One would hope that they had high intelligence because, having been priced out of house and home by economic forces not even the state of California can (or will) control, they would need all the smarts they could muster to survive homelessness in this "caring" society.
It is also true that this society has a history, almost a tradition, of blaming the victim of oppressive and impoverishing structures. It is the poor who are blamed for the stresses and threats that beset “middle-class” existence. It is because of the poor that life is always on the edge of a cliff of some kind. It is never because those that profiteer on the economy, nor because of those who create impoverishment as the necessary concomitant to their own wealth. It is never the rent-gougers who evict people so that they can raise the rents that are at the center of the homeless crisis. It is never the housing developers who capitalize on an economy out of control, and which, through the purely economic mechanisms of flourishing inflation, throws people on the street.
And no, it is never even those nice middle class white folks who could not see the necessity of repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act, but who can now go to little ad hoc meetings like this one and rail against the homeless. For them, the problem is not those who profit from the misery and stresses of impoverishment. It is the poverty-stricken themselves who are the problem.
Well, of course, there is nothing that anyone can do about the rich, or the unrouchable corporations. When we need to hit out against someone because we feel threatened, the defenseless are there for us. Right? So denigrating the homeless makes one feel a lot better than offering them friendship would. Community, or a helping hand, would lead people to demand that the city to provide bathrooms for them, rather than deportation. Somehow, it is more satisfying to complain about trash, even though everyone knows that trash would accumulate at all private houses if the city didn’t pick it up.
Outsiders, people to be denigrated out of hand, low-lifes who don’t deserve what Berkeley has to offer, we hear this from the good bergers of Berkeley. Those who have gotten priced out of the economy become the unwanted, the outcasts and pariahs, the unacceptable for those who haven’t.
Like Central American children caught between the jaws of corporate low wage control of their home country and the cages made by political capitalizing on their having walked and hichhiked two thousand miles to escape that low wage enslavement, the homeless are caught. The children are herded in to concentration camps in Texas, and the homeless are assaulted by the police if they form community for themselves in Berkeley. It is as if they were all racialized, a new category of race against which nice white people need to defend themselves.
All the people at this little ad hoc meeting were white (except the Mayor). They wanted the Mayor to rid them of this issue and their fear. Nice white people calling upon their liberal soon-to-be-Trumpist city government to do something about homeless people who have the gall to partially house themselves in a truck.
Indeed, the Mayor even said that once the city initiated enforcement of its new anti-RV regulations (which would start in the Fall), there would be many RVs that would have to leave town. He actually said that.
There would be exceptions made for those who had jobs in town, or were enrolled in a school. Permits were going to be issued for RV dwellers who had documentation – documented connections to the city. They would be able to renew their permits. The rest, the "undocumented," would get one permit, and after that, they would be deported, forced to leave, just like those whom ICE is picking up as we speak. We have a national administration whose inhumanity forces the deportation even of people who came here when three years old, and now, decades later, are ripped out of their families. With that as a role model, the Mayor of Berkeley is setting up his own population of undocumented people to throw across a border. That discriminatory thread weaves its way through the city government’s attempt to cater to the national bigotry.
Whether taken across a border (with Oakland, or El Cerrito), or jailed, or dumped on the sidewalk because their RV is seized, the goal is to place them where no one will see them. Whether they die in the streets or the deserts, the problem will be solved. For the white mind, that would be so much better than talking to them. Anything but that! Anything but discuss the possibility of areas of mutual interest or benefit. Anything but think of them as part of this society, this neighborhood, this block, these people we call our community. Anything but grant them their humanity, as equals. Instead, they must play their role as target for frustration. That way, they can be labelled dangerous, a rot in society to be cleansed by some means (there was a time when VX gas was used as that means). You people who think you are defending your nice peaceful liberal propertied white middle-class life, be careful what you wish for.
Political pundits on both sides are saying that Robert Mueller's testimony "didn't move the needle" because he neither indicted nor exonerated the President any more clearly than stated in his 448-page report. Trump and his supporters claim victory, as predictably they would no matter what transpired. But let us ask, victory over what?
