Police are investigating a fire that caused major damage to the cafeteria of an Oakland middle school this morning as arson. 

The two-alarm fire at Claremont Middle School at 5750 College Ave., near the Rockridge BART Station, was reported at 1:49 a.m., fire officials said.  

The first units on the scene came from the fire station next to the school.  

A second alarm was called at about 2:20 a.m. and firefighters had extinguished the fire at about 3:10 a.m.  

Fire crews contained the fire to the school cafeteria. The fire caused an estimated $1 million in damage, Battalion Chief Geoff Hunter said. 

Hunter said crews found an exterior door open at the school, which he said is unusual.  

Police said this morning that an arson investigator responded to look into the possibility the fire was intentionally set. Police have no suspects so far. 

Neither firefighters nor civilians were injured in the blaze.

If you wonder what happened, the Daily Cal has posted an excellently edited vido which says it all: 

The world is taking a terrible beating these days. Climate change is wreaking havoc—from the East Coast Snowpocalypse to the California Drought. Oceans are becoming carbonized. Coral reefs are dying, starfish are dissolving, fish are vanishing. It is estimated that human activity already has lead to the disappearance of 25% of the world's species. Around the world, elephants, lions, rhinos, tigers and polar bears are all in decline.

Scientists are now calling this The Sixth Mass Extinction.

So I sat down and wrote my first online petition . . . to save a butterfly.  

I have just posted my first Change.org petition. (Click here for the link.) 

I undertook this experiment as a means of exploring what is, in effect, a new form of journalism—i.e., a means of gathering information and sharing it with others in hopes that it will inspire positive social change. 

I have watched with amazement as other outrages and indignities I have seen posted in online petitions have gone on to capture the imagination of bloggers, websites, news aggregators and, eventually, the editors at daily newspapers and the producers of network newscasts. 

I was driven to write a petition because of what appears to be yet another imminent environmental calamity. 

The world I grew up in always had honeybees and butterflies. The world I now inhabit is on the brink of losing both. Without pollinators, many of the crops we have come to depend on are likely to go the way of the passenger pigeon. So long, almonds. Adios, avacados. Goodbye, apples, strawberries, peaches, plums, carrots, coconuts and coffee. 

But it was the fate of a butterfly—the monarch butterfly, to be precise—that finally moved me to sit down and fill out an online petition. 

Here is the petition I posted on February 10, 2015. 

Monsanto's Chemicals Are Driving Butterflies to Extinction. 

Change.org 

Monsanto's agricultural herbicide, Roundup, destroys milkweed -- a plant critical to the survival of monarch butterfly. In 1996, after their 3,000-mile journey from Mexico to the US, the monarch migration numbered one billion. In 2014, that number had fallen to fewer than 35 million – a 90 percent decline. According to Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, that would be equivalent to "losing every living person in the US, except those in Florida and Ohio." 

What's behind the decline? Over the past two decades, 80 percent of the Midwest's milkweed has been poisoned by farmers using Monsanto's glyphosate weed-killer to protect corn and soybean (crops genetically modified to survive spraying with Monsanto's herbicides). 

When the monarchs return to the US in February and March, the butterflies feed, mate and spin their cocoons on the milkweed plant. No other plant will do. Hence: no milkweed, no monarchs. 

According to US National Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, "It's the weed control that is driving eradication of the milkweed plant." 

On February 9, the NFWS pledged $3.2 million to save the monarch butterfly from extinction.  

Monsanto calls itself "A Sustainable Agriculture Company" and admits that milkweed "is the only plant monarch caterpillars will eat." But the company rejects criticism of its toxic chemical by arguing that farmers have always "battled weeds." Besides, Monsanto argues, killing weeds has "reduced greenhouse gas emissions" that cause climate change. 

Environmental accountability is usually hard to determine. In this case it is clear: Monsanto -- a company that made nearly $15 billion in 2013 -- profits by poisoning milkweed. Without milkweed, the monarchs cannot survive. 

In Monsanto's corporate statement, "Helping Protect the Monarch Butterfly," the company claims it is "committed to … restoring habitat" to protect the monarchs -- so long as this is done "outside farm fields," by replanting milkweed on "government-owned land" and in roadside ditches. 

Growing concern over the butterfly's possible extinction has prompted the government to consider listing the monarchs as a "threatened species" under the Endangered Species Act. Monsanto's response: While this "makes for a great news headline. It doesn't do anything to help solve the problem." 

So what is the solution? 

The monarch's spring migration is about to begin. The only way to save these majestic insects is to plant milkweed.  

The government has pledged to start replanting milkweed on 200,000 American acres. It's time for Monsanto to join forces with the NFWS and match – or exceed – Washington's $3.2 million fund for a national monarch recovery program. 

Letter to Monsanto CEO Huge Grant 

The monarchs are in historic decline. The next few years could determine whether our children will ever again experience the beauty of a monarch in flight. Comforting words are no longer enough. Monsanto needs to match – or exceed – the government's commitment to replant 200,000 acres of milkweed. 

Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167. General Inquiries: (314) 694-1000. 

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/contact-us.aspx 

A Few Small Voices Could Become a Chorus 

The initial response has been encouraging. The petition gained more than 100 signatures in less than 24 hours. But even more gratifying was the response from people who have signed on—from Oakland to Uruguay. The brief but heartfelt notes hit me with a surprising emotional punch. Some simple lines brought tears to my eyes. 

Here are a few comments that were posted: 

· Richard SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, UT 

I have seen just how few now migrate to Mexico. 

· Alison OAKLAND, CA 

Actions always have consequences. Especially actions that involve chemicals. 

