Berkeley's own Betty Reid Soskin (formerly of Reid's Records on Sacramento, now living in Richmond) the nation's oldest National Park Ranger at 94, introduced the President at the National Tree Lighting in Washington:
EDITOR'S NOTE: These motions were introduced by the two councilmembers on Tuesday. They display an excellent grasp of the relevant issues, but unfortunately they were summarily rejected by the council. majority
To the surprise of almost no one, the good citizens of Berkeley presented quarts, pounds, volumes of evidence at Tuesday's City Council Special Meeting proving conclusively that profit figures supplied by Hill Street Realty of Los Angeles, the applicant for The Residences at Berkeley Plaza (also known as the Harold Way Alley Project) were phony, perhaps fraudulently so.
The Bates Bunch voted enthusiastically to rubberstamp the project, of course.
For more factual information about what happened on Tuesday , there's an excellent professional report by Tom Lochner in the Bay Area News Group papers: Berkeley council OK's downtown high-rise project
What do I think caused the Berkeley City Council to grease the skids for this one?
“My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”
That’s what my father used to say, parodying adolescent insistence on what he thought were foolish plans.
On Tuesday night, the Berkeley City Council made foot-stamping teenagers look like thoughtful deliberators.
The announced scenario was that they would let anyone who had anything to say about The Residences at Harold Way talk just about as long as they wanted. However, councilmembers never promised to listen, and certainly not to discuss the points raised and facts presented, and they didn’t: “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”
An acquaintance, a veteran journalist who has covered many civic meetings, happened to watch the proceedings, which were streamed online and even now can be seen as a video on the city’s website. This person was amazed at the total indifference with which the Silent Majority of councilmembers who are controlled by Mayor Tom Bates greeted the enormous amount of evidence of chicanery in the project’s application and the financial reports which were supposed to be the basis for calculating what would constitute significant community benefits as required by the Downtown Plan . That would be Capitelli, Wengraf, Maio, Moore and Droste.
I don’t think the councilmember from District 8, Lori Droste, spoke aloud more than three times during the whole seven hour meeting, except to say NO or ABSTAIN to every proposal made by the three functional councilmembers, Kriss Worthington, Max Anderson and Jesse Arreguin and YES to anything from Bates and his team. And when she did ask a timid question, Bates loudly announced that HE was voting no, which effectively shut her up. She might as well be a robot for all the effect she had on the outcome.
Arreguin distributed a two page list of excellent amendments which would have mandated a reasonable accounting of the profits Hill Street Realty proposes to extract from this building, which would be one of only three extra-highrises permitted by the Downtown Berkeley Plan. Of course it went nowhere as the majority voted it down on cue.
According to the Downtown Plan and Measure R which preceded it, these special projects should have been required to contribute significant community benefits over and above what an ordinary development on the site would offer. However by using fixer Mark Rhoades, a former City of Berkeley planning manager, this one got a sweetheart deal based on what opponents correctly identified as phony figures.
Droste made a feeble attempt to inquire about the arithmetic behind this transaction, but she was easily beaten down by the Mayor. It’s hard to believe that District 8 voters knew that they were voting for demolition of the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas and the Habitot Children’s Museum and a substantial part of the historic Shattuck Hotel when they made Droste their second choice on the ranked ballot in the last election, but there she was, seemingly taking her marching orders from Bates on almost everything. Difficult to understand.
Is downtown Berkeley doomed? Probably, since the boom will last just long enough to allow outside capital to replace any remnant of interesting businesses or architecture with generic ugliness.
Can anything be done?
There are a few alternative ideas, none of them very promising.
1) Legal Action. There are a number of factual deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report, and it is theoretically possible to get a judge to acknowledge them and require the City of Berkeley to reconsider the decisions made on Tuesday with the correct data before them. The main one is that proponents—let’s just use plain English here—lied about their finances on their application. In particular, they said that they’d paid $40 million for the property when it was actually recorded as selling for $20 million. The city planning staff accepted the fraudulent figures without checking them, and used them as the basis for a staff report that found that the “preservation alternative” required by the California Environmental Quality Act was financially infeasible, causing the LPC to vote to demolish a major part of the hotel building.
This is just one example of the kind of questionable dealing that led experienced and astute Councilmember Max Anderson to agree with a commenter on Tuesday, disgustedly, that “the fix is in.” Maybe it is. But I never try to explain the Bates Council's decisions on the basis of cupidity when stupidity will also do.
The worst thing about the whole mess is that I’ve found no real evidence that any of these suckers, including the Mayor, has even gotten paid for selling out Berkeley to the banksters. (Sad to think he sold his soul to Satan, and all he got was a lousy soccer field... )
The problem with EIR suits is that they are very expensive—a ballpark estimate from several respectable CEQA lawyers is $100,000. It would be hard, perhaps impossible, for ordinary Berkeley residents to raise that kind of money, especially since the Los Angeles one-percenters who are financing this venture stand to make tens of millions just by flipping the permitted site to a new developer, and they would surely spend a lot more than Berkeley citizens to defend in a lawsuit.
And the real problem is that the deciders (the Berkeley City Council and lower commissions which they appoint) are not actually required to read EIRs before voting, and often they don’t. I asked how many members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission had read the EIR before they voted on Harold Way, and only two out of nine raised their hands.
2)Accelerated Regime Change. Lori Droste, who won by just 14 (or maybe 16) votes in the 2014 ranked choice election, has proved to be quite a surprise to her district. There are rumblings of a recall attempt. Some would also like to recall Linda Maio, but she’s been in office for about 20 years, and conservative North Berkeley might just feel that she owns that seat.
3) Regular Regime Change, aka electoral politics. Many would think that whatever progressive contributions are around would be better spent in the 2016 election than on a lawsuit or a recall effort. Like a frightening percentage of the whole United States, Berkeley was gerrymandered after the last census to preserve the seats of incumbents. It looks like Mayor for Life Tom Bates might finally retire, so his anointed successor, Realtor Laurie Capitelli, poster boy for developers since at least 2004, is running for mayor. If there’s any desire to replace the oldtimey Hills homeowner establishment with new blood, Councilmember Jesse Arreguin (progressive and under 30!) might have a chance in a citywide election for mayor in a presidential year when students will be voting.
Capitelli’s designated successor lives almost outside District 5, thanks to creative boundary drawing, so Sophie Hahn, who ran before, stands a good chance of taking Capitelli’s place this time. Darryl Moore’s seat is also up in November 2016, and there’s an active search on for a good replacement candidate, though Moore is expected to run again.
It’s hard for me to gauge what voters in the district now represented by Susan Wengraf might want from a new councilmember if she decides not to run.