Mueller didn't draw indictment conclusions because he was prohibited from doing so. The copious, damning facts that he documented about trump's lieutenants collaborating with Russia to influence our election, and about trump's subsequent obstruction of the investigation, those facts are reason enough to initiate impeachment hearings to bring the President to just accountability.
What is an appropriate response to the serious Russian attacks on our democracy and on the integrity of our self-governance? Republicans should stop playing partisan games and cooperate with Democrats to defend the rule of law and our electoral sovereignty.
KPFA has embarked on another fund drive. Although they call this one their "Summer Fund Drive", it should really be called the "make-up fund drive due to the public's failure to let us loot their pocketbooks sufficiently during the Spring Fund Drive."
Actually, this fund drive was not supposed to happen. During KPFA's Spring drive, one of the major enticements for listeners to donate was the promise of cancelling the Summer Fund Drive. The program hosts kept harping on their promise of a respite from fund-begging. However they abandoned this plan when the Spring drive faltered.
The promise simply disappeared! It was abruptly deleted from KPFA's talking points and sent down the "memory hole" where history vanishes without a trace. Here we are today, ostensibly with an all new, improved fund drive, that actually sounds very similar to the stale, boring, unsuccessful fund drive that concluded a few weeks ago. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
Earlier this week, Mitch Jeserich, host of the program Letters & Politics, offered his opinion that donating money to KPFA was a "sacred" act – a surprising claim. It might be sacred if KPFA's hosts were to come clean about who really makes the decisions at the station and the real reasons behind these decisions. I would be the first person to stand up and shout "Hallelujah!" if that happens.
Fundraising for the station wouldn't be so difficult if KPFA truly responded to the community. But it doesn't. Instead, KPFA is run by a small group of insiders who make all of the important decisions, often in defiance of the community's wishes.
The banner headline announcing KPFA's current fund drive concludes with these ringing words: "Please support truly independent media today!" There is unintentional truth in this statement. KPFA is truly independent in one sense – it is entirely independent of the wishes of the listeners who fund it. Instead, KPFA "management" takes OUR money and does with it whatever THEY wish to do.
Community radio doesn't exist if the community isn't directly involved in programming and personnel choices, which are the body and soul of broadcasting. Anything less is a hoax to promote the interests of one group over another behind a veil of unity. Do we have any real say in programming and personnel decisions at KPFA? Not at all. Therefore, we no longer have a community radio station.
But we do have the power of the purse. The only thing we can do is withhold donations until KPFA allows us to have a fundamental say in how the station is run. I don't think we should give another dime to KPFA unless station management restores the historical archives of 16 years of Bonnie Faulkner's "Guns and Butter" programs that were paid for solely by community donations. The destruction of these archives was reprehensible, if not criminal.
KPFA was born and nurtured as free speech radio. If we let KPFA get away with the censorship they are now practicing, we will certainly lose more alternative voices on KPFA in the future. But an even greater fear is that a corporate takeover may be in the works -- with the help of the insiders at KPFA. There have been increasing signs in recent years that the most important thing to these people is that they keep their jobs and their control of the station, even if it means completely abandoning the original mission of KPFA.
A corporate takeover and corporate funding may be just the option that they would welcome at this point. If they choose to follow this path, it would be a betrayal of epic proportions and a slap in the face to the many thousands of donors who have supported KPFA's ideals for the past seventy years.
On July 24th, Special Counsel Robert Mueller made his long-anticipated appearance before the Democratically-controlled House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Here are ten takeaways:
1. Mueller was not a great witness. Whatever your political persuasion, if you actually watched a segment of the hearings, you probably felt that Mueller came across as enervated, evasive, and -- particularly in his morning testimony before the Judiciary Committee -- doddering. That's not to say that Democrats didn't score points with Mueller's testimony, but rather that he was disappointing.
2. Mueller cared more about Russian interference in the 2016 election than he did Trump's obstruction of justice. For whatever reason, Mueller seemed more animated when he appeared, in the afternoon, before the House Intelligence Committee. He was particularly emphatic when he spoke about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Mueller's repeated, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion," and emphasized the Trump Campaign welcomed that help: Trump publicly called on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails; Trump also pursued a business deal in Moscow while running for president; and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, had responded “I love it,” when asked if he was interested in dirt on Clinton provided as part of a Russian government effort to help his father.