· Suzanne SALT LAKE CITY, UT 

I have seen the butterflies dwindling in Mexico. It is such an awesome act of nature, we can't afford to lose this piece of evolution. 

· Cherise SLC, UNITED STATES 

P.S. Monsanto CEO and Corporate Board pls find your moral compass. 

Monsanto needs to pay the true cost of doing their business and not push those costs unto others, especially local communities or butterflies! 

· Anita BERKELEY, CA 

Stop messing with natural balance. 

· jana CENTERVILLE, UNITED STATES 

I am so glad that this is all over Facebook for the country in the world to see what you people are doing! Please stop with the chemicals are ready enough people already are dying of cancer in this country! 

· David AUSTIN, URUGUAY 

Monsanto is the epitome of corporate social and environmental irresponsibility. They must be regulated aggressively! 

· Marvin HARRISON, TN 

And stop the roundup resistant genetically modified organisms G.M.O's 

· James RICHMOND, CA 

I want the Monarch Butterflies to be saved - and with them the environment for so many other creatures great and small! 

· Elizabeth BERKELEY, UNITED STATES 

It is unimaginable folly to allow further demolition of the MONARCH ecosystem. What would our world be without them? Monsanto has a responsibility to repair the damage caused by their lethal herbicide Roundup. 

· Victor SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

monarchs matter 

· Mitch BEAVERTON, OR 

Support corporate accountability for externalized eco costs. 

· Joanne NEW YORK, NY 

This is the least Monsanto can do! 

this is the right thing to do 

· Cynthia BERKELEY, CA 

Killing butterflies should be illegal! Monsanto, save the butterflies.... fund planting of milkweed for them. 

What Else You Can Do 

Even if you don't want to sign yet another electronic complaint, there are still other things you can do to help the monarch butterflies as they return to North America from their winter rest in Mexico. 

• Several organizations are donating milkweed seed packets for planting across the US. They include: SaveOurMonarchs.org and GrowMilkweedPlants.com. 

• The Center for Food Safety's newly released report, "Monarchs in Peril," is a must-read: Herbicide-Resistant Crops and the Decline of Monarch Butterflies in North America (February 2015) 

• The best place to find information on Roundup, glyphosate -- or other agricultural or household insecticides and herbicides -- is the Pesticide Action Network at www.panna.org 

It is with great sorrow that the Office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee announces the passing of the Congresswoman's beloved mother, Ms. Mildred Parish Massey. 

She passed at the age of 90 surrounded by her loving family in Oakland, CA. 

Throughout her life, Ms. Massey worked tirelessly for her family and broke many racial barriers. 

Ms. Massey was born in El Paso, Texas on June 6th, 1924. Her father, William Calhoun Parish, was El Paso's first African American letter carrier and her mother, Willie Pointer Parish, was a homemaker. Ms. Massey had two sisters: Lois Murell of Windsor, CA and Juanita Franklin, who predeceased her. 

Ms. Massey raised three daughters: Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Mrs. Mildred Whitfield and Mrs. Beverly Hardy.  

In 1955, she was one of the original twelve students to integrate Texas Western College in 1955, now known as the University of Texas at El Paso. 

Ms. Massey loved travel, music, basketball, butterflies, her Allen Temple Baptist Church family and her loving friends at her Grand Lake Gardens home. 

Her loving family includes three daughters, seven grandchildren, sixteen great grandchildren, one great-great grandchild and countless friends

Yesterday (Thursday) I did my civic duty and took in Berkeley’s State of the City address, to which I was invited by someone in the office of Mayor Tom Bates. Admission was mediated by Eventbrite—you had to register online to get a scanable printed ticket, which was checked at the door against a printed list. Despite this complicated screening process, or maybe because of it, the Shotgun Theater (on the corner of Ashby and MLK, across from the Ashby Bart) was not quite full, and among the audience I recognized a number of people not usually known to be part of the Bates cheerleading section (e.g. Michael Delacour of People’s Park fame). Everyone, including me, was on their best behavior.

I sat next to a stalwart of the old left, now active in the Wellstone Democratic Club. He joked that he was expecting a set-up like the one in President Obama’s State of the Union address, with Biden (smiling) and Boehner (scowling) seated behind the speaker. We agreed that Bates could have had Councilmembers Capitelli and Worthington supplying the backdrop, but that didn’t happen, though there were some rows of empty seats available at the back of the stage. Capitelli didn’t even show up.

Over all, it was a polished, professional presentation, what you’d expect from a lifelong politician. Watching, all too often, Bates’s much sketchier performance when he presides over the Berkeley City Council, you might be tempted to think he’s starting to lose it, but yesterday he was at the top of his game. He wandered a bit, but he’s always done that. 

As I expected, Shotgun’s place (technically called the Ashby Stage) seems to have been chosen for this event as the kickoff of the campaign to develop what’s now being called the Adeline Corridor, including the BART parking lot. Bates pointed with pride to the three-quarters of a million dollar planning grant the city has gotten from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and reminded the audience that he’s Berkeley’s designated representative on the MTC board.  

To head off charges of gentrification, of an apparent commercial takeover of the Southwest Berkeley neighborhood where African-Americans have traditionally owned their homes and run most of the businesses and churches, progressive Councilmember Max Anderson’s name was prominently linked to the planning now underway. Two of the four councilmembers present were Anderson and Darryl Moore, the two African-Americans on the council, plus the other two progressives, Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington. Notably absent were all the rest of the Mayor’s majority votes, the councilmembers from districts farther North and East—possibly because they wouldn’t play too well in South Berkeley, though in fact the audience, overwhelmingly white, didn’t look much like locals anyway. 

