We should cut services to the poor because

big government is bad

we have to shrink the budget

the poor have shelters

food banks

those barrels we fill at the grocery



We have to get rid of Affordable Care

for the reasons given above

We can’t afford to take care of everybody.

It’s not our job.

They should go to the public health department

take responsibility

figure something out.



We should not raise the minimum wage because

those are starter jobs

and what would motivate folks to do better

if they had a living wage right away?

Yes, I see mature folks working at Mickey D’s

but that’s not my fault.

They should have got themselves an education

a foothold, should have applied themselves

Also there are churches to help these people



We should defund Planned Parenthood because

abortion is a sin against God

you conceived it, you bear it

give it away if you can’t take care of it

should have thought about that before

you opened your legs

we believe in the sacredness of life

just not yours

or those of people of color

or gays

or poor people

like those scraping by in the drive-thru



We are done with handouts

except to corporations

who are people

and who contribute a lot more to this society

than you homeless

illegals

minimum wagers



Get a life, why don’t you?

We got ours.

---

© 2015 George Ella Lyon. All Rights Reserved 

---

George Ella Lyon’s books of poems include Driving with the Dead, Many-Storied House, and, with fellow poet J. Patrick Lewis, Voices from the March on Washington. She is also a novelist and author of children’s books (Which Side Are You On? and others). — Carol Polsgrove, December 2015 

---

The Berkeley Police Department continues to investigate the death of a 22 year old male in the 2900 block of Channing Way. On Saturday, December 19, 2015 just before 7:30 a.m., the Berkeley Fire Department and Berkeley Police Department responded to a report of an unresponsive male at Pi Kappa Phi, 2908 Channing Way. The victim was pronounced deceased at the scene. 

The victim has been identified as Jeffrey Thomas Engler, a 22 year old male, from San Leandro. Jeffrey was enrolled at Laney College and previously attended UC Berkeley. He was a current member of Pi Kappa Phi, but did not reside at the fraternity. He was at the house attending a small holiday party. 

Based on the preliminary investigation it appears he fell from a significant height prior to his death. There are no indications of foul play and alcohol appears to have played a factor in his death. The cause of death will be determined by the Alameda County Coroner’s Bureau. 

Berkeley Police is urging anyone who may know about this incident to please call the Homicide Detail (510) 981-5741. If a person wishes to remain anonymous, he/she can call the Bay Area Crime Stoppers (BAC) at (800) 222-TIPS (8477).

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

That’s (ten points on the quiz if you can identify it) Franklin Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, a beautiful statement which popped into my mind the last time I watched the pathetic Berkeley City Council in action, or more precisely their inaction. No insult to rabbits, but the six-vote majority which answers to Mayor Bates looks more and more like bunnies caught in the headlights. 

What are they afraid of? Well, for starters, they’re afraid of the category of people commonly identified as “the homeless”, a term which covers many different personal problems, all of which lead to, as the Brits say, “living rough”. It’s true that a small sub-set of people living outside are there because of anti-social or even hostile behavior, but most of “the homeless” are working through a variety of issues with simply being dead broke at the top of the list. Even most of the “crazy” people who mutter to themselves or shout to the sky aren’t dangerous to others (and of course these days some of the scariest mutterers turn out just to be talking on their cell phones.) 

The pervasive fear which seems to have infected Berkeley’s elected officials was manifest most strikingly at the last city council meeting in the discussion of whether the Berkeley Police should continue to participate in Urban Shield, a combination combat training program and trade show for vendors of military-style weapons like assault rifles and tanks . The statements made by Councilmembers Max Anderson and Daryl Moore justifying their respective votes were in stark contrast. 

Moore was overwhelmingly in favor of Berkeley’s continued participation. He recounted in obviously terrified terms his fear that what happened in San Bernardino was just waiting to happen here, and he wanted our cops to be ready to strike back when it came down. He didn’t claim any association between fears of the city’s homeless population and religious fanatics with assault weapons, of course, but his emotional outburst was reminiscent in tone of tales of encounters with down-and-outers at past council meetings. 