The truth is that most of Berkeley prides itself on knowing nothing about what’s going on locally, especially those comfortably ensconced in Hills District 6. Without a newspaper, it takes a little work to figure it out, and local online news sources and Bay Area-wide publications don’t seem to suffice for most.
I number among my friends several people with academic connections who might qualify as national or international public intellectuals, but where Berkeley is concerned they’re out to lunch (a delicious gourmet sustainable lunch of course) most of the time. They’re in Berkeley (at least in the winter) but not of it. They have dachas on Cape Cod, pieds-a-terre in rent-controlled Greenwich Village apartments they inherited from their grandparents, apartments in Cambridge (either one, or perhaps Oxford) , travel plans for most summers and gorgeous views. The fact that the South Berkeley public swimming pool is filled with dirt and most of the public infrastructure is disintegrating is Not Their Problem. An intelligent and thoughtful writer that I know happened to get wind of plans for The Residences on Harold Way, and said to me in all seriousness that she thought Tom Bates Would Be Able to Stop It.
Can anything be done about this sorry state of affairs? If readers have any ideas, I’d like to hear them, because I’m flat out of ideas myself. Send them to editor@berkeleydailyplanet.com and I’ll share them with other readers if I think they’re promising,
ALERT: Your powerful presence THIS WEDS at the Board of Library Trustees Meeting—Library's 3-year strategic plan to be discussed!!!
Wednesday, December 16, 6:15 pm — Tarea Hall Pittman (formerly South) Branch Library, 1901 Russell Street at MLK
Your presence this Wednesday keeps our concerns front and center. We expect Interim Director, Beth Pollard, to talk about the previous director, Jeff Scott’s, strategic plan. This is an important document outlining how the library proceeds (and spends your money) over the next couple of years. There may be elements you feel need revisiting in light of what has happened during the first year of the plan! So we urge you to attend and voice your vision. The plan is available here Library Strategic plan (PDF) and slideshow links from the library's homepage).
Ms. Pollard invited us to her office for a meeting where we discussed how and why we got involved in this controversy. The controversy stared with the overzealous weeding of the collection last summer instituted and managed by a tiny team of managers which turned out to bea signal of fundamental changes in the library’s management philosophy. Our main points remain: the traditional management model of many subject specialist librarians selecting books and other materials has built our strong library and the current move toward “centralization” is harmful and unnecessary. Our evolving purpose is to ensure that the new permanent director will be vetted on his or her views on the role of the professional librarian and belief in a collaborative management style which results in a stronger, richer, unique library in keeping with what we have come to expect in our city.
We left the meeting feeling hopeful. Ms Pollard is making a serious effort to understand the issues. We hope she heard our message that our library doesn’t need to blindly follow a national library trend, and since we have historically had the generous support of tax payers and citizens, we have the luxury to craft our own type of library, one that is not justified solely on statistics. Regarding the collection: The public expects the library to supply titles that are older and have continuing value even though they don’t check out as frequently as a popular bestseller. Regarding management: collaboration with staff is essential. We believe that our library is at a turning point and that the BOLT needs to find a permanent director who will articulate his or her management style and be comfortable with transparency, showing a willingness to explain and justify actions to the staff and public.
Thank you for your persistence and commitment!
In his December 7 address to the nation, President Obama stated: "Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote." He added: "It is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization."
Would that Obama had made similar demands of the Christian community after Robert Lewis Dear's deadly rampage at a Planed Parenthood facility in Colorado.
Dear, whose online comments included, "Turn to Jesus or burn in hell. . . . Every knee shall bow and tongue confess Jesus is lord in this world,” qualifies for the title, "Christian terrorist."
Meanwhile, Donald J. Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the US. "I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in," Trump said.
Would that Trump had proposed a ban on any and all Americans entering Muslim countries—beginning with Americans wearing military uniforms, carrying weapons and dropping bombs.
Republican presidential hopefuls like Ted Cruz oppose gun registration, regulation, and restriction because they don't want "the government" to have more intrusive powers. What other institution do Americans have to protect them from no-fly-list terrorists, mentally unstable people and criminals acquiring guns? Our government agencies require people to pass a test before they are licensed to drive a car, practice law, or even cut hair. Surely the purchase of killing machines and ammunition should require passing a background check, a safety test, registering in a national database, and screening for subsequent infractions that would disqualify gun ownership.
Candidates like Cruz want to limit the ability of our government to prevent mass shootings, which now account for three times more deaths than we suffered on 9/11. They pose as "outsiders" when actually are completely embedded in corporation-sponsored corruption of our government. It is time to vote against Republicans like Cruz, and turn them into the outsiders they pretend to be.
Six members of The Berkeley City Council approved on Tuesday (Dec.8) a major development project in the downtown Shattuck Avenue area, south of University Ave. Max Anderson, Jesse Arreguin, and Kris Worthington voted against it. The Council decision will be very costly to small businesses and their employees. We will certainly see as a result of the development project an escalation of bankruptcies and layoffs.
Here's why. One piece of the development project is the construction of an 18 story luxury high rise apartments. To do so, the developer will demolish the ten screen Berkeley Cinema. That is of course the equivalent of closing ten movie houses. The Berkeley Cinema attracts up to several thousand movie goers every week. Many of these movie goers enjoy dinner or desert downtown, and they also shop at the many business establishments in the area. The net business volume that will be lost as a result of demolishing the movie house will be substantial.
Even though the vote has already been taken, it is still important to let the Council members know how you feel. Remaining silent will encourage the City Council to support other luxury construction projects at the expense of low and middle income residents. The grim reality is that the appetites of the big developers and the financial institutions that provide capital are insatiable.
The following email address will reach Mayor Bates and all the other Berkeley City Council members: council@cityofberkeley.info
Also, please keep in mind the different perspectives of the two city council members who will be running next year for mayor. Laurie Capitelli, who often votes conservatively, supports this project including the demolition of the movie house. Jesse Arreguin, on the other hand, voted to reject the project. No doubts about it that Jesse really and seriously cares about small business and jobs.
If you would like to write these council members a personal note to let them know what is on your mind, here are their email addresses: lcapitelli@cityofberkeley.info
Protests have erupted in the island of Puerto Rico over the federal government’s unequal payments to the island’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. For decades, Congress has capped federal reimbursements to Puerto Rico’s healthcare costs, bringing the system to the brink of collapse. Puerto Rico faces a humanitarian crisis unless Congress takes steps to address its crushing debt. The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, and the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, took the unusual step of marching in solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico in San Juan a few weeks ago to highlight the discriminatory practices of the U.S. federal government towards their colonial step child.