In theory, the planning process this time (an earlier version sank with a thud) is open to many alternatives. But there was a clear gleam in Mayor Bates’ eye as he mentioned a few options, notably some kind of big construction project on what is now the BART parking lot. He enthusiastically acknowledged the presence of BART director Rebecca Salzman while reporting that the previous BART policy that parking spaces must be replaced one-for-one has now been repealed. 

What’s in the hopper for the BART lot, did he think? Well, probably apartments, some of which might even be affordable, and “of course the Flea Market”, and maybe, just maybe, something bigger and better for the Shotgun Players, who are now housed in a building that was formerly a Black church. (This could account for the glee with which Shotgun eminence grise Patrick Dooley introduced the Mayor.)  

Nonetheless, Bates said, it wasn’t up to him to decide. “There will be honchos for that,” he said, presumably referring to the professional planners that always appear when grants like this are on the table, sort of like the seagulls attracted to school playgrounds at lunch time in Berkeley. 

The rest of the talk had roughly two themes that I can remember. One was a thoughtful exercise that was aimed at helping listeners identify their own preconceptions, the kind that could lead to unconscious racist acts. To my ear he demonstrated honest sensitivity to the concerns that have been voiced in Berkeley both about police killings of unarmed Black people elsewhere and about choices made by city employees dealing with demonstrations here. He pinned his hopes on an investigation by the Police Review Commission—we’ll have to see how well that works. 

The other major theme was development triumphs, specifically a roll call of all the building projects that had come to fruition or were soon to be launched during the 12-year Bates reign. If my memory serves, the only job Tom Bates had before he became a political pro was as a developer, and he still seems to love to participate even vicariously in Big Construction, of which there’s been plenty lately. 

He called out the hotel-in-utero which is slated to replace the Bank of America building downtown, though with the requisite disclaimers that the council might have to make decisions about it in the future, and anyhow it’s not yet a done deal. Evidently what’s contemplated is a number of floors of rooms for visitors, plus some floors of saleable condos on the top. 

The mayor used his personal situation as an illustration of who might want to buy those condos. 

He said that his own house [an early 20^th Century frame house on Ward Street in South Berkeley] was purchased for $30,000 several decades ago by his now wife State Senator Loni Hancock [and her first husband Joe Hancock.] Now, he said in some wonderment, it is probably worth about a million dollars. He envisioned a scenario whereby the house would be sold and they could move to one of those condos atop the hotel while still keeping their super-low pre-Proposition 13 property taxes. 

Of course, it’s going to be dicey trying to get one of those penthouse condos for that million bucks, isn’t it? But maybe they have other money. 

What was barely mentioned, unless I snoozed, was what could be done about Berkeley’s chronic dearth of workforce housing, not to mention low-income housing for those without steady jobs. Also not mentioned, though central to this topic, was the monster project which proposes to demolish the building which houses the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas, the Habitot children’s center, and much more of what’s now contributing to a vital downtown. 

If approved and built, that building would densely dominate a whole downtown block at 18 stories, a prospect which is starting to alarm many Berkeleyans, both cinemaphiles and others. Environmentalists point out that, as proposed, by the time it would be finished as envisioned it would not even meet the state’s latest green building standards, which will take effect by then. 

The worst case scenario is that this project will be approved, the existing block demolished, and five years of constant construction will doom other downtown businesses. No, actually the worst case would be that the financing would fall through after the project is approved, leaving nothing but a great big hole in the ground. It could happen--there are those who think the current building boom is headed for a bust sooner rather than later. 

Also not mentioned is what public Berkeley has lost during Bates’ ascendancy: for example Willard Pool, Iceland and the John Hinkel Park Clubhouse among others. The downtown Post Office is threatened. Civic treasures like the Maudelle Shirek Old City Hall and the Berkeley Rose Garden face demolition by neglect. Bates did mention, ruefully, that the streets are full of potholes and the sewers are shot—though he didn’t put it quite that bluntly. He alluded to available funds, but proffered no timetable for spending them. He pointed with pride, however, to plans in the works to fix—finally—the horrendous Gilman exit from I-80. 

Has what’s happened during Bates’s 12 years what Berkeley wants, or what Berkeley deserves? That question might be decided in November of 2016. 

It is widely assumed that Councilmember Laurie Capitelli would like to run to replace Bates in the 2016 election. That could be why Capitelli skipped this talk—all in all, this might not be the record he wants to run on.  

"High Rises" are appearing all around downtown, dwarfing the feel and look of what is left of the charm, uniqueness, and diversity of Berkeley.

These towering buildings grow larger and larger block sunshine, views, dwarf people, and create feelings of being crowded, overshadowed/overpowered by the sheer size of the planned edifices.

We like the city as it is now, with reasonable heights, that don't overwhelm. Reasonable heights can be built in less time, be more energy efficient, and cause less damage. What is being planned does not fit.  

What is planned will block UC campus. the Campanile, and views of the Bay. 

The new residential building on Center is sufficient height, balances the college building across the street; but then to create a massive monstrosity 18 stories high next door is just not good city-planning. 

Its like the Gaia building controversy again, but only bigger, and creating more damage to the entire block. 

It's not healthy for the community that thrives on balance. and a sense of proportion, preservation and history. 

Another too tall high rise is planned for the B of A site etc. etc. etc. Large UC buildings have also moved across Oxford into downtown. The exception is the Film Archive Center which can be excellent mixed use. 

Are plans for every new building enforced to be energy efficient, sustainable and reflective of this community? 

It's beginning to feel a lot like SF,, LA and NY-- and that's tragic. The high rises in those cities are mostly empty of people at night, with streets empty of social life. 

Is that the right move to foster a vibrant downtown? 