Max Anderson’s statement, on the other hand, detailed why Urban Shield doesn’t solve anything. It’s interesting to note that physical descriptions of the two councilmembers might be very similar: African-American men of a certain age, balding, semi-bearded, tending toward stout, but they couldn’t be more different in attitude. Max is an ex-Marine and a trained nurse—two professions which require a good amount of physical courage, while Moore has spent most of his life in one bureaucratic job or another, where presumably he’s had to go along to get along. 

Max highlighted with his usual eloquence the key problem with the Urban Shield culture: it’s a military model, familiar to him from his experience in the Marines. He said that it pushed citizens into the inappropriate role of “the enemy”, as in war, when most of the time the duty of police officers in urban settings should instead be that of problem solvers. He referenced a number of situations where he thought things had been handled wrong because of this militaristic preconception, illustrated in the on-going investigation into why the Berkeley Police made such a mess of handling marching Black Lives Matter demonstrators about a year ago, which is now the subject of a lawsuit by aggrieved citizens. Interestingly, Moore displayed no consciousness of how militaristic police reponses fall more heavily on African-Americans. 

Max suggested that our police officers needed a completely different kind of training to deal with our normal problems like unruly street behavior by a small minority of disturbed people. 

The worst example of how the spineless majority is failing Berkeley came at the last council meeting, when the council majority took no action on the looming shelter emergency, which has left many on the street in the face of the El Nino rains which are now upon us. It is ironic that the meeting was preceded by a “workshop” presented by State Senator Loni Hancock and Assemblymember Tony Thurmond to an empty council chamber, where the state leaders discussed such problems, but their remarks fell on deaf council majority ears. 

Today, as it happens, is the traditional day when residents of the Northern Hemisphere have celebrated the possibility of freedom from fear. Our ancestors, especially those in the frigid European lands, worried annually that as the days got shorter the sun might eventually disappear forever. That’s why they partied up a storm on December 21, at the very bottom of the curve, even though the wise among them were predicting that things would eventually get better.  

I myself can predict with absolute certainty that starting today the sun will make a comeback. I wish there were a way to be sure that our leaders (yes, I’m talking about the Berkeley City Council again) would magically be transformed into cheerful problem-solvers instead of fearful naysayers.  

Here’s Roosevelt again: 

“In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” 

A leadership of frankness and vigor: what a concept!  

Is this possible for Berkeley? If the current leaders can’t do the job, will “the people themselves” elect new leaders in 2016 who can? The campaign has already started with two candidates for Mayor announced—its outcome will be crucial for the future of our city. It looks like a stirring contest. 

Maybe things are looking up. Happy Solstice to one and all, and remember, tomorrow will surely be a longer day. 

 

And a Merry Christmas too. I'll be slacking off for a week or two--no new issues most likely, though perhaps occasional additions to this one. 

In a friendly on-line conversation, someone recently said:

"Ah well K., that sort of small thinking is why we are here with this housing crisis. Every city battens down the hatches instead of building the housing needed."

Pardon me but that is poppycock.

There is a housing crisis mainly because incomes have diverged so wildly, not because of a supply shortage. I can say it another way:

There is not a housing crisis because there is a supply shortage. That's the wrong way round. There is a localized supply shortage because there is an income crisis.

That is why the crisis manifests as increased housing insecurity and increased economic segregation. There is plenty of housing in the greater region. What is really going on is a very stepped up tendency to segregate the rich from the not-so-rich and the poor. This is why in some cities, economic sectors reliant on labor from lower-income households are struggling to find enough employees. 

Cities "batten down" on development, as someone put it, because the inner Bay is, mostly, a very land-limited region. Would-be developers are struck by a double whammy: the dearness of the land itself, and the already high densities that challenge quality of life, government finances, and so on. New development for profit is very expensive. Everyone knows, for example, that if Palo Alto were to permit its population to rapidly double -- which could really house a lot of tech workers who work in that area -- that the quality of life in Palo Alto would decline terribly. And it is not just the rich cities having this experience. East Palo Alto now faces the same problem only, there, because the current population has far less income, they are far less able to defend themselves against the tidal-wave of displacement that is hitting their shores.

Nevertheless, in spite of the sane resistance, throughout the region, to new development: there is a lot of money potentially to be made.

