Two men pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter today for the fatal shooting of a 34-year-old man in broad daylight in Berkeley in February 2013. 

Maurice Thomas, 23, and Jevon Calland, 22, who are cousins, were scheduled to stand trial this week on murder charges for the fatal shooting of Zontee Jones in the 1000 block of Delaware Street between 10th Street and San Pablo Avenue shortly after 11 a.m. on Feb. 4, 2013. 

However, they entered their pleas to the lesser charge of manslaughter before the trial began. 

Prosecutor Glenn Kim said police believe Thomas fired the shots that killed Jones so he faces 21 years in state prison, while Calland faces a lesser term of 16 years. Both men are scheduled to be formally sentenced on Jan. 5. 

Several of Calland's family members didn't want him to accept the plea bargain and were emotional when he entered his no contest plea today. 

Berkeley police Officer Jesse Grant wrote in a probable cause statement that Calland had a motive to harm Jones and had threatened him in front of witnesses the day before Jones was shot to death. 

Grant didn't say what Calland's motive was but said Calland "made a plan with several other people to do harm" to Jones, who he said was unarmed. 

Grant alleged that Thomas was the person who actually shot and killed Jones. 

Referring to the alleged plan to harm Jones, Grant said, "Calland summoned one of the other persons to the scene of the murder with a firearm." 

He said, "Calland engaged the victim (Jones) in a physical confrontation and the other persons assisted him." 

Calland's lawyer Ted Johnson said that although Calland's family didn't want him to accept the plea deal, "It was his (Calland's) case and he had to make the decision for himself." 

Johnson said he thinks there are "holes" in the prosecution's case against Calland and Thomas but he still thinks the agreement was an acceptable outcome. 

"This case was a tragedy all around," Johnson said, referring to Jones' death and the long prison sentences that Calland and Thomas face. 

Thomas' lawyer Ernie Castillo said he believes the plea bargain was "a reasonable resolution given the nature of the case." 

Castillo said even though Thomas and Calland are cousins, there were tensions between their families because the two defendants had different defense strategies. 

After Calland entered his plea, he said, "To my family, I want to say that we should stick together." 

Johnson told Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stuart Hing, who accepted the pleas, that Calland's message is "to stop the fighting and the antagonizing of each other and keep the family unity going." 

It is Thomas' 23rd birthday today.

A 62-year-old man died Monday afternoon after he was hit by a Volkswagen while riding his bicycle Sunday in the Berkeley hills, according to the Alameda County coroner's bureau. 

Kurt Wehner of Berkeley was riding south on Spruce Street at about 8:15 a.m. Sunday when a man driving a black Volkswagen hatchback hit him while driving east on Eunice Street, police said. 

Wehner was taken to Highland Hospital in Oakland with life-threatening injuries and remained there until Monday afternoon, when he was pronounced dead at 4:08 p.m., officials said. 

Wehner's cousin, John Lutterman of Anchorage, Alaska, wrote on Facebook that Wehner had been taken off life support. 

"Kurt, and his brother Todd, turned me on to serious biking when I was a kid. I'll miss Kurt's endlessly good-natured Heyoka spirit," Lutterman wrote. 

The Volkswagen's driver remained at the scene after the crash and cooperated with the investigation.

Berkeley Police Department Jennifer Coats has provided further information about a felony assault that took place on Friday, September 19, 2014 near the intersection of Russell and Otis. 

In an email to the Planet, she said: 

"The victim, a 72 year old female, from Oakland is still in critical condition at a local hospital. 

"An arrest was made regarding this incident. Arrested is Kamau Berlin, an 18 year old male, from Richmond. He was charged with attempted homicide and attempted carjacking. He was booked into the Berkeley City Jail on Friday, September 19, 2014. He was apprehended by BPD officers when he attempted to flee on foot as the officers arrived at the location. 

"It appears the victim was assaulted, during an attempted carjacking of her vehicle by the suspect. During the course of the assault, she was stabbed several times, causing life threatening injuries. We will not be releasing what type of weapon or the location of the wounds. 

"Berlin is expected to be arraigned on September 23, 2014 at 2:00 p.m." 

Berkeley Police Department (BPD) received a report of a disturbance with a woman yelling for help near the intersection of Russell Street and Otis Street.

BPD officers arrived within minutes after the call was received. They observed a male subject, matching the description provided by callers flee on foot. Officers pursued him into the block, where he was quickly detained in the 2900 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Other officers located a female victim, in her 70s, suffering from severe injuries at the corner of Otis Street and Russell Street. Officers rendered first aid until Berkeley Fire Department personnel arrived on scene. BFD paramedics transported the victim to a local hospital with life threatening injuries. 

Investigators are actively working this case, conducting interviews, following up on leads, and examining evidence. It is early on in the investigation, in the interest of maintaining the integrity of this investigation, BPD will not be releasing the victim’s identity or that of the subject detained. Any release of this information could possibly hinder the investigation. 

BPD is urging anyone with information regarding this case to please contact our Homicide Detail at (510)-981-5741 or the non-emergency line at (510) 981-5900. If a caller wishes to remain anonymous he/she can call the Bay Area Crime Stoppers Tip Line at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477).

After last week’s editorial reporting on various discussions in academe about the virtues of maintaining civility in disputes, I got a couple of comments from friends connected at one time or another with the University of California, perfect gentlemen both.

Each claimed the prize for recognizing that one of my rude quotes was probably authored by Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence.

And both politely disagreed with the absolutist tone of my criticism of Chancellor Dirks. 

From Tony Rossmann, who teaches at the Berkeley law school: 

 

“Unlike say Stanford's president a decade or so back, or this chancellor in Illinois, Dirks is not proposing to sanction anyone for their form or content of speech. He's not saying that something is so hateful that we will not allow it. He is reminding folks that (without defining them) there are boundaries that we should voluntarily observe. And I would argue that in the context of say a university lecture those boundaries may be a little sharper than on Telegraph Avenue. You can't shout someone down by sheer vocal force -- unless of course you have cause for civil disobedience, but let's remember that that is not civil, but deliberate disobedience to standards.”

And from Chris Adams, who worked on the university’s physical planning: 

 

“I think there is something to be said for civility. In west Marin, where we go often, the debate about the oyster farm has definitely been uncivil, by which I mean that the attacks, mostly but not exclusively on the side of the farm proponents, are often about the character, intelligence, honesty, etc. of the those on the other side rather than on the issues themselves."  

My reply to both of them was a quote from a collateral ancestor of mine, Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his 1862 essay “American Civilization”, in which he argued the necessity of the emancipation of slaves: “There can be no high civility without a deep morality”. 

But they’re not wrong in suggesting that if at all possible civil discussion is a good goal, in the academy and outside it. 