One of the telling moments of the long hearing came when Intelligence Committee chair, Adam Schiff, asked Mueller, “The Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen [Wikileaks] documents?” Mueller responded, “Generally, that’s true.” “And then they lied to cover it up?” Mueller answered, “Generally, that’s true.” Schiff got Mueller to confirm numerous ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Mueller concluded by warning about Russian interference in the 2020 election: “They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign."
3. Congressional Republicans didn't seem to care. In general, the Republican members of the committees didn't seem to care about the Russian 2016-election interference or Trump's obstruction of justice. Led by Republican Doug Collins, they either attacked Mueller, defended Trump, or lied about the House Democrats behavior. (By the way: on July 25th the Senate Republicans. led by Mitch McConnell, blocked election-security legislation (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/republican-senators-block-election-security-legislation/index.html).)
4. Trump was not exonerated. At the beginning of the morning's Judiciary Committee Meeting, Mueller confirmed that his report did not exonerate Donald Trump. Further, Mueller indicated that when Trump leaves office he could be indicted for obstruction of justice.
During his Judiciary Committee testimony, Mueller gave a strong indication he believes Trump committed obstruction. When Democratic Congresswoman Val Demings asked Mueller if the lies told to him by “Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation,” Mueller answered, “I would generally agree with that.”
5. The Mueller hearing will slow down the Democratic push to initiate impeachment proceedings. In a press conference, hours after Mueller's testimony ended, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated that Democrats were still going forward building "the strongest possible" case for impeachment. Pelosi painted Mueller's testimony in positive tones, indicating that it was a step forward but there need to be more hearings. Nonetheless, this hearing was not the big win that impeachment advocates hoped for; it's unlikely to result in a huge swing in voter sentiment -- a recent Washington Postpoll found that 59 percent of respondents do not want formal impeachment proceedings.
6. Trump's financial ties to Russia need explication. For whatever reason, the Mueller report didn't have much information about money flow between Trump and Russian oligarchs. (Or "counter-intelligence" in general.) This omission was briefly discussed during the House Intelligence Committee hearing when Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-8) questioned Mueller:
"KRISHNAMOORTHI: Other than Trump Tower Moscow, your report does not address or detail the president’s financial ties or dealings with Russia, correct? MUELLER: Correct. KRISHNAMOORTHI: Similarly since it was outside your purview your report does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in money laundering through any of the president’s businesses, correct? MUELLER: Correct. KRISHNAMOORTHI: And of course your office did not obtain the president’s tax returns which could otherwise show foreign financial sources, correct? MUELLER: I’m not going to speak to that. KRISHNAMOORTHI: In July 2017 the president said his personal finances were off limits, or outside the purview of your investigation and he drew a “red line,” around his personal finances. Were the president’s personal finances outside the purview of your investigation? MUELLER: I’m not going to get in to that."
The House should investigate these financial ties and the related counter-intelligence data.
7. The Trump campaign's ties to Russian election interference need further investigation. Near the end of the executive summary for volume I of the Mueller Reportis this telling paragraph:
"Further, the Office [of the Special Counsel] learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated -- including some associated with the Trump Campaign -- deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryptionor that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records." [Emphasis added]
The House should identify these individuals, explain their relationship to the Trump Campaign, and explicate the related counter-intelligence.
8. There are additional witnesses that need to testify in public. After Robert Mueller, there are a number of witnesses that need to testify before the House committees. The most important is Don McGahn, former White House Counsel.
9. Democrats need to change their message. Some Democrats are so determined to impeach Trump they have lost sight of the objective of winning the 2020 presidential election. Judging from the July 24th Mueller hearing, the best election message is not "Trump obstructed justice" but rather "Russia is interfering in our election process and Trump won't do anything about it." The theme should be Election Integrity.