We like Shattuck Theatres as they are now. They are affordable, convenient and busy. The new plans will double their rent which would cause most people to not go out, but turn to Netflix. 

The mess and congestion on what is already treacherous narrow Shattuck streets will wreck havoc with pedestrians, cars and bikes over the construction planned to take 4 years. 

What is the real benefit to the city? 

New first floor stores, and other spaces to "build out. " will cost more to renovate and rent and the costs are driven upwards. 

Many old and new spaces are empty throughout downtown, rents are high, and they have not been filled with new businesses. 

These too high plans,and those underway for University and Shattuck, and the now under construction building on Addison create huge detrimental changes in Berkeley.  

This growth seems to continue without consideration for the best use of space. 

Developers are not interested in community. The Hill Street Reality is not even local, but LA based. . 

They have not planned for any common space, sidewalk use, or even parking which is almost impossible to find now. There is nothing included that is affordable for anyone--business or residences. 

An example of poor planning is the building under construction on Dwight and MLK. No parking spaces were allocated for the design. It's already in a crowded and highly congested area. Congestion is crowding out livability.  

Have you attempted to navigate Shattuck between Dwight and University towards N Berkeley after 4 PM? Its backed up for miles. 

Concerned any emergency vehicle can makes it through. Today I saw an ambulance cut to the wrong side of the street to navigate past congestion.This is not safe. 

Think about 4 years of construction just two blocks away with a gaping hole (like the huge Transbay terminal lot under construction in SF for past two years). 

Wonder if UC might provide after hours parking to the community at discounted rates? 

We are very concerned about what is happening as the "Berkeley Monopoly Game of Land Grab and Development" is played out. Where is "Boardwalk?" 

We feel that 80% of the population have not been considered in these "skies the limit" plans that were not fully revealed clearly when we voted for "Renewal for Downtown". There have been hidden deals made, and that's not healthy in the short or long term. 

There seems to be nothing that can be done about any of this, and that is sad. 

Who reviews plans and approves them? Is anyone from the community privy to designs to provide input? 

Is there not a limit on heights? 

Are the LA developers using the same design they have already used elsewhere? 

Do all members of the Planning staff live in Berkeley, and is everyone on staff invested in its future as a livable city? 

What's really happening to cause changes in Berkeley, and is it for better or worse? 

Thank you for your feedback.

GLOBAL WARMING ON PARKER STREET

From my experience working on environmental issues, there are two different approaches to combating global warming. One is to support projects that science shows will help the environment. The other is to support any project that anyone claims is green, even when the science shows it won't help.

I am a strong supporter of projects backed up by science, but I am an equally strong opponent of greenwashed projects that won't help the environment. This has frequently brought me into conflict with people who, for some reason, support such worthless projects.

I suspect they support these projects because they have a financial incentive to do so, or because they don't have the technical knowledge to know a bad project from a good one.

This is a major issue in the fight against global warming, not just in Berkeley but across the country and around the world. If we as a species are going to do anything about greenhouse gases, we are going to have to learn to recognize and support effective projects. 

BUS RAPID TRANSIT 

From 2008 through 2010, I opposed the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal for Telegraph Avenue. This 250 million dollar project was presented by AC Transit as being green. But their own numbers indicated that BRT would require 5000 years of operation, longer than the time since the Fall of Troy, to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as could quickly be removed by spending the same money on solar panels or wind power. 

Fortunately Berkeley saw through AC Transit's greenwashing of BRT and did not allow it to be built here. I was very proud of my contribution to that decision, because $250,000,000 is a lot of money to just throw away. Money that could be used to actually fight global warming. 

THE ATTACKS 

After the BRT project was defeated in Berkeley, The New York Times ran an article bashing my neighbors and me as being anti-environmentalists even though this was not true. I contacted the author of that article, explained that the BRT project in Berkeley was not green, and asked for an opportunity to present our side of the story to their readers. But The Times never even responded to me. 

Here in Berkeley, Charles Siegel responded to the New York Times smear with an article of his own in the March 22, 2011 issue of The Berkeley Daily Planet: "BRT, NIMBYs, and the New York Times". 

He correctly pointed out that "The overwhelming majority of BRT opponents were people who had never been active in the past on environmental issues or on transportation issues". 

This was because BRT was such an obviously bad project that people who had never been active before got involved to defend our neighborhood. 

He then went on to write "What do we usually call people like the majority of BRT opponents?" 

I'd call them concerned citizens. But Siegel just called us "NIMBYs". 

I viewed being bashed in The New York Times and attacked by Charles Siegel as the price of defeating BRT. And I wasn't too surprised about Siegel's attack, because Charles Siegel was perhaps the most extreme supporter of BRT. 

He and his "Friends of BRT" co-bloggers Hank Resnik and Len Conly had argued extensively with me about BRT in the Reader Commentary section of The Planet for years. 

Of the 84 posts I counted on their blog, from August 2006 to February 2010, 53 were by Charles Siegel. They seemed to not understand, or not care, that BRT really wasn't green. Resnik even wrote in a letter to the Editor of The Planet that I should move out of Berkeley. 

AND NOW IN 2015... 

Now I find myself involved in a smaller version of the same conflict. AC Transit has greenwashed another project, this time the relocation of a very loud bus stop closer to my home. 

AC Transit initially claimed that this relocation would speed up the operation of the 51B bus, and thereby increase ridership, reduce car use, and help the environment. 

But now AC Transit has admitted that they lied to the City Council and the citizens of Berkeley on their application. They admit that moving the bus stop will not result in any speedup in the 51B, or help the environment in any way. 

But they are planning to move the bus stop anyway, for no good reason and over the objections of the people in the neighborhood. 