Responding to the critics of his original Free Speech Movement letter, Chancellor Dirks came back in a September 12 press release for a second bite of the apple, an attempt to clarify what he’d been trying to say in his previous email: 

“Every fall for the last many years, we have issued statements concerning the virtue of civility on campus. This principle is one of several that Berkeley staff, students, faculty and alumni themselves developed and today regard as “fundamental to our mission of teaching, research and public service.” To quote further from our “principles of community”: “We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities. We respect the differences as well as the commonalities that bring us together and call for civility and respect in our personal interactions.” For a full list of these stated principles, please see http://berkeley.edu/about/principles.shtml. “In this year’s email, I extended this notion of civility to another crucial element of Berkeley’s identity, namely our unflinching commitment to free speech — a principle this campus will spend much of this fall celebrating in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement.  

“My message was intended to re-affirm values that have for years been understood as foundational to this campus community. As I also noted in my message, these values can exist in tension with each other, and there are continuing and serious debates about fundamental issues related to them. In invoking my hope that commitments to civility and to freedom of speech can complement each other, I did not mean to suggest any constraint on freedom of speech, nor did I mean to compromise in any way our commitment to academic freedom, as defined both by this campus and the American Association of University Professors. (For the AAUP’s Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, please see http://www.aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom.) 

“I did, however, express my conviction that in the ongoing debates on campus about these and other issues, we might collectively see the value of real engagement on divisive issues across different perspectives and opinions. By “real engagement” I mean openness to, and respect for, the different viewpoints that make up our campus community. I remain hopeful that our debates will be both productive and robust not only to further mutual understanding but also for the sake of our overriding intellectual mission.” 

In response, members of the FSM-Archives and the 50th Anniversary Organizing Committee issued this revised statement dated September 16, 2014: 

 

 

Dear Chancellor Dirks,

The Free Speech Movement Archives and the Organizing Committee for the FSM 50th Anniversary would like to thank you for generously supporting our efforts to commemorate the Free Speech Movement and to keep the memory of those events alive. We look forward to seeing you at our reunion.  

In the spirit of civil discourse, we would like to bring to your attention some history regarding the question of what the movement was about, what we won, and what it means for the campus today. In your email to the campus community on Friday, Sept. 5, you said, “The boundaries between protected speech and unprotected speech, between free speech and political advocacy, between debate and demagoguery… have never been fully settled.” 

In fact, these questions were fully settled. On Dec. 8, 1964, the Berkeley Academic Senate adopted a resolution stating that “the content of speech or advocacy shall not be restricted by the University.” This resolution was then reinforced by the regents’ resolution on Dec. 14, 1964, which stated, “Henceforth University regulations will not go beyond the purview of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” 

In celebrating the half century that the campus has been “a symbol and embodiment” of the idea of free speech, you are proudly and properly acknowledging the outcome produced by the movement in the fall of 1964. But your statement seems to miss the central point. The struggle of the movement was all about the right to political advocacy on campus. The UC administration of that time insisted it would not permit on-campus speech on advocating student participation in off-campus demonstrations that might lead to arrests. The African-American Civil Rights Movement was then at its height, and students rejected these restrictions. This attempt to restrict our rights produced the Free Speech Movement. 

It is precisely the right to speech on subjects that are divisive, controversial and capable of arousing strong feelings that we fought for in 1964. From the roof of the police car blockaded in Sproul Plaza, we heard a song written by UC graduate Malvina Reynolds — who earned a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. — that summed up our feelings toward the UC administration and others who were then trying to rein in the Civil Rights Movement. The song was titled “It Isn’t Nice.” 

“It isn’t nice to block the doorway. It isn’t nice to go to jail. 

There are nicer ways to do it, but the nice ways always fail. 

It isn’t nice, it isn’t nice, 

You told us once. You told us twice. 

But if that is freedom’s price, we don’t mind.” 

We note that the charge of “uncivility” was recently used by Chancellor Phyllis Wise of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to justify the discharge of professor Steven Salaita following controversial statements he posted on his Twitter account. For this reason, many read the call for civility in your letter as a potential threat to academic freedom and to freedom of speech. 

We understand you have issued no regulation nor taken any steps to restrict political advocacy or “uncivil” speech on campus. Nonetheless, we are concerned that your call for “civility” may have — or already has had — a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech by UC Berkeley faculty and students. Therefore, we welcome your Sept. 12 message that you do not intend to limit or regulate speech on campus, and we ask that you take every opportunity, during this 50th-anniversary semester, to reaffirm the policy that — as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s First and 14th Amendments — the content of speech or advocacy shall not be restricted by the university. We thank you for your email clarifying that you are fully committed to uphold and affirm the proud traditions established on campus 50 years ago. 

Signed, 

The Board of Directors of the Free Speech Movement Archives and the 50th Anniversary Organizing Committee 

Lee Felsenstein, Gar Smith, Anita Medal, Bettina Aptheker, Susan Druding, Barbara Garson, Jackie Goldberg, Lynne Hollander Savio, Jack Radey, Barbara Stack, Steve Lustig, Karen McLellan, Mike Smith, Dana MacDermott, Jack Weinberg and Margy Wilkinson 

 

So where does all this leave us? I guess I’m still going to hang with old Uncle Ralph. 

 

Sometimes things come up that are so deeply immoral that ordinary notions of civility just don’t apply. Slavery was one such thing, little dispute about that these days. My genteel slave-holding Virginia ancestors would have disagreed, but they would have been wrong, as was Mr. Jefferson on this question. 

Another immorality, it seems to me, is the continued injustice in what the government of Israel is doing to the people of Palestine. Professor Salaita’s infamous tweets were highly uncivil, but he was responding appropriately to the deep immorality we all witnessed in the last months--soccer-playing boys gunned down on a beach, U.N. schools demolished, empty apartment buildings destroyed in the most crowded territory perhaps on the surface of the earth, hundreds of innocent children killed. I myself, seeing one of the reports of what was going on in the last Gaza war, swore loudly and long in a way startling to my daughter who had never heard me do such a thing—she was surprised that I even knew the words. 

Someone, sometime, even on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, might have a similar reaction to this or a similar outrage, and it should be their right—no, their duty—to express their opinion in suitably angry words. In fact, I believe someone on that campus once, now a while ago, made a statement about this duty that’s lasted for a few years and is still relevant. 

 

Just saying… 

After the previous election some readers complained that they couldn't locate the Planet's endorsements when they went to vote. To make it as easy as possible, between now and the election we're going to maintain this corner of the front page where you can always find our endorsements along with links to editorial material with more detail about specific candidates and issues.

First, click here for the full story: Which Berkeley City Council Candidates Should You Support?

Short Answers: District 1, Alejandro Soto-Vigil; District 4, Jesse Arreguin (unopposed); District 7, Kriss Worthington; District 8, Jacquelyn McCormick (rank her first, followed by George Beier, second, and Lori Droste, third. Skip fourth place. )

Then , check out this May editorial with a self-explanatory title: Tony Thurmond is the Best Choice for California Assembly ...