For example, Medicaid does not pay for nursing home care or for long-term care in Puerto Rico. People are often forced to pay for private nurses because of long waits and chronic shortage of nurses in public hospitals. Over 300 doctors fled the island last year. Reimbursements are capped at 15 percent compared to New York’s 50 percent. Poorer states like Mississippi and Alabama receive 80 percent. The government of Puerto Rico has been forced to borrow $20 billion of the $72 billion debt to pay for health care costs. The ticking debt bomb is accelerating with furloughs and reduced hours of all government workers.
Senior citizens have been told not expect the usual cost-of-living increase in their Social Security payments. The same message has gone out to millions of other citizens who depend on veterans' benefits, disability payments, and other critical monthly allotments from the Federal safety net.
Today, two-thirds of retired Americans rely on Social Security benefits to supplement (or cover) the constantly rising costs of food and housing. With Social Security checks averaging just $14,375 a year, increasing costs of food, housing and medical care simply cannot be met if payments remain capped.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic's CPI Inflation Calculator, the Cost of Living rose 2.14 percent between 2013 and 2014. The Bureau's online calculator currently reports (September 2015 data) that the Cost of Living has risen .51 percent this year. But even that lower estimate still represents an increase.
So why no COLA for older Americans?
Taking a look at the BLS's CPI stats on the rising costs of food, we find that a standard loaf of white bread that cost just under a buck in 2005, now costs just shy of $1.50, a 50 percent increase in ten years (or an inflation rate of five percent per year).
In just the past year, the cost of the BLS's standardized loaf has nudged upwards from $1.05 (September 2014) to $1.43 (September 2015)—an increase of 38 cents. Similarly, the cost of milk, chicken, and eggs rose 26 cents, 36 cents, and 69 cents, respectively—in just the past year.
So why no COLA for older Americans?
At the same time, the average pay for CEOs at the country's top 350 companies increased by 3.9% in 2014. According to the Economic Policy Institute (which provides this figure) these are CEOs whose average take-home tops $16 billion a year and whose prosperity is linked to Federally approved loopholes like tax-free "performance pay"—i.e., executive bonuses that the corporations are allowed to write off as tax-deductible "business expenses."
Fortunately, there are some people in Washington who are standing up for citizens who do not enjoy the lavish perks of politically connected Corporate America.
Led by progressive icon Senator Elizabeth Warren, a team of 19 Senate Democrats (including presidential candidate Bernie Sanders) have put forth a piece of legislation called the Seniors and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act. The "SAVE Benefits Act" would provide seniors and veterans with a one-time 3.9 percent cost-of-living adjustment in 2016—designed to match the adjustment handed out to America's top CEOs.
The SAVE Benefits Act would cover the increased costs of a 3.9 percent COLA by eliminating the tax loophole that currently allows Big Business to write off those excessive CEO bonuses.
"So let's do it," reads an online MoveOn.org petition created by Senator Warren. "Let's close the loophole and let's use the money to give seniors and vets the support they need on January 1st. Tell Congress that America supports the SAVE Benefits Act."
Take Action: The petition is already nearing 250,000 signatures. You can read more and sign on by going to this link:
Tell Congress: CEOs got a raise. Seniors & veterans deserve one too.
For the record, the complete list of Washington crusaders backing the SAVE Benefits Act include the following members of the US Senate: Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Franken, Dick Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, and Ed Markey.
Beyond the SAVE Act: The KOCH COLA
In March 2010, Forbes magazine listed the net worth of oil billionaires Charles and David Koch at $17.5 billion each ($35 billion total).
Three years later, Forbes reported the Koch's shared fortune had nearly doubled, to $68 billion.
In 2014, Forbes assessed the brothers' shared wealth at $82 billion and, as of November 7, 2015, Forbes estimated the Koch's cash reserves as $88.72 billion.
So, it's fair to say that the Koch's are in line to see an annual increase in wealth that exceeds eight percent growth.
In just five years, the Koch brothers' enormous wealth has more than doubled (2.5), from $35 billion to $89 billion. Wouldn't the lives of millions of homeless, starving American men, women and children be vastly improved if the government were to increase their cost of living benefits to match the growing wealth of the Kochs?
Over the past five years, the Kochs' annual income has steadily increased at a rate of 50 percent per year.
A 3.9 percent COLA is an admirable and just goal. But imagine the social transformation that would follow from instituting a COLA that matched the yearly earnings of the Kochs. Instead of being told "No COLA for you," imagine a government whose goal and purpose was to increase the wellbeing of its citizens by 50 percent each year. We could call this goal the KOCH COLA.
There is something deeply askew in an economic system that allows small group of multibillionaires to amass endless fortunes while, all around them, cities are crumbling, biospheres are collapsing, people are dying for lack of affordable medical care, and more than a million children attending schools (from kindergarten to Grade 12) are effectively homeless.
In 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated the country could eliminate homelessness in the US for $20 billion. While the Kochs spend millions to buy politicians and promote policies designed to increase their wealth, 48 million fellow Americans (including 15 million children) are living in poverty and suffering from malnutrition.
Remember what the fabled Depression Era robber Willy Sutton allegedly said when asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is."
Gar Smith is co-founder of Environmentalists Against War and Editor Emeritus of Earth Island Journal. He is the author of Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth (Chelsea Green).
The terrorist attack in San Bernardino has caused revulsion and anger because the victims were innocent civilians. Just imagine similar attacks occurring in far off lands at much greater intensity and frequency. This is precisely what is happening as a result of our drone wars. The U.S. drone wars have "fueled intense feelings of hatred that has given rise to terrorist groups like ISIS." That’s the conclusion of four former Air Force service members who are speaking out for the first time. Theyissued a letter to President Obama warning the U.S. drone program is one of the most devastating driving forces igniting terrorism. They accuse the administration of lying about the effectiveness of the drone program, saying it rarely kills terrorists but invariably kills innocent men, women and children.
The four whistleblowers stated “This administration and its predecessors have built a drone program that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world."
All four have suffered PTSD and feel abandoned by the military they served.
They complained “You never know who you’re killing, because you never actually see a face. You just have a silhouette” and you end their lives with click of a mouse.
< There is a surreal connection between war and the world of entertainment. The military has invested millions in creating video games they’re using as recruiting tools.
The concerns of the drone operators are the subject of a documentary, ‘Drone’, premiering in New York City and Toronto.
Society's "work ethic" can be a source of self-punishment, usually in the form of self-critical thoughts. The terminology people use, "working" and "not working," are non-coincidentally the same terms we use when a vacuum cleaner or television are either operating properly or broken and in need of repair.
Many people have been raised in an environment in which praise and acceptance from parents and others was contingent on the job we were doing. This translates later in life to our sense of self-worth being conditional on having a successful career.
As persons with disabilities, this expectation can be a heavy emotional weight. We might believe we "should be working." Yet, trying to fulfill "the work ethic" might be part of the reason why we became ill.