10. Democrats need to change their messenger. In the lengthy hearings, Democrats were strongest when House Intelligence Committee Chair, Adam Schiff (CA-28) questioned Mueller -- including this telling exchange.
"SCHIFF: Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump? MUELLER: When you’re talking about computer crimes in the charge... SCHIFF: Yes. MUELLER: ... in our case, absolutely."
If Democrats change their message to focus on election integrity, Adam Schiff -- one of the few Dems who is not a presidential candidate -- should be the one to carry this.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net
My wife and I arrived in San Francisco in 1971. Since at least that time, getting the homeless into housing or shelters has been a “concern” or a “priority” for every administration. Given the latest point-in-time count & Survey of San Francisco’s homeless, it has been a losing battle so far.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) definition of homelessness includes only those people living on the streets, in vehicles, or in temporary shelters. Using the HUD definition, the point-in-time count & Survey conducted in January 2019, found 8,011 homeless people in San Francisco, a 6.8% increase over 2017.
San Francisco has traditionally used a more expansive categorization that also counts people without a permanent address who are in jail, in the hospital, or in rehabilitation facilities. Using the San Francisco definition of homeless, the point-in-time count & Survey found 9,764 homeless people in San Francisco. This is an increase of 30% in just two years.
San Franciscans are concerned about homelessness, too. According to a San Francisco Chamber of Commerce annual City Beat poll conducted in January, 64% ranked homelessness as their top issue, compared to 60% in 2017. NIMBYism, however, is prevalent as, for example, the ongoing opposition to the Embarcadero Navigation Center; when residents in the affluent Forest Hill neighborhood blocked an affordable-housing project that would have included permanent supportive housing units for the homeless; and opposition to a proposed parking lot for the 35% of homeless living out of their vans or RVs.
Navigation Centers, by the way, are short‐term, low‐threshold, service intensive shelters for people experiencing long‐term street homelessness. Access to Navigation Centers is determined on a case-by-case basis by the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.
San Francisco has had some success in housing or sheltering homeless people or sending homeless to relatives or friends out of California. But according to the 2019 count, 8% of the homeless were living outside of California when they became homeless while 22% were living in another California county when they became homeless. Could it be that as fast as we find housing or temporary shelter for some, new out-of-San Francisco arrivals take their place?
The homeless lost their housing for several reasons, among them the loss of job (26%), alcohol or drug abuse (18%), eviction (13%), divorce (17%), argument/family or friend asked person to leave (12%), mental health issues (8%), and divorce/separation/breakup (3%).
Seventy-four percent (74%) report living with one or more health conditions compared to 68% in 2017. These include chronic physical illnesses, physical disabilities, chronic substance abuse, and severe mental problems. Sixty-nine percent (69%) reported that their condition limited their ability to hold a job, live in stable housing, or take care of themselves, as compared to 53% in 2017. Note that an approved ballot measure to overhaul the city’s mental health care system was pulled, I assume, to allow for more research and to get more input.
The Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing’s 2018-19 budget is $284 million.This does not include money that other departments, such as Public Works (with its $374 million budget) and Public Health ($2.37 billion), spend on health care and street cleanups. The true figure, according to the city’s budget analyst, is $380 million.
Under Proposition C, which the voters approved last November, will impose an extra tax on San Francisco’s wealthiest corporations about 2.5% of the 13,000 businesses that pay the gross receipts tax. It could bring in $250 to $300 million. The total amount would go to homelessness services and housing. At least 25% of Proposition C money would go to the Department of Public Health for mental health services for homeless people “severely impaired by behavioral health issues.” However, two California business interest groups and an anti-tax organization have filed a lawsuit arguing that the measure should not have passed by a simple majority vote.
With new ideas and some successes, the homeless problem seems as intractable as ever in San Francisco with a highly visible crisis on our streets juxtaposed with million dollar homes and booming downtown technology companies. Obviously, homelessness is a problem that needs to be addressed, but is throwing more money at the problem the answer?
