The national Advisory Council on Historic Preservation today issued a report which finds that “significant improvements to United States Postal Service planning and compliance for its historic preservation and disposal programs are needed.”

This opinion is considered a major victory in Berkeley’s campaign to save its historic downtown post office.

On March 11, the Advisory Council met in Oakland to hear from agencies and organizations about their experiences dealing with the Postal Service on sales of historic post offices. Thanks to a vigorous campaign from Berkeley's Save the Post Office organization, many speakers criticized the way the proposed sales have been handled, and the complaints seem to have influenced the council's decision.

Preservation attorney and Berkeley Law faculty member Antonio Rossmann, whose office is in downtown Berkeley near the post office, commented that it “looks like the Advisory Council heard Berkeley: Protect historic uses and suspend all sales of historic post offices until improvements and protections are in place. " 

Rossmann noted that “particularly germane are recommendations to ensure that covenant holders are compensated for the costs of administration, and that termination of a postal use that was deemed historic in the National Register nomination (such as Berkeley's) represents an adverse action that should be avoided.” 

His conclusion: “USPS would seem to be proceeding at great risk if they did not formally suspend the proposed Berkeley Post Office sale.” 

 

 

 

Historic Post Office Disposal Report Issued to Congress

Washington, DC – Responding to a specific requirement placed upon the agency by the 2014 congressional appropriations bill, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) today issued PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A Report to Congress. The report finds that significant improvements to United States Postal Service (USPS) planning and compliance for its historic preservation and disposal programs are needed.

The report results from congressional concerns that the USPS may not be fully meeting the requirements of Section 106 and other sections of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when closing and disposing of historic post offices. Section 106 requires all federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions or undertakings on historic properties and seek ways to avoid, lessen, or mitigate any potential adverse effects. 

Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, chairman of the ACHP, notes that in preparing the report the agency found that “…the preservation community and the public have significant concerns about the potential closure of these historic facilities, including the loss of public use of the buildings, the risk posed to the integrity of historic buildings and the artwork they contain, and the potential loss of public access. The limited consideration of the historic values of these iconic buildings along with the lack of transparency in Section 106 consultation further exacerbates these problems.” 

The ACHP, which has a long history of working with the USPS as well as other federal agencies, makes 15 findings in the report and provides recommendations for addressing each of them. Notable among them are the following: 

 Congress should clarify that the NHPA and its implementing regulations apply to all programs of the USPS, in order to remove any doubt that the USPS is legally obligated to comply with Sections 106, 110, and 111 of the NHPA. 

 The USPS should suspend any further actions to relocate services out of historic postal facilities and dispose of these historic facilities until such time as it fully implements the recommendations of this report. 

 The USPS should initiate Section 106 consultation at the time relocation or cessation of services at a historic postal facility is considered, rather than waiting until disposal is proposed. 

 The USPS should expand and reorganize its historic preservation program. 

 

To view all of the recommendations and comprehensive information on the USPS disposal of historic post offices, the full report can be accessed at www.achp.gov. 

About the ACHP: An independent federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy. It also provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, and policies that affect historic properties. For more information, please visit www.achp.gov.

Reports that a teenaged girl was kidnapped and robbed in Oakland and dropped off in Berkeley this morning could be connected to human sex trafficking, an Oakland police spokeswoman said today. 

Oakland police spokeswoman Johnna Watson offered few details this afternoon but said in a statement that investigators had learned the incident "occurred in another jurisdiction." 

Watson did not specify where the incident occurred, however, and has not responded to calls requesting further information.  

The girl was discovered in Berkeley at 5:06 a.m. when police there responded to 911 calls reporting someone yelling for help in the area of Ashby and Piedmont avenues in Berkeley, about two blocks from the Claremont Hotel, Berkeley police spokeswoman Officer Jennifer Coats said. 

She told investigators that she had been kidnapped in Oakland, robbed and dropped off in Berkeley, and Berkeley police turned over the case to Oakland police, Watson said.

While Berkeley businesses the Wooden Duck and Import Tile are recouping after a five-alarm warehouse complex fire Saturday night, an artisan's collective also operating in the destroyed complex took "devastating" losses and will be looking into fundraising efforts in the coming months, its proprietor said today. 

Joshua Goldberg said the Joshua Tree Artisan's Collective has operated entirely out of the space since 2005 when he started building a dilapidated and "hideous" warehouse into a workspace and showroom for a collective of about 25 artists, engineers and inventors. 

Its members work closely together and have levels of involvement ranging from stopping by once every month or two to members who work there well over full-time, Goldberg said. In the space they did woodworking, metalworking, fabrication, product development, research prototyping and design, among other things. 

The fire destroyed the entire space, along with warehouses for retailers the Wooden Duck and Import Tile. While both companies took heavy losses they were able to quickly resume their retail businesses, but Joshua Tree lost everything, Goldberg said. 

The Berkeley Fire Department is still investigating the blaze, which was reported at about 8 p.m. in the 1800 block of Second Street. The fire engulfed the complex and huge flames were visible from nearby Interstate Highway 80 as firefighters battled it for the next five hours. 

The next morning, there was nothing left of the three warehouses but a pile of smoldering rubble and brick walls. 

Goldberg made the initial 911 call for the fire, as he was working late that night. The space allows its members 24-hour access for artists who keep late hours on projects. 

He said that it took time for them to tell that the neighboring Wooden Duck warehouse had caught fire, and only caught a whiff of smoke at first. But when he went outside and looked at the building from a distance, he could see thick gray smoke pouring out of roof vents from the Wooden Duck's warehouse. 

The fire spread quickly because of the huge stock of wooden furniture stacked in the Wooden Duck's Warehouse and the $20,000 to $40,000 in raw lumber that was stored in Joshua Tree. 

Goldberg has received praise and congratulations from his neighbors, who likely would have lost more had he not been there late on a Saturday night. The rest of the warehouses were empty at that time, and if the same fire happened when he wasn't there, it might not have been noticed so quickly. 

But while his call may have saved his neighbors, Joshua Tree was left with nothing. Goldberg lost his only source of income in the blaze and the space that he put his life's savings and years of work into. 

Many of the collective's members are struggling artists just scraping by and carried little insurance, if any, Goldberg said.  

"Making a living as a woodworker is not a thriving profession in this day and age, yet for many it's their calling in life," he said. 

While the community around them has been strongly emotionally supportive after the loss, Joshua Tree still has a long way to go to even begin to recover from this, Goldberg said. 

"The community is coming out in full force with an enormous amount of emotional support for us," he said. "We need help bad. It's going to take hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to recoup our losses." 

To that end, he said that they plan to hold fundraisers any way they can -- through events, crowdfuding, Kickstarter, and even sales of whatever pieces might be salvaged and refurbished from the rubble. 

The Wooden Duck, for its part, has volunteered a large outdoor event space for a fundraiser, Goldberg said.  

But with the stress of the loss of the entire business, no organized fundraiser has been set up yet. Goldberg said that June 14 is the tentative date for the first Joshua Tree fundraiser, but the location and details have yet to be established.

A fire that destroyed a West Berkeley warehouse complex on Saturday night does not appear to have been intentionally set based on the investigation thus far, a deputy fire chief said today. 

"So far as we can tell there doesn't seem to be indication that it was a malicious fire," Berkeley fire Acting Deputy Chief Avery Webb said. 

The exact cause of the blaze has not been determined. Webb said the department is getting assistance from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives because of the size and scope of the massive fire and the expensive loss of property. 

The five-alarm fire in the 1800 block of Second Street was reported at about 8 p.m. Saturday and took firefighters about five hours to control. 

It left the warehouse complex a pile of smoldering rubble, causing major setbacks for at least three Berkeley businesses -- the Wooden Duck, Import Tile and Joshua Tree. 

Warehouses for the Wooden Duck and Import Tile were destroyed, but their retail spaces weren't affected. Both were open for business Monday but were scrambling to deal with the loss of stock and to clean up after the fire. 

Joshua Tree, however, was entirely housed in the burned building and its future remains unclear. Joshua Tree proprietors have been unavailable for comment. 

The building was declared too dangerous to inhabit late Monday because of concerns about the structural integrity of the remaining walls, Webb said. 

He said the property owner will need to get an assessment done and stabilize the building before any work can be done there.

Police are investigating reports that a teenage girl was kidnapped and robbed in Oakland and dropped off in Berkeley's Elmwood neighborhood this morning, an Oakland police spokeswoman said. 

The girl in her late teens was found at 6:21 a.m. in the 2900 block of Piedmont Avenue in Berkeley, about two blocks from the Claremont Hotel, police spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson said. 

She told investigators that she had been kidnapped in Oakland, robbed and dropped off there. 

Police have not determined where she was taken from in Oakland, Watson said.

Berkeley furniture seller the Wooden Duck reopened this morning after a massive fire destroyed a back warehouse and a good deal of the store's inventory on Saturday, the store's general manager said today.

The store's showroom was mostly unaffected by the fire, which destroyed a warehouse complex used by three businesses in the 1800 block of Second Street on Saturday night, Wooden Duck general manager Jacob Massler said.

The other affected businesses were Joshua Tree Furniture, an artisan woodworking shop, and Import Tile.

Import Tile's main store was unaffected and remains open, but the destroyed building housed some of its stock. Customers who had affected orders will be contacted, according to a post on the company's website today.

 

Joshua Tree was entirely housed in the destroyed building, Massler said. Representatives from that company did not immediately return calls for comment. 

The fire started at about 8 p.m. Saturday in the Wooden Duck's warehouse. It eventually engulfed all three businesses and the roof collapsed, fire officials said. Firefighters didn't control the blaze until about 1 a.m. Sunday. 

Today, only the brick walls that separated the three facilities remain standing, with the rest a mess of charred rubble, Massler said. 

He estimated the loss of inventory for the Wooden Duck at between $600,000 and $1 million . However, employees remained in good spirits as they picked through the pieces, he said. 