People without a disability who have been raised from childhood to perform academically and then in a career, may never question the work ethic and may not believe work is difficult. Many nondisabled people take it for granted that they are able to perform in a job and earn money.
A psychiatric illness, however, may throw a monkey wrench into the works before we become fully developed as "working" adults. This is especially so with illnesses that have early onset.
Problematic development related to work and/or relationships could lead up to a psychotic break, a manic episode, or depression. Once medicated and in outpatient institutionalization, we are up against even bigger barriers if we are trying to have a job or have a relationship.
Psychiatric medications often prevent performing competitively in a job. This is because many of these medications limit the energy level of the body and mind. Yet, we generally have little or no choice in taking these meds, because without them, there is a huge risk of relapse and getting acute symptoms of mental illness all over again.
Outpatient institutionalization exposes us to reinforcement of the idea that we can't work in a job. This negative expectation can cause a lot of distress, and it sabotages future work attempts.
Most people, when working at or toward a professional career, need positive reinforcement from friends, family, and associates at their job. Yet, as soon as we are medicated and institutionalized, we are getting reinforcement of the idea that we are sick, can't do anything, and need help.
This also impacts relationships, since most people who are not mentally ill who are seeking a relationship would never consider going out with someone with a psychiatric disability.
Because of all of this, the "reality" we are expected to return to when we are in recovery is not the same as the reality we left behind when we became psychotic, depressed or manic. This is remotely analogous to what happened to Vietnam veterans who went off to war with the noble idea of fighting for our country and came back to the U.S., only to be vilified.
The work ethic apparently works fine for most people. However, if we have a psychiatric disability, we need to give ourselves a break, and not persecute ourselves for "failing" to live up to this often self-imposed standard.
Editor's Note: Congratulations to Helen for this column, which is #200 in an outstanding series contributed for Planet readers!
Britain
London police state that arrests of people age 65+ rose10% from March 2009 to March 2014, even as arrests of under-65s fell 24%. The number of elderly British prison inmates has been rising at a rate more than three times that of the overall prison population.
In London's Hatton Garden diamond district, thieves made off with millions in cash and gems from a heavily secured vault. Age was the most striking thing about the crew when police arrested nine suspects. The youngest suspect was 42, most much older, including two men in their mid-seventies. At a preliminary hearing, a 74-year-old suspect, described by his London neighbors as an affable retiree who loves dogs, said he couldn't understand a clerk's questions because he was hard of hearing. A limping 59-year-old was said to be a former truck driver. Another defendant runs a plumbing business in the London suburbs.
Most of the men charged in the jewel heist appeared to be ordinary blokes. The perpetrators were neither isolated nor impoverished. Prosecutors said the thieves disabled an elevator and climbed down the shaft, then used a high-powered drill to cut into the vault. Once inside, they removed valuables from safe deposit boxes, hauling them away in bags and bins and loading them into a waiting van. Although their faces were obscured by headgear, the tabloids nicknamed each based on distinctive characteristics seen on camera. Two -- dubbed Tall Man and Old Man -- "struggle to move a bin before they drag it outside. … Old Man leans on the bin, struggling for breath."
Richard Hobbs, a University of Essex sociologist who studies crime in Britain, says the country's criminal underworld has changed dramatically in recent years. Rather than congregating in pubs or on street corners, many criminals now live seemingly ordinary lives, raising families and running legitimate businesses. They still participate in crime, but only with trusted associates. "They don't see themselves as criminals, they see themselves as businessmen. … That makes it easier for elderly criminals to stay in the game. Older criminals often have extensive networks to draw on for needed expertise. And some essential skills, such as money laundering, don't require physical vigor.”
Germany
In 2005, the Opa Bande ("Grandpa Gang") consisting of three German men in their sixties and seventies was convicted of robbing more than €1 million ($1.09 million) from 12 banks. They testified that they were trying to top up their pension benefits. One defendant said he used his share to buy a farm where he could live because he was afraid of being put in a retirement home.
Geriatric crime poses special challenges. During Grandpa Gang’s trial, members described how a 74-year-old co-defendant almost botched a 2003 bank heist by slipping on a patch of ice, forcing them to take extra time to help him into the getaway car. And there was another problem, his co-defendant pal told the court: "We had to stop constantly so he could pee."
The Netherlands. Belgium
In the Netherlands, a 2010 study found a sharp rise in arrests and incarceration of elderly people. In developed countries, they tend to be "more assertive, less submissive, and more focused on individual social and economic needs" than earlier generations were, says Bas van Alphen, a Free University of Brussels psychology professor, who has studied criminal behavior among the elderly. "When they see in their peer group that someone has much more money than they do, they are eager to get that," he says. Older people may also commit crimes because they feel isolated. "I had one patient who stole candies to handle the hours of loneliness every day," describing such behavior as "novelty-seeking."
Japan
"Battling the surge in elderly shoplifters" headlines November 18, 2015’s Japan Today, a Tokyo-based online newspaper. During the 2003-2013 decade, crime by people age 65+ more than doubled. Elders accounted for more shoplifting than teenagers.
Dabbing her eyes with a lace handkerchief, a 68-year-old Tokyo Small Claims Court defendant explained “I’m by myself and feel uneasy about the future. So I tried as much as possible to refrain from spending money.” She was charged with having attempted to steal 17 items of food and clothing valued at 10,536 yen. [1 Japanese Yen = 85 US Dollars] When apprehended she had 6,630 yen [$54.] on her person. Her pretext -- “anxious over the future” and “money has become important” – belied her appearance of being reasonably well off. She receives a monthly pension of about 90,000 yen [$730.]. It was her eighth arrest.
According to data from the National Police Agency, the percentage of shoplifting cases nationwide that resulted in criminal prosecutions of individuals age 65+ rose from 18.3% of the total in 2004 to 32.7% in 2013. Last year’s 20,667 cases surpassed the second largest demographic—teens from age 14 to 19—which declined over the same 10-year period. Some argue that the increase might be because spotting an elderly person in the act of stealing tends to be easier than a teen.
Theft poses a real problem for retailers. According to the Shinjuku-based National Shoplifting Prevention Organization, which works to discourage shoplifting, annual losses nationwide are estimated at approximately 460 billion yen—a figure at least 10 times higher than the amount lost by victims of the notorious “It’s me, send money” phone scams. Scammers consider morning the time to phone their victims, because housewives and elderly are alone at home then. The Organization wants to treat shoplifting as a crime, but acknowledges that many elderly people feel lonely and want someone to care about them.