We're pleased to see that Berkeley Councilmember Jesse Arreguin has added his endorsement to Tony's long list of fans.

In this video you can see Tony explain his campaign in person at a Berkeley house party: 

 

 

More to come on the ballot measures and propositions.

 

Dan O'Neill

 

I am gravely concerned about the expansion of U.S. airstrikes into Syria and continuation of airstrikes in Iraq.

It is clear we are rapidly becoming more involved in another war in the Middle East.

President Obama has put together a strong international and regional coalition to address the ISIS threat. We must now leverage this regional coalition to achieve the political solution that will end this crisis. Only a political solution that respects the rights of all Iraqis and Syrians will ultimately dismantle ISIS. 

I have called and will continue to call for a full congressional debate and vote on any military action, as required by the Constitution. The American people deserve a public debate on all the options to dismantle ISIS, including their costs and consequences to our national security and domestic priorities. 

The rapid escalation of another war in the Middle East underscores the danger of the blank check for endless war passed by Congress in 2001. I could not support this blank check for endless war or the 2002 blank check for war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force and continue to build bipartisan support for their repeal. 

There is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. In fact, continued U.S. military action will result in unintended consequences. We must remember the roots of ISIS - President Bush’s ill-begotten war. 

Congress needs to debate the political, economic, diplomatic and regionally-led solutions that will ultimately be the tools for U.S. and regional security.

Based on positions Elizabeth Echols has taken over the past several weeks, Jesse Arreguin has dropped his endorsement for her. Jesse has made the choice to fully support Tony Thurmond in his bid to become our next Assemblyperson in AD15. You'll find his name under elected endorsers on Tony's campaign website shortly. 

This is a big deal for many of us who support Jesse and wondered about his support of Elizabeth. He'd known for a number of years through her work within the Democratic party locally. When issues that were central to Jesse's efforts were directly opposed by Elizabeth, he decided he had to align himself with the more progressive of the two candidates. 

I hope you all will have good look at the positions Elizabeth is taking and see just how closely those positions align with your core values.

Unlike two controversial measures on the November ballot, the parks tax increase, Measure F, is a straightforward proposition. It’s a repairs bill.

Measure F stands for fix-it, or to be more accurate, fix them: the 52 parks, 30 park buildings, 100 pathways, and 35,000 street trees that the City Parks, Recreation and Waterfront department maintains on a shoestring, only 3% of the general fund and 6% of the overall budget.

Since 1982, parks and forestry have been funded by a special parcel tax, which has not been adjusted upwards in 14 years. Population growth has increased both use and the cost of keeping our parks safe and clean and the urban forest properly cared for.

Time and weather have taken a toll on outdoor facilities including basketball and tennis courts, sports field, and community centers, which urgently need repair. Despite job cutbacks, the parks budget faces a deficit. 

Measure F is modest, a 16.7% increase to an existing tax, adding approximately $40 to the tax bill for the average 1900 square foot house, about a latte each month according to Jim McGrath, the Chair of the Healthy Berkeley Parks Committee/ Yes on Measure F. The tax is shared by residential and commercial properties including new apartment buildings and other multi-family dwellings. 

Three more maintenance positions and many needed repairs will be lost if Measure F fails to garner the required 67% of the vote. The required upgrades are detailed in the staff report to the City Council at a work session on February 11, when a Parks and Waterfront Commission recommendation was also presented 

Partially funded renovation projects include Grove Park fields, James Kenney Park lighting, John Hinkel Park amphitheater, the Ohlone Dog Park, and our beautiful iconic Rose Garden, which is in such sad shape that weddings have been cancelled due the condemnation of the decrepit trellis. 

High use park improvements include the basketball courts at Cedar-Rose, Codornices, Cragmont, Glendale-LaLoma, Greg Brown, Grizzly Peak, James Kenney, and Strawberry Creek Parks. 

Tennis courts city wide need attention as do ball fields at five parks. Much neglected Aquatic Park requires cleaning and rebuilding the outlets of the central tide tubes, dredging, and pedestrian pathways. The perimeter path of Cesar Chavez should be repaved, and the rest rooms and play areas at San Pablo Park renovated. 

The Park buildings that need repair include plumbing at the King and West Campus pools as well as locker room renovations. The MLK Community Center needs almost a million dollars in renovations including plumbing and heating. James Kenney Community Center is rotting, and needs seismic upgrade and other repairs. The Live Oak and Frances Albrier Centers have similar needs. 

According to staff, the total recommended projects add up to $25,192, 356. It’s no wonder that the City Council unanimously endorses the parks tax increase as well as all candidates, save Jacquelyn McCormick, one of four competing in District 8, who complains “It’s not enough.” 

At the Berkeley Democratic Club endorsement meeting on September 11, one woman in the audience said, “It doesn’t make sense to delay repairs because the problems will only get worse.” The BDC endorsed Measure F by 86%. 

It’s true that the parks tax increase will only generate an additional $1.7 million a year but that saves three maintenance jobs and allows the staff to plan and budget repairs, knowing that they can rely on a more robust steady income stream, until a better economy provides the foundation for an infrastructure bond. 

The tax covers existing facilities because the Council heeded the polling results of community surveys conducted in April, which showed inadequate support for new projects or the reopening of the Willard Pool. According to Council strategists, it’s safer to wait for a more favorable election than to run what could have become a losing referendum on the south side pool, so missed by families with school age children and neighbors. 

Measure F buys time for Willard Pool, they say, and also allows for neighborhood based planning of the Santa Fe right -of -way. George Beier, the President of the Willard Neighborhood Association and a candidate in district 8 who has advocated for the reopening of Willard Pool, supports Measure F, while District 2 Council member Darryl Moore, who pressed hard for development of the right-of-way, has also endorsed the tax increase. 

Measure F has garnered a broad spectrum of support from a unanimous vote at the progressive Wellstone Democratic Club to the Chamber of Commerce, since well-maintained parks not only provide recreation for people of all ages and incomes but also attract business and uphold property values. 

Realtors have long acknowledged “the proximate principle” which shows that market value of properties located near a park or open space are frequently higher than comparable properties located elsewhere. The current high price of Berkeley homes is driven by demand and such factors as the benefits of the University, central location in the Bay Area, our excellent schools, and not least, our 52 parks scattered across the City in all neighborhoods. 

The parks tax was first instituted by vote of the people as a landscape assessment district to provide a reliable income stream for maintenance of parks, trees, and landscape after Proposition 13 (1978) cut municipal funding. Berkeley has special taxes for schools and libraries for the same purpose, which like the parks tax, are based on square footage and not valuation. These fair taxes reflect our community values and reduce the tax disparity among neighbors that the county ad-valorem tax creates. 

