In my last few articles about Berkeley city council, I have described a certain structural corruption that emerges from an inherently anti-democratic dimension of representationism. In particular, the articles refer to council’s denial of protection of its constituencies with respect to affordable housing and homelessness. And they describe how council has hidden behind crises of its own making in order to foster a process of gentrification by which a few people will get rich while destroying neighborhoods, creating massive dislocation of residents. 

Exemplary of this structural corruption is the paradigm of "public hearings." Touted by theory as the site of public participation, the hearing structure not only operates against that, but it generates a political class distinction between the public and corporate representatives. 

The concept of “political class,” though it may be unfamiliar, is easily recognized as an aggravation of a vertical social hierarchy. Anti-democratic in nature, it is characterized by political privilege. Its existence calls for pragmatic alternatives that will rescue the city’s constituencies of its structural betrayals. 

One place to look for “pragmatic alternatives” might be the US constitution. In particular, that document guarantees “due process” as an equalizing mechanism in the juridical domain. Were it implemented in the political realm, it would disable the formation of political class distinctions by obstructing structural corruption. 

Today, we find that the principle of due process is routinely violated in the US by the police, by the courts, and by city government. 

The concept of due process

The constitutional principle of due process is introduced in the 5^th Amendment: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In the 14^th Amendment, this is repeated in the context of “equal protection of the laws.” It is interesting to note that, insofar as the overall aim of the amendments has been to augment the ideal of democratic structure, their existence is a tacit admission that, in the main body of that document, that ideal is lacking. According to Black’s Law Distionary, due process is the “conduct of legal proceedings … for the protection of private rights, including … a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide [judiciously where a] deprivation of a significant life, liberty, or property interest will occur.” [It’s a dictionary, so its alphabetical.] 

The future tense in Black’s last clause is important. It signifies that the legal hearings concerning possible deprivation are to occur before the act of deprivation, if they are to serve purpose of protecting individual rights. 

In short, it is because “due process” gives individuals a voice and a place of standing against what institutions and government agencies might do to them that it is an equalizing mechanism. 

One of the most severe violations of due process practiced today in this country is “asset forfeiture.” In asset forfeiture, the police can confiscate any property belonging to an arrestee without a hearing if they suspect that the property has been involved in criminal activity. In such cases, the police fallaciously assume judicial standing in determining (rather than suspecting) an an activity as criminal, and proclaiming certain property as instrumental to it. The "defendant" against this confiscation has the right to apply for restitution of his/her property. But because this occurs only after the deprivation of property or liberty, it constitutes appeal, and not due process. Appeal and due process are not the same thing. 

To grasp the full difference between due process and appeal, consider a case of deprivation of life. This happened to Kayla Moore at the hands of Berkeley police. She was going through an emotional crisis. An acquaintance called for mental health assistance. Unfortunately, the police responded. They barged in to her apartment, started ordering her around, and when she reacted negatively to this, threw her to the floor, and sat on her while they handcuffed her. She died from suffocation. Appeal of her deprivation would have no meaning. 

As a corollary, this highlights the fact that handcuffing a person without an arrest warrant or probable cause of a crime is a violation of due process, depriving the person of their liberty. It is a violation that has become routine for the police throughout the US. 

When the police break up a homeless encampment, as they have done many times in Berkeley in the last few years, they confiscate the property of the people they displace without due process. If they hide behind “asset forfeiture” in these confiscations, then it is the police themselves that are determining the encampment to be criminal – autonomously, with impunity, and without due process. Indeed, all police impunity entails a violation of due process. But when police actions cause the deprivation of property that a person needs for their very survival, such as clothing, sleeping bags, blankets, tents, etc., items without which people who live exposed to the elements may suffer ill health or death, then the police are committing the crime of endangering lives. To threaten a person with death by whatever means is a felony. 

We can extend this to the issue of human rights. Liberty is the general category under which rights, such as speech, press, or association are to be guaranteed. Any violation of those rights, as a deprivation of liberty, must be accompanied by some form of due process. When the homeless set up an informational tent at Berkeley City Hall to protest their criminalization at the hands of new anti-homeless measures, they are exercising their right to free speech, which was then suppressed by the police who confiscated the tent, thereby proclaiming the protest it expressed to be criminal. 