LORI DROSTE 

I talked to the new City Council member for District 8, Lori Droste about this. It seemed to me that since Berkeley wants to be green, and this relocation isn't green, that she might be interested in helping me stop this. But so far she has done nothing to really help. She hasn't even agreed to meet with me to talk about it in person. 

I read her Candidate Information statement on the City of Berkeley website and I noticed that one of the 20 Berkeley Residents she refers to as supporting her is: 

Charles Siegel, author & environmental advocate 

I don't know if that has anything to do with her refusal to even meet with me. I assume it does but there is no way to know for sure. Maybe needlessly moving a bus stop close to my house, so I have to listen to the loudspeakers on 96 buses a day, is retaliation for the defeat of BRT. 

A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS FOR BERKELEY 

AC Transit admits to lying on their application, and admits that moving the bus stop will not speed up public transit, increase ridership, or help with global warming. And the City of Berkeley has agreed to give AC Transit the permit to move the bus stop, even though the City agrees that AC Transit lied and that the move won't help the environment. 

It is really sad that this is the best Berkeley can do, to pretend to do things that help the environment while making life harder for a disabled person like me. My health problems are very sensitive to me not sleeping well. 96 buses a day from 5am to midnight isn't going to help with that. I explained all that to Lori but she doesn't seem to care. 

If having my health damaged is another price I have to pay for helping to defeat BRT, I guess it is worth it to me. But I am no longer going to consider Berkeley to be disability-friendly. Or believe Lori Droste when she says "I am running for City Council to bring a fresh perspective and to ensure we provide needed services to all, from youth to seniors" 

Maybe I should have donated some money to her campaign

21 months before the 2016 presidential election, Republicans are struggling to find a candidate who will be conservative enough to win their nomination and moderate enough to appeal to sensible voters. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton appears to have nailed down the Democratic nomination. Surprisingly, President Obama’s approval ratings have improved to the point where he may be able to boost her campaign. 

It seems more and more likely that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee. A recent McClatchy-Marist poll of Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents found Clinton leading with 64 percent, followed by Vice President Biden at 15 percent, Senator Elizabeth Warren with 8 percent, and Senator Bernie Warren at 4 percent. 

Meanwhile, President Obama has staged an unexpected comeback. After the drubbing Democrats took in the 2014-midterm elections, many political observers wrote off the President. They imagined that Republicans would take the initiative and Obama would become a passive observer. Instead, the reverse has happened. 

The President’s approval ratings are the highest they’ve been in months. 72 percent of those who watched Obama’s State-of-the-Union address believed the Administration’s policies “will move the country in the right direction.” A recent Associated Press-GFK poll found there is growing support for the President’s economic policies and “51 percent approve of his handling of unemployment.” In addition, 10 million people have enrolled in Obamacare. 

The Gallup organization noted that Obama’s approval ratings are historically polarized: “Throughout President Barack Obama's sixth full year in office, an average of 79% of Democrats, compared with 9% of Republicans, approved of the job he was doing.” This is comparable to the 70 percent gap at the end of George W. Bush’s sixth year in office. However, during Bush’s last two years in office, his approval ratings hovered around 30 percent, reaching a low of 25 percent at the time of the 2008 presidential election. At the conclusion of his presidency, Bush’s domestic and foreign policies were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. As a result, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, avoided President Bush. 

At the moment it appears that Obama’s end-of-term approval ratings will be significantly better than those of Bush and, therefore, President Obama will be able to help the probable Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. As the economy improves, support for Obama’s domestic policies goes up, which will boost Clinton. A recent New York Times article indicated that Clinton is expected to embrace, “standard Democratic initiatives like raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure, closing corporate tax loopholes and cutting taxes for the middle class.” 

Clinton’s economic policies will stand in stark contrast to those of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, who will advocate some version of trickle-down Reaganomics, the philosophy promoted by Mitt Romney in his failed 2012 presidential campaign : “As President… I will cut marginal tax rates across the board for individuals and corporations... I will repeal burdensome regulations, and prevent the bureaucracy from writing new ones… Instead of growing the federal government, I will shrink it.” 

At the moment, voters disagree with President Obama’s foreign policy by a twelve point margin (50 percent disapprove versus 38 percent approve). However, this margin is likely to diminish over the next 18 months – given that progress is made against in the war against the Islamic State and there are no attacks in the US homeland. Furthermore, Clinton is widely regarded as more hawkish than Obama; it is difficult to imagine that she would be considered “softer” than any Republican presidential candidate. 

The latest polls indicate 55 percent of voters support President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Indeed, “62 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants who pass a background check and pay their taxes should be allowed to stay given certain requirements.” Hillary Clinton strongly supports Obama’s actions. (A fact that will not be lost on US Hispanic voters who strongly support Obama on this issue.) In contrast, Republican candidates are all over the map on immigration and most do not support a “pathway to citizenship” policy. 

A January poll indicated that most voters regard global climate change as a critical threat. When asked, “If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?” 78 percent responded it would be a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem. President Obama and Hillary Clinton believe that global climate change is a serious problem that necessitates aggressive action. Once again, the Republican candidates are all over the map on this issue. 

Contrary to what many observers thought after the 2014 elections, it does not appear that President Obama’s final two years will be a disaster. In fact it seems likely that his surging approval ratings will help the prospects of the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. 

In the aftermath of last month’s Greek election that vaulted the left anti-austerity party Syriza into power, armies of supporters and detractors—from Barcelona to Berlin—are on the move. While Germany’s Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaueble was making it clear that Berlin would brook no change in the European Union’s (EU) debt strategy that has impoverished countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, left organizations from all over Europe met in Barcelona to drew up a plan of battle.  