To determine your Measure F property tax increase, find “City Landscape/Park” under “Fixed Charges and/or Special Assessments” on your bill; multiply that amount by 1.167 for the new amount, and subtract the old from the new to produce the addition. I will pay only $18 more for my cottage.  

Despite the low cost of Measure F, discontent comes from tax resisters and critics of City budgeting, including signers of the ballot argument against, who feel that mismanagement and unfunded liabilities need to be addressed before imposing more taxes. McGrath, a retired manager at the Port of Oakland, is critical of this approach, saying “You don’t wait to pay off the mortgage before fixing the roof.” 

The campaign is primarily funded by neighbors, the largest contribution of $2,000 coming from retiring City Council member Gordon Wozniak, who has shown his good sense in stepping down after 12 years and supporting the parks, which he once served as a commissioner. Jim McGrath has kicked in $1,000, and smaller amounts have been supplied by some Council members and the Yes on F committee as well as concerned members of the public, who are stepping up one by one with contributions. The parks tax has (to date) been ignored by the Mayor, who has pumped $11,000 into the downtown related No on R campaign. 

Measure F is an opportunity for voters to consider the health of the parks and forestry infrastructure as a whole, rather than by project and district. The measure is an investment in our commons, everybody’s backyard, as well as recreational opportunities for all. Parks and trees uphold personal and property values as well as the health and well-being of individuals and the community. 

---

Toni Mester is Treasurer of the Healthy Berkeley Parks Committee. www.healthyberkeleyparks.com 

 

The battle against the militant group ISIS has started off badly. According to Human Rights Watch, Iraq has been accused of indiscriminately bombing Sunni areas. 31 civilians, including 24 children died when a school was bombed – no Islamic fighters were around the school site. The grotesque beheading of several western reporters has invoked seething anger and desire for revenge. Inexplicably, President Obama has proposed a bombing campaign devoid of any serious diplomatic efforts.  

We should first follow the Hippocratic Oath and do no harm. Boots on the ground are fast multiplying. There are currently about 1,500; there will be close to 1,800 very soon and more and more ‘guns for hire’ contractors are reaching out for their boots. A much greater diplomatic effort is needed including the active participation of Iran which has enormous influence on Iraq. This effort should be directed at forming a much greater inclusive government blunting Sunni support for ISIS.  

We should stop beating Putin like a Piñata and extend our diplomatic efforts by seeking Russia’s help in bringing about a cessation of hostilities in Syria. This would have the added benefit of reducing tensions in Ukraine if we can assure Russia that NATO won’t be extended to their front door threatening their security. A tight arms embargo should be imposed on the conflict zones because who we perceive as friends could very quickly become foes. Finally, we should stop the private funding of ISIS, which according to “WikiLeaks” comes mainly from private wealthy Saudi donors.

Tony Thurmond, former Richmond City Councilmember and school board member, announced today that Berkeley City Councilman Jesse Arreguin has shifted his endorsement from his opponent's to his own campaign for State Assembly. 

The move accelerates the momentum Thurmond has been building in Berkeley, his opponent's home city. In addition to Congressman George Miller, Attorney General Kamala Harris, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, California's teachers, firefighters and nurses, Arreguin joins Berkeley City Councilmembers Max Anderson and Kriss Worthington, former Berkeley Mayors Gus Newport and Shirley Dean, and former Berkeley City Councilmembers Miriam Hawley and Ying Lee – the first and only Asian American to serve on the Council. Berkeley School Board President Josh Daniels and Michele Lawrence, former Berkeley Unified School District Superintendent, also endorse Thurmond. 

This news also comes on the heels of UFCW Local 5's recent announcement that it also has shifted from a dual to a sole endorsement for Tony Thurmond. 

Thurmond said, "I'm honored to have Councilman Arreguin's support. He knows that when it comes to improving our schools, protecting our environment and creating good paying jobs, there's no candidate in this race with better experience." 

"I have a real record on issues that matter most to this district and the state. From reducing truancy and ensuring more kids are prepared for college, to reducing crime and creating green job training programs like solar installations, which I helped create, I will bring this proven track record of leadership to Sacramento." 

With just forty-five days until Election Day and with a powerful field campaign unmatched by his opponent, the tidal wave of support has positioned Tony Thurmond as the front-runner. 

Tony Thurmond has: 

• Raised 30 percent more than his opponent in the last fundraising period.
• Won the endorsement of the Contra Costa Times and Oakland Tribune – the major news organization in the district.
• Won the endorsements of Alameda County Supervisors Keith Carson, Wilma Chan and Scott Haggerty – in addition to Pamela Price, Sam Kang and Clarence Hunt – all the major candidates in the primary election who did not advance to the runoff.
• A narrow lead according to a recent poll by Oakland-based EMC Research and more room to grow his share of the vote.

Thurmond has served as a member of the Richmond City Council and the West Contra Costa County Board of Education. He currently works at the Lincoln Child Center and has been active in CEO Youth, an innovative program working to improve school attendance and reduce dropout rates. Previously, Thurmond served as Executive Director of Beyond Emancipation, a non-profit that provides oversight and mentoring to help former foster youth make successful transitions into adulthood.  

See his growing endorsement list at www.TonyThurmond.com/endorsements. 

In his September 10th speech about middle-eastern terrorists, ISIL, President Obama gave the classic rationale for US involvement: “America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth… Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world.” What kind of leadership? 

Obama’s assertion of US leadership has two components. In the first, the President boasted that our economy is the strongest in the world: 

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history.

The 2013 World Bank rank of countries by GDP shows the US number one ($16.8T), followed by China ($9.2T), Japan ($4.9T), Germany ($3.6T), France ($2.7T), England ($2.5T), Brazil ($2.2T), Russia ($2.1T), Italy ($2.1T), and India ($1.8). Two-thirds of the way through 2014, the US is still number one . 

 

Most Americans believe the US is the world leader. A recent CNN article examined recent poll results and concluded how Americans respond, when asked about America’s stature, depends upon the way the question is framed. If we are asked, "Because of the United States' history and its Constitution, do you think the U.S. has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world?" 80 percent of respondents agree. 

On the other hand, many Americans are not happy with the economy. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 50 percent of respondents feel the economy is “improving.” Nonetheless, 49 percent believe the US is “still in a depression” (That’s down from 64 percent in December). 52 percent opined, “The economy has improved a bit, but we have a long way to go before things are better.” Given this pessimism, it’s not surprising that 80 percent of respondents believe the US is in “a state of decline.” 76 percent are not confident that “life for our children’s generation will be better than it has been for us.” 

Americans believe they live in the greatest country in the world but they are not optimistic about the future. 

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll provides more information about our pessimism. 54 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “The widening gap between the incomes of the wealthy and everyone else is undermining the idea that every American has the opportunity to move up to a better standard of living.” And, when asked about the economy, 71 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “These are mostly problems with the inability of elected officials in Washington to get things done to help improve the economy.” 