Now in what ways does city council violate due process? Let us return to the “hearing paradigm.” 

In the representationist system, the only avenue that people have, acting in their own community interests, for influencing council’s decisions is through letters and comments made in public hearings. Given the recent spate of controversial issues raised by council, the lines of speakers have often been very long. It is a process that most people find both frustrating and humiliating. 

In a hearing, people line up to speak in turn, each person having only a minutes or two, depending on the mayor’s will. If a group comes to address council as a group, its ability to present a coherent and cohesive argument is hobbled by this structure. Its argument gets fragmented into brief pieces, with no continuity or order. And its cohesion is lost in an arbitrary sequence of positions for or against the issue. Speakers are reduced to cyphers whose individual ideas or distinct arguments are reduced to quick statements of diluted and generalized character. The whole becomes a form of non-participation. 

The experience becomes humiliating in two ways. When a greater number of speakers appears, bespeaking a high degree of concern for the issue, each speaker time is reduced. This implies that the council is not concerned with the concerns of the people, but only with getting through the process. (One councilmember has heard to say, “if not so many people spoke, we could get some work done”). Secondly, the ideas or terms that people present hardly ever appear in the subsequent deliberations of the councilmembers. The hearing becomes a wholly pro forma process which council is under no obligation to incorporate into its thinking or deliberations. The hearing is reduced to one monologue after another, with no intereaction and no feedback to those who took the time to attend the meeting. 

But there is another side to the hearing. There are those who belong to groups, institutions, corporations, etc. in whose interests the policy in question is being promulgated. They come by invitation, and are given a table to sit at while they provide the reports that council has requested. Their participation is more than mere commentary or testimony. In providing information or supportive data for council’s projects, they get to enter into dialogue with the council, and their ideas then become part of the issue’s articulation. Thus they are honored with real participation in the decision-making process. In that sense, they are granted the "privilege" of participation through dialogue. 

Insofar as neighborhood constituencies are not granted such amenities (dialogue, a seat at the table, participation in decision-making), they are relegated to the far side of a political divide. And this divide, engendered by institutional structure and the privileges it grants, constitutes a political class distinction – generally between institutionalities and constituencies. 

To the extent a hierarchy is created between political classes through this structural bestowal of privileges, the equalizing capabilities of due process become highly relevant. 

In the absence of those equalizing capacities, the “hearing process” and the political class distinction it permits operate against the fundamental principle of democracy. That principle is that those who will be affected by a policy should be the ones to articulate the issues of the policy and decide on the policy itself. When corporate developers present projects to the Planning Dept., those proposals very often portend significant changes to a neighborhood economically. Gentrification, for instance, will be accompanied by resident dislocation, a loss of local economic infrastructure, and glutted traffic patterns, among other things. In consequence, the neighborhood in an organized fashion should be able to participate in the design, function, and effects of development projects, in order to defend itself against such disruption. While this is prevented by the insularity of the planning process, it is also obviated by the reductive monologic character of constituent participation (hearings). Without due process with respect to development policies that will effect them, neighborhood constituencies are simply reduced to appeal (which then occur in the form of more "hearings"). Without substantial participation in the planning process by an organized neighborhood, urban development takes a form similar to asset forfeiture, but with the formation of political class difference. 

When this political class difference erupts into open conflict, as it has with the many calls for justice against the deprivation of life committed by the police, you have a real class struggle between the police (institutionality) and social justice movements. 

Gentrification occurs when housing development caters to high income residents. Its side effects are arbitrary rent increases for low income families, land speculation that raises real estate values, the closure of local stores and restaurants that form the economic infrastructure for the (soon to be) former residents, with a steady increase in the cost of living and taxes. This process has begun in Berkeley. Enormous buildings, with seventy to a hundred market-rate apartments – which now rent at rates only high income people can afford – will change the nature and stability of many neighborhoods. Those driven out of their homes by landlords opportuning on the process will be suffering a form of economic eviction against which council offers no protection – nor does it act against the Costa-Hawkins Act that it claims ties its hands. 

Were the process to be democratic, local neighborhood assemblies would be able to participate in planning the changes, in defending what they valued as a community, and in requiring development that would benefit the community – such as affordable housing (with rents at 30% of income). That would mean having a seat at the planning tables for each specific development project, with a vote. 