That is why there is so much lobbyist-led intervention in home rule in this area, ranging from state-ordered public subsidies for developers, "density bonuses", and so on. It is ironic that today public officials paint this intervention in home rule as "green" or some kind of blow against climate change. Their reports on this are a joke. It is nothing of the sort. And you know everything you need to know when you figure out that all of these interventions, all this "transit corridor" stuff, all this infill and push for density goes back to long before any of the legislators involved ever heard of climate change. It's a real estate scheme. Period.

Employers and regional investors (e.g. tech investors) play an interesting role here. We have a large number of international monopolists in the region, such as Google, Facebook, and various pharmaceutical firms.

It is characteristic of those specific kinds of monopoly that the ratio of their income to their payrolls and capital costs is very, very high. In other words, their gross rate of profit is through the roof.

Since such firms tend to have a high rate of gross profit *per employee*, they can afford to spend much more than other sectors on employee compensation, both direct and indirect.

Suppose that such a firm wants to expand. They face the problem that the housing market is already tight. A firm with lower gross profits in this situation might start expanding in, say, Nevada where land is far less dear (like, say, Zappos did). The local monopolies on the other hand have the option to beat the regional median income by a large amount, even to subsidize employees with private buses, and thus... the choice of those employers... create a crisis of economic displacement and economic and racial segregation. Further, the big investors in tech can individually recoup some of the high spending on employee compensation by expanding their own regional real estate portfolios.

For example, if you are a big shareholder in Google, your board of directors is spending a lot of your firm's gross income on compensation, but my gosh that's good for you if you take ownership of some San Francisco rental property or dabble in condo conversions.

That is why: There is not a housing crisis because of a supply shortage. Instead, there is a supply shortage, because there is an income crisis.

Berkeley experiences some of those issues, but also faces an additional issue related to Cal.

The student population has three properties of note:

a) Their individual incomes tend to be very low.
b) They tend not to have formed families yet.
c) They are captive buyers with no practical choice but to live as close to Cal as possible.

Together, those factors mean that students can be crammed into overcrowded units of lower quality, such that their pooled incomes add up to a high rent. From the news reports, it appears that this is the way Library Gardens has gone.

Compounding that factor is the fact that decision makers within Cal, who have influence over the size and composition of the student body, overlap with people who benefit financially if Central and South Berkeley can, over the course of a couple of decades, be converted into an over-crowded, low-quality student ghetto.

The politically powerful hills on both sides of campus and the posher parts of lower North Berkeley are in an interesting position. If Central and South Berkeley become a student ghetto for an eventually *even larger* student population, it will mirror the situation in places like Palo Alto or much more closely, the Oakland district of Pittsburgh or New Haven Connecticut. In particular, those posh regions will see their land values and house values continue to do very nicely, even as the central economic engine of the city decays and turns into a private vacuum for ghettoized student incomes.

You may have heard of pressures to upzone West and South West Berkeley, to eliminate light industry and encourage residential and office space use. Here too, you have a convergence of a few big land-owners and Cal-related speculators making a very similar play to leverage the opportunity to profit from Cal's expansion into Richmond and surrounds.

The punchline *may* come when the next big crisis of capital hits. The region weathered the storms of 2007-2008 fairly well, at least from the perspective of real estate speculators. Nevertheless, the region will run into big obstacles if or when the bottom drops out on revenues from on-line advertising and pharmaceutical patents.

If that crisis hits, I suspect, the people of heavily gentrified areas will quickly learn why economic diversity was something they ought to have fought hard to preserve. Much harder than they do now

The prospect of any of the Republicans front runners becoming president is truly frightening. Have we learned nothing from the G.W. Bush/Cheney cabal who plunged the Middle East into utter chaos? Rand Paul was the stealth winner in last night’s shouting extravaganza. He reminded his macho protagonists that much of what they were advocating (carpet bombing ISIS) was in complete violation of the Geneva Convention (killing large numbers of innocent men, women and children is a war crime). He also admonished calls for building up the military which he said was already bloated. Dr. Ben Carson defended his call for massive bombing implying that a speedy death was better than death by ‘a thousand cuts’ and claimed that the deceased would be eternally grateful for their hasty demise much like his patients waking up after a brain operation. I fear the good doctor is rapidly descending into insanity. 