Americans are proud but pessimistic. Does this make us a good world leader? 

Politicians typically talk about American leadership in foreign affairs. In recent months, the US has had to initiate coalitions to deal with events such as the Russian incursion into the Ukraine. Subsequent to his September 10th speech, President Obama formed a coalition to deal with ISIL. 

The latest Pew Research poll indicates there is bipartisan support for Obama’s ISIL strategy – 64 percent of Republicans support it and 60 percent of Democrats. 

Nonetheless, another Pew Research poll reported that the majority of respondents believed the US “plays a less important and powerful role as a world leader than it did a decade ago”. More than half agreed, “the U.S. should ‘mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.’” What changed between the two polls was the emergence of ISIL. 83 percent of Pew poll respondents felt that “protecting the US from terrorist attacks” should be America’s number one foreign policy goal. 

Psychologist Abraham Maslow famously quipped, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” It’s the nature of American leadership: we hold the largest hammer in the world. 

The US has the world’s largest military. In 2013 we spent $640 billion on defense, more than the next eight countries combined. (The number two country, China, spent an estimated $188 billion.) As a result, we’re the world’s police force. Former Congressman Ron Paul claims we have military personnel in 900 overseas bases in 130 countries. 

When President Obama said, “American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world,” he was preaching to the choir: despite our problems, Americans believe we are the world’s most powerful nation because we have the biggest hammer. 

But there’s more to leadership than wielding a hammer. We have a strong economy and military but a seeming inability to deal with crucial problems such as economic inequality and global climate change. 

The Bible teaches, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” If America doesn’t generate a vision for a world of peace and justice, we will lose our preeminence. No matter how big our hammer. 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net 

 

Thinking about U.S. foreign policy these days brings to mind a line from songwriter/comedian Tom Lehrer: if you are feeling like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis you have good reason. 

1. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is creating a Rapid Reaction Force to challenge Russian “aggression” in Ukraine, and the U.S., the European Union, and Russia are lobbing sanctions at each other that have thrown Europe back into a recession. Russian planes are buzzing U.S. and Canadian warships in the Black Sea.
2. The U.S. is bombing Iraq and Syria in an effort to halt the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), while at the same time supporting insurgents trying to overthrow the Assad regime in Damascus, the pool from which ISIL was created.
3. After 13 years of war, Afghanistan is the verge of a civil war over the last presidential election, while the Taliban have stepped up their attacks on the Afghan military and civil authorities.
4. Libya has essentially dissolved as a country, but not without supplying insurgents in central Africa and Nigeria with greatly enhanced firepower.
5. The U.S. encouraged the Japanese government to bypass Article 9 of Japan’s peace constitution that restricted deploying its military outside of Japan. Washington also committed the U.S. to support Tokyo in the event of a clash with China over the ownership of a handful of islands in the East China Sea. American, Japanese and Chinese warships and military aircraft have been playing chicken with one another in the East and South China seas.

What is going on? Did some Greek open a box she shouldn’t have? Is the Obama administration—take your choice—incompetent? Trying to wind down two of America’s longest wars? Giving liberal cover to a neo-conservative strategy to re-institute a new cold war? Following an agenda? 

How about all of them? 

There certainly has been incompetence. The 2009 surge into Afghanistan did nothing but kill a lot of people, and the Libya intervention substituted Chaos Theory for diplomacy. 

It is also true that old wars are winding down. In 2008 there were 110,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and 182,000 in Iraq. By the end of 2014 there will be no U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and—at this time—only a handful in Iraq. 

Cover for the neo-cons? The Obama administration did help engineer the coup in Ukraine, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland—who oversaw the action and handpicked the interim coup president—was Dick Cheney’s principle foreign policy advisor. 

And the U.S. certainly has an agenda, which may best be summed up by 19^th century British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Henry Lord Palmerston—England’s hammer of empire, who oversaw the Opium Wars with China and the Crimean War with Russia: “We have no eternal allies and we have no eternal enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow.” 

What are our “interests” in Ukraine? 

Certainly not spreading democracy. We supported a coup against a corrupt, but legally elected oligarch, and replaced him with another oligarch in an election that excluded half the country. 

There are, in fact, multiple currents at play. During the Cold War disagreements about foreign policy among the ruling elites were suppressed by the overarching need to defeat what was perceived as a real threat to capitalism, the socialist world. “Politics stops at the water’s edge” was the watchword back then. But once that threat evaporated with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, those disagreements were free to come pouring out. Democrats and Republicans now openly sabotage one another’s policies in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, and different wings of both parties battle over using the American military. 

Which doesn’t mean there isn’t common ground. 

One shared interest is pushing NATO east, something the U.S. been doing since the U.S. double-crossed Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Gorbachev agreed to pull 380,000 Soviet troops out of East Germany provided NATO did not fill the vacuum. “Not one inch east,” U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised. Now, virtually every Warsaw Pact country is a member of NATO. 

There is also general agreement—underlined at the recent Alliance meetings in Wales—to expand NATO into a worldwide military alliance, although that creates a certain dilemma for Washington. Currently the U.S. foots 75 percent of NATO’s bill, but is finding that increasingly hard to do, given the enormous costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars, the pivot to Asia, and the expanding war in Iraq and Syria. 

The Ukraine crisis has served as the perfect excuse to dragoon other members of NATO into increasing their contributions, though that won’t be a slam-dunk. Most of Europe is in recession, and while the NATO ministers are all for becoming global policemen, their constituents are less enthusiastic. European publics turned sharply against the Afghan War, and most polls show strong opposition to any more “out of area” deployments or increased military spending at the expense of social services. 

One strong current at work these days are the neo-conservatives, whose goals are not to just break Ukraine away from Russia, but go for regime change in Moscow. They also lobby for overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria, and for war with Iran. They are overwhelmingly Republicans, but include Democrats. 

Allied to the neo-cons in policy—if not politics—are the liberal interventionists, most of whom are Democrats. The interventionists led the charge on Libya and also lobbied for bombing Assad. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Samantha Powers may not have the same politics on all issues as the neo-conservatives, but in places like the Ukraine they share common ground. 

A leading “interest” in Ukraine is challenging Russia’s designation as the world’s top energy exporter and throttling its oil and gas industry. With Siberian fields almost tapped out, Russia is developing offshore and arctic sources, and the sanctions are aimed at blocking Moscow from getting the technology it needs to do that. The sanctions are also aimed at the South Stream pipeline, which, when completed, will run from the Caspian basin, across the Black Sea, to Europe. South Stream will eventually supply Europe with 15 percent of its gas and generate $20 billion in yearly revenue for Moscow. The U.S. and Turkey have been trying to derail South Stream for over a decade. 

There are minor currents and back eddies as well. 