Suppose due process was provided

Let us envision a political process in which due process, and the fundamental principle of democracy were firmly in effect. How would due process operate in our political context as an equalization mechanism serving to guarantee real democratic participation? 

Suppose some 50 people showed up to argue an issue (for and against) that council was considering. Due process would require that they be given more time to speak rather than less. It would also require a space for dialogue between the parties and with the councilmembers directly (equal standing). In other words, it would having the ability to transform the council meeting into a form of town hall in which the parties involved, arguing coherently and with cohesion, could actually reason with each other, and the antagonism between logic, vision, and prurient interest could be brought out into the open, with the discarding of irrelevant arguments. The aim would be a conjunction on the issue that would then become the eventual council resolution. In other words, if sufficient numbers of people took the time to show up, they would not be penalized, but rather incorporated into a working session involving all engaged parties. Thus, both the fundamental principle of democracy and the operation of due process would be fulfilled. 

Now, if we take this townhall idea and project it down to the local level, it would form the basis for a real renovation of the idea of representation itself. At the neighborhood level, on-going assemblies could not only be a form of town hall, but a focused local decision-making body, open to all in its self-defined area. It would be an arena in which a neighborhood could decide what it wanted to change, what needed changing, what needed development, and what form that development should take (e.g. affordable housing, mixed-use, inclusionary housing, etc.). Insofar as these assemblies discussed and made decisions about their neighborhood affairs, those they elected to represent them at council town hall meetings, or planning sessions with the Planning Dept., would have real ideas and real decisions to represent – unlike elected representatives who now represent only themselves and a mute demographic. In that sense, it would replace empty representation with meaningful representation. 

Ultimately, the neighborhood assembly would embody the substitution of a horizontal mode of decision-making using dialogue among equals for the vertical and hierarchical mode of making decisions in council and commissions. This would not be due process as such; it would be the participation that due process was designed to protect. In such a horizontal structure, privilege would become a form of anti-social behavior. Privilege establishes inequality. It assumes hierarchy, as the source from which it is granted, and embodies the enhancing of that hierarchy. The essence of due process is undoing established privilege, and re-equalizing the standing and rights between people and institutions. 

 

While there’s still time, let’s consider the possibilities for President Barack Obama’s constitutionally guaranteed nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. Everybody’s favorite senator, Elizabeth Warren, frames the decision perfectly:

"The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

"Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

"Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

"Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk."

This effectively demolishes the crocodile tears coming from those Senate Republicans. Now the only question is who the nominee should be.

I have a modest proposal.

If the Republicans continue to whine about being asked to advise and consent to President Obama’s choice, there is an alternative.

There’s one outstanding candidate who will be available soon:Barack Obama.

That’s right, an extremely well-qualified guy who will be out of a job soon. Among other things, he’s a member of an under-represented minority: Protestants.

He’s still pretty young and very healthy, so he’s likely to be around long enough to make a difference.

But can he appoint himself? That’s never happened, but we’d probably have to ask Senator/Professor Warren if it’s okay.

Here’s another alternative. If the Republicans continue on their snarky obstructionist path, in about eleven months Obama will be turning the presidency over to a successor, though until November we won’t know who the successor would be.

But between now and next January he could be absolutely sure of who the successor is, and it could be someone he could rely on to appoint him to the Supreme Court seat in which he would unquestionably shine.

If he resigned sometime, even as late as January 2017, under the Constitution he would be succeeded by Joe Biden, a great guy who’s always wanted to be president. Then President Biden would be free to appoint ex-President Obama to the Supreme Court.  

I can’t imagine a better choice. Obama has been a very good president, a president to be proud of. But he might be an even better supreme court justice, someone the country sorely needs.  

The prospect of this occurring might even help the Democrats push forward to try to regain the majority of the Senate, now that there’s so much on the line. Let’s start an Obama for Supremes movement.  

Petitions, anyone?