The night was filled with superficial slogans and sound bites with the candidates shouting over one another and distilling complexities into one liners expressing satisfaction when the crowd roared its approval much like gladiators when they felled a roaring beast. A number promised to light up the desert sand until it glowed much like GW accomplished in his ‘shock and awe’ in 2003. The fear and hate-mongering makes Americans sound like a nation of bigots from a third rate banana republic – an American version of ISIL. 

With plenty of testosterone flowing, the heavyweight from New Jersey wants a bigger fight; he promised to shoot down Russian planes in Syria and usher in World War 3. Not to be outdone, even arm waving John Kasich promised to punch Russia in the nose. Trump was filled with so much hot air he seemed to float away. However, in a rare unguarded moment he sensibly reflected that it would have been better had we invested the $4 trillion we squandered in orchestrating regime changes in rebuilding America’s infrastructure.  

The debate would be a sure winner as the Best Comedy Series at next year's Emmy Awards.

When people only listen to suggestions when a man makes them that is sexism. When people only listen to suggestions when a man makes them and personally disparage the woman who made them originally, that’s misogyny. 

When people have a different set of rules for men and women allowing men to speak without interruption while women are interrupted constantly or not allowed to participate, that is sexism. When people personally disparage the women who make note of this, that’s misogyny. 

When men only allow the participation of women who agree to sit silently in admiration while men pound on the table and give repetitive, self-serving diatribes, that’s sexism. When they publicly disparage and question the sexual identity of those women when they leave the room, that’s misogyny. 

When men in a workplace are allowed to wear comfortable, functional clothing but women are required to wear revealing, uncomfortable clothing that is sexism. When the women who raise an issue about it are publicly disparaged as frigid bitches who aren’t getting enough, that is misogyny. 

When the men in a group assume that all the women in the group are dying to sleep with them, that’s sexism. When they disparage, fire, or sexually assault the women for refusing to date them, that is misogyny. 

When men’s feelings or passion about an issue is treated with dignity while women’s feelings or passion about an issue is treated as a weakness which disqualifies her from discussion, that is sexism. When the people who subsequently exclude her trade exotic sexual insults about her later, that is misogyny.

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.

In June, when Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy, many pundits dismissed him as not a serious contender. Six months have proven that wrong. Trump is a wily political operator with, so far, a winning strategy. 

In order to win the Republican nomination for President, a candidate has to survive 12 months of campaigning countless, spend millions of dollars, and capture 1191 of the 2380 delegate votes. Trump has a strategy to accomplish this. His plan is best understood by contrasting it with the winning strategies used by George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008. 

In 2000, George W. Bush had a relatively easy time winning the Republican nomination. Based upon his family name, and the support of GOP insiders, Dubya amassed a broad base of support. Bush’s strategy: build upon family name recognition and overwhelm opposition with money and endorsements. Bush assembled an experienced campaign team that deftly handled the mechanics of the early state caucuses and primaries. 

In 2008, Barack Obama had a more difficult task. Hillary Clinton was the early favorite to win the Democratic nomination. She had the insider support both in terms of money and endorsements plus strong name recognition. Nonetheless, Obama was able to compete by developing an effective online fundraising apparatus and giving a series of speeches that attracted national attention. While Clinton relied upon the conventional party apparatus, Obama had a network of volunteers directed by savvy field organizers. After Obama won the Iowa caucuses, he was able to string together a set of victories (mostly in caucuses) and seize the nomination from Clinton. 

As he entered the 2016 campaign, Trump was very better known than either Dubya or Obama, at a comparable time in the campaign. And Trump has more personal wealth than either. 

Trump has had three challenges: the first was to stay competitive while not using a lot of his own money. After all, when he started he was competing against the fundraising prowess of the Bush machine (now employed by Jeb!) and the dark-money alliance headed by the Koch brothers and other billionaire conservative funders. The second was to stake out his unique territory on the Republican political landscape. And the third was to negotiate the labyrinth of early caucuses and primaries; to build a staff to seize the nomination as quickly as possible. 