When I was in high school, I was brilliant but undisciplined. I often skipped homework but usually got very good test scores. If a subject interested me, effort didn't feel like effort. What stopped me from attending college was the ostracism, bullying, physical attacks and harassment of other male students. (When I tried junior college with the idea of transferring to a university, I discovered that the same awful young men who'd come after me in high school were there and would continue.)
Instead of college, I obtained employment that did not involve any brainpower, and it was night shift. The origin of my ensuing mental illness could have partly been working nights at too young an age. However, there were other, additional factors that made me ill, including genetic ones. A history of social difficulties was included in the mix.
Following my first psychotic episode in 1982, Dr. Trachtenberg did not have a fabulous prognosis for me and believed I could do moderately well--or something to that effect.
Then I was an outpatient, and the psychiatrist I saw suggested I do the same kind of work that I'd done before; nighttime cleanup. Apparently, he believed that the origin of my illness was strictly a brain malfunction. Yet, I suspect that the nature of this work worsened my condition.
If he had said I should go to college, the course of my life might have been much better than it has turned out to be. And my life was full of people who believed I was limited.
My father encouraged developing technical skills. I ignored this. Meanwhile, many people assumed a lack of intelligence, since I'd been diagnosed schizophrenic.
I can't really blame anyone else for the flawed course of my life; my path was up to me.
But my point is this: a psychiatrist or other mental health professional, when she or he says a patient is limited, doesn't necessarily know enough about a patient to make that assessment. Secondly, when someone in some capacity of authority decides a patient is limited, it can do damage.
Being taken for a fool by fools, is how I see it. People who claim they are intelligent, are experienced, are authoritative, may be painting with too wide of a brush. And, based on how I appear or on what other people tell them about me in meetings and written in charts, they consequently assumed that I was a dumb idiot, or, at best, fairly intelligent. And their perceptions of me followed accordingly.
At twenty, I went into electronics training. This reaffirmed my belief about myself of having a good brain. I was considered "top student" in a class of about a dozen "very bright students." The illness and the medication hadn't ruined my brain.
Still in my twenties, I had a career in repair of analog televisions. (This was decades before modern televisions came into existence.) I did component-level troubleshooting, on analog electronic circuits in televisions, mostly using a Volt-Ohm Meter.
Later in my twenties, I tried on some other jobs. The television repair jobs were demanding, and I wasn't always able to keep up. My condition was also worsening--I didn't know that at the time.
I also started up my own repair shop, which I called "Poor Man's Electronic Exchange," in Concord. I had a Yellow Pages listing. At the time, everyone used Yellow Pages, because there was no internet yet.
The prognosis of psychiatrists did not hold true.
In my late twenties and early thirties, I barely worked, and tried some part time positions. I worked for an organization called "Sapling Project" based in San Francisco. It was a project aimed at helping mentally ill people to develop careers in computers. The project ended, and I negotiated to keep the computer I'd been loaned in lieu of final pay. When I got closer to forty, I'd begun my writing career. And it has been a ton of work for essentially no money.
When a psychiatrist tells you what your limitations are, you don't have to buy that. Psychiatrists are very capable of human error.
Psychiatrists and other doctors are right about some things some of the time, and they can save your life. Or, they could be wrong, and this could result in dire consequences. It is up to us to parse what we can use and what we can't.
With the long-awaited Mueller hearings now behind us, I find myself fixated on one unexpected take-away from the historic multi-network simulcast.
As I clicked from one broadcast channel to another, I was struck by an odd singularity: Between sessions, on every half-time chat-fest, I discovered female reporters uniformly outfitted in matching red dresses.
For a moment, I thought I was streaming The Handmaid's Tale.
It looked like Norah O'Donnell, Judy Woodruff, et al., all showed up for work wearing the same red dress—with matching lipstick and hairstyles, to boot.
Fortunately, there was some visual relief to be had: The dark-haired female reporters filing live updates from the scene all seemed to be dressed in blue.
Why Trump Has to Run in 2020
As Robert Mueller pointed out: "You can't indict a sitting president." (And, as many have observed, no recent president has spent more time "sitting" than Donald Trump.)