Other facilities operated by the Wooden Duck had varying degrees of damage, but no fire damage, Massler said. The company's factory was covered in soot and ash when employees got inside Sunday, but a thick brick firewall kept the fire from spreading inside. 

The factory also had several inches of standing water inside, he said. 

The store's showroom was mostly unaffected, with only small pools of water inside. Some furniture there was damaged by water, but workers are drying it out and salvaging what they can. 

One irreplaceable item lost in the fire was lumber acquired from University of California at Berkeley's Memorial Stadium. The Wooden Duck constructs furniture from seats torn out of the stadium during its recent renovation. 

Much of that lumber is stored in Oakland, but about 25 percent of the wood they had from Memorial Stadium was lost, Massler said. 

But the Wooden Duck will persevere and continue in the Berkeley location, as well as a second store in San Rafael, Massler said. 

Berkeley fire officials have not disclosed a possible cause for the blaze. Massler said agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were at the site this morning to assist in the investigation.

With April 15 fast approaching, I have just finished mailing my 1040. This year, I didn't owe taxes and, boy, am I relieved. Not because I can't afford to cut a check, it's just that I don't want to spend the next six years in a federal prison for violating the provisions of US Code Title 18 -- Crimes and Criminal Procedures.

That's exactly what happened to Ahmed Taalil Mohamud, a cab driver in Anaheim, California, who was sentenced to six years in prison for, as the Associated Press put it, "funneling thousands of dollars to a terrorist organization" in Somalia.

Mohamud was one of four Somali immigrants convicted of sending nearly $11,000 to al-Shabab, a militant group linked to Al Qaeda. The other co-conspirators received prison sentences ranging between 10 and 18 years.

The Somalis ran afoul of Title 18 -- specifically Article 2339C, which sets forth "Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism."

This law stipulates that it is a crime to collect funds with the intention or knowledge that such funds might be used to carry out any "act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed combat, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act." 

Title 18's Article 2339B further states that: "whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." 

Any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian" -- that stands as a perfectly legitimate definition of terrorism. President Barack Obama offered an equally straightforward definition of terrorism on the eve of the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings when he stated: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror." 

My concern is that my government has a long and abiding history of engaging in acts that clearly meet all-of-the-above definitions of terrorism. 

A Long, Proud History of Bombing Civilians 

US bombs have been killing civilians in great numbers ever since the end of WWII when the detonation of a single bomb over the city of Hiroshima incinerated 220,000 men, women and children. 

By 1968, US bombs and bullets had killed an estimated href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/vietnam-a-war-on-civilians">300,000 civilians in Vietnam. 

Between 1969 and 1973, America's secret bombing raids over Cambodia may have killed as many as 150,000 civilians. 

On February 13, 1991, more than 408 civilians were blown to bits in an aerial attack on the Amiriyah shelter (aka "Public Shelter No. 25") in Iraq. The attack was carried out by the US Air Force, using two laser-guided "smart bombs." 

In Operation Allied Force, the US-led assault on Kosovo, Human Rights Watch documented 528 civilians killed in 90 different incidents. 

The devastating US siege of Fallujah is believed to have killed at least 800 Iraqi civilians. 

The 1989 US bombing of Panama City -- Operation Just Cause -- left a sprawling barrio in flames, 10,000 homeless and as many as 4,000 civilians dead. 

In the process of enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Libya -- ostensibly "to protect civilians" -- US and allied bombs left "at least 72" civilians dead. 

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and March 2002, US bombs and drones claimed the lives of 3,000 - 3,400 civilians. 

On April 1, 2003, a US nighttime air attack on a residential district in the town of Hilla killed at least 11 Iraqi civilians, mostly children. 

On June 18, 2004, Washington's first known drone strike inside Pakistan's killed 5-8 people, including two children. 

In a pre-dawn attack on October 30, 2006, three missiles fired by a US Predator drone slammed into a madrassa in Chenagai village,  

In June 2007, seven children were killed in a US air strike on a mosque and religious school in eastern Afghanistan. 

On November 3, 2008, a US airstrike on a wedding party in Wech Baghtu, Afghanistan, killed 26 "insurgents" -- and 37 civilians, largely women and children. 

In 2009, more than half of the 131 children killed in Afghanistan were victims of US/NATO air strikes. 

In March 2011, a CIA drone attack killed scores of Pakistanis -- mainly civilians and tribal elders -- as they gathered to discuss a local land dispute. "Maybe there were one or two Taliban at that jirga," Brig. Abdullah Dogar told the London Sunday Times, "but does that justify a drone strike which kills 42 mostly innocent people?" 

As of August 2011, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism determined, 2,292 Pakistanis had been killed by US missiles, including as many as 775 civilians -- 168 of whom were children. 

Between June 2011 and January 12, 2013, the US had conducted at least 23 air attacks inside Somalia, nine of which involved drones. Investigations by journalists determined that between 58 to 170 people were killed in these attacks, including 11 to 57 civilians and 3 children. 

In the last week of November 2013, a "botched NATO drone attack" in Afghanistan killed three civilians, one of them a two-year-old toddler. 

In December 2013, a US drone killed 15 civilians in Yemen as they were driving to a wedding party. 

In April 2014, Time magazine (citing a 2013 report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism) reported "US drone attacks have killed an estimated 900 civilians in Pakistan since 2004." The latest BIJ figures list 383 drone strikes (87 percent authorized by Barack Obama) with as many as 957 civilians and 202 children killed. 

No wonder that, in an April 10 interview with Salon, former President Jimmy Carter observed: "The rest of the world, almost unanimously, looks at America as the No. 1 warmonger." 

And the White House has not done the country any favors by lowering its terrorism bar. Only a few days after the murder of a two-year-old child inflamed Afghan anger against the US, the White House radically revised its rules of engagement. The previous standard required that the US military was to "ensure" that civilians were not targeted. Now, troops are merely advised to "avoid targeting" civilians. Civilian deaths are now acceptable. The only limitation is that they "must not be excessive" -- a slippery word that is open to interpretation. 

A US Taxpayer's Liability 

According to the "jurisdiction" section of article 2339C, the potential targets of the law are not limited to immigrant cabdrivers. American citizens are also placed in the legal crosshairs. The law makes it clear that its enforcement also applies when "a perpetrator is a national of United States." 

What kind of crimes are we talking about? They can include assaults against a government building, acts directed against "any person or property within the US," or any offense "committed onboard" an aircraft registered under US law or a vessel flying the US flag. Taking a cue from the USA PATRIOT Act, the law criminalizes any "predicate act committed in an attempt to compel United States to do or abstain from doing any act." This would seem to include everything from firebombing the Pentagon to staging vigils at US military bases or holding mass rallies in the Capital Mall. 

The penalties for violating this law are severe, including fines and imprisonment "for not more than 20 years, or both." And the Department of Justice is not even required to prove that funds volunteered by a would-be terrorist -- or taxpayer -- were actually used to finance, support or provoke some proscribed act. As Article 2339C clearly stipulates: "[F]or an act to constitute an offense set forth in this subsection, it shall not be necessary that the funds were actually used to carry out a predicate act." 

"Prohibited activities" include knowingly providing material support or resources. Individuals or financial institutions found to have "possessed or controlled funds used by any designated terrorist organizations" are liable to a fine of $50,000 or imprisonment "for not more than 15 years or both." If someone is killed as a result of the "predicate act," US law requires a life sentence. 

According to US Code, Article 2339B: "A person must have knowledge that the organization is designated terrorist organization. . . , that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity. . . or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism." 

In light of this definition, a taxpayer's only defense against a charge of complicity in supporting state-sponsored terrorism would be to claim total ignorance of the Pentagon's long history of collateral damage and civilian carnage. But, given the state of the US media and education, such claims might prove persuasive in a court of law. 

Article 2339B contains a curious escape clause. "No person may be prosecuted under this section . . . if the provision of that materiel support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General." Article 2339B then seems to double back on itself by adding: "the Secretary of State may not approve the provision of any material support that may be used to carry out terrorist activity." 

Article 2339B provides a possible loophole for taxpayers who fear being prosecuted under to Article 2339C when it states "whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both . . . ." [Emphasis added.] 

Meanwhile, even the government itself has not been able to avoid violating its own laws. According to "Contracting with the Enemy,"  

In 2013, $1.7 million worth of tax dollars were handed over to 9,733 Afghan contractors but, because of the way law is written, 80 percent of these contracts were granted without scrutiny. As a result, the report notes, "millions of contracting dollars could be diverted to forces seeking to harm US Military and civilian personnel." 

So the Pentagon is not only perpetrating acts of terror against civilians from the Middle East to Panama; it is now in the position of financing terrorism against itself. 

 

---

Gar Smith is a Berkeley-based investigative reporter, co-founder of Environmentalists Against War and author of Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth. 

Firefighters battled a five-alarm warehouse fire at a woodworking shop in West Berkeley that started on Saturday night, a fire chief said.

The blaze was in the 1800 block of Second Street, near Hearst Avenue and the Eastshore Highway, Berkeley fire Chief Gil Dong said.

The fire was reported at 7:54 p.m. and was under control around 1 a.m., Dong said. 

The size and magnitude of the fire decreased significantly since it began, Dong said. However, fire crews will remain overnight at the scene battling hotspots. 

An employee at the Wooden Duck furniture shop confirmed that the blaze impacted the woodworking shop, which has been constructing furniture from reclaimed wood since 1995, according to the company's website. 

The company's store building was not impacted by the fire however the shop's back storage building was destroyed along with the Joshua Tree furniture store and a storage warehouse for Import Tile, according to a post on the Wooden Duck's Facebook page. 

Dong said the fire largely impacted one building and caused the roof of that building to collapse. Adjacent buildings were also threatened by the blaze, but Dong did not have details regarding which businesses were damaged or threatened. 