As Schaueble was stonewalling Greek Finance Minister Yanis Karoufakis, the Party of the European Left (PEL), along with assorted Green parties, gathered for the “1^st European South Forum” in Catalonia’s capital to sketch out a 10-point “Declaration of Barcelona” aimed at ending “austerity and inequality,” and promoting “democracy and solidarity.” 

At first glance, the past two weeks look ominously like September 1914, with opposing forces digging in for a massive bloodletting. 

On one hand the European Central Bank (ECB)—one of the “Troika” members, that includes the European Commission (EC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—brusquely denied Greece the right to sell government bonds to raise money. Representatives of the Greek government also got little support from other leaders of EU member countries to reduce Athens’ unsustainable $360 billion debt. Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Osborne, grimly opined that “The standoff” between the Eurozone and Greece was “endangering the global economy.” 

On the other hand, the Syriza government made it clear that Greece was finished with the austerity policies that crashed its economy, made more than a quarter of the population jobless, and shredded essential social services. And the Barcelona Declaration is a direct challenge to the economic formulas of the Troika and German Chancellor Andrea Merkel: “Merkelism is not invincible. Austerity can stop. Europe can change,” reads the document, 

Behind the trenches, however, the situation was far more complex than two sides bunkered down in a winner-take-all battle, and the politics around economic policy more fluid than one might initially conclude. 

While Greece will certainly not go back to the failed formula of selling off state-owned enterprises, huge budget cuts, layoffs and onerous taxes, neither is it eager to exit the Eurozone. The latter is composed of 18 out of the 28 EU members that use a common currency, the euro. 

For all the sturm und drang coming from Berlin and EU headquarters in Brussels, Syriza’s program is anything but radical, more social democratic than Bolshevik. And a growing number of economists and Europeans are concluding that taking a hard line on Greece might, in the end, endanger the entire EU endeavor. 

As a strategy for getting out of debt, austerity has an almost unbroken track record of failure, starting with Latin American in the late 1980s. It has certainly been catastrophic for Greece and, to a lesser extent, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, and virtually no European country has dodged its impact on employment and social services. 

“Austerity” is not just about cutbacks and budget tightening. By increasing unemployment, and introducing “temporary” labor contracts, it severely weakens unions and the ability of workers to bargain for higher wages and improved benefits. Indeed, according to the International Labor Organization, since 2007 wages have either stalled or fallen in most EU countries. 

Austerity also accelerates economic inequality. According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute, the top 1 percent now control 48.2 percent of the world’s wealth, and inequality in Europe is the highest it has been in a half century. More people are poorer than they were a decade ago, while a few are richer than ever. The latter will be reluctant to moderate the policies that have given them a half-decade of unalloyed profit making. 

The Greek election was a shot across the bow for this strategy and a warning that, while wealth and political power may be related, they are not the same thing: Governments can be overturned. 

But compromise on the Troika’s side will be difficult, in part because the austerity strategy has been so lucrative for the EU’s elites, in part because the intransigence of many EU leaders is driven by multiple devils. 

There is the “why not us?” devil. The ruling parties in Ireland, Portugal and Spain are spooked, because if Syriza gets a deal on the Greek debt that doesn’t involve crucifying most its population, their own impoverished constituents are going to be asking some hard questions and demanding something similar. 

Spain’s right-wing Popular Party is nervously looking over its shoulder at the growing strength of the anti-austerity Podemos party. It was no accident that the ELP chose Spain for its conference: Podemos is drawing 24 percent in national polls and is the only party in the country currently growing. It is now the second largest in Spain. With local and national elections coming up this year—the former in May, the latter in December—Spain’s two mainstream parties are running scared. 

So, too, are the governments in Portugal and Ireland that went along with the austerity demands of the troika and now face expanding anti-austerity parties on their left. 

Another devil is the right, although last May’s European parliamentary elections demonstrated that when the left clearly articulated an anti-austerity program, voters picked it over the right. What those elections also showed, however, is that when the center-left went along with austerity—as it did in Britain and France—the right made gains. 

German Chancellor Andrea Merkel is apprehensive about losing votes to the right-wing, anti-EU Alternate Party for Germany. British Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to fend off the rightist United Kingdom Independence Party, and French President Francois Hollande is running behind Marine Le Pen of the anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic National Front Party. 

There are strong right-wing parties in Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, although, in the latter two, their poll numbers fell in the European parliamentary elections. 

What those last May elections suggest is that any effort to co-opt the right’s politics or base by moving in its direction does little more than feed the beast. Greece’s experiences are instructive. The neo-Nazi New Dawn Party is also anti-austerity, but Syriza trounced them in last month’s election. At the same time, Syriza’s warning that austerity fuels the politics of the right is almost certainly true. In an economic crisis there are always those who turn to the dark side and its simplistic explanations for their condition: immigrants, Roma, Jews, and “slackers.” 

While the European right is worrisome, it has generally lost head-on battles with the left, because the right has little to offer besides the politics of racism and xenophobia. 

And Europe needs answers. The Greek crisis is a crisis of the entire EU. To one extent or other, every country—even Germany, the EU’s engine—is characterized by falling or anemic wage growth, increasing economic inequality, spreading deflation, and an overall decline in living standards. It is this general malaise that the Barcelona Declaration is taking aim at. 

Pierre Laurent, head of the French Communist Party and president of the ELP, told the Barcelona forum that “2015 is a decisive year, the year of change,” and that Syriza’s victory will “have a huge impact throughout Europe because for the first time since the crisis, it will force all European governments to discuss and alternative to austerity.” 

The Declaration proposes a program for relieving unemployment, creating sustainable development, expanding credit, resisting “racism and xenophobia,” and a European debt conference along the lines of the 1953 London Debt Agreement that relieved Germany of half its post-World War II debts. 