So far, Trump has brilliantly met these challenges. He’s used his media skills to dominate the mainstream media. While his competitors had to spend money to run advertising, Trump has mainly avoided this by regularly spiking the attention of the media with a series of explosive statements such as: John McCain is “not a war hero;” Mexico is “pushing their worst elements into the US;” and calling for a “complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States.” His plan has worked: Rachel Maddow recently reported that, as of December 1, Jeb Bush had spend $28.9 million on TV ads and Donald Trump had spent $220 thousand. 

Trump has campaigned as a political outsider at a time when most Republicans hate the Washington establishment. (An Associated Press/GFK poll found that, “By an overwhelming 77 percent to 22 percent margin, Republican registered voters and leaners say they prefer an outsider candidate who will change how things are done, rather than someone with experience in Washington who can get things done.”) Trump has distinguished himself from other outsider candidates, such as Ben Carson, by saying he will not accept funds from political action committees (PACs). (Trump has accepted a modest amount of money, roughly $5 million, from online fundraising.) 

It’s a large Republican field and Trump has differentiated himself not only by his savvy media presence but also by his extreme position on immigration. It’s become the litmus test for all GOP candidates: “I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” Trump’s position of immigration not only instantly established his conservative bona fides but, in effect, took other supposedly hot-button issues off the table: abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. (Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims offended many Americans but his helped him with his base. A Bloomberg poll found that 51 percent of Republicans strongly favored Trump’s proposal and 14 percent favored it somewhat. ) 

Finally, Trump hasn’t forgotten the nuts-and-bolts of political campaigns, the Get Out the Vote operation. He’s got an infrastructure in place in all the early primary states – unlike his centrist GOP opponent Marco Rubio who does not. 

Donald Trump isn’t a dolt; he ‘s a wily political operator. His strategy will secure the Republican presidential nomination. 

What remains to be seen is whether Trump can win the general election. When Bush and Obama ran they were, for most voters, undefined. Bush portrayed himself as a “compassionate conservative.” Obama promised “change we can believe in.” 

In comparison, Trump is well defined. Only 35 percent of voters view him favorably (versus 42.5 percent for Hillary Clinton). 

Get used to it! Trump will be around until November 8, 2016. 

---

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

In the aftermath of the killing of Mario Woods by five San Francisco police officers, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr has again asked lawmakers to authorize police officers to use Tasers. I believe San Francisco police officers should have Tasers as long as the department adopts the latest California electronic control weapon guidelines and individual police officers are thoroughly trained in their use. 

A Taser, or conducted electrical weapon sold by Taser International Inc., is a gun-like weapon that shoots electrical volts instead of bullets. The twin prongs of a Taser carry 50,000 volts of electricity. Tasers can be used in two modes. In “probe” mode the user shoots the Taser prongs at the victim from a distance. In “drive stun” mode, the user holds the prongs directly against the skin of the victim. 

Tasers will provide police officers a less deadly means than firearms to control a violent or potentially violent individual while at the same time minimizing the risk of serious injury to police officers and suspects. I think everyone would agree that Tasers will result in less fatalities and serious injuries than firearms. Yes, deaths and injuries will result as it will with any use of force by a police officer. Police officers are already trained to use various force techniques and weapons to overcome resistance. These include using their hands, arms or bodies to push or pull against a suspect to gain control; pepper spray; batons; and firearms. Why not just add the use of Tasers to their training? 

Taser use would be improper when a police officers uses the Taser in situations where no force was necessary or where a far less drastic use of force would have been adequate. The standard is, is the use of the Taser reasonable under the circumstances? For example, according to most guidelines, the use of Tasers would be improper against pregnant females; the elderly; juveniles; individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained; individuals who have been recently sprayed with a flammable chemical agent or who are otherwise in close proximity to any flammable material; and individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g., falls from height, operating vehicles). 

I recommend San Francisco police officers be authorized to use Tasers after the San Francisco Police Department adopts guidelines and each police officer is trained in their use.