Trump doesn't need Rudy Giuliani to tell him that, if he fails to win re-election, his next term could be a jail term. The only way Trump can stay out of jail is to win a second term as president. If he does that, the five-year statute of limitations will have run out and he can retire happily to Mar-a-Lago.
The Founding Fathers School Trump
America's Founding Fathers had a different spin on Mr. Trump's racist "go back to where you came from" memes. Here are some of their musings:
Samuel Adams on "America: Love It or Leave It":
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
George Washington on Immigrants:
I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.
George Washington on Political Corruption:
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion....The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
Ben Franklin on Mass-incarceration:
That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.
Thomas Jefferson on "Strict Constructionist" Supreme Court Judges:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
John Adams on Capitalism versus Socialism:
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Thomas Paine on Ideologues:
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Berkeley Goes Gender-Neutral
On July 16, Berkeley took pioneering action to remove male-centric language from all City documents. Manholes became "maintenance holes" and manpower was replaced by "human effort." As councilmember Rigel Robinson explained:
"Having a male-centric municipal code is inaccurate and not reflective of our reality. Women and non-binary individuals are just as entitled to accurate representation. Our laws are for everyone, and our municipal code should reflect that."
Changing the wording of City documents to reflect gender equality is a good move but there seem to be some potholes along this new path. While nouns can easily be "demanified" (c.f. established alternatives like "firefighters" and "police officers"), pronouns are trickier. Revised city documents now will replace gendered pronouns, such as "he" and "she" with "they."
That can be problematic when, for example, you might wish to call someone's attention to two people of two sexes standing on the other side of a large room. Let's say one of them is a man about to snatch the purse of a woman standing nearby. What do you say? "Watch out! They is about to rob them!"?
Sheesh! That gets confusing.
But wait! Maybe "sheesh" is a solution. Instead of saying "she" or "he," we could say "sheesh." Instead of "her" or "him," we could say "herm."
Trump Praised for Supporting Minorities? Fake News
Following in the wake of Der Trump's racist potshots at four women members of Congress, a post appeared on Facebook claiming that Trump had once been honored for "his history of looking out for minorities." The post (since removed by Facebook) read:
"There are only 3 people that won the Ellis Island Award for their work within the black community … 1. Rosa Parks 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Donald Trump … yet ‘squad’ wants you to believe he’s racist."
There is, in fact, a photo of Trump posing with fellow Award-winners Ali and Parks but, as Politifact points out, while Trump was, in fact, presented with the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, it was not for "work within the black community." Instead, it was for "professional contributions that benefited New York City as a developer, as well as for his German heritage." (The uncropped photo shows all six award-winners, including Joe DiMaggio, Victor Borge, and anti-LGBTQ bigot Anita Bryant.)
Not a Deepfake: Welcome to Our Real Alternative Universe
There is another meme in circulation that is intended to promote the idea that Trump is not a racist. But, in this case, the brief video ("Jesse Jackson praises and thanks Donald Trump for a lifetime of service to African Americans") is real. It was posted to YouTube on January 13, 2018 but it actually dates from January 14, 1998.
Give Us a BOOST
At rally in a recent North Carolina, Donald Trump redundanatly described "The Squad," a team of four progressive congresswomen as “hate-filled extremists” who "hate America." One member of The Squad, congressmember Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich), has proposed a "bold and uncompromising anti-poverty plan that respects the ability of low-income people to make their own choices." Her BOOST Act would provide an annual grant of $3,000 to every low-income adult American and $6,000 to low-income families. Predictably, the GOP's conservative leaders and right-wing pundits are attacking the proposal as "deeply immoral" and "disastrous."
To me, the BOOST Act looks like the kind of approach you would expect from someone who actually loves their country—especially its poorest citizens.
So was it intentional, a flub, or tongue-in-cheek when OCI's press release proclaimed: "We do a lot of research at Oil Change International, and right now we’re firing on all cylinders."
As anyone from Henry Ford to Elon Musk could tell you, "firing on all cylinders" is a figure of speech drawn from the operation of internal combustion engines.