High-tension wires burned in the fire and were dropping to the ground while firefighters were battling the blaze. Fire officials contacted PG&E to shut down power to the area to ensure no live wires fell on firefighters, Dong said.  

The outage initially affected about 1,497 customers around 9:20 p.m., PG&E spokeswoman Jana Morris said.  

About 460 PG&E customers were without power in the area at about 10:40 p.m., according to Morris. 

All but six customers were restored shortly before 11:10 p.m., she said.  

PG&E crews will make any needed repairs to bring power back to the remaining six customers once fire officials have deemed the area safe, Morris said. 

Traffic on Interstate Highway 80, located just west of the blaze, was backed up as a result of the fire, according to the California Highway Patrol. 

No injuries were reported and the cause of the blaze remains under investigation.

Returning from a two-day Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in The Hague, President Barack Obama claimed to have achieved a "fundamental shift" in the global campaign to rein-in the nuclear threat. And what was this prized accomplishment? Had the United States and the world's other eight nuclear powers agreed to accelerate the languishing nuclear disarmament process? Not really. (According to a Ploughshares Fund estimate, the US still maintains around 7,700 nuclear warheads against Russia's 8,500 while Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan account for another 1,095 or so. An estimated 4,650 of Washington's nuclear warheads are assigned to 800 "launch-ready" ballistic missiles: the remainder are "retired" or "stored.") 

Rather than address the 17,000-19,000 warheads in the hands of the world's eight nuclear-armed nations – an arsenal of hundreds of ballistic missiles and thousands of strategic nuclear warheads in launch-ready status and on hair-trigger alert --, the Summit's focus was on the theoretical threat of future acts of nuclear terrorism by so-called "non-state actors." 

The NSS's main achievement was an agreement – signed by only 35 of the 53 participating nations -- to turn existing "guidelines" on nuclear security into binding national legislation. The 35 like-minded nations also promised to "open up their security procedures" in an effort to "thwart nuclear terrorism." 

Towards this end, the Associated Press reports, many of the Summit's nations have "pledged to step up efforts to prevent trafficking of nuclear material, boost maritime security and to develop low-enriched uranium for research reactors instead of the highly enriched, weapons-grade nuclear fuel currently widely used." 

At the closing press conference on March 25, President Obama declared these meager steps to be "essential to the security of the entire world. Given the catastrophic consequences of even a single attack, we cannot be complacent." 

To be clear, Obama was not talking about the "catastrophic consequences" of the use of atomic weapons by the eight nuclear-armed states that already possess arsenals of bombs and, in some cases, missile-deliverable nuclear warheads. Rather, the focus of the NSS was on finding ways to insure that nuclear materials and weapons technologies don't "fall into the hands of terrorists." 

Yet even this seemingly lofty goal failed to stir unanimous support. Only two thirds of the participating nations -- including Britain, Canada, France, Israel, Japan and the US -- endorsed the plan. China, India, Pakistan and Russia refused to sign the proposal. (According to the Associated Press, "North Korea and Iran didn't even attend," suggesting that these countries had stubbornly set themselves apart from the global community. In other dispatches, however, the AP noted these two countries were "excluded by mutual consent.") 

Clearly, there are some signs of progress since the first summit was convened four years ago. In 2010, 39 nations possessed sufficient material to build nuclear weapons. Today, the number of weapons-capable nations has decreased to 25. In addition, the governments of Japan, Italy and Belgium have all pledged to make additional cuts in their stockpiles of plutonium and enriched uranium. 

Unfortunately, while Obama was deploying rhetorical flourishes at the closing ceremonies in Brussels, back home in Washington, a review of the administration's Fiscal Year 2015 budget revealed that the US continues to be the planet's most prolific proponent of nuclear weapons. But the news gets worse. Obama's proposed FY 2015 budget would put the US on a course to building a new and even more destructive atomic arsenal. 

Obama's A-Bomb Budget

This is a far cry from Mr. Obama's April 2009 Address in Prague where he famously called for "a world free of nuclear weapons." On that occasion, the new American president declared: "If we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable." And then he added (to a round of thunderous applause): "I state, clearly and with conviction, America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." 

Today, however, and in the years ahead, the Obama White House has committed itself to expanding – not reducing -- the country's arsenal of atomic weapons. Obama's federal budget – due, by law, on the first Monday of February but actually released on March 4 -- calls for a 7% increase in nuclear weapons research and development. The design and production of new nuclear devices under the aegis of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is now projected to account for $8.3 billion in spending in FY 2015 while rising to $9.7 billion by FY 2019 -- an increase of 24% over current spending levels. If passed, this budget request for nuclear weapons spending would break every record to date -- even topping the amount of money lavished on these apocalyptic weapons in 1985 during the peak of President Ronald Reagan's military build-up binge. 

Under Obama's budget proposal, funding the NNSA's so-called "directed stockpile work" would be increased 12.5% to $305 million. Most of this treasure would be spent on "Life Extension Programs" (LEPs) designed to increase the "longevity" of the B-61 nuclear bomb – a series of five thermonuclear "gravity bombs" that are anywhere from four to 20 times more powerful than the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima. As critics at the Ploughshares Fund have pointed out, each of these 700-pound bombs -- costing more than $26 million each – would be literally worth "more than their weight in gold". Obama's budget sets aside $634 million for this program in FY 2015-- an increase of 20%. (The total estimated cost for the LEP program initially was set at $4 billion but it has now surpassed $10 billion.) 

The LEP program will not just extend the life of this death-dealing technology, it will also provide a "make-over" for the B-61. The goal is to turn the B-61 from an analog bomb into a digital bomb that can be used on the F-35 "Joint Strike Fighter" – an over-budget, overdue, over-weight, and technologically flawed project that eventually could cost taxpayers as much as $1 trillion. 

The president's budget would give the Pentagon an additional $1.8 billion to fit 800 B-61s with a Tail Kit Assembly (provided by Boeing) that will give the world its first "nuclear smart bomb." 

Obama's proposed A-bomb Budget would allow the Pentagon and Department of Energy to replace existing B-61 designs with a new B-61-12 model that Hans Kristensen, of the Federation of American Scientists, has called an "all-in-one nuclear bomb on steroids." 

These costly budget items are wholly out of sync with global nuclear nonproliferation treaties that prohibit United States and other signatory countries from designing and building "new and improved" types of nuclear weapons. The NNSA, for its part, concedes that the upgrades have nothing to do with addressing obsolescence or increasing security: it is all about improving "performance." 

In Germany, where numerous US/NATO nuclear bombs are currently based, the government has repeatedly told Washington it would like to see these weapons removed from German soil. Instead, as  

The threat of the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons would necessarily prompt the Russia government to "modernize" its own stockpiles. Russia has also been put on notice by Washington's Nuclear Weapons Council (staffed by Pentagon and Energy Department officials), which announced in November 2010 its intention to keep US nuclear weapons armed-and-ready well into the second half of the 21st century. This is ominous news for disarmament campaigners like Götz Neuneck of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy. If the US persists, Neuneck warned Der Spiegel, "new tactical nuclear weapons will be stationed in Europe and nuclear disarmament will be impossible for decades." 

Another portion of the FY 2015 budget would address the problematic infrastructure required to remain a "nuclear power." In December 2013, the watchdog group, Project On Government Oversight (POGO), reviewed a report by the Pentagon's office of Cost Assessment and Project Evaluation concerning a proposed Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-12 nuclear weapons complex in Tennessee. Originally targeted to cost around $600 million, the UPF is now expected to cost between $12 to $19 billion. In order to bring the project's costs down to $6.5 billion, NNSA has slashed all of its dismantlement programs. The effect of these cuts, says Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch, will be to turn the UPF into a "production-only nuclear weapons plant." 

Another costly portion of Obama's A-bomb budget would explore "pre-conceptual design efforts for [a] modular acquisition concept" that would enable the NNSA to "execute a plutonium strategy [at the Los Alamos National Laboratories] that achieves a 30 [plutonium] pit per year capacity by 2026." As Coghlan notes, neither the Department of Energy nor the White House has provided any "clear requirement or reason" to explain or justify why taxpayers should be financing a project whose only goal is to turn out as many as 30 nuclear bombs per year. 

Funding Nuclear War by Cutting the Budget for Peace

While these prospects are profoundly troubling, the means by which the Obama administration intends to finance them is monstrously cynical. Obama would pay for a new generation of nuclear weapons by expropriating funds previously set aside for dismantling America's nuclear arsenals. These so-called "dismantlement" programs, currently set at a scant $54.2 million, would be cut to mere $30 million in 2015. 

According to Nuclear Watch, these dismantlements are officially referred to as "a work load leveler across all programs," which means, in lay terms, that the spending, "instead of being a prioritized step toward the future world free of nuclear weapons, it is merely filler work in between rebuilding nuclear weapons during Life Extension Programs." 

Under Obama's proposed budget, Coghlan ruefully reports, "key nonproliferation programs designed to hold the spread of nuclear weapons have been slashed by $300 million" -- a cut of 21%. Meanwhile, funding for the Defense Environmental Cleanup, the national program to reduce and remove widespread radioactive contamination left behind from the Cold War era, would be cut from $5.8 billion to $5.6 billion -- even though the decontamination program is far from complete and far behind schedule while costs continue to rise. 

Instead of investing these tax dollars in education, health care or repairs to the nation's crumbling infrastructure, the White House is preparing to spend billions to "modernize" nuclear weapons – a technology that has been called the "greatest existential threat" to the security and survival of United States and the rest of the planet. As Coghlan puts it, the new budget would lavish billions on bombs "while nonmilitary domestic services are cut or flat-lined." 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has published a study on the Projected Costs of Nuclear Forces 2014 – 2023 that sets the full costs for maintaining and modernizing the atomic stockpile, advancing its delivery systems, and stoking the nuclear research and production complex at around $355 billion over the next 10 years. These costs are expected to increase after 2023, when the modernization process really begins to kick in. The report did not consider the added costs of maintaining the nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years, but Nuclear Watch, extrapolating from current trends, predicts the overall amount "will easily exceed $1 trillion." 

