Features

RADIO FREQUENCY  

IDENTITY DEVICES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

When I use the ATM at the Berkeley Community Credit Union and Diebold is stamped on my receipt, I think about the CEO promising Ohio to Bush and I feel bad. I have bad feelings about Diebold and I have bad feelings about RFID as well. RFID will be used for bad things by marketers and possibly by government agencies bent on supressing dissent. Why should the Berkeley Public Library spearhead this technology? Who is Jackie Griffin anyways, really? Is she sensitive to our locale? I call for her resignation! 

Jack Finzel 

• 

PEOPLE VS. MACHINES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am a longtime resident of Berkeley and a longtime library lover. What I love most besides the books and movies I check out regularly are the interactions I have with the friendly staff at my local branch. Now the director wants to spend our limited money on automating the checkout and replacing the workers with machines? Why should I trust her when she couldn’t even get Berkeley to pass the tax measure? Why don’t they replace the director with a machine instead? 

Beatrice Stuart 

• 

WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thanks to Doug Loranger for his letter in Feb. 18-21 Daily Planet, regarding the radiation from RFID devices. This is a fact that people should certainly know: Wireless devices and radio frequency radiation are bad for health. However, wireless providers never let this fact reach the public. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 forbids the public to use health risks of wireless sources to stop wireless facilities. The public should be blamed too, for it welcomes wireless devices, such as cell phones, base station antennas, WI-FI systems. For instance, you see how much people are addicted to their cell phones, or how they jam pack coffee shops where there are WI-FI connections to the Internet. Go to any coffee shop in Berkeley to see the place has become like a computer lab; almost everyone is at a lap-top. On the campus of UC Berkeley, there are more than 400 WI-FI antennas in every library, on every floor of buildings, and other locations, which provide wireless connection to the Internet. They call this system the AirBears. Users on campus rush to use the AirBears without paying any attention that they are under constant radiation. Also, hundreds or thousands of base-station antennas are installed in cities to provide connection to cell phones. 

There are surely health hazards due to radio frequency radiation as reported in hundreds of scientific documents. For instance, in the December issue of the Spectrum Magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), there is a report that links cell phones to Acoustic Neuroma tumor in the brain. According to this report, people who use cell phones for more than 10 years have a good chance to develop the tumor. The report estimates that by the year 2017, 200 million Americans have used cell phones for more than 10 years. Are little cell phones becoming the weapons of mass destruction? Also, there was a study in Spain in 2003 that shows those who live close to wireless base station antennas suffer from certain diseases. 

The sad part of the wireless technology is that choice has been eroded. If you see someone is smoking a cigarette, you can choose to stay away from the smoker. However, you cannot exempt yourself from the radio frequency radiation by not using a cell phone or a wireless lap-top computer. The radiation is there no matter what. Anywhere you go you are bombarded by the radiation 24/7. Also, those who had hoped to fight wireless corporations cannot do any longer. Mr. George W. Bush signed a law on Feb. 18 according to which we the people cannot file class action lawsuits against corporations. 

Afrida Freeman 

• 

LAWSUIT AGAINST UC 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I believe it is a perfect time to take UC Berkeley to court. In this process we can establish perhaps a 100-year agreement—one that specifically states the law and the consequences of what is to happen when the law is not followed correctly. 

When I was a young child growing up in the East Bay, I understood the law and procedure as follows: 

1. An environmental impact report is to be on file. 

2. Input from the community and responsible agents. 

3. Licenses/ clean-up cost and clean up in a timely manner. 

4. Payment of total cost incurred from said violations, plus 75 percent of total cost. 

This is a reasonable interpretation of the law and how it should be followed. I believe we should make a 100-year agreement with UC Berkeley, and stick it to them every time they feel its OK to simply dump toxins and nuclear waste water into our urban creeks. 