Eastern Ukraine has large shale deposits that Chevron has been sniffing around, and—if you like conspiracies—one of U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden’s kids, Hunter, is on the board of Burisma Holdings, the Ukraine group exploring the country’s energy potentials. Joe Biden has been particularly hawkish on the Ukraine, comparing it to the Munich appeasement with Nazi Germany in 1938. 

But the overriding “interest” of American foreign policy—regardless of the different currents—is to marginalize competition. Russia’s economy is no competition for Washington’s, but Moscow is a major supplier of energy to China. The two countries recently inked a $400 billion pipeline deal. 

China’s economy is on the verge of passing the U.S. as the world’s largest, and it has already replaced the U.S. as the leading trade partner for most of the world. It is also the globe’s number one consumer of oil and gas. 

This latter fact is a sensitive one, particularly given growing tensions between the U.S. and China. Some 80 percent of Beijing’s energy arrives by seas currently controlled by the U.S. Sixth and Seventh fleets. 

Russian supplies, however, travel mostly by train and pipelines, and are, thus, out of the U.S. Navy’s reach. China is also negotiating with Iran over energy, and once again, those energy supplies would mostly move through pipelines. 

To understand U.S. interests in the Ukraine involves tracking all of these currents, some of which may run at cross purposes. Obama’s push to damage the Russian energy industry is not popular with the American oil company ExxonMobil. He wants to push NATO east, but there is no indication he is seeking regime change in Moscow, and he has even tried to reduce some of the sturm und drang around the crisis. The neo-conservatives, on the other hand, want to arm Ukraine and put Putin’s head on a stake. 

Of course the “interests” the Obama administration is pursuing in Ukraine are not the “interests” of the majority of Americans—or Ukrainians, for that matter. They are the “interests” of the neo-cons, energy companies, arms manufacturers, and international financial organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank. In short, the interests of the 1 percent over the 99 percent. 

Up until ISIL started cutting American journalists heads off, U.S. polls reflected overwhelming exhaustion with foreign wars. The Center for Public Integrity found 65 percent of Americans would choose to cut military spending. But Americans are also easily stampeded by bombast: The “Russians are coming” (while it was the West that marched east). “Chinese cyber warriors are going to crash our national power grid” (except we don’t have a national power grid and the only countries that have engaged in cyber war are the U.S. and Israel). “And the turbans are going to get you in your bed” (even if U.S. intelligence agencies say the ISIL has not threatened the U.S.). 

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the U.S. has spent almost $70 million an hour on security and around $62 million on domestic needs. Since 9/11 some 23 Americans have died as result of “Muslim terror plots” in the U.S., while the number of those killed by right-wing extremists is 34.  

The reality is the U.S. cannot do much about climate change, growing economic inequality, infrastructure deterioration, and the slow motion collapse of our education system without confronting the $1 trillion it spends annually on military and defense related items, or the $4 to $6 trillion that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually cost us. 

With the U.S. about to begin an open-ended air war in Iraq and Syria (to join those in progress in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia) the cost of fighting an almost non-existent “terrorist” threat to the U.S. is about to sharply escalate. In whose interest is that? 

Increasingly, what is in the interest of the few is incompatible with the interest of the many. 

---

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com or middleempireseries.wordpress.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have a disability whether it is psychiatric or physical, many people might think you're off the hook concerning dealing with ordinary challenges. I am talking about the difficulties that nondisabled people must deal with, such as showing up for work and going to the store to buy a loaf of bread. After all, who would expect someone in a wheelchair or someone with schizophrenia to deal with conducting business and surviving in general?  

If you've been judged incompetent and have been put on conservatorship, it is true that you don't have to deal with any of that. Yet, if you are psychiatrically disabled but continue to handle your own affairs, there are numerous challenges and numerous difficulties--perhaps more so compared to someone who is not disabled and who is making a good living.  

Someone with mental illness who lives with relative independence must deal with the challenges other people deal with, must do so while taking brain-limiting medication, and must do so while at the same time protecting oneself from a relapse triggered by stress.  

People with mental illness need to take some form of medication, or they are possibly not classifiable as having a major psychiatric disorder.  

The medication (if you're talking about antipsychotics) doesn't necessarily make a person dumb, but it does slow a person down, and it also prevents someone from performing at a high energy level at a job or other situation.  

When someone with mental illness lives under his or her own supervision, they are responsible for all of the things that an everyday citizen must deal with. For example, being served a jury summons. Even if one's disability precludes serving on a jury, a medical excuse must be sent in or presented in a timely fashion, and must be done so according to how the court wants it.  

My wife and I were recently rear-ended in our vehicle by an unknown driver. I was responsible for reporting that to police as well as sending an accident report to the DMV.  

People with mental illness must pay rent, must buy groceries, and must prevent overdraft on our measly bank accounts, since overdraft fees could be a huge problem for someone on a fixed income.  

People with mental illness must take out the garbage and recyclables, must prepare food for ourselves, must shower, shave and maintain our teeth. Or, if not done, we must deal with the consequences.  

Additionally, someone with mental illness has to keep all of their prescriptions filled, must keep his or her psychiatric appointments, and must abstain from alcohol and illicit drugs--they don't mix well with medication.  

I am not complaining; that's for sure. I would not trade my situation for that of a person who gets everything done for him or her. If you can not take care of yourself, it is likely you also can not make your own decisions.  

Raising a child for some people with a severe mental illness is out of the question. Some of us do have kids, while others could not handle the stresses of dealing with an infant, a child and then a teenager.  

Thus, even while someone with mental illness must deal with responsibilities, we are denied some of life's good things such as having offspring or having a lot of money.

The Zero Theorem, Terry Gilliam's latest film fantasy, nibbles off more than it can crunch. It is a grandiose presentation of a story that remains opaque and inscrutable. At the same time, it's a full-bore visual treat, filled with color, energy, invention and ambition. Still, the result is something like a applying a cruise liner paint job to a wooden raft. 

 

The Zero Theorem, Terry Gilliam's latest film fantasy, nibbles off more than it can crunch. On one hand, it's a grandiose presentation of a story that remains opaque and inscrutable. At the same time, it's a full-bore visual treat, filled with color, energy, invention and ambition. Still, the result is something like a applying a cruise liner paintjob to a wooden raft. 

The Zero Theorem begins and ends with a screenful of swirling chaos representing the Black Hole of Universal Death. In the first scene, a huge screen is filled with a terrifying image of the Black Hole, a galaxy-gulping Force that is slowly sucking in everything living and dead. Sitting in front of the screen is Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz), a closeted mathematician obsessed with finding a theorem that can capture – and possibly refute – the existential power of the Implacable. 

As we meet Leth, he is sitting before his console in the all-together. Stark naked. (It's only by way of crafty filming and editing that we are not exposed to Waltz' Full Monty Python.) It's a powerful image, but it proves to be an empty one. Leth never again sits down to work au natural. There is much (way too much) of this film that remains unexamined and unexplained. 