Much of the debate focused on Marco Rubio’s verbal software malfunction where he was caught repeatedly reciting the same talking points about President Obama. In a race to the bottom, Trump aced all his contenders promising to bring back the hideous practice of torture and ‘much worse’. Cruz attempting some bizarre legal jujitsu claimed that waterboarding was not torture. President Obama shares some of the blame for giving the Bush cartel a free pass for condoning torture practices. 86 prisoners have been cleared for release but are still languishing in Guantanamo’s dungeons. This is a dark stain on America’s sense of justice and a massive recruitment for Al-Qaida, ISIS and other affiliates. It is ironic that all the tough talk (torture, carpet bombing) comes from a group of morally bankrupt Republicans who have never experienced the horrors of war.

What a wonderful popular victory in New Hampshire! Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by 20 percent. Bernie picked up 13 delegates, and Hillary won 9 delegates based on the primary vote.

But unfortunately, that's not the whole story because it ignores the immensely important role of super delegates. In case you are unfamiliar with who super delegates are, they are insiders in the Democratic Party who serve on the National Democratic Committee and are also current and former public officials. Like other delegates, the super delegates will vote on presidential candidates at the National Democratic Party convention in July. But unlike other delegates, super delegates are free to vote for whoever they want regardless of voter preference. These delegates make up at least 20 percent of all delegates. 

Although Bernie won a majority of the pledged delegates, Hillary received six votes from super delegates, which ties her with Bernie. Clearly, Hillary's delegate count certainly does not reflect how the voters actually voted, which favors Bernie overwhelmingly. 

In Iowa, Hillary won, if she actually did win, by only a very slim majority, (49.9 vs. 49.6 percent). But she nevertheless got six additional votes from the super delegates. 

So far, what has been occurring nationally is very discouraging for the Bernie campaign. Hillary's delegate count nationally is about 443 votes compared to about 44 votes for Bernie. The reason for the overwhelming difference is that 394 of the 443 votes came from super delegates. 

It is ironic and even terrifying that the Democratic Party is behaving so very undemocratically. This current arrangement of counting voting delegates is badly in need of repair.

The inhabitants of our small village are looking for answers. They wonder why when walking down Shattuck out of every doorway peer a pair of eyes set in a haggard face. Why they ask themselves is rent so high and crime rate spiraling out of control? Sitting at their kitchen table, bills spread out in front of them confused that taxes are becoming a worrisome burden. Village elders forced to decide whether to pay for prescriptions or rent. Food has already become a non-consideration. Monday through Friday lunch at the senior center. Hoping to get lucky and hit the Trader Joe's lottery so they have a scrap of bread to eat during the weekend. A homeless wheelchair-bound man sits not in a rocking chair on the porch but in Constitution Square. Rain beats down on his hollow chest as he struggles vainly to get up the hill towards emergency shelter. A vulnerable homeless woman wonders why this is happening to her as threadbare clothes are torn from her frail body to suffer once again hours if not days of physical abuse. 

They all ask where are the village chiefs? They are nowhere to be found. Their looming presence can be felt. Like Rehoboam making our yoke heavier, not lighter. Instead of stone it is escalating rents and building housing that only a minority can afford. Scourging us with the whip of homelessness and misplaced priorities. 

The present social order which we all participate in is administered by representative democracy. Allowing a small group of people to run things for us in our behalf. A best case scenario is then we hold them accountable for their actions. 

How is it we hold them accountable? Well every once in a while we get to vote them off the island. If you have time and energy to trudge down to weekly council meeting the Chiefs awards us the grand privilege of blathering for two minutes. That is if the Grand Poobah sitting center stage decides we deserve such a blessing. Ah but if lots of villagers want to speak our time gets cut to 60 seconds. Doesn’t matter if people are dying in the streets, sidewalks need fixing or you just saw the cow jump over the moon. 

On a day to day basis we are held powerless by representative democracy. Is that really true? 

I'll concede the fact that it may be necessary for one person to represent the interests of thousands. How this is possible is a mystery to me but I’ll go along with the program. At its core the system only works if we hold our representative accountable. Under the present system that is next to impossible. 

Government is not supposed to be in charge or in control of your giving or your desire to help your fellow settler. 

Instead of people wandering around with their hands out looking for the government to do things for them, they should instead consider what they, personally, can do for the individuals in their community, nation (and the world). The problem comes when people start to think the government should dictate who is helped, how they are helped, and how much of YOUR money is used to help. Serious problems arise when we acquiesce to the Chiefs. 