Having an elderly parent nabbed for theft can also be rough on the offspring. Police phoned a 36-year old woman at her work to inform her that her father had been caught attempting to steal a 450-yen boxed meal from a supermarket. “The cash registers were all crowded,” the father explained. He had 5,000 yen in his wallet. After looking after his sick wife for two years, her father had taken to drink, and then, to keep occupied, to pachinko. [An addictive Japanese gambling game played on a vertical pinball machine.] “My father had always been ‘baka majime’ [honest to the extreme],” she said. “He worked for a local company for 40 years, and I supposed his pension and savings were sufficient…” Soon afterwards, her fellow workers began gossiping that she was the “child of a shoplifter.” She felt she had no choice but to resign. The loss of income was a blow to her family. Her husband was disinclined to having a “criminal” living under the same roof. … Nice cops, colleagues, family, spouse.
Japan Today readers’ comments included:
Australia
“Dramatic rise in Victorian seniors caught shoplifting” shouts January 21, 2015’s Melbourne’s Herald Sun. Light-fingered geriatrics are being caught in growing numbers, with five shoplifters aged 70+ nabbed each week in Victoria. Of 674 accused shoplifters aged 60+ in 2013-2014, 200 were 70-79 years old, and 63 were aged 80+. The Council on the Ageing’s chief executive said it was possible the thieves were under financial stress, had a lifelong habit, or were suffering the early stages of dementia. He said the ranks of senior citizens stealing could swell as our population ages.
The number of accused shoplifters aged 60+ rose 20% in 2013-14 — up 29% among those aged 80+ — but teens remain the biggest problem. Checkpoint Systems Australia’s managing director called for an end to cautioning first-time juvenile offenders. “Rather than a rap on the knuckles there should be compulsory community work,” he said. “If you steal from a house and get caught you could end up in prison but what real punishment do you get for shoplifting?”
Germany
In 2005, the Opa Bande ("Grandpa Gang") consisting of three German men in their sixties and seventies was convicted of robbing more than €1 million ($1.09 million) from 12 banks. They testified that they were trying to top up their pension benefits. One defendant said he used his share to buy a farm where he could live because he was afraid of being put in a retirement home.
Geriatric crime poses special challenges. During Grandpa Gang’s trial, members described how a 74-year-old co-defendant almost botched a 2003 bank heist by slipping on a patch of ice, forcing them to take extra time to help him into the getaway car. And there was another problem, his co-defendant pal told the court: "We had to stop constantly so he could pee."
South Korea
Rising poverty rates among the elderly are being blamed in some countries. In South Korea, 45% of people over age 65 live below the poverty line, the highest rate among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development developed nations. "The government should make an all-out effort to expand the social safety net and provide jobs and dwellings for the elderly," the Korea Times newspaper editorializes, warning that by 2026, more than 20% of the country's population will be over 65. This month South Korea reported that, from 2011 to 2013, crimes committed by people age 65+ rose 12.2% —including a 40% increase in violent crime— outstripping a 9.6% rise in the country's elderly population during the period.
U.S.A.
Has the U.S. escaped this trend? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of elderly crime among people aged 55-65 has decreased since the 1980s. The growth of the elderly prison inmate population mainly reflects longer sentences, especially for drug-related crimes.
Walmart has become a fixture in Americana. Shoplifters cost Walmart a lot of money. UC,B economics professor and Clinton administration cabinet member Robert Reich crusades to expose the problem of income inequality in the United States. He considers that Walmart spies on its employees. His film, Inequality for All, is available as a BPL dvd.
Responding to the question of how often stealing occurs at Walmart, a man posted this: My wife worked in loss prevention for Walmart as an in-store, patrolling the store in street clothes. She was promoted to regional loss prevention supervisor, where she supervised in-stores and conducted investigations of theft by employees, associates, as Walmart calls them. The store loses far more money to employee theft and fraud schemes. She would catch 2-3 shoplifters on a good week; the in-store who trained her routinely got that many almost every day.,
Non-employees who steal from Walmart fall into several categories: petty thieves who steal one or two relatively low-cost items at a time; serial thieves who steal mostly in order to return the items at the service desk one at a time for cash; and theft ring members who would come into the store and take single items every day, or would take a lot of items out in a single haul.
One theft ring was composed of senior citizens who all lived within a few doors of one another. One would steal an item like an appliance or a tool, and another would return it for cash. They were pretty good at what they did, and the few times they got caught, the courts were reluctant to punish a senior citizen too severely. Walmart has a "prosecute everything" policy (as do many retailers). If they catch you, the police are going to be called, and you're going to be cited or jailed.
A Hopatcong, New Jersey woman was twice found guilty of shoplifting at Morris County Walmarts -- even after agreeing to stay out of the stores. She appealed in Superior Court.
Sixty-four year old Johanna Cassimore, who uses the name JoAnn Berry, was ordered by the Municipal Court Judge to stay out of all Walmart stores, everywhere.
She was found guilty of stealing, convicted of shoplifting the $78 worth of vitamins, a watch and dog treats at Roxbury Walmart, sentenced to 20 days of community service, and ordered to pay $1,083 in fines and penalties. She appealed the conviction. Because she is on disability – usually using a motorized scooter when she shops – and has a small income, she was routinely granted a public defender for the municipal court appearances and appeals. According to documents, Cassimore wrote to Superior Court: “I cannot afford the fines and know I was not treated fairly in court. I am a disabled senior citizen. I would not survive jail.” Details and developments of Ms. Cassimore/Berry’s case(s) are on the Internet!
##
For those seeking an explanation of US politics, there was no better primer than President Obama’s December 6th address to the nation and the Republican response. The President made six points and Republicans rejected most. The two political parties might as well live on different planets.
To begin with, the President defended his plan to fight the terrorists. “Our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary.” His plan involves minimal boots on the ground. “We will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground... In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive.”
The electorate is split about whether or not the US should send ground troops into Iraq and Syria. The latest CNN/Ipsos poll, taken just before the President’s speech, found that 53 percent of respondents favor sending in troops. However, this was due to an uptick in Republican militancy: 75 percent of Republicans favor sending troops, Independents are evenly split, and only 39 percent of Democrats favor sending ground troops.
Even though Republican voters want to send troops into the Middle East, the GOP presidential candidates are more circumspect. Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Paul Waldman observed that of the 14 Republican candidates only Senator Lindsey Graham has actually spoken of putting “10,000 American troops” in Syria.
Next Obama said, “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.” Republicans see this as yet another piece of gun-control legislation and they’ve dug in their collective heels and blocked it. (Factcheck.org noted: “Obama’s proposal would allow the government the ability to prevent those on the no-fly list from legally purchasing weapons… There were about 6,400 U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents on the no-fly list as of last year, Terrorist Screening Center Director Christopher M. Piehota told a House committee at a September 18, 2014, hearing.”) 77 percent of Americans support this legislation.