On Wednesday evening, December 16, Jamie Barton was featured in a concert at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. Coming off her recent success as Adalgisa in Bellini’s Norma last year at San Francisco Opera, a role she also sang recently in her debut at the Met, mezzo-soprano Jamie Barton was accompanied by pianist Robert Mollicone and, in a new work by Jake Heggie, was joined by cellist Emil Miland. Barton opened the program with Homenaje a Lope de Vega by Spanish composer Joaquin Turina. These are three brief songs set to poems by Lope de Vega, all three dealing with the intensity of love and sexual desire. Singing in excellent Spanish, Jamie Barton imbued these songs with ardor and longing, especially in the third and final song, Al val de Fuente Ovejuna/To the Fuente Ovejuna Valley, which ends with the oft-repeated bold refrain, “My desire can find a way through walls.” Barton’s lush tone and impressive vocal power were perfectly matched with the pianistic power and sensitivity of her accompanist Robert Mollicone. 

Next on the program were three songs by 19^th century French composer Ernest Chausson. Le colibri/The hummingbird is set to a poem by Leconte de Lisle and is a love-song in which the poet states that just as a hummingbird dies from imbibing too deeply from the red hibiscus, he wishes to die on the lips of his love. Jamie Barton’s French may not have handled the “u” sound perfectly, but that sound is difficult for English-speakers, and in all other respects Barton’s French was impeccable. Chausson’s Hébé is dedicated to the Greek goddess of youth, and the song offers a meditation on the passage of time, which steals all too quickly our youth. The third of Chausson’s songs was his well-known Le temps des lilas/The time of lilacs, in which a lover laments that the changing of the seasons has brought their love to an end. It is a melancholy song of the death of love, beautifully sung by Jamie Barton. 

Before intermission, Jamie Barton turned to four well-known songs by Franz Schubert all set to texts by Goethe. First came Der König in Thule/The King in Thule, a solemn song about the death of a king. Next came the famous Gretchen am Spinnrade, in which young Gretchen sits at her spinning wheel anticipating the arrival of her lover, Faust. The piano sets the spinning wheel in motion, oscillating throughout the song, until that moment when Gretchen thinks longingly of Faust’s kiss, and the spinning motion suddenly stops short, only to resume falteringly. In this piece too, the teamwork of vocalist and pianist produced miracles of sensitive expression on this well-loved text. Next came Schäfers Klaglied/Shepherd’s Lament, 

a melancholy song in which a lonely shepherd laments the departure of his loved one for distant shores. The fourth and final Schubert song was Rastlose Liebe /Restless Love, a song full of dramatic outbursts on the mixture of pain and pleasure that is love. This too was a vocal tour de force as sung by jamie Barton. 

After intermission, Barton and Mollicone were joined by cellist Emil Miland for the West Coast premiere of Jake Heggie’s The Work at Hand set to poems by Laura Morefield. As Heggie explained in program notes, Laura Morefield was the daughter of San Diego-based poet Charlene Baldridge, whom Heggie had known for nearly twenty years. Although Laura was immensely proud of her mother’s writings, she was fairly quiet about her own poetry. Shortly after being diagnosed with advanced colon cancer at a young age, Laura Morefield responded to a request from Heggie that she send him a selection of her best poems. When Heggie opened the packet, he was immediately struck by the poem The Work at Hand, which he soon set to music with the poet’s permission. Laura Morefield died at age 50.  

This three-part poem is full of tender feelings about the need to say goodbye. The first and third parts, Individual Origami and The Slow Seconds, are quietly meditative. The first part is introduced by a long and lovely cello melody exquisitely played by Emil Miland and soon joined by pianist Robert Mollicone. When Jamie Barton eventually joins in, the song speaks of the poet’s wish – and struggle – to say goodbye thankfully to all those who have brought grace and song to her life. The second part, Warrior 1, strikes a yoga or martial arts pose of a warrior. Here Heggie dramatizes the emotional struggle, making it almost overwrought, ending the song on a triumphant – or is it simply a desperate – high note. The third and final song offers a shimmering affirmation of the love of nature. While I had some reservations about the overwrought tone of the second part, on the whole this was a deeply felt musical setting of the poem by a resilient young woman who knew she was soon to die. Heggie was present to hear this work receive its West Coast premiere. 

Jamie Barton closed the program with a lively set of Gypsy Songs by Czech composer Antonin Dvořák. Singing in Czech, Barton moved gracefully from melancholy songs to lively Gypsy tunes, even offering an ironic number about the poverty of gold compared with the richness of song. As an encore, Jamie Barton sang a hymn she used to sing in church, Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.