Like Godot, Leth is waiting for a phone call that will end his search and redeem his existence. (By telling him that someone else has found the Answer to his Zero Quest?) It's not clear who would be making the call. Nor is there a clue as to the calls that do come in but only enrage Leth. (Wrong numbers? Political fund-raising pitches? Cold-call life insurance offers?) 

Perhaps it's best to forgo any attempt to reason with this film. Just accept it for the superficial fantasy it is. But you have to hand it to Gilliam, The Zero Theorem has a great surface. The filming was done in a huge studio in Romania, which may have served to amplify the other-worldly feel. 

In some ways, The Zero Theorem resembles Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 art film, Stalker -- another dystopian film about a strange and warped individual's endless and ultimately useless search for Answers. Like The Stalker, Qohen Leth is a damaged loner who warily skulks through life. And, like Stalker, Leth is a skinhead played by a formidable actor with a fierce profile, haunted eyes and the emotional and physical intensity of a mad-man suicide bomber -- always on the tipping point of an explosion. 

Waltz spends almost every moment of the film on screen and he's always mesmerizing – whether he's trying to build a perfectly stable Universe by waving a PlayStation-like console in front of his computer screen or pedaling furiously and fingering a handset in front of an arcade-game-set-up that rewards him with vials of colored liquids. Which he frantically shifts around and never consumes. (Don't ask.) But when Leth talks, he never speaks as an individual but as a collective. Instead, he complains: "We is stressed." "We is dying." (Why the resort to personal-plural grammar? No explanation. You might just conclude: "The Leth said, the better.") 

The film is chock-full of visually imaginative touches but some seem added just for the sake of sheer grotesquerie. Case in point: the "Two Clones," a Mutt-and-Jeff pair of enforcers dressed like zoot-suited Mafia Pimps. They never serve any plot purpose when they show up but they leave behind a disconcerting mental image that's hard to erase. 

Halfway through the journey, Leth is (inexplicably) adopted by Bainsley, a stunning young blond seductress who gets him rigged out in an electrified body suit so the two of them can jack themselves off (via separate computers) to frolic on a beautiful deserted beach in the Land of Virtual Reality. Where they talk, smooch and toss beach balls. (Again. Don't ask.) 

The cast is picture-perfect (even if the picture isn't). Waltz does amazing things with his body and his face (especially in a scene where he nearly dies of asphyxiation and his expressions encroach on the territory of CGI renderings). French actress Melanie Thierry is charmingly flirty as Bainsley, an ingénue/partygirl/pornsite-hostess who inexplicably (that problem again) falls for Waltz' don't-wanna-be-touched shut-away. (The role, while well played, is an embarrassment. Thierry's character is the personification of every teen boy's masturbatory fantasy. She is nothing but a mindless, comforting pleasure tool. Zero is the antithesis of a good "date film.") Matt Damon appears in three scenes as Management, the CEO of Mancom, a corporate wizard-of-odds who has (inexplicably again) hired Leth to spend his life trying to solve the Zero Theorem. (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…. No, wait, Management's standing in front of the curtain. It's just that his suit blends into the curtain – or the chair or the wall or, whatever.) 

David Thewlis (Jobey) looks and sounds like he's channeling a Monty Python sketch. Tilda Swinton (Dr. Shrink-Rom) dons a haystack wig and an overbite to impersonate a corporate shrink assigned to keep Leth in check. Lucas Hedges powers through his role as the 15-year-old son of Management. Hedges, despite his youth, crackles on the screen and swaggers through the role with quick imagination and easy confidence. Like they say: "Keep an eye out for this young man." 

There may be no screenwriting awards coming Gilliam's way but if there were an Oscar for Best Wigs, Best Sets, Best Light-emitting Jumpsuits, Best Computer-assisted Backgrounds, Gilliam's bizarre, unfathomable film could take home a shopping cart of well-deserved honors.

This Ain't No Mouse Music is the story of local cultural icon Chris Strachwitz—founder of El Cerrito-based Down Home Records—and his 54 years as a student, fan, collector, curator and producer of "the people's music." This ain't no lie: This Ain't No Mouse Music is one of the best musical documentaries since Twenty Feet from Stardom. A ticket to this film is a ticket to a non-stop carousel of eclectic musical encounters—from blues to zydeco to conjunto to bluegrass and beyond.

 

 

This Ain't No Mouse Music! (92 minutes) 

Directed and Produced by Chris Simon and Maureen Gosling 

Opens September 19 at the Rialto Elmwood in Berkeley 

Reviewed by Gar Smith 

Note: Directors Maureen Gosling & Chris Simon, Chris Strachwitz in person. September 19 at Rialto Cinemas Elmwood in Berkeley 7pm 

The simple truth is This Ain't No Mouse Music is one of the best musical documentaries since Twenty Feet from Stardom. And it arrives at the same time that another terrific roots-music doc, Take Me to the River, is also shaking the walls of local movie theatres. No Mouse Music is the story of local cultural icon Chris Strachwitz, the founder of El Cerrito-based Down Home Records and his 54 years as a student, fan, curator and producer of "the people's music." After the introductions and historical backstories are taken care of, the film quickly becomes a non-stop carousel of eclectic musical encounters—from blues to zydeco to conjunto to bluegrass. But first, the backstory. 

The son of a count from Silesia, Germany, Strachwitz and his family fled invading Russian troops in 1945 and came to America. Co-directors Chris Simon and Maureen Gosling have known Strachwitz for more than 25 years and their film is clearly a labor of love—about a feisty German immigrant who became the improbable impresario of America's largely overlooked grassroots musical heritage. 

The film opens with Strachwitz shuffling through his El Cerrito office. (This is probably the only film you'll ever see that contains a scene of someone soaping and washing a vinyl LP over a sink.) Leaning over a turntable, Strachwitz pulls out a vinyl platter, drops the needle and breaks into a grin as the voice of Lightning Hopkins booms through the speakers. 

Strachwitz' first musical revelation as a young American was the discovery of New Orleans jazz. And then, the blues. When Strachwitz first encountered Lightning Hopkins and his music in 1960, no one even knew where Hopkins lived. A French jazz magazine speculated that he was from Mississippi but, when a friend tipped Strachwitz that Hopkins actually lived in Texas, that's all it took. Strachwitz packed his car and took off for Texas. He discovered Hopkins in a small bar, playing his electric guitar for a band of drinking buddies. Strachwitz was blown away by what Hopkins was doing. Unlike most music of the day, this was raw, real, immediate and largely improvised. "It was made-up poetry on the spot," Strachwitz recalls. "I said, 'Goddammit,' somebody's got to record this stuff!" 

Strachwitz has a pithy explanation of his work ethic: "My stuff isn't produced. I just catch it as it is!" Strachwitz is dismissive of commercial companies that record only what they think will sell. He calls mainstream music "mouse music"—as in "cheesy" and inauthentic. "I wouldn't want to record stuff I didn't like," he says. 