How the Greek debt crisis will play out over the next few months is not clear. 

The troika may take a hard line, in which case Greece may be forced to leave the Eurozone, a move that Berlin claims would have little impact. Other analysts are not so certain. 

“The predominant German view” that a Greek exit would be a “minor shock for the Eurozone and a non-event for the global economy” says Financial Times analyst Wolfgang Munchau, “could not be more wrong.”  

Faced with a possible meltdown of the European Union or the Eurozone and a growing insurgency on its left, the Troika may blink and give the Greeks part of what they want: a reduction in the interest rate on the debt—maybe even a write-down on some of it—and an extension of the payment schedule. What they will not get—because the Greek electorate has made it clear they will not accept—is more austerity. 

That is the contagion—sometimes called the “Greek virus””—that is already spreading to Spain, Portugal and Ireland and which is likely to jump to Italy, France and Central Europe. 

The Greeks have shaken the pillars of the temple. Inside the mighty tremble. 

It was all the way back in the mid 1980's, thirty years ago, from which I remember a very good counselor talking about "the revolving door." Mental illnesses are serious illnesses, and when people don't come to terms with the need for treatment, you get a number of repeated episodes of the illness, with each round making the mental health consumer more debilitated.  

If a consumer, when on the recovery side of the cycle, can gain the insight that it is necessary to remain in treatment, then they may have a fighting chance at having a lasting and meaningful recovery. Such an insight has occurred in my past.  

However (quite a number of years ago) upon going more than five years in a stabilized condition, the memory was faded concerning how bad it is to go through an episode of psychosis. And the insight that had been gained was trumped with the foolhardy thought that I could "tough it out" through the withdrawal from medication and perhaps cure myself through meditation.  

The above incidence of folly happened to me three times, and then finally, in 1996, I made a lasting commitment to remaining compliant with treatment. I was also in a relationship with my wife (at the time my fiancé) who said that if I tried to go off medication, she would move out.  

This is not to say that relapses are always caused by noncompliance. Many people, particularly those with bipolar, can get into a manic or depressed episode that medication, even when taken according to prescription, fails to mitigate. It is part of the stigma of mental illness when people assume that if someone is ill again with mental illness, it must be due to not taking medication. 

Medication is more effective for some people than it is for others. Also, it is a matter of trial and error for psychiatrists to figure out which medications will work and which won't for an individual. And until the psychiatrist figures out the right meds for someone, that individual may continue to suffer.  

I have also met people who have hidden their pills in their cheek, (a rarity today because of the precaution of administering the medication in liquid form) who ended up hospitalized a few months or even a year later. I knew a man who would have wild manic episodes, ones that included violence and destruction of property. He would stabilize in the hospital, and as soon as he got home, he would flush all of his medications.  

The abovementioned man, in a moment of lucidity, commented on the difference between his illness and mine. He said, that since I normally have insight, my mental illness resembled a "mental cold." This was versus his illness, which he said wiped out his insight--this fact making him truly ill. This observation doesn't alter the fact that without treatment, I would be about as bad off as any person suffering from acute psychosis.  

If possible, a person with mental illness is much better off if they acknowledge that they have a disease that requires treatment. Once in a great while, someone gets misdiagnosed. However, this idea also gets used as an excuse for noncompliance among people who really need treatment. Once a mentally ill person acknowledges the need for treatment, they have a chance to avoid becoming exceedingly debilitated by an untreated or inadequately treated mental health condition.

John Corigliano’s The Ghosts of Versailles was first given at New York’s Metro-politan Opera back in 1991; but aside from a Chicago Lyric Opera production two decades ago, it has henceforth been presented only in scaled-down versions at various music festivals. On Saturday, February 7, 2015, Los Angeles Opera opened an extravagant, full-scale production in Dorothy Chandler Pavilion of The Ghosts of Versailles, which received its West Coast premiere. This work was dubbed by composer Corigliano as a “grand opera buffa.” Grand it certainly is – and expensive to produce -- sporting a huge cast, an enormous orchestra, lavish sets, an opera-within-an-opera, and a wild Turkish embassy scene with a mock elephant.  

Loosely based on Beaumarchais’ play La mère coupable (The Guilty Mother), the third of his Figaro trilogy, Ghosts picks up the familiar Beaumarchais characters – Figaro, the Count and Countess Almaviva, Susanna, et al --where The Barber of Seville and The Marriage of Figaro left off. Only here, in Corigliano’s opera set to William M. Hoffman’s libretto, the characters are all dead, some having perished in the French Revolution; and it is only their ghosts who appear. Moreover, Beaumarchais himself appears, enamored of the guillotined Marie Antoinette, whom he promises to restore to life. Beaumarchais, sung by baritone Christopher Maltman, and Marie Antoinette (aka Antonia), sung by soprano Patricia Racette, are the principal singing roles in Corigliano’s Ghosts. Maltman and Racette are on-stage almost throughout the entire work, and on the opening night performance I attended they sang beautifully.  

As the opera begins, a modernist musical style introduces “ghost music” comprised of avant-garde clusters and microtones. Musically, however, Ghosts quickly transitions into pastiches of classical and romantic styles, with hints of Mozart here, hints of Richard Strauss there, and a patter aria for Figaro, performed by baritone Lucas Meachem, which, sung in rapid-fire English, seems to be Rossini-meets-Gilbert-and-Sullivan. During this aria, an aerialist flies across the stage. Why he does so is not clear. It seems to be gratuitous spectacle for its own sake. 