CODEPINK's Message: BTS Yes, MBS No
CODEPINK activists recently celebrated a successful campaign to convince singer Nicki Minaj to cancel a scheduled performance in Saudi Arabia—whose ruler, Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS), is widely suspected of ordering the brutal chainsaw murder of Washington Post reporter Jamal Kashoggi.
Now the challenge is to persuade the South Korean boy-band, BTS, to cancel their scheduled October 11 show in Riyadh.
The seven members of BTS—aka the Bangtan Boys—are the first group since the Beatles toproduce three #1 albums in less than a year. This is due, CODEPINK notes, to lyrics that "address issues like mental health, loss, self-love, and the troubles of school-age youth.
"But what about Yemeni youth? Since 2015, 85,000 Yemeni children have died of malnutrition as a result of the Saudi/UAE bombing campaign"—a campaign that is supported by the US.
CODEPINK notes tat BTS "has an enormous fan base among the LGBTQ+ community. But in Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is illegal. Just three months ago, the kingdom executed five men for the “crime” of homosexuality— their confessions were exacted through torture."
Twenty-four year-old Canadian violinist Blake Pouliot made a splashy debut with San Francisco Symphony on Thursday, July 18, at Davies Hall. I don’t know, however, which was more splashy, his skill as a violinist or his fashion statement. Blake Pouliot walked on stage wearing tight-fitting, shiny, silver pants, a three-quarter sleeve-length black T-shirt, and a black sash wound around his neck and hanging down over his left shoulder to his waist. He looked for all the world like a rock star; and his pants, in either satin or lamé, were reminiscent of pants Elvis Presley wore.
Wielding his bow, Blake Pouliot tore into the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto like a rock musician wielding an electric guitar. Of grace and delicacy there was precious little in Blake Pouliot’s performance of this Mendelssohn classic. But of speed and drive there were plenty. The first and third movements, of course, call for a fair amount of speed and drive, so these sections of the work came off reasonably well, given that guest conductor Brett Mitchell seemed to collude with Blake Pouliot in emphasising these qualities. However, the second movement, a slow Andante, seemed flat. It had none of its usual shimmering quality, which I liken to the play of sunlight on ripples of water. In Blake Pouliot’s hands, however, there was no sunlight and no magical shimmering. It was just flat and dull.
At the conclusion of Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto, after taking his bows, Blake Pouliot addressed the audience, saying in a boyish voice how much he enjoyed being in San Francisco. Then as an encore he played the song “The Last Rose of Summer.” Here, for once, Pouliot showed he could play with grace and delicacy; but why he didn’t infuse these qualities into Mendelssohn’s beautiful Andante I simply can’t fathom. Could the fault here lie as much with conductor Brett Mitchell as with soloist Blake Pouliot? Who can say?
Bookending the Mendelssohn were two works by Hector Berlioz. Opening the program was the Hungarian March from Berlioz’s opera La Damnation de Faust. This brief orchestral work begins as a jaunty march, which features first reeds then brass and strings. As it develops, however, it becomes ever more boisterous, even bombastic, ending in an all out, bring the house down, fortissimo climax.
The second half of the concert was devoted to Berlioz’s Symphonie fantastique. I confess that I have never cottoned to this work, which strikes me as emanating from an overheated, perfervid mind ordering on delusional schizophrenia. Here Berlioz attempted to write music depicting his obsessive love for a woman he had only seen on stage as an actress in a Shakespeare play in 1827. The object of his obsessive passion was the English actress Harriet Smthson, to whom Berlioz sent dozens of impassioned love letters (in a French she could not understand). Miss Smithson never responded. So Berlioz began composing Symphonie fantastique in attempting to put his obsessive passion into music. This work’s first premiere went unnoticed by Harriet Smthson. But when Barlioz revised it for the work’s second premiere in 1832, he somehow impressed Miss Smithson; and though she spoke little French and he little English, they were married in 1833. This unlikely marriage, however, quickly proved unworkable, and they were eventually formally divorced after a tumultuous eleven years in 1844.