"Increased budgets for nuclear weapons are being paid off the back of dismantlements, nonproliferation and cleanup programs, which is just plain wrong," Coghlan says. "It's common knowledge that NNSA's nuclear weapons programs have a staggering track record of cost overruns, schedule delays and security breaches. It's less well-known that these programs may undermine stockpile reliability by introducing unneeded, incredibly expensive changes to existing nuclear weapons that have been extensively tested and are known to be even more reliable than originally thought." 

Coghlan contends that NNSA's programs should be curtailed so that tax money can be redirected to expanding "nonproliferation programs that actually enhance national security, cleanup programs that protect the environment while creating jobs, and dismantlement programs that get rid of nuclear weapons forever." 

---

Gar Smith is Editor Emeritus of Earth Island Journal, a veteran of the Free Speech Movement, a Project Censored award winner, co-founder of Environmentalists Against War and author of Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth (Chelsea Green 2012).

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio State University researchers have developed a way to predict the resistance or susceptibility of trees to sudden oak death disease, providing forest managers with the first effective method to manage trees in infested natural areas and in adjoining areas where the disease is expected in the future. 

A forest disease caused by the invasive fungus-like pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, sudden oak death was first detected in California in 1995. It has since killed millions of tanoaks and trees of several oak species on the West Coast. It is also a potential threat to the valuable Eastern oak species, some of which are known to be highly susceptible to the disease. 

“This is the first time anyone has been able to come up with a method to predict resistance to a forest tree disease in natural populations in the field,” said Pierluigi Bonello, a plant pathologist with the university’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. 

The novel method employs “biomarkers” of resistance, in this case compounds found in the phloem (inner bark) of coast live oaks that can indicate whether a tree is resistant or susceptible to P. ramorum. Bonello developed a model to predict levels of resistance based on the presence of those compounds, which is the basis for their discovery. 

Without these biomarkers, Bonello said, it would take years to know which trees are likely to survive. 

“Our biomarkers allow us to identify trees much faster and before they ever become infected,” Bonello said. “Currently, it takes a week from the time small samples of phloem are collected to the time testing is done in our lab. We are refining the process to make it more user-friendly, faster and cheaper.” 

Bonello’s collaborators in this research include his Ph.D. student, Anna Conrad; Stephen Opiyo, Molecular and Cellular Imaging Center, Ohio State; Brice McPherson and David Wood, University of California, Berkeley; and Sylvia Mori, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Also involved in the project is the East Bay Regional Park District in Contra Costa County, Calif. 

The new technology offers natural resource managers a non-destructive method to “risk-rate” their coast live oak stands for future sudden oak death mortality, Bonello said. 

“With this information in hand, special efforts can be taken to protect forests with high levels of resistance from logging, development and fire,” Bonello pointed out. “We believe these findings will give hope to resource managers and homeowners who are being impacted by this destructive tree pathogen.” 

The discovery is described in the Jan. 15 issue of the journal Forest Ecology and Management. 

According to Bonello, the benefits of this discovery are not limited to combating sudden oak death disease. “These findings also provide a useful blueprint to tackle other similarly destructive forest pest problems closer to home, such as emerald ash borer,” he said. 

The idea that coast live oak had some resistance to the sudden oak death pathogen was first hypothesized by Bonello’s collaborators at UC-Berkeley, who conducted a prior experiment in which trees were artificially inoculated to figure out whether diseased trees were more attractive to wood-boring insects that hasten their death. As a result, scientists discovered a wide range of susceptibility in coast live oak, including trees that seemed to resist the attack. 

Bonello, who was originally involved in sudden oak death research in the 1990s when he was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis, began studying tree resistance to the disease in 2009. 

“As part of this research, we have surveyed and tested tree populations around the San Francisco Bay Area that have been impacted by sudden oak death disease,” Bonello explained. “In one population that has been heavily affected, 30 to 40 percent of the remaining trees appear to be resistant. This data allowed us to classify trees as either resistant or susceptible, and then we analyzed their phloem for clues that would explain what was behind such resistance at the chemical level.” 

Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Health Protection program.

The head of the union that represents Berkeley police officers said today that a suspect's alleged attack on an officer on Monday illustrates why officers in Berkeley need to have Tasers. 

Sgt. Chris Stines, the president of the Berkeley Police Association, said, "In violent situations, where lives are in danger, Berkeley police officers need Tasers." 

Stines said that out of the 113 law enforcement agencies in the Bay Area, Berkeley is one of only three that doesn't use Tasers or isn't investigating using them. 

According to Stines, at about 10:30 a.m. Monday police received a call about a man on Bolivar Drive along Aquatic Park, adjacent to Interstate Highway 80, about a man who was on a roof pouring liquid onto the street and lighting it on fire. 

The first officer who responded to the scene was a 10-year veteran experienced in crisis intervention, Stines said. 

He said the suspect, later identified as 41-year-old Carlos Alberto Delagarza, violently attacked the officer, knocking him unconscious, jumping on top of him and attempting to take the officer's gun. 

When additional officers arrived, Delagarza fled down the road and jumped into the lagoon at Aquatic Park, police said. 

Officers were able to coax Delagarza out of the water and he was taken into custody, Berkeley police spokesman Byron White said. 

Police said Delagarza was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, battery on an officer, taking a firearm from a police officer, second-degree robbery and battery with serious bodily injury. 

Delagarza was scheduled to be arraigned in Alameda County Superior Court this afternoon but the District Attorney's Office hasn't yet disclosed what charges he faces. 

Stines said the officer who was involved in the confrontation with Delagarza underwent tests for his injuries at a local hospital and is recovering at home. 

Stines said, "It appears at this point that he didn't suffer any permanent injuries but that remains to be seen. We have high hopes for a full recovery." 

He said, "This incident could have easily resulted in serious injury or death of our officer, and possibly serious injury or death of innocent bystanders." Stines said, "The city needs to give us Tasers now before an innocent life is taken." 

He said that if the officer who was involved in the incident with Delagarza on Monday had been equipped with a Taser the officer could have used it to better control Delagarza. 

The Berkeley Police Association said 83 percent of the 598 people who participated in a survey last year said Berkeley should further investigate the use of Tasers to deter and control violent people. 

Stines said it ultimately is up to the Berkeley City Council to decide to let officers Tasers but the union would like to see Police Chief Michael Meehan and City Manager Christine Daniel more actively support the use of Tasers.

The California Department of Public Health is advising consumers not to eat anchovies or sardines caught in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties due to dangerous levels of domoic acid that have been detected in the fish. 

Consumers are also advised not to ingest the internal organs of crabs from Monterey and Santa Cruz counties due to domoic acid toxicity. 

Domoic acid is a naturally occurring marine toxin that doesn't hurt marine animals but can be dangerous for humans. 

In anchovies and sardines, the acid resides in the digestive tract, which presents a danger because the fish are typically not gutted before consumption. 

People can show symptoms of domoic acid poisoning within 30 minutes to 24 hours after eating toxic seafood. Symptoms include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, headache and dizziness. 

In severe cases, patients may experience respiratory problems, confusion, seizures, memory loss or death. 

As of Thursday, there have been no reported cases of domoic acid poisoning associated with this warning. 

The Department of Public Health is working with commercial fisherman to keep recently harvested anchovies, sardines and crabs off the market. 

This warning is in addition to a warning issued last week not to eat recreationally harvested mussels, clams and whole scallops from Monterey and Santa Cruz counties due to the same acid.

Dear Mr. Stone, in your article, you concluded with: "It is time for opponents of AOT to look at the facts."

However, the only facts that you have shown are results of a survey by Treatment Advocacy Center. This is an organization with a built-in bias. Those in charge of this organization have already made up their minds that we need forced treatment. Thus, the results of any survey are likely to be skewed in favor of proving your assumptions.

Furthermore, you have said that anyone who opposes "AOT" programs must not be "intellectually honest." You are saying that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically dishonest. Why is that accusation necessary? Could you rephrase your statements to say, "This is what I think"? 

The term "Assisted Outpatient Treatment" to me looks like a dishonesty, because in fact you are talking about forced outpatient treatment. 

I have not seen a provision in this law that is going to end homelessness. You are saying it is "indefensible" to leave people "with a serious mental disorder on the streets." Yet you have not shown how this law will provide food and shelter. 

In short, I believe that you have not proven anything. You are expressing a point of view, and you should not assert that anyone who disagrees is automatically dishonest or not seeing the facts.

More than 200 years after our founding we are still unable to provide poor citizens full rights of participation in our democracy. The voices of rich are heard much more often than the voices of the poor. The rich can fund campaigns with unlimited contributions; the poor cannot possibly match that kind of money to buy TV ads in support of a candidate who knows how life feels at the bottom of the ladder. Because money holds the microphone, the ordinary voices of millions of people are drowned out. Today billionaires can buy the votes they need to support laws that favor them. 

Is there any way to rewind the democratic clock? Is it still possible give voice to the needs of the lower middle class and the poor? The democratic structure of the government falls apart when the poor third of the population is excluded from the political process. 

I heard Chief Justice Roberts announce that donors can give any amount of money to the candidate of their choice. Is there a way we ordinary people can unite to fight against the unbalanced influence of money in our democracy?

Telegraph Avenue is in the midst of a clean-up effort by the Telegraph Business Improvement District. Orange-jacketed “Telegraph Ambassadors” are doing routine maintenance and cleanup of the area, such as painting utility poles, painting over graffiti, pulling weeds from the concrete and dealing with “unwanted” and “problematic” behavior on the avenue. 

The Telegraph Ambassadors are a service of Block by Block, a private company owned by another private company, SMS Holdings. Block by Block is the perfect company to hire for the replacement of once-public services, and the resulting privatization of public space. This “Big Splash” program must be seen in that context. 