Jeff Vasconcellos 

• 

TEACHERS AND EDUCATION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Teachers in California are the highest paid in the United States at an average of $56,000 per vacation filled year. They are paid $45 per hour for their seven-hour day. Some make a little less and some make a lot more. If they don’t feel like teaching...pop in a movie. Don’t feel like teaching...indoctrinate the class with your own personal view of the world in subjects other than the one you are supposed to be teaching. But that is OK because you most likely do not have a degree in the subject which are trying to teach, anyway.  

Switzerland is the only on country on Earth which spends more per student then the U.S., yet American students score far below most Industrialized nations on standardized tests. The main reason for this is that most other countries make their teachers have a degree in the subject which they teach. Class size is a red herring. Teachers are unable to control the classroom in our politically correct system. 

Teachers in the U.S.A. graduate in the lowest third of their class in both high school and college. I am willing to pay teachers more, but not this current crop. “Those that cannot do, teach” Let them prove themselves worthy. 

Teachers hate any “test” which might try to measure their competency. The high school exit exam was postponed because it was determined that 80 percent of Oakland seniors would have failed the test which is at a tenth grade learning level. “No child left behind” seeks some form of standards after decades of educational decline and they cry like babies. 

Give each teacher a year off to work in the real world and they may be more thankful upon returning. Remember nearly every teacher has never left the security, protection and comfort of the classroom their whole life. Open up teaching to those who have lived a life. The teachers’ unions only protect jobs, It does not foster education. Famed physicist Edward Teller was not allowed to teach physics in San Francisco public schools after he retired because he did not have a teaching credential. He then taught in parochial school. Teaching degrees are not required for private schools. Allow school vouchers and bring in competition. Stop throwing more money at a failing system. 

Michael Larrick 

• 

PRESERVATION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Gale Garcia’s letter in defense of historic preservation sets up a false alternative that does not help the preservationist cause most of us espouse (Daily Planet, Feb. 22-24). 

The type of developer Ms. Garcia so passionately denounces (interested only in private profit at the expense of all public virtues) is just as much the enemy of smart growth advocates as it is of preservationists. Development of insensitive buildings unrelated to their neighborhoods that don’t support local businesses and transit do indeed need to be vigorously opposed. But that opposition can’t be maintained at the expense of all attempts to add urban density where such development improves our collective quality of life—even when some “creative destruction” of non-landmark older buildings may be required. Mere size, though sometimes seeming threatening, is not the only measure by which proposed projects should be judged. 

As a preservationist and a smart growth advocate, I hope we can do better in terms of future debate. The real dialog cannot happen between “mindless NIMBY preservationists” on one side and “insensitive profiteer developers” on the other. But those of us a bit closer to the center should have common cause: preserving what is truly distinctive from our past while being unafraid to attempt some “landmarks of tomorrow” that require courage, sensitivity to local concerns, and confidence in the city’s dynamic future. 

Alan Tobey 

• 

DEVELOPMENT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The loss of the Westbrae sculpture gallery as a quiet place is unfortunate, even though too often the pieces felt derivative and were too big and expensive for the average home.  

But what’s worrisome about all the recent construction projects—whether they are retail-only or include retail space or are purely residential but are expected to spur new businesses in the area—is whether these projects and new businesses can be sustainable over the long run. Are we reaching some critical mass of retail development, and what affect would that have on growth and density? 

Developers may be relying on ground-floor spaces to help make a project profitable, or perhaps they’ve been nudged (if that’s the word) by the city to include such space in their designs. 

In any case, some spots are flourishing, but one gets the impression that too many other first-floor retail spaces are either empty or contain businesses or organizations that don’t seem to be attracting many people—another kind of soft-story building. 

The Daily Planet says there’s an “insatiable” appetite for building new projects in Berkeley, a hot-button term better applied to Alamo than here and better used in op-ed commentary than in front-page articles. But if we are gorging ourselves, the market will make sure we choke on our ambitions soon enough.  