The President’s third point was “ We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in [recent terrorist actions].” Once again, most Democrats see this as a common-sense measure but Republicans have been unwilling to let any relevant legislation come to a vote. (The latest CBS News/New York Times poll found that 58 percent of respondents want gun laws “made more strict.”)
Obama’s fourth point was, “we should put in place strong screening for those who come to a America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones.” On December 8th, the House of Representatives passed comparable legislation and looks as if this may soon become law.
The President’s fifth point was: “If Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.” At this writing, there appears to be little chance that Congress will accommodate Obama in the near future. Neither Party is satisfied with the President’s request for a new authorization of military force; Republicans want it to be stronger and Democrats want it to be weaker.
President Obama’s final point was tolerance to Muslims. “We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam… If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies.”
Many Republicans disagree with this. The leading GOP presidential contender, Donald Trump called for: “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." While many Republican leaders disapproved of this stance, rank-and-file Republicans embraced it. A Bloomberg poll found that 51 percent of Republicans strongly favored Trump’s proposal and 14 percent favored it somewhat. (Overall, 37 percent of voters favored the proposal to some extent.)
Republicans disagree with Democrats on 5 of the 6 points. Some of this might be explained as politics as usual, and we are in the presidential campaign season, but it’s due to two more ominous trends.
For the past 7 years, Republicans have made it their practice to oppose everything that President Obama has suggested: from clean water to sensible gun control to a measured approach in the Middle East. It was once Washington policy for the two parties to disagree on domestic affairs but stand together on foreign policy. That bit of comity disappeared as soon as Obama was elected.
Republicans attacked the President’s policies and attacked him personally. A recent Hill Poll found that 43 percent of Republicans continue to believe Obama is a Muslim. Donald Trump caters to this; after the San Bernardino shootings he attempted to link them to President Obama, “There is something going on with him that we don’t know about.”
Donald Trump and the Republican establishment subscribe to the “mushroom” theory of politics: keep their voters in the dark and feed them full of s**t. This explains why the two parties are so different and why Trump leads the GOP.
Persons with various disabilities, compared to others, are generally more tolerant of people who are different. Those "mainstream" Americans who, without too much difficulty, have found material success, often do not understand persons with mental illness or other disabilities. The epitome of this is Donald Trump, who has become known as the candidate with the most bigoted and ignorant attitude of anyone running for President.
A symptom of society's lack of understanding is the standard work ethic. Since when can someone get away with taking a day off from work because they are just too depressed to go to work that day? The work ethic decidedly doesn't acknowledge excuses not to perform that stem from something happening between the ears. When taking a day off from work due to a flare-up of mental illness, it is usually necessary to fabricate a physical excuse.
However, disdain toward persons with a mental health diagnosis cuts across all socioeconomic lines. There are some people well off financially who are quite understanding and kind toward persons with mental illness, and there are disadvantaged people who dislike mentally ill people, and express it without subtlety.
I was once in a writer's group in San Ramon, and the one who headed the group at one point said she was upset about low income units being built near her. She also was quite mocking of me and of my writing. I was judged either by my appearance or by the fact of my disability, and this person had a preexisting bias making her believe anything I wrote was tripe.
I was outside a mental health clinic in Concord when a man appeared there, apparently for the sole purpose of ostracizing mentally ill people. He said he could tell that I was "a Prozac." And he said he would let me know if he needed someone to empty his trash.
I was once placed in a job by a mental health agency in which I was a delivery driver. I called in sick due to neck pain because I continued to suffer from a whiplash of several months before. There was no clear cut procedure for calling in sick, and another driver was deprived of his day going fishing. I was blamed for ruining the off-day of the other employee. But also, the manager, a man in his thirties, said he was worried I would "take off in the van." He wanted me to give back the keys because of this. I gave him the keys to the delivery van. Then he called me because there was more work, and I informed him that I wasn't going to work under those conditions.
The mental health agency also messed up a potential hiring at an electronic repair shop where I had interviewed. Had I gone alone and not involved the mental health agency I probably would have gotten the job. It is hard to know if the mental health agency was the most bigoted, or the potential employers.
The belief that a mentally ill person is good for nothing but emptying trash is a part of the disrespect and the stereotyping directed at mentally ill people.
A video was being made at a mental health agency for purposes of promoting their agency and destigmatizing mentally ill people. When I was being prepared to appear in the filming, I tried to drink some coffee, and was admonished that I could not have any of the counselors' coffee. Another mental health agency has a separate bathroom for use of staff only. What does this remind you of?
My point is that because I am mentally ill, people have seen it as an invitation to treat me like garbage. Being stereotyped, or condescended upon, is not something we are imagining due to being delusional.
However, it is a lot harder for persons with mental illness to fight for our equality when most of us are medicated to the point where we can do little or nothing. For example, getting out and demonstrating is an improbability because of how medication affects stamina. Fighting for our rights in the courtroom will not happen either, because it is a rarity that a mentally ill person can retain the services of a private attorney.
When will the mentally ill stand up for our rights and for being treated in a fair and humane manner? It could be numerous decades in the future, and it could require better treatment of psychiatric disorders, such as medications that do not become a component of the disability. Yet there is no incentive for the drug companies to invent such meds.
In a decade in which we see a lot of progress for minorities such as the LGBT community, and in which ongoing police brutality and murder toward African American people is now being videoed, resulting in public outrage--as someone categorized as mentally ill, I say, what about us?
Why did Turkey shoot down that Russian warplane?
It was certainly not because the SU-24 posed any threat. The plane is old and slow, and the Russians were careful not to arm it with anti-aircraft missiles. It was not because the Turks are quick on the trigger. Three years ago Turkish President Recap Tanya Endogen said, “A short-term violation of airspace can never be a pretext for an attack.” And there are some doubts about whether the Russian plane ever crossed into Turkey’s airspace.
Indeed, the whole Nov. 24 incident looks increasingly suspicious, and one doesn’t have to be a paranoid Russian to think the takedown might have been an ambush. As Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney (ret), former U.S. Air Force chief of staff commented, “This airplane was not making any maneuvers to attack the [Turkish] territory,” the Turkish action was “overly aggressive,” and the incident “had to be preplanned.”
It certainly puzzled the Israeli military, not known for taking a casual approach to military intrusions. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon told the press Nov. 29 that a Russian warplane had violated the Israeli border over the Golan Heights. “Russian planes do not intend to attack us, which is why we must not automatically react and shoot them down when an error occurs.”
So why was the plane downed? Because, for the first time in four years, some major players are tentatively inching toward a settlement of the catastrophic Syrian civil war, and powerful forces are maneuvering to torpedo that process. If the Russians had not kept their cool, several nuclear-armed powers could well have found themselves in a scary faceoff, and any thoughts of ending the war would have gone a glimmering.