Local journalist Darwin BondGraham writes in his article "SMS Holdings: The "Faith-Based," Anti-Labor Company Behind Oakland's Private Cops”, "Block By Block and other SMS subsidiaries maintain low-wage, anti-union workplaces, and have been very aggressive over the past decade in lobbying federal legislators to privatize thousands of government jobs. Block By Block in particular has been criticized in several cities for privatizing services and opposing unionization drives among its employees." You can read the full article here: 

Ambassadors aren't police officers. They can't write citations. We have, however, seen many instances of ambassadors, and the previous Telegraph Guides, tell houseless people and street musicians that they can't block the sidewalk, demanding that they move. Rarely are these people even actually blocking the sidewalk. Of course, there is the implied, or overt, threat of police action if they don't move. There are already laws against assault, robbery, theft, drug possession, etc. There are already laws against smoking in a commercial zone, illegal lodging, drinking in public, etc. These Ambassadors, through creative interpretation and frequent abuse of existing laws, are effectively criminalizing entire classes of people who lack the sort of options that shoppers on Telegraph possess. 

We must return to the notion of “problematic” or “unwanted” behavior. 

What exactly, on an avenue which is being primed for shopping, constitutes “problematic” or “unwanted” behavior. No proponent of the “Big Splash” will come out and say it, but they don't want people on the sidewalks not buying things. They'd rather that they get pushed to other neighborhoods and areas so that people with the security of homes and disposable income can spend money on Telegraph avenue without having to see that there are people who are less fortunate than them or who choose alternate lifestyles. 

This is the same empty and self-serving rhetoric we heard around the Measure S anti-sitting ballot initiative, which failed to pass in November 2012. Lots of talk about behavioral issues and businesses not making as much money as they would like to. What is the solution? 

Scapegoat houseless and poor people and give property owners what they want. This "Big Splash" pilot program is about making Telegraph Avenue a place for people to spend money and leave. If you aren’t conducive to that, get out. 

The “Big Splash” program intends to pay private pseudo-security guards for 158 hours per week so that they can harass houseless people, poor people, and people with mental health issues off the sidewalks of Telegraph Ave. We think that is time, energy, and money poorly spent. 

Instead of using Block by Block as a means of privatizing public space to the benefit of private interests, perhaps a pilot program involving increased public funding for genuine mental health services and housing should be implemented. That would be a genuine response to conditions in Berkeley and a real step towards increasing the quality of life on Telegraph.

A recent ‘60 Minutes’ broadcast profiled an iconic coral island in the Middle of the Indian Ocean – Diego Garcia. It was inhabited for over two hundred years by indigenous islanders who eked out a living fishing and farming. According to broadcaster, Christiane Amanpour. the peace and tranquility of the people changed when the British were approached by the US government who wanted to establish a base on the island. Under US and British pressure the inhabitants were ordered off the island.  

Much like the Japanese internment during World War II, the islanders were allowed to take only a single suitcase for their belongings. They had to leave behind, all their other possessions. There were herded into small ships reminiscent of the US slave trade. The people of Diego Garcia say they left paradise and were transported to a living hell when they were dumped in the urban slums of Mauritius. Their farming and fishing skills left them bereft of any means of survival and many committed suicide, still others lived in a perpetual state of depression and despair. Before their final evacuation the British offered a stark choice – leave or perish. Their beloved dogs, who were extremely adept at catching fish, were gassed by the British and US. A few islands took their case to the British courts and won but were offered no apologizes, no reparations and were forbidden by the British and US governments from ever returning to their ancestral land.

Disturbing covert operations of USAID have recently come to light. According to Associated Press reports, the communications network, "ZunZuneo" — slang for a Cuban hummingbird’s tweet, created a fake “Cuban Twitter” with secret shell companies financed through foreign banks. The younger population was inundated with Tweets encouraging them to rebel and undermine the government. The United States planned to use the platform to spread political upheaval that might trigger a Cuban Spring, or, as one USAID document stated, "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society”.  

According to Peter Kornbluh, who directs the Cuba Documentation Project at the National Security Archive, the USAID program was a classic covert operation – well outside its stated mandate of promoting democracy. It has reportedly squandered $20 million on this botched program that has created a great deal of mistrust and hostility. The money could have been used for educational purposes or humanitarian programs to foster better relations between our two countries. Senator Patrick Leahy deserves credit for lambasting the covert program. AP released memos from Mobile Accord which exposed the covert nature of the whole operation and its deliberate attempt to deceive the American public. The sad irony is that Cuba is dismantling its burdensome Communist ideology and is embracing a more Capitalist model. We can help this welcome trend by normalizing relations with Cuba and removing from it from the clutches of Venezuela which is engaged in an oil for doctors’ pact.

The mental health treatment system is a part of the safety net for persons with mental illness. However, this safety net has holes in it--gaping holes. If someone is completely disabled and can't take care of himself or herself, services do exist for such a person to be maintained. It is not a good life, but it is a life.  

However, if you have a psychiatric disability and your intellect is intact, and maybe you have aspirations, there isn't much assistance for you. While it is true that the California Department of Vocational Rehabilitation did help me in the distant past, they unofficially withdrew support when it became apparent that I have ongoing problems. I was helped by programs (in the mental health treatment system) that were intended to assist higher functioning people with integrating into the community. However, due to budgetary cuts, programs like these have long ago been slashed.  

In spite of my less than ideal experiences with Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, I would still recommend going there, at least to see if they have anything to offer. If what they are offering doesn't suit you, then no harm done, just move on. My wife, who has a bachelor's degree in Human Development, was referred by them to a training to become a motel maid. So, in some cases there are or were wrong assessments. 

Once an alternative to being helped by the state, Mental Health Consumer Concerns was a consumer run organization in the Concord/Martinez area in which consumers were helped by each other. However, they lost their contract and their funding, apparently due to mismanagement. At one time they had a community drop-in center that occupied one of the storefronts that are part of the Riverhouse Hotel building. It was at that community center where I first met my wife, Joanna.  

Persons with mental illness who are high functioning must look to places other than those provided by the mental health treatment system if we want peer support. It is very unfortunate that Mental Health Consumer Concerns and perhaps other peer organizations disappeared off the map, since they were venues in which high functioning persons with mental illness could meet and intermingle. Now it feels as though we have been hunted down as a species--or as a highly inconvenient classification of people.  

Rather than expansion of mental health services, which is what the government ought to be doing, more jails have been built.  

Safe, clean, accessible, affordable housing has become an extreme rarity. On the amount of income provided by SSI, most persons with disabilities are forced to live in some type of institutional housing, since it is not enough money to survive in a share rental situation.  

Thus, if you are mentally ill, high functioning, and medication compliant yet still reliant on services from the government or from Medicare funded agencies, there isn't a lot of support. My wife and I struggle to deal with our day-to-day lives, and wish that things were easier and that there would be more help.  

Those who receive more help must put up with lives that have more restrictions, less independence and fewer choices concerning how they live.  

Additionally, some of the paid caregivers employed to help persons with mental illness can be condescending and may operate under the assumption that all mentally ill people are of inferior intelligence. Thus, I might get a counselor young enough to be my offspring who has the false idea that they are going to teach me something. Such a person is in a position of some amount of authority over me, and this can be disconcerting. (But that's an entirely other issue.)  

In all fairness, I should add that there exists the Putnam Clubhouse in Concord, California. It is not my sort of thing, but it can be a place to go for many persons with mental illness who would otherwise lack a place where they belong. I have a brother, also diagnosed with Schizophrenia, who goes there and gets a lot of good from it.  

Americans are worried about the economy and economic inequality. Most of us feel the government should do something to reduce inequality. Now the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has weighed in with its April 2nd decision in McCutcheon v. FEC making it more difficult for the 99 percent to influence government to remedy inequality. 

The most recent Gallup Poll found that economic concerns continue to dominate American consciousness. A key element is economic inequality, now at its highest point since 1928. 

In a January Pew Research Poll two-thirds of respondents agreed, “In past 10 years, the gap between the rich and everyone else has increased.” However, whether government should do something about this inequality remained a highly partisan issue. 90 percent of Democrats thought that government should do “a lot” to reduce the gap, but only 45 percent of Republicans agreed. 

Because a strong majority of potential voters are now either Democrat or Independent, one would think the 99 percent should be able to get their government to take action to reduce inequality. After all, Republicans are experiencing a historic low in party identification; the latest Gallup Poll showed that only 25 percent of respondents declared as Republican. 

Nonetheless, Republicans are poised to take full control of Congress after the November midterm election. Writing in Mother Jones Magazine, Andy Kroll notes that Republicans are benefitting from a number of factors. Most observers give Democrats little hope of taking back the House of Representatives; they lack 17 seats and, because of GOP-influenced gerrymandering of congressional districts, most Republican House members are in safe seats. (In the 2012 election, House Democrats nationally had 500 thousand more votes than House Republicans, but Dems lost because of gerrymandered districts.) 

The GOP appears to have the upper hand in the 2014 Senate races, where there are 36 seats in play (21 Democratic and 15 Republican). Unfortunately, President Obama isn’t much help to incumbent Democrats, as his job approval numbers hover around 44 percent. 

There’s an “enthusiasm gap” separating the two parties. A recent AP poll found that among those “strongly interested” in politics, 51 percent want a Republican-controlled Congress. The problem is that 81 percent of Republicans said they would “definitely” vote in November versus only 68 percent of Democrats. (A recent study found that these Republican voters are not interested in remedying inequality.) 

So the minority US political Party, whose policies are rejected by most Americans, is poised to take control of Congress. Blame big money and the Supreme Court. 

The Republican Party has become the favored party of America’s plutocratic 1 percent. The GOP billionaires’ strategy has four aspects. The first is a propaganda machine. The second is tactics that arouse the Republican base. The third is disenfranchisement of potential Democratic voters. And the fourth is broadening the power of big money in elections. 