Beaumarchais seeks to cheer up Marie Antoinette, so he stages an opera-within-an-opera for her amusement. He reveals what the Almavivas have been doing since The Marriage of Figaro. The countess, Rosina, sung by soprano Guanqun Yu, had an affair with Cherubino, sung here by mezzo-soprano Renée Rapier, that produced a son, Léon; and the count, sung by tenor Joshua Guerrero, had a liaison that produced a daughter, Florestine. Now these illegitimate children have grown-up and fallen in love with each other and seek to marry. The Count opposes this marriage, while the Countess supports it.  

A sub-plot in this opera-within-an-opera involves a villainous character, Bégearss, sung by tenor Robert Brubaker, who hopes to steal the queen’s necklace from Count Almaviva, who for his part seeks to buy Marie Antoinette’s freedom by selling her necklace to the English ambassador. (How this might save the queen’s life is never made clear, however.) Bégearss also hopes to steal Florestine from Léon and marry her himself. Rosina begs her husband the Count to permit their children to marry, but the Count refuses.  

Left alone, Rosina weeps as she conjures up a vision of the beginning of her past affair with the young page Cherubino. Watching this scene, Beaumarchais and Marie Antoinette are moved by the ardent wooing of Cherubino, sung by mezzo-soprano Renée Rapier, and Rosina, sung by soprano Guanqun Yu, whom they join in singing a beautiful quartet. As the quartet ends, Beaumarchais and Marie Antioin-ette almost kiss; but they are interrupted by a furiously jealous Louis XVI, sung by bass Kristinn Sigmundsson, who challenges Beaumarchais to a duel. As the two men fight, the king runs Beaumarchais through; but the playwright merely laughs and reminds the king they are dead already, so what’s the point of a duel?  

The final scene of Act I takes place at the Turkish embassy in Paris, where the entertainment is provided by a famous Turkish singer, Samira, and a troupe of dancing girls. Samira, played by mezzo-soprano Patti LuPone of Broadway fame, arrives riding a mock elephant and proceeds to wow the audience with Corigliano’s send-up of Turkish music, complete with exotic percussive rhythms. Meanwhile, Figaro, dressed in drag as a dancing girl and flaunting his enormous falsies, swipes the queen’s necklace from Almaviva and quickly escapes by leaping off a balcony. It all gets pretty wild; and a Teutonic Walkyrie suddenly appears with sword, shield and helmet, and declares loudly: “This isn’t opera. Wagner is opera!” Thus ends Act I of The Ghosts of Versailles. 

At intermission I walked out into the lobby shaking my head in consternation. It was all a bit much, I thought. Musically, Act I was all over the place. Ably conducted by James Conlon, the modernist microtones of the opening “ghost music” soon gave way to pastiches of Mozart, Richard Strauss, and Rossini; and Act I ended with a wildly entertaining pastiche of Turkish music. Likewise, the stage direction of Darko Tresnjak kept everything moving. But did it all hang together? I wasn’t sure. Dramatically, the plot seemed convoluted; and there was a tendency to rely on verbal jokes to create a sense of whimsy, as when one courtier at Versailles complains, “Another night at the opera. I’m so bored.” To which another courtier adds, “bored as an egg.” To which a third courtier says, “bored as a potato.” We in the audience laughed; but it struck me that we were laughing at the absence of good opera in the work being presented to us. I found myself wondering if ironic self-deprecation was any valid substitute for the fine music we expect of opera. 

As Act II begins, Beaumarchais vows to change history; but Figaro, sung by baritone Lucas Meachem, stymies Beaumarchais by refusing to return the queen’s necklace. The queen, says Figaro in an act of revolutionary fervor, is not worth saving; he will strive instead to save the Almavivas from the treachery of Bégearss. Rosina and Susanna sing a lovely duet in which they commiserate about their husbands. In this duet, the soaring soprano of Guanqun Yu as Rosina blended beautifully with the lilting mezzo-soprano of Lucy Schaufer as Susanna.  

Seeking to persuade Figaro of the queen’s innocence, Beaumarchais conjures up her trial, with Beaumarchais playing the part of the Revolution’s sinister public prosecutor. The injustice of the trial persuades Figaro, who promises to return her necklace. Meanwhile, Count Almaviva hosts an aristocratic ball at which young Léon, sung by ténor Brenton Ryan, and Florestine, sung by soprano Stacey Tappan, flirt and hopefully anticipate their marriage. The villain Bégearss suddenly bursts into the ballroom with a revolutionary mob and demands the necklace in the name of the Rev-olution. Figaro reluctantly hands over the necklace under threat; but he escapes before Bégearss can arrest him along with all the others at Count Almaviva’s ball. 

In prison, the Almavivas await execution; and the Count begs his family’s forgiveness. The queen, in a nearby cell, asks God to forgive those who have harmed her. Figaro and Beaumarchais enter, disguised as executioners. With the help of the feminine wiles of Rosina, Susanna, and Florestine, they obtain the keys to their cell from the guard. The Almavivas escape; but just as Beaumarchais is about to unlock the door to Marie Antoinette’s cell, the spectral queen stops him, saying she does not want to change history. Realising she loves Beaumarchais, she does not want to lose him by returning to life while he remains dead. She thus prefers to go to her death as history has recorded it. She is led to the guillotine and beheaded. The adoring Beaumarchais places the necklace below the head of the decapitated Marie Antoinette, as the Almavivas, their children, Susanna and Figaro fly off to the New World in a balloon. 

It’s a madcap story, for sure. But is it great – or even good – opera? The critic for the Los Angeles Times, Richard S. Ginell, thinks The Ghosts of Versailles is not only great but will prove to be an immortal work worthy of the opera pantheon. Let’s just say that, for my part, I have my doubts, and leave it at that.