Symphonie fantastique is comprised of five sections. The first, “Reveries, Passions,” I find utterly inchoate, quite simply, all over the place. In notes he attached to the score, Berlioz wrote of his obsessive idée fixe, of melancholic reverie, unmotivated joy, delirious passion, fury and jealousy, tenderness, tears, and religious consolation. In short, it’s too much. The second section, “The Ball,” begins with a lovely, almost Viennese waltz, which gradually, however, turns manic once the idée fixe returns in flutes and oboes, upsetting the serenity of the waltz.
The third section, “Scenes in the Country,” opens with a duet, first heard in English horn and oboe, between two Swiss shepherds in a ranz des vaches. Later, this piping is taken over by two flutes over violins. The overall mood here in serene and bucolic. However, the music suddenly turns jagged and anxious as worries and presentiments about the lover’s obsessive passion intrude. Then the timpani suggest thunder rumbling in the distant mountains, as this section ends. In the fourth section, “March to the Scaffold,” the lover takes opium, falls asleep and has a nightmare. Here the Symphonie fantastique diverges into phantasmagoria. He dreams he has killed the woman he loves, for which he is led to the scaffold to be hanged. He dreams he is about to witness, as Berlioz writes, using capital letters, “HIS OWN EXECUTION.”
The fifth and final section, “Dream of a Witches’ Sabbath,” offers unremittingly ghoulish music, with screeching clarinets. Later, bells introduce a burlesque of the Dies Irae in tubas and bassoons. Finally, the idée fixe returns one last time, now jumbled together with the burlesqued Dies Irae, closing the Symphonie fantatstique in a frenzy of demonic energy and strident sounds.
Where guest conductor Brett Mitchell is concerned, I think his best work was in the Symphonie fantastique. Mitchell encouraged the orchestra to bring out the extreme, even excessive, qualities of this music, but he also managed to keep things under control throughout. Mitchell was less successful, I found, in the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto, where, teamed with soloist Blake Pouliot, they overemphasised the speed and drive of this work to the detriment of the grace and delicacy of the beautiful Andante. Given that this was Brett Mitchell’s local debut, I’d have to say that, at least on the merits of his account of Berlioz’s Symphonie fantastique, I’d welcome hearing him return here at some time in the future. As for violinist Blake Pouliot, well, I’m not so sure.
The Bay Area premiere of renowned British playwright Caryl Churchill's two latest plays, 'Escaped Alone' and 'Here We Go,' featuring a cast of 17 local actors directed by Anton's Well founder Robert Estes, is playing Thursdays through Saturdays at 7:30 (with one Wednesday performance at 7:30, July 31) through August 3 at the Thousand Oaks Baptist Church, 1821 Catalina, a block off Solano Avenue, North Berkeley.
The location is perfectly suited to the plays, 'Escaped Alone' concerning four older women in a garden having tea, and 'Here We Go' a larger crowd in a hall after a funeral ... The first play is performed in the Church's garden, the second in its Julia Morgan-designed hall.
Tickets are $17-$20 at www.antonswell.org or (510) 368-0090.
City Council is on summer recess until September 9th and most of the Boards and Commissions also take a summer break, some in July and some in August. August 6 is National Night Out.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Kite Festival at the Marina, 10 am – 5 pm, event free, parking $20
Annual South Berkeley Neighbors Potluck BBQ & Music Festival, 12 noon– 6 pm, Ellis between Ashby and Prince
Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club Annual Picnic, 1 – 5 pm, 1737 Allston Way
Monday, July 29, 2019
Tax the Rich Rally, with music by Occupella, 5 – 6 pm at the Top of Solano in front of the Closed Oaks Theater, Rain/Extreme Heat Cancels
Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate, 5 pm, on CNN
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Commission on Aging, 1 – 3 pm at 2939 Ellis St, South Berkeley Senior Center, Agenda: 7. Senior Housing Crisis, 8. Risks to Seniors and Disabled during Wildfire-Safety power outages, 9. Homelessness among the elderly
Planning Commission Subcommittee on the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan, 7 – 10 pm, at 2939 Ellis, South Berkeley Senior Center, Agenda: Continued Discussion Land Use/Zoning (Draft Plan Chapters 3-Land Use, 4- Housing Affordability, 8-Implementation, Appendices A & C)