In the 1930s, folklorists like Alan Lomax and Charles Seeger (Pete's dad) spent years touring America's rural back roads with bulky sound recorders to capture "non-commercial," "traditional" music. Following this tradition, Strachwitz has spent more than five decades tracking down and preserving America's "deep-rooted music." But, in addition to lugging around sound-recording equipment, Strachwitz frequently showed up with a film camera as well. (With camera-in-hand, Strachwitz captured priceless black-and-white footage of Mance Lipscomb, Lightning Hopkins and other blues greats who would come to enjoy worldwide acclaim thanks to the LPs pressed by Strachwitz's Arhoolie Records.) 

This slender blond white kid armed with nothing but a microphone and a recorder might have looked out of place in the Colored bars of the segregated South, but Strachwitz felt right at home. Still, there were constant reminders of the dangerous world that lurked beyond the walls of the local blues clubs. Before recording his song, Tom Moore's Farm, Mance Lipscomb had Strachwitz swear that he would not release the record while the real white farmer, Tom J. Moore, was still alive. 

It was folklorist Mac McCormick who urged Strachwitz to start a record company and suggested the name "Archoolie" (local argot for a "field hollar"). Speaking of Lispcomb, McCormick tells the camera: "If you want to start a record company, what Leadbelly was for Allan Lomax, this fellow could be the same for Archoolie Records. An incredible find: The whole history of black rural culture in his head. A memory filled with blues, reels, gospel songs, ballads, children's songs." 

No Mouse Music boasts interviews with a number of well-known "singing heads." 

Ry Cooder defines Strachwitz as "a classic record man. Not corporate. Not about to take orders. Not about to fit into any kind of system." 

Bonnie Raitt recalls Strachwitz' impact on the life of Red McDowell, a hardscrabble musician who spent his life farming and wound up touring Europe playing before thousands of fans at music festivals. 

Taj Mahal is also on hand to offer trenchant recollections while Michael and David Doucet provide both recollections and some rip-roaring fiddling. 

Flaco Jimenez adds his voice to the commentary. One of the stars of Chulas Fronteras (a 1976 Les Blank film about norteño and conjunto music from the Tex-Mex borderlands), Jimenez calls Arhoolie's musical playlist "the poetry of the people" and adds the philosophical observation that: "Sharing the music makes the world rounder." 

There are around 70 songs on a soundtrack that ranges from Big Mama Thornton singing "You AIn't Nothing but a Hound Dog" to the first recording of Country Joe & the Fish singing the "Fixin' to Die Rag." The 7-inch 33-1/3 rpm LP was recorded in Strachwitz' living room on a mike dangling from a cheap chandelier. 

This was in October 1965. In 1969, when Joe and the Fish hit the stage at Woodstock, Fixin' to Die took off like a rock-and-roll rocket and quickly became an anthem of the Anti-War Movement. Strachwitz' proceeded to open Down Home Music with the profits from Country Joe's Fixin' to Die Rag. 

There are dozens hurricane-force performances in No Mouse Music and many memorable musicians, but a personal favorite is the delightful Canray Fontenot. By day, Fontenot is shown working as poorly paid day laborer in a mercantile store. But after work, he's irresistible when he picks up his violin and breaks into a joyous smile while singing a mischievous Cajun love song. As someone comments, with music like this, it's "like going to paradise without suffering death!" 

The film ends with a New Orleans-style musical parade through Berkeley's downtown streets to celebrate Arhoolie's 50^th anniversary. Look closely. If you don't find yourself in the parade, you'll probably spot a friend. One warning: This is the kind of film that could induce Repetitive-Stress-Syndrome-of-the-foot – thanks to the enormous amount of non-stop toe-tapping the soundtrack produces. 

--- --- 

"This Ain't No Mouse Music" Special Events: Q&A Schedule  

September 18 at Rialto Cinemas Cerrito in El Cerrito 7pm 

• Directors Maureen Gosling & Chris Simon, Chris Strachwitz in person

September 19: at Rialto Cinemas Elmwood in Berkeley 7pm 

• Chris Strachwitz in person for Q&A music by Michael Doucet

September 19: at Roxie in San Francisco - 7pm 

• Post-screening Q&A with Maureen Gosling

September 19: at Smith Rafael Film Center in San Rafael - 7pm 

• Q&A with Chris Simon & Bonnie Raitt. Co-director Chris Simon will be joined by film participant Bonnie Raitt for a discussion following the screening.

September 20: Roxie in San Francisco - 7pm 

• Post-screening Q&A with Chris Simon

September 20: Smith Rafael Film Center in San Rafael - 7pm 

• Before the screening, music by HowellDevine . Q&A after screening with Chris Strachwitz and Maureen Gosling.

September 21: Rialto Cinemas Sebastopol in Sebastopol - 7pm 

• Q&A Chris Simon, Maureen Gosling - followed by music by Will Spires .

--- ---  

Take Me to the River is playing at the UA Theatre in Berkeley. 

Tuesday 9/23, 5 pm, Upper Sproul Plaza FREE Concert of the UC Chamber, Gospel, and University Choruses led by Marika Kuzma and Mark Wilson joined by members of Danza, and the African Music Ensemble joined by ALL who assemble! 

The concert will end by 6 pm, in time for the Danza concert at 6:15, and in time for the FSM key note lecture by Robert Cohen at 6 pm in Stanley Hall. 

If you would like to rehearse with us, come to the workshop Monday 9/22 at 7:30 pm, Hertz Hall, FREE 

Come sing with us! Lift up your voice!

Berkeley Citizens Action, Berkeley Tenants Union, and the Social Justice Committee of the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, for the first time, combine forces to hold an Election Forum on Sunday, Sept 21 from 3:30 to 6:30. Local candidates and speakers on local measures and propositions will present from 3:30 to 6. When the forum is concluded, current BCA and BTU members may vote for their respective endorsements. The forum will be held at 1924 Cedar Street on the corner of Bonita at the Fellowship Hall. Child care will be provided and there will be refreshments.

Intertribal dancing, Contest dancing, Round dancing. Native American foods, Arts & Crafts and American Indian culture. Celebrate with us in honor of all our ancestors, the people continuing the spirit today, and future generations. 10 am – 12:00 - Exhibition Dancing, featuring Native California and Aztec Dancers; 12:00 Noon - Grand Entry; 12:00 Noon – 6pm: Contest dancing. Intertribal dancing. All Day: Raffles, Native American Food, American Indian Arts & Crafts. Free Admission. Wheelchair accessible. Bring your own blankets or chairs. Berkeley Civic Center Park, Allston Way at M.L. King Way. Public transportation encouraged, 2 blocks from Berkeley BART station. No Alcohol or Drugs Allowed. Sponsored by the City of Berkeley. Information and message line (510) 595-5520 or www.ipdpowwow.org