James Day 

• 

PESTICIDES IN OAKLAND 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The Oakland councilmembers promoting using pesticides in the Oakland Hills are either misinformed or have a total disregard for the environment and its inhabitants. Pesticides kill birds and wildlife and pose dangers to humans. The pesticide residue ultimately ends up in our drinking water. Fish have decreased in areas polluted with pesticides. We need to stop these politicos from promoting dangerous pesticides.  

Tori Thompson 

Oakland 

• 

CAMPUS BAY REPORTING 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I’d like to thank the Daily Planet’s management staff for publishing Richard Brenneman’s continuing “saga” of the Campus Bay (toxic) Superfund site in Richmond. No other newspaper has taken on this “tiger” as you have. And I especially congratulate Mr. Brenneman for his consistent and outstanding coverage of this complex issue. The property itself has a lengthy and murky history which he has navigated with clear reporting. He cites important issues and then provides substantiation. The City of Richmond, who’s idea it was to push a 1330-unit residential complex onto this site (without removing major toxics), is essentially working for the developer and against Richmond’s residents. (I perhaps should state here that I have a personal stake in the toxics outcome on this site. For 30 years now I’ve lived a mile-and-a-half and down-wind from it. Was I aware there was a Superfund site nearby? Not until Zeneca sold to the current developers and the toxic cleanup began. Last year I was diagnosed with cancer.) The council’s motivation, whose budget oversight in recent years has been miserable, now needs to get some quick,” big bucks” for the city’s coffers or face possible bankruptcy. Mr. Brenneman covers the City Council’s facet of this story also, with appropriate reportorial detachment, but it’s accurate reporting. Keep it up!  

Linda Grant 

• 

SMOKESCREEN 

Editors, Daily Planet:  

Regarding your Feb. 15-17 editorial (“Smoking Candy in the Back Room”): Right on target! Let’s stop all this pretension about “public involvement.” As the editorial so aptly says, so-called “public involvement” is a smokescreen for public relations and public massaging. 

Ray O’Brien 

• 

DERBY STREET BALLFIELD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The Berkeley School District should be commended for planning a ballfield on the Adult School property on Derby Street. The city has a desperate shortage of playing fields. Here’s why. 

In the last 15 years, the University of California closed access to its Strawberry Canyon ball fields and turned them into private property for varsity sports teams. The University eliminated a heavily-used astroturf playing field, when, post-earthquake, it tore down the garage at College Avenue and Channing Way. The East Bay Park District converted the large softball field in Tilden Park, near the pony rides, to a grassy meadow, usable for picnics, only. The remodeling at King Junior High filled much of the baseball field with portable classrooms. And now the University threatens to eliminate the Little League baseball fields at Albany Village.  

Almost half the kids who play in that league are from Berkeley. 

In the last 15 years the number of children using ballfields has greatly increased, because of the expansion of youth sports. Girls’ leagues in softball and soccer now need ballfields as much as boys’ leagues in soccer, football, baseball, and lacrosse. 

There have been many days in the last few years when I had to travel to four or five fields in El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley, in order to find even a part of a field to play ball on with my school-age son. 

San Pablo Park, the largest ballfield in Berkeley, is the center of a fine residential neighborhood, and a pleasant place to stroll at night when games are going on, but there is never enough play space. Little League teams compete for time and space with high school baseball and adult softball teams for both men and women, and with adult pickup soccer games. Someone always gets squeezed out. Usually that means the youngest and smallest, not because anyone is mean, but simply because they have lower priority. 

So what will it mean if we have a new ballfield on the Derby Street site?  

It will mean that the high school teams will have a place to play. It will mean that the children’s baseball, softball, football, and soccer teams won’t get squeezed out of San Pablo Park by the high school teams. It will mean that some kids will actually play at parks, all by themselves, because they won’t get squeezed out by organized teams.  

It will be a victory for every child, and for every parent, and for every adult who likes to play ball, or who just likes to sit on the grass. 