The Republican propaganda machine reached its current volume when Fox News went live in 1996. Now the Republican faithful live in an information silo where daily they are fed lies or distortions. On October 18, 2013, Republican Senator Rand Paul admitted, “I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic.” For example, in the past twelve months Republican propagandists have harped on Benghazi and the supposed failings of Obamacare. 

50 percent of Republican voters are white fundamentalist Christians. Accordingly, the GOP leadership has adopted tactics to appease this base with an emphasis on pro-life policies. 

Republicans understand the tide of demographics is running against them, as their base is old, rural, and white. Since 2010, Republicans have launched a vicious campaign of voter suppressions targeting the young, urban, and non-white. They’ve shortened voting periods, required new forms of voter id, and in general made it more difficult for Democratic voters. In June, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court ruled against section 4 of the voting rights act. This unleashed a new wave of voter suppression. 

But the Republican Plutocratic agenda couldn’t work without millions of dollars in unrestricted conservative funding. Thanks to the Republican majority in the Supreme Court, all the barriers against big money and guarantees of political fairness are being dismantled. First came the 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC decision that permitted corporations to spend unlimited funds in political contests and opened the doors for plutocrats to deploy millions of dollars of “independent expenditure” ads. Then this month McCutcheon vs. FEC wiped out overall campaign contribution limits, which will permit Republican plutocrats to spend even more money influencing our elections. While the five Republican Supreme Court justices defended their decision as an extension of “free speech,” Justice Breyer dissented: 

The First Amendment advances not only the individual’s right to engage in political speech, but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.

 

What’s at stake is “preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.” Will Democrats and Independents recognize this and vote in November? 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bburnett@igc.org

“Happy families are all alike: every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” 

— “Anna Karenina” by Leo Tolstoy 

The opening to Tolstoy’s great novel of love and tragedy could be a metaphor for Europe today, where “unhappy families” of Catalans, Scots, Belgiums, Ukrainians, and Italians contemplate divorcing the countries they are currently a part of. And in a case where reality mirrors fiction, they are each unhappy in their own way. 

While the U.S. and its allies may rail against the recent referendum in the Crimea that broke the peninsula free of Ukraine, Scots will consider a very similar one on Sept. 18, and Catalans would very much like to do the same. So would residents of South Tyrol, and Flemish speakers in northern Belgium. 

On the surface, many of these succession movements look like rich regions trying to free themselves from poor ones, but, while there is some truth in that, it is overly simplistic. Wealthier Flemish speakers in northern Belgium would indeed like to separate from the distressed, French speaking south, just as Tyroleans would like to free themselves of poverty-racked southern Italians. But in Scotland much of the fight is over preserving the social contract that conservative Labor and right-wing Tory governments have systematically dismantled. As for Catalonia—well, it’s complicated. 

Borders in Europe may appear immutable, but of course they are not. Sometimes they are changed by war, economic necessity, or because the powerful draw capricious lines that ignore history and ethnicity. The Crimea, conquered by Catherine the Great in 1783, was arbitrarily given to the Ukraine in 1954. Belgium was the outcome of a congress of European powers in 1830. Impoverished Scotland tied itself to wealthy England in 1707. Catalonia fell to Spanish and French armies in 1714. And the South Tyrol was a spoil of World War I. 

In all of them, historical grievance, uneven development, and ethnic tensions have been exacerbated by a long-running economic crisis. There is nothing like unemployment and austerity to fuel the fires of secession. 

The two most pressing—and the ones most likely to have a profound impact on the rest of Europe—are Scotland and Catalonia. 

Both are unhappy in different ways. 

Scotland always had a vocal, albeit marginal, nationalist party, but was traditionally dominated by the British Labour Party. The Conservatives hardly exist north of the Tweed. But Tony Blair’s “New Labour” Party’s record of spending cuts and privatization alienated many Scots, who spend more on their education and health services than the rest of Britain. University tuition, for instance, is still free in Scotland, as are prescription drugs and home healthcare. 

When Conservatives won the British election in 2010, their austerity budget savaged education, health care, housing subsidies, and transportation. Scots, angered at the cuts, voted for the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the 2011 elections for the Scottish parliament. The SNP immediately proposed a referendum that will ask Scots if they wanted to dissolve the 1707 Act of Union and once again become be an independent country. If passed, the Scottish government proposes re-nationalizing the postal service and throwing nuclear-armed Trident submarines out of Scotland. 

If one takes into account its North Sea oil resources, there is little doubt but that an independent Scotland would be viable. Scotland has a larger GDP per capita than France and, in addition to oil, exports manufactured goods and whisky. Scotland would become one of the world’s top 35 exporting countries. 

The Conservative government says that, if the Scots vote for independence, they will have to give up the pound as a currency. The Scots respond that, if the British follow through on their currency threat, Scotland will wash its hands of its portion of the British national debt. At this point, there is a standoff. 

According to the British—and some leading officials in the European Union (EU)—an independent Scotland will lose its EU membership, but that may be bluster. For one, it would violate past practice. When East and West Germany were united in 1990, some 20 million residents of the former German Democratic Republic were automatically given EU citizenship. If 5.3 million Scots are excluded, it will be the result of pique, not policy. In any case, with the Conservatives planning a referendum in 2017 that might pull Britain out of the EU, London is not exactly holding the high ground on this issue. 

If the vote were taken today, the Scots would probably vote to remain in Britain, but sentiment is shifting. The most recent poll indicates that 40 percent will vote for independence, a three percent increase. The “no” votes have declined by 2 percent to 45 percent, with 15 percent undecided. All Scottish residents over the age of 16 can vote. Given the formidable campaigning skills of Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, and leader of the SNP, those are chilling odds for the London government. 

Catalonia, wedged up against France in Spain’s northeast, has long been a powerful engine for the Spanish economy, and a region steeped in historical grievance. Conquered by the combined armies of France and the Spain in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), it was also on the losing side of the 1936-‘39 Spanish Civil War. In 1940, triumphant fascists suppressed Catalan language and culture and executed its president, Lluis Companys, an act no Madrid government has ever made amends for. 

Following Franco’s death in 1975, Spain began its transformation to democracy, a road constructed by burying the deep animosities engendered by the Civil War. But the dead stay buried only so long, and a movement for Catalan independence began to grow. 

In 2006 Catalonia won considerable autonomy, which was then overturned by the Supreme Tribunal in 2010 at the behest of the current ruling conservative Popular Party (PP). That 2010 decision fueled the growth of the Catalan independence movement, and in 2012 separatist parties in the province were swept into power. 

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s PP is pretty much an afterthought—19 out of 135 seats—in Catalonia where several independence parties dominate the Catalan legislature. The largest of these is Province President Artur Mas’s Convergencia i Unio (CiU), but the Esquerra Republicana de Cataluyna (ERC) doubled its representation in the legislature. 

That doesn’t mean they agree with one another. Mas’s party tends to be centrist to conservative, while the ERC is leftist and opposed to the austerity program of the PP, some of which Mas has gone along with. The CiU’s centrism is one of the reasons that Mas’s party went from 62 seats to 50 in the 2012 election, while the ERC jumped from 10 to 21. 

Unemployment is officially at 25 percent—but far higher among youth and in Spain’s southern provinces—and the Left has thrown down the gauntlet. Over 100,000 people marched on Madrid last month demanding an end to austerity. 

Rajoy—citing the 1976 constitution—refuses to allow an independence referendum, a stubbornness that has only fueled separatist strength. This past January the Catalan parliament voted 87 to 43 to hold a referendum, and polls show a majority in the province will support it. Six months ago, a million and a half Catalans marched in Barcelona for independence. 

The PP has been altogether ham-fisted about Catalonia and seems to delight in finding things to provoke Catalans: Catalonia bans bull fighting, so Madrid passes a law making it a national cultural heritage. The Basques get to collect their own taxes, Catalans cannot. 

How would the EU react to an independent Catalan? And would the central government in Madrid do anything about it? It is hard to imagine the Spanish army getting involved, although a former minister in the Franco government started Rajoy’s party, and the dislike between Madrid and Barcelona is palpable. 

There are other fault lines on the continent. 

Will Belgium split up? The fissure between the Flemish-speaking north and the French-speaking south is so deep it took 18 months to form a government after the last election. And if Belgium shatters, does it become two countries or get swallowed by France and the Netherlands?  

The South Tyrol Freedom Party (STFP) is gearing up for an independence referendum and pressing for a merger with Austria, although the tiny province—called Alto Adige in Italy—has little to complain about. It keeps 90 percent of its taxes, and its economy has dodged the worst of the 2008 meltdown. But some of its German-Austrian residents are resentful of any money going to Rome, and there is a deep prejudice against Italians—who make up 25 percent of South Tyrol—particularly among those in the south. In this way the STFP is not very different than the racist, elitist Northern League centered in Italy’s Po Valley. 

It is instructive to watch the YouYube video on how borders in Europe have changed from 1519 to 2006, a period of less than 500 years. What we think of as eternal is ephemeral. The European continent is once again adrift, pulling apart along fault lines both ancient and modern. How nations like Spain and Britain, and organizations like the EU, react to this process will determine if it will be civilized or painful. But trying to stop it will most certainly cause pain. 

---

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middlempireseries.wordpress.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In "Mental Health Commitment Laws: A Survey of the States” (Survey), the Treatment Advocacy Center comprehensively examined the laws each state uses to determine who within its population might qualify to receive involuntary or assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), for what duration, and graded each state on two measures of their response to the treatment needs of this small but high-impact population.  

For the uninitiated, an AOT program is court-ordered treatment (including medication) for individuals with severe mental illness who meet strict legal criteria, e.g., they have a history of medication noncompliance. Typically, violation of the court-ordered conditions can result in the individual being hospitalized for further treatment. 

First, the Survey looked at the adequacy of AOT in the 45 states who have such laws. Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Tennessee do not have AOT laws. Second, the Survey evaluated the extent these AOT laws are used to intervene and provide treatment.  