There are multiple actors on the Syrian stage and a bewildering number of crosscurrents and competing agendas that, paradoxically, make it both easier and harder to find common ground. Easier, because there is no unified position among the antagonists; harder, because trying to herd heavily armed cats is a tricky business.
A short score card on the players:
The Russians and the Iranians are supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and fighting a host of extremist organizations ranging from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State (IS). But each country has a different view of what a post civil war Syria might look like. The Russians want a centralized and secular state with a big army. The Iranians don’t think much of “secular,” and they favor militias, not armies.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and most the other Gulf monarchies are trying to overthrow the Assad regime, and are the major supporters of the groups Russia, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah are fighting. But while Turkey and Qatar want to replace Assad with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia might just hate the Brotherhood more than it does Assad. And while the monarchies are not overly concerned with the Kurds, Turkey is bombing them, and they are a major reason why Ankara is so deeply enmeshed in Syria.
The U.S., France and Great Britain are also trying to overthrow Assad, but are currently focused on fighting the IS using the Kurds as their major allies—specifically the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Party, an offshoot of the Kurdish Workers Party that the U.S. officially designates as “terrorist.” These are the same Kurds that the Turks are bombing and who have a friendly alliance with the Russians. Indeed, Turkey may discover that one of the price tags for shooting down that SU-24 is the sudden appearance of new Russian weapons for the Kurds, some of which will aimed at the Turks.
The Syrian war requires a certain suspension of rational thought.
For instance, the Americans are unhappy with the Russians for bombing the anti-Assad Conquest Army, a force dominated by the Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria. That would be the same al-Qaeda that brought down the World Trade towers and that the U.S. is currently bombing in Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Suspension of rational thought is not limited to Syria.
A number of Arab countries initially joined the U.S. air war against the Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda, because both organizations are pledged to overthrow the Gulf monarchies. But Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have now dropped out to concentrate their air power on bombing the Houthis in Yemen.
The Houthis, however, are by far the most effective force fighting the IS and al-Qaeda in Yemen. Both extremist organizations have made major gains in the last few weeks because the Houthis are too busy defending themselves to take them on.
In spite of all this political derangement, however, there are several developments that are pushing the sides toward some kind of peaceful settlement that doesn’t involve regime change in Syria. That is exactly what the Turks and the Gulf monarchs are worried about, and a major reason why Ankara shot down that Russian plane.
The first of these developments has been building throughout the summer: a growing flood of Syrians fleeing the war. There are already almost two million in Turkey, and over a million in Jordan and Lebanon, and as many as 900,000 in Europe. Out of 23 million Syrians, some 11 million have been displaced by the war, and the Europeans are worried that many of those 11 million people will end up camping out on the banks of the Seine and the Ruhr. If the war continues into next year, that is a pretty accurate assessment.
Hence, the Europeans have quietly shelved their demand that Assad resign as a prerequisite for a ceasefire and are leaning on the Americans to follow suit. The issue is hardly resolved, but there seems to be general agreement that Assad will at least be part of a transition government. At this point, the Russians and Iranians are insisting on an election in which Assad would be a candidate because both are wary of anything that looks like “regime change.” The role Assad might play will be a sticking point, but probably not an insurmountable one.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are adamant that Assad must go, but neither of them is in the driver’s seat these days. While NATO supported Turkey in the Russian plane incident, according to some of the Turkish press many of its leading officials consider Erdogan a loose cannon. And Saudi Arabia—whose economy has been hard hit by the worldwide fall in oil prices—is preoccupied by its Yemen war that is turning into a very expensive quagmire.
The second development is the Russian intervention, which appears to have changed things on the ground, at least in the north, where Assad’s forces were being hard pressed by the Conquest Army. New weapons and airpower have dented a rebel offensive and resulted in some gains in the government’s battle for Syria’s largest city, Aleppo.
Russian bombing also took a heavy toll on the Turkmen insurgents in the Bayirbucak region, the border area that Turkey has used to infiltrate arms, supplies and insurgents into Syria.
The appearance of the Russians essentially killed Turkey’s efforts to create a “no fly zone” on its border with Syria, a proposal that the U.S. has never been enthusiastic about. Washington’s major allies, the Kurds, are strongly opposed to a no fly zone because they see it as part of Ankara’s efforts to keep the Kurds from forming an autonomous region in Syria.
The Bayirbucak area and the city of Jarabulus are also the exit point for Turkey’s lucrative oil smuggling operation, apparently overseen by one of Erdogan’s son, Bilal. The Russians have embarrassed the Turks by publishing satellite photos showing miles of tanker trucks picking up oil from IS-controlled wells and shipping it through Turkey’s southern border with Syria.
“The oil controlled by the Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on an industrial scale,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said Nov. 30. “We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to insure the security of this oil’s delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers.”
Erdogan did not get quite the response he wanted from NATO following the shooting down of the SU-24. While the military alliance backed Turkey’s defense of its “sovereignty,” NATO then called for a peaceful resolution and de-escalation of the whole matter.
At a time when Europe needs a solution to the refugee crisis, and wants to focus its firepower on the organization the killed 130 people in Paris, NATO cannot be happy that the Turks are dragging them into a confrontation with the Russians, and making the whole situation a lot more dangerous than it was before the Nov. 24 incident.
The Russians have now deployed their more modern SU-34 bombers and armed them with air-to-air missiles. The bombers will now also be escorted by SU-35 fighters. The Russians have also fielded S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft systems, the latter with a range of 250 miles. The Russians say they are not looking for trouble, but they are loaded for bear should it happen. Would a dustup between Turkish and Russians planes bring NATO—and four nuclear armed nations—into a confrontation? That possibility ought to keep people up at night.
Some time around the New Year, the countries involved in the Syrian civil war will come together in Geneva. A number of those will do their level best to derail the talks, but one hopes there are enough sane—and desperate—parties on hand to map out a political solution.
It won’t be easy, and who gets to sit at the table has yet to be decided. The Turks will object to the Kurds, the Russians, Iranians and Kurds will object to the Conquest Army, and the Saudis will object to Assad. In the end it could all come apart. It is not hard to torpedo a peace plan in the Middle East.
But if the problems are great, failure will be catastrophic, and that may be the glue that keeps the parties together long enough to hammer out a ceasefire, an arms embargo, a new constitution, and internationally supervised elections.
Another mass killing in the U.S. This time in San Bernardino — 14 dead, 21 wounded. We say ho-hum as gun violence has now become an expected event in our every day lives. Consider that since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the U.S. Americans have seemingly come to accept gun violence as long as it doesn’t directly affect them or their love ones personally.
Americans love their guns. In fact, in many states it is legal to carry a concealed weapon on private property, including places of work and worship. While we abhor the killings, too many of Americans are loathe to give up our Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.”