A few days ago your paper printed a letter from a NIMBY (not in my backyard) opponent of the Derby St. park, who complained about “special interest groups of sports enthusiasts.” Who are these so-called “special interests?” They include every boy and girl who ever wanted to chase after a ball or a Frisbee, every soccer mom, and every baseball or football dad. Bravo to all of them, and bravo to the school district’s and city’s effort to give them a place to play. 

Steve Bedrick 

• 

MORE ON DERBY FIELD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I support a multi-use fenced field at the Derby Street site for the following reasons; We live a block from the field and it is the only open space within reasonable walking distance where my son and I can play ball, fly a kite or any other field activity. We used to have pick-up softball games at the field across Derby before half the block was developed for housing. We continued with just a few broken windows but then the MLK center was built and that field was over forever. We had been hoping that the ugly little buildings on the adjacent field at the East Campus would fall down or move over but no such luck. Now we discover that the buildings are leaving but will be replaced by a locked facility for several small groups of Berkeley High School students and possibly rented to others. This will force the wonderful Farmers’ Market to relocate to some undisclosed location on MLK Way.  

As the main access road for the hill communities this road is always busy and problematic for a stop-shop open market. I do not understand why this is fair to the neighborhood or those who live next to the site who may have to deal with large organized events there, sooner or later with amplified sound and lights. 

Berkeley High has a track and football field that used to be open to the public when not in use before they installed an unnecessary and expensive Astro turf field. The costs included a huge initial purchase and installation fee, expensive annual maintenance, higher insurance costs for the greater number of injuries and total replacement every ten years or so. I played school football for 3 years and though I understand there are problems with a grass field I don’t agree with this choice made by the School board. Now the board wants to lock the public out of our last neighborhood field. I say make a field other groups can use too including Berkeley High students and let the baseball team use it for practice. Nobody who knows me will ever accuse me of being anti-baseball. I played Little League and others all my life but the reason I only played football and track while in school is because these sports maintain large teams and kept the unfantastic athletes like myself, unlike baseball or my other favorite hockey whose nature calls for smaller squads and cut most of the kids who sign up. 

Finally, I understand there are different funding pools involved here but I still don’t understand a school system that is always in hoc and cuts the arts and music programs including the once famous world class Berkeley Jazz class and yet always has bucks for huge projects for the small and vocal sports squads. The school itself just finished a major reconstruction. Enough! 

Mark McDonald 

• 

BUSHSPEAK 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As part of his column (“The War in Iraq: Roll Over, George Orwell,” Daily Planet, Feb. 15-17) which understandably decries the “Orwellian system of mind control being used by the Bush administration,” commentator Bob Burnett makes the unfortunate mistake of completely buying into one of the most egregious examples of such “Bushspeak.” 

We are not actually in a “war in Iraq” today, either in the conventional sense of the word or in relation to the sorts of missions around which our military is fundamentally organized and trained. If the bungled occupation of Iraq, which followed the relatively swift conquest of 2003, is defined as a “war,” because that occupation has been marked by lawlessness, non-functioning civil services, widespread violence, and frequent deadly encounters with organized uniformed forces, then America has been “at war” with itself in crime-ridden and impoverished urban areas across our own country for decades. 

An endless propaganda-driven “war” against a vaguely-defined and constantly shifting “enemy” is a technique straight out of 1984. Much of the so-called “antiwar movement” has flung itself headlong into a Rovian trap by accepting wholesale this framing of the current administration’s blunder-ridden Iraq misadventure. If we are “in a war” today in Iraq, then tens of millions of Americans are easily led to believe that there is no fundamental alternative but to accept unquestionably the “policies” of the “commander-in-chief”, even if those “policies” are neither well-conceived nor well-explained nor well-executed. 

Thus, while I completely concur with the thrust of Mr. Burnett’s piece, I hope that he, or at least his local emulators, will read these observations, accept them 

as constructive criticism, and do a better job in the future of practicing their preaching. 

Drew Keeling 

S