It should be noted that California passed an AOT law (Laura's Law) in 2002. The law was extended until December 31, 2017. Yet, of the 58 California counties, only Nevada County has adopted Laura's Law fully while Los Angeles and Yolo Counties operate pilot AOT programs. 

The Survey found that no state earned a grade of "A" on the use of civil commitment laws. Only 14 states earned a cumulative "B" or better for the quality of the civil commitment laws. Seventeen states earned a cumulative grade of "D" or "F" for the quality of their laws. Only 18 states recognized the need for treatment as a basis for civil commitment to a hospital. While 45 states have laws authorizing the use of court-ordered treatment in the community, only 20 had optimal eligibility criteria. Twenty-seven states provide court-ordered hospital treatment only to those persons at risk for violence or suicide even though these states allow for treatment under additional circumstances. Twelve states rarely or never make use of AOT including 8 states with laws authorizing such treatment. 

California received a grade of "F" on inpatient commitment, outpatient commitment, emergency evaluation, and cumulative quality of life; a grade of "C" on emergency evaluation; and an "F" on use of laws.  

To alleviate these deplorable conditions, the Survey recommends enactment of AOT laws in the 5 states that do not have them; the universal adoption of need-for-treatment standards; universal adoption of emergency hospitalization standards that create no additional barriers to treatment; and sufficient inpatient treatment beds of at least 50 beds per 100,000 population. 

In conclusion, it is difficult to understand how anyone can oppose an AOT program. Any intellectually honest person examining the mountain of positive evidence on AOT would have to embrace AOT. It is just not true that the research on AOT is mixed or inconclusive, or that the research only suggests AOT might be worthwhile in an exceedingly well-funded system of community-based care. See, for example, “An advocate’s observations on research concerning assisted outpatient treatment” by Brian Stettin in Current Psychiatry Reports (2014).  

Leaving people with a serious mental disorder on the streets is indefensible. It is time for opponents of AOT to look at the facts.  

First, the Survey looked at the adequacy of AOT in the 45 states who have such laws. Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Tennessee do not have AOT laws. Second, the Survey evaluated the extent these AOT laws are used to intervene and provide treatment.  

It should be noted that California passed an AOT law (Laura's Law) in 2002. The law was extended until December 31, 2017. Yet, of the 58 California counties, only Nevada County has adopted Laura's Law fully while Los Angeles and Yolo Counties operate pilot AOT programs. 

The Survey found that no state earned a grade of "A" on the use of civil commitment laws. Only 14 states earned a cumulative "B" or better for the quality of the civil commitment laws. Seventeen states earned a cumulative grade of "D" or "F" for the quality of their laws. Only 18 states recognized the need for treatment as a basis for civil commitment to a hospital. While 45 states have laws authorizing the use of court-ordered treatment in the community, only 20 had optimal eligibility criteria. Twenty-seven states provide court-ordered hospital treatment only to those persons at risk for violence or suicide even though these states allow for treatment under additional circumstances. Twelve states rarely or never make use of AOT including 8 states with laws authorizing such treatment. 

California received a grade of "F" on inpatient commitment, outpatient commitment, emergency evaluation, and cumulative quality of life; a grade of "C" on emergency evaluation; and an "F" on use of laws.  

To alleviate these deplorable conditions, the Survey recommends enactment of AOT laws in the 5 states that do not have them; the universal adoption of need-for-treatment standards; universal adoption of emergency hospitalization standards that create no additional barriers to treatment; and sufficient inpatient treatment beds of at least 50 beds per 100,000 population. 

There is promising action at the federal level. In December, 2013, Senator Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) introduced the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR 3717), which among other provisions, provides for a federal AOT grant program to help local mental health systems launch their own AOT programs. If passed, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will have authority to award $60 million for up to 200 AOT start-up grants over the next four years. (Individual grants could be awarded up to $1 million.) 

In conclusion, it is difficult to understand how anyone can oppose an AOT program. Any intellectually honest person examining the mountain of positive evidence on AOT would have to embrace AOT. It is just not true that the research on AOT is mixed or inconclusive, or that the research only suggests AOT might be worthwhile in an exceedingly well-funded system of community-based care. See, for example, “An advocate’s observations on research concerning assisted outpatient treatment” by Brian Stettin in Current Psychiatry Reports (2014).  

Leaving people with a serious mental disorder on the streets is indefensible. It is time for opponents of AOT to look at the facts.  

AHS Theatre Ensemble’s production of Jane Austen’s romantic comedy, “Pride and Prejudice”, adapted for the stage by Jon Jory, opens April 24th at Albany High School’s Little Theatre. The show, directed by Cordy Driussi and Julia Marostica, and starring Zelie Anner and Leo Torrez, will run Thursdays 7pm and Fridays, Saturdays 8pm, from April 24 - May 3. 

Albany High does not have a drama department, so the students do not get any financial support to put on their productions. What they draw at the box office, plus donations, pays for their next production: script rights, advertising, set design supplies, costume making supplies and more. 

Tickets at the door are $13 general, $7 students and seniors, and will be available 30 minutes before show times. Reserved tickets are available at www.brownpapertickets.com.

This is the kind of story that cries out for a movie treatment. Mystery! Time travel! Ghosts!

Long ago, in the 1930s, three eccentric tribes were thrown together on an isolated island in the Galapagos. In a mix of Swiss Family Robinson meets Manson Family, The Galapagos Affair recounts how a clash of egos and eros turned a search for Utopia into a bizarre murder mystery. (Or, as the distributor's press kit put it: a case of "Darwin meets Hitchcock.") 

 

--- --- --- 

The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden 

Opens April 11 at the Landmark Theater in Berkeley 

By Gar Smith/ The Berkeley Daily Planet 

 

 

 

This is the kind of story that cries out for a movie treatment. Mystery! Time travel! Ghosts! 

Long ago, in the 1930s, three eccentric tribes were thrown together on an isolated island in the Galapagos. In a mix of Swiss Family Robinson meets Manson Family, The Galapagos Affair recounts how a clash of egos and eros turned a search for Utopia into a bizarre murder mystery. (Or, as the distributor's press kit put it: a case of "Darwin meets Hitchcock.") 

This unlikely film project first drew breath in 1998, when San Francisco filmmakers Dayna Goldfine and Dan Geller were working on a National Science Foundation shoot in the Galapagos Islands. One day they happened across a book of local history called The Enchanted Islands. It contained a 12-page chapter—"Murder in Paradise"—that told the story of Friedrich Ritter, a Berlin physician-cum-philosopher, and his partner Dore Strauch who turned their backs on "civilization" in an attempt to hew out a Nietzschean utopia on the uninhabited island of Floreana. When word of their adventures reached the German press, their solitary idyll came to an end. Soon (much to their dismay) Friedrich and Dore were no longer alone. First they were joined by Heinz and Margret Wittmer and their son. And, finally, the island was invaded by the self-style "Baroness" Eloise Wehrborn von Wagner-Bosquet, a capitalistic femme fatale accompanied by two devoted male lovers. 

By happenstance, after stumbling across the story in print, the filmmakers crossed paths with 95-year-old Margaret Wittmer—the sole surviving witness to the events of 60 years before—when they were forced ashore on the island of Floreana during a sail. 

Wittmer volunteered not a word about the ancient mystery that still haunts the island but, just before the filmmakers departed, she hinted cryptically: "A closed mouth admits no flies." That's when Goldfine and Geller knew they were hooked. 

They wanted to turn the tale into a documentary but, with the exception of Margaret, all the principals were long dead. Since they had no interest in producing a fictionalized account with a Hollywood screenplay and a team of A-list actors, the idea was shelved – for nearly 15 years. Goldfine and Geller went on to make a number of other films, including the acclaimed Ballets Russes. 

In all likelihood, The Galapagos Affair would never have happened had it not been for a near-miraculous discovery. Archivists at the USC film library in southern California had been storing a trove of documents, photographs, negatives and 16-mm film footage donated by Allan Hancock, a wealthy industrialist and yacht-owner who had visited Floreana in the 1930s. 

Geller and Goldfine barely got to the film canisters in time. When the metal lids were pried open, the room filled with the scent of vinegar—a pungent sign the ancient celluloid was in the process of decomposing. Fortunately, they were able to make stable transfers of most of the reels. No one knew what was on the decaying reels but when the transfers were played out on the screen, the filmmakers were astonished. The decades-old collection of "home movies" featured the Ritters, the Wittmers and the Baroness and her boys—all in starring roles. 

It also turned out that Dr. Ritter, his partner Dore and the Wittmers had all written extensively about their days on Floreana. Dore wrote a book called Satan Came to Eden and Margaret Ritter went on to pen a book of her own—Floreana: A Woman's Pilgrimage to the Galapagos. These revealing first-person accounts (along with intimate notes and harsh criticisms contained in personal diaries) provided the filmmakers with a Rashomon-like slant on the story and its players. (The two books offer contrasting accounts of Ritter's ghastly death. Did he die trying to give his lover one last embrace or did he curse her with his dying breath?) Suddenly Geller and Goldfine had everything they needed to create a very special film. 

Because the ancient black-and-white celluloid footage had no soundtrack, it was necessary to find actors to bring the words of the protagonists to life. Goldfine and Geller were able to recruit some of the film industry's best. Cate Blanchett (in town shooting Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine) fell in love with the project and agreed to voice Dore Strauch. Thomas Kretschmann signed on to voice Dr. Ritter and Connie Nielsen became the voice of the baroness. 

Goldfine and Geller made five more trips to the Galapagos, to conduct interviews— with the children of these charismatic pioneers, with two local historians, and with a brace of colorful Galapagueños. 

The 80-year-old film footage is surprisingly intimate and wide-ranging, with much of it looking like it could have been shot specifically for this documentary. There's even a movie-within-the-movie. The baroness apparently so captivated the yacht-loving Hancock that he made a special return trip to Floreana to film a short movie starring the buxom baroness as a rifle-wielding pirate. 