Some follow the National Rifle Association (NRA) lead that any gun control law is an infringement on this right. Or as NRA board member Ted Nugent put it, “losers” who don’t carry a gun “get cut down by murderous maniacs like blind sheep to slaughter” and “any law, any regulation of guns is unconstitutional.” Following NRA advice, on Black Friday, there were 185,000 background checks, reflecting gun purchases, even as Robert Dear killed three and wounded nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.
Given past history, a Republican-led Congress is unlikely to pass any federal gun control legislation. Remember, the Congressional failure to extend the Federal Assault Weapons ban, which expired on September 13, 2004? Then in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia V. Heller struck a blow against gun control laws, holding that Americans have a Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” While this decision does not mean that federal and state governments cannot pass and enforce gun control laws, every such law becomes subject to an NRA court challenge.
In the wake of the December 2012, killing of 20 children and seven adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, we thought a tipping point had been reached and Congress had finally had enough. It was not to be. Congress failed to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Other legislation failed to pass, including tougher laws on straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking, efforts to increase school safety, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and universal background checks, and restrictions on the size of magazines so as to reduce the number of bullets that can be fired before reloading is required.
As President Obama has argued, states with gun control laws tend to have lower gun-related death rates.
Despite this, Americans seem to be resigned to the fact that nothing will be done to stop the killings. Gun control, at least at the federal level, is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. in the wake of the San Bernardino killings, Republicans in Congress made it clear that they will not be moving quickly to bring up new gun control legislation.
Sure, there will be much short-term hand wringing and mass media coverage over this latest horror, but then in a week or so life will go on as usual until the next atrocity. I wish it were not so, but too many Americans have accepted, or resigned themselves to gun violence as a fact of American life.
Gun violence has become as American as apple pie.
Veteran pianist Garrick Ohlsson gave a masterful recital on Sunday, December 6 at Zellerbach Hall. Originally from White Plains, New York, Mr. Ohlsson now makes his home in San Francisco. He was heard last Fall with the San Francisco Symphony at Davies Hall in Sergei Rachmaninoff’s Third Piano Concerto conducted by Juraj Valčuha, (See my review of that concert in the October 17, 2014 issue of this paper.) At Zellerbach this Sunday, Mr. Ohlsson featured Beethoven’s Sonata No. 31 in A-flat major, Op. 110, Schubert’s Fantasy in C major, D. 760, “Wanderer,” and, after intermission, selections from Enrique Granados’s Goyescas.
Playing without scores throughout the entire recital, Garrick Ohlsson lavished his admirable technique and interpretive sensitivity upon these major works for the piano. The Beethoven Op. 110 was a contemplative wonder. In this sonata, composed in 1821, Beethoven eschews the titanic struggles and dramatic contrasts of his middle-period sonatas, here immersing us in a harmonious world of pure music, almost devoid of human passion, or rather, beyond human passion. (Where passion is concerned, Beethoven’s friend and biographer Anton Schindler claimed that Beethoven intended to dedicate this sonata to Antonie Brentano, whom Maynard Solomon convincingly identified as the “Immortal Beloved,” although this dedication was omitted through the publisher’s oversight.)
The Op. 110 sonata begins with a movement in sonata form, from which all contrast fades away in favor of a bright, sunny affirmation. The second movement, marked Allegro molto, offers spirited renderings of themes from Austrian folksongs for which Beethoven had supplied piano accompaniments a year earlier in 1820. The third and final movement is a lengthy discourse offering a mournful arioso dolente that leads to a fugue. This fugue, however, has none of the titanic tensions that Beethoven explored in his last years. Rather, this is a crystal-clear, joyful and songful fugue. As played by Garrick Ohlsson, this sonata was exemplary as a statement of pure music and open-hearted affirmation.
Next on the program was Franz Schubert’s “Wanderer” Fantasy in C major., composed in 1822. Although Schubert himself never referred to this piece as the “Wanderer” Fantasy, this sobriquet stuck because Schubert took as the thematic material for this Fantasy his own 1816 song, Der Wanderer. Here he wove a tightly knit hybrid of sonata and variation forms, fashioning a work that, upon publication in 1823, was immediately acclaimed as one of Schubert’s finest compositions. Robert Schumann praised this Fantasy, noting that “Schubert would like in this work to condense the whole orchestra into two hands.” The variety of pianistic moods in the “Wanderer” Fantasy is astounding. Schumann saw in the opening movement a “hymn to the Godhead,” complete with angels praying. The second movement, an Adagio, offers a graceful set of meditations based on a voice-part from Schubert’s Der Wanderer song. The third movement is a lively scherzo based on a lyrical melody from the first movement. The Finale begins with fugal material, whose counterpoint eventually morphs into a brilliant series of transformations of the Fantasy’s principal theme. Here, too, as in the Beethoven Op. 110 sonata that preceded it, one had no doubt that, especially as played by Garrick Ohlsson, Schubert’s “Wanderer” Fantasy ranks among the masterworks for piano.
After intermission, Ohlsson returned to play selections from Enrique Granados’s Goyescas, o Los majos enamorados/Goyescas, or The Majos in Love. These pieces for piano, composed in 1909-1911, were inspired by Granados’s admiration for the paintings of Goya. Hence its title, which means something like “Sketches in the manner of Goya.” Its subtitle suggests a series of meditations on love and death among the majos, the lower-class denizens of Madrid’s demi-monde, who figured in many of Goya’s most famous paintings, such as “The Naked Maja” and “The Clothed Maja.”
The first selection played by Garrick Ohlsson, Los Requiebros/Flatteries, is in the style of a jota, a Spanish dance from the northeastern region of Aragon. Ohlsson brought out all the lively interplay of a lovers’ dialogue, now coquettish, now imploring. In the second selection, El Fandango de Candil/The Fandango by Candle-Light, Ohlsson delicately sketched the moods of a dancing couple of lovers, who alternate from the sensuous rhythms of their lively dance to moments of passionate embrace. The third of the Goyescas, entitled Quejas, o la Maja y el Ruiseñor/Laments, or the Maja and the Nightingale, is a dreamy, tender piece that Granados dedicated to his wife. It depicts a young maiden’s nocturnal song echoed back to her by a nightingale. As fashioned by Garrick Ohlsson, this was my favorite of the Granados Goyescas. For the final work by Granados, Ohlsson chose a 1915 piece, also inspired by Goya, entitled El Pelele/The Straw Man. This is a lively, carefree work depicting a game in which young men and women toss a straw manikin into the air from a blanket. There was a delightful charm in the way Ohlsson brought out the playful whimsy of this piece.
As encores, Ohlsson played two pieces by Chopin -- the Waltz in E flat, No. 1,
and a meditative Nocturne. All in all, it was a masterful recital by one of our finest and most sensitive pianists.