The baroness may not have been Satan incarnate but she certainly bedeviled many men who crossed her path. There was friction. There was anger. There was an unsolved disappearance that suggested murder. And, in the end, the only clue remains forever mute—a sun-baked body stretched out on a forlorn rock in the middle of the ocean. And, against all odds, there was someone with a camera who found the body, filmed it, and left the footage hidden in a campus film archive to be discovered generations later. 

Solo shows are always a dicey proposition ... Sometimes strung midway between Performance Art and, well, monologues of all sorts, including not very theatrical ones, one man, one woman shows often devolve into a kind of live resumé (an in-person "reel") for an actor to be able to show what (s)he can do, between other roles in "real" plays ... 

So it's more than a pleasant surprise to watch Denmo Ibrahim, well-known to Bay Area theatergoers as one of the founders of Mugwumpin, a performance outfit that's always very theatrical, onstage in the show she's written, 'Baba,' staged in San Rafael—tin Margot Jones' dance studio, what used to be an ice house, by AlterTheater, for which Denmo has been resident playwright. Jeanette Harrison of AlterTheater has worked with Aurora and Berkeley Rep, and a few years ago produced a solo show written and musically accompanied by an old Berkeley theater hand, Robert Ernst, one of the founders of the Blake Street Hawkeyes. 

At first, 'Baba' seems to be a character study, a humorous one, of an Egyptian expatriate in New York City, trying, cajoling, flattering, half-threatening every bureaucrat at the Passport Bureau, as he tries to extract a passport for his little daughter, whom he speaks to in asides and directly, as he does others in the office, engaging them in chit-chat. 

But darker moments of monologue, undercutting his sunny immigrant's exterior, belie a deeper purpose. After the conclusion of the episode of "Mo," there's another, that of "Laila," his grown daughter, in the airport and aboard a jet to Cairo, to meet her father for the first time as an adult. 

These two single-actor sketches (there are other characters which the principal one talks to, reacts to) are both acted out by Denmo, with slightly different approaches to the humor. The first scene or sketch is a little earthier, in the sense of Mo presenting himself, either too ingenuously or rather disingenuously, as a regular American guy, albeit from Egypt, happy to be in the States, though beleagured in his attempt to communicate with bureaucrats. 

In the second half, after an unrushed costume change onstage, which doubles as Laila grooming herself for the trip, Denmo's comedic approach is closer to more popular forms, like those seen in films, situation comedies or variety routines on TV, but swifter, cleaner, less self-involved, more integrated with the material, which has a higher purpose than either character sketch or comic routine. The two scenes dovetail into a satisfying theatrical whole—ttwo perspectives, caught over a period of decades, making a single play from these separate, yet intimately related sensibilities. The exposition—tthe backstory—tbecomes an almost casual part of the one-sided "dialogue"" and occasional soliloquies. Director Sara Razavi and dramaturg Jayne Wenger are to be complimented, as well as the actor-author of 'Baba.' 

It's been a pleasure watching Denmo continuing to grow as both a performer and a writer, since her days with Mugwumpin, through the play she wrote for a commission by Golden Thread, 'Ecstasy/a waterfable,' to the present work with AlterTheater. As much as a review—tand exhortation to see 'Baba'!—tthis is a salute to a unique theater artist of the Bay Area. 

* * * 

'QED'—tPeter Parnell's play about celebrity physicist Richard Feynman, a kind of "slice-of-life" towards the end of his life, cut short by two rare forms of cancer (which may or may not have had their genesis in the aftereffects of his witnessing the detonation of the first atomic bomb during "Trinity,"" as a scientist working on the Manhattan project at Los Alamos), is onstage again in Berkeley, at the City Club on Durant, as a reprise of the successful first run at Live Oak Theater, staged by Indra's Net a few months ago. 

That run's success, to judge from reviews, word-of-mouth, and the evidence of the opening of the new run at the City Club, had as much to do with the casting of Jeff Garrett as Feynman as in the continuing interest in the man himself, his unusual approach to science and teaching, his joie de vivre, his role as critic of NASA as member of the national panel investigating the first Space Shuttle catastrophe ... 

And Garrett is engaging, highly energetic in his portrayal of an engaging personality. He and director Bruce Coughran have obviously worked hard together in staging the show, which draws from Feynman's own writings and from his colleague Ralph Leighton's book 'Tuva or Bust!' (Feynman and Leighton hoped to go together to the remote Central Asian country of Tuva, famed for exotic postage stamps and throat-singing; Leighton—twho is an offstage character in some of the play's funniest moments, a harried guide for Soviet visitors involved in the Tuva project, eventually did visit after Feynman's death.) It's these fragments—tsome free-standing, others serving as commentary or counterpoint to the action, which provide the best moments of 'QED.' 

The difficulty with 'QED' is in the play itself, a difficulty with solo shows already mentioned at the start of this joint review: "armed" with all the accoutrements of the contemporary solo piece—tnot only expository monologues, sometimes delivered as less as soliloquies to the audience than as confidences bounced off it, but also one-sided phone conversations (or some taped response by the interlocutor on the other end of the line) ... The wayward "plasticity" of this nonform rivals Silly Putty in its ability to pick up an image and stretch it any which way, opposed to any sense of dramaturgy, which has to operate from a perspective, or series of perspectives (as Shakespeare, Marlowe—teven Harold Pinter—toften do), which defines what the audience can see and hear onstage. This's why Aristotle called drama "the most rational form of poetry;" it's well-defined briefly in its modern form, which fits for any representational art, in Roland Barthes' essay "Diderot Brecht Eisenstein" in his collection of essays 'Image-Music-Text.' 

So a nonstylized set of actions has been dictated by the script for 'QED,' often reduced to a monocular image of Feynman, at best a character sketch, Garrett doing routines on the phone or intimating to the audience something that corresponds to his statements or writings in regard to something else than the imagined, overly-condensed actions of one day ... 

 

Where there's a chance for some real drama—tor comedy besides one-liners—tis with the humorous breaking of the "inner wall" of the solo show—twhat Aeschylus introduced to rhapsodic choral ritual to make it into drama—tanother actor, a student of Feynman's, Miriam Field, played with the appropriate playful pertness of an undergraduate, a college girl, by Britt Lauer. "Miss Field's" request to talk with Feynman is comically (and theatrically) delayed till the end of a longish show—tand we hear how they met in the interim at the champagne-soaked cast party on opening night of a local production in Pasadena (Feynman a longtime Caltech professor) of 'South Pacific,' Feynman having appeared—tand appearing before us in costume—tas the Chief of Bali Hai. 

Unfortunately, this kind of "Play-Within-a-Play" (or solo show) finally relies in the clinch on more cliches of shoehorned-in exposition and "opening up" of action and emotion, making things more melodramatic and overwrought, a la TV episodes, than theatrical. It's strange for a play that features its character's constant exhortations to seek the truth, to find reality rather than even scientific formula, constantly reduced to the simplest formulas of stage and small screen spectacle. 

But—tagain—tthe real attraction, which holds the audience's interest throughout—tis Garrett's energetic delivery and acting out of Feynman's mannerisms (enthusiastic, funny—tand hipsterish, in the parlance of the 40s, 50s, early 60s—twithout the stylization of, say, Terry Southern or Lenny Bruce)—tand the audience rewards him with an ovation more like that for the hero of an athletic event or rock show than for a usual evening of theater. 

In its three productions, all helmed by founder and artistic director Bruce Coughran, Indra's Net has focused most of all on the theme of science and society, and has distinguished itself with the casting of excellent local actors. Its first show, Michael Frayn's 'Copenhagen,' featured Robert Ernst, Karol Strempke and Michael J. Cassidy in an imaginary (!) meeting in some sort of hereafter between Nils Bohr and Bohr's wife Margrethe and Werner Heisenberg ... Frayn's play, almost like a radio play, featured sharp dialogue, a well-defined sense of subject and theme, and a constantly shifting narrative of what the moral meaning might have been of the actions of these two giants of quantum mechanics during the Nazi era and the Occupation of Denmark. 

The more complex 'In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer,' Heiner Kipphardt's epic play in docu-drama format of the inquiry into the security clearance of the physicist who had been head of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, was presented as a staged reading, with a cast that featured James Carpenter as Oppenheimer, and had its strongest moment delivered by George Maguire's choice, humorous depiction of an Oppenheimer colleague on the stand, fussily complaining about the inquiry interfering with his business of science and public life—tthen lavishly praising Oppenheimer as a professional and a person. (Maguire was once a student at the Berliner Ensemble.) 

 

It's a long script of something akin to a trial—tone of the most basic forms of theater, the Greek tragedies were based on the form of a trial or agon ... Where the production had difficulties—tby omission—twas in a lack of definition: the inquiry was the action of representatives of one definite historical period trying to reopen, examine and judge the activities of the lead character and those offering testimony during a time in the immediate past of a very different moral temper—tto the point that two of the three panelists of the inquiry explain that their "judgment' would've been quite different in that past, that here they're only following their present instructions ... high irony of epic theater. 

It will be of great interest to see where Indra's Net goes from here, to what other plays about science—the problem of plays ostensibly about science or mathematics being they usually are more character studies of scientists or merely use something from science or math as a metaphor for something else, a coy sentimentalization .. 

(What immediately comes to mind, of course, is Brecht's 'Galileo,' which Coughran already directed for Masquers Playhouse a few years back.) 

* * * 

'Baba' at West Coast Arts, 1554-4th Street, San Rafael (between E & F Streets, behind United Liquors), Saturdays at 3 & 8, Sundays at 3, through April 27. $25. altertheater.org 

'QED' at Berkeley City Club, 2315 Durant (near Dana), Thursdays through Saturdays at 8, Sundays at 5, through April 27 (preshow talk at every show). $20-$28. indrasnettheater.com—