To correct this what I envision is a federation of neighborhood groups directly involved in setting public policy and holding elected representatives accountable.

It starts from the ground. I can see 10 participants per block who go door to door asking for participants. As more and more become involved a neighborhood council is formed. Subsequently a district council. 

A practical example is: Susan is very concerned about the sidewalk in front of her house, so much so she mentions it to Bob who agrees. They gather more of their neighbors and form a council. They then approach their City Council member who can't be found but they do get an e mail full of platitudes At the end of the day it just means go away and don't bother me. 

As a result Susan,Bob and all participants decide to fix it themselves so Max a wheelchair-bound veteran, can get to Berkeley Bowl. 

It doesn’t matter what the topic is the community now has a conveyance to solve any problems and bring innovative ideas to the table of common discussion. This configuration results in an elected City Council member being transformed into a facilitator. Thus the community exerts direct control over the council. We no longer have one person doing for all of us for we are Doing It Ourselves. 

What is needed today is A New Vision For A New Future. A vision which has as its cornerstone the understanding that the individual can only survive and prosper is if the collective body does. Focused on creating a more egalitarian and participatory process based on not coercion or wishful thinking but voluntary cooperation. Only until we as individuals truly believe that we as a community can move mountains together will the challenges that face all of us be confronted in a meaningful and effective way. This is the pathway to true and direct democracy. 

---

Mike is a candidate for Mayor and a homeless actvist. You can always find him in Starbucks on
Shattuck or on the picket line 

Over the past year, left and center-left parties have taken control of two European countries and hold the balance of power in a third. Elections in Greece, Portugal and Spain saw rightwing parties take a beating and tens of millions of voters reject the economic austerity policies of the European Union (EU).

But what can these left parties accomplish? Can they really roll back regressive taxes and restore funding for education, health and social services? Can they bypass austerity programs to jump start economies weighted down by staggering jobless numbers? Or are they trapped in a game with loaded dice and marked cards?

And, for that matter, who is the left? Socialist and social democratic parties in France and Germany have not lifted a finger to support left led anti-austerity campaigns in Greece, Spain, Ireland, or Portugal, and many of them helped institute—or went along with—neoliberal policies they now say they oppose. Established socialist parties all over Europe tend to campaign from the left, but govern from the center.

Last year’s electoral earthquakes were triggered not by the traditional socialist parties—those parties did poorly in Greece, Spain and Portugal—but by activist left parties, like Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and the Left Bloc in Portugal.

With the exception of Ireland’s Sinn Fein, all of these parties were either birthed by, or became prominent during, the financial meltdown of 2008 that plunged Europe into economic crisis. Podemos came directly out of the massive plaza demonstrations by the “Indignados” [the “Indignant Ones”] in Spain’s major cities in 2011.  

Syriza and the Left Bloc predated the 2011 uprising, but they were politically marginal until the EU instituted a draconian austerity program that generated massive unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and economic inequality. 

Resistance to the austerity policies of the “Troika”—the European Commission, the European Central bank, and the International Monetary Fund—vaulted these left parties from the periphery to the center. Syriza became the largest party in Greece and assumed power in 2015. Podemos was the only left party that gained votes in the recent Spanish election, and it holds the balance of power in the formation of a new government. And the Left Bloc, along with the Communist/Green Alliance, has formed a coalition government with Portugal’s Socialist Workers Party. 

But with success has come headaches. 

Syriza won the Greek elections on a platform of resisting the Troika’s austerity policies, only to have to swallow more of them. In Portugal the Left Bloc and Communist/Green Alliance are unhappy with the Socialist Party’s commitment to re-pay Portugal’s quite unpayable debt. Podemos proposed a united front with the Socialist Party, only to find there are some in that organization who would rather bed down with Spain’s rightwing Popular Party than break bread with Podemos. 

Lessons learned? 

It is still too early to draw any firm conclusions about what the 2015 earthquake accomplished—and Ireland’s election has yet to happen—but there are some obvious lessons. 

First, austerity is unpopular. As Italy’s prime minister, Matteo Renzi, put it after the Spanish election, “Governments which apply rigid austerity measures are destined to lose their majorities.” 

Second, if you are a small economy taking the power of capital head on is likely to get you trampled. The Troika did not just force Syriza to institute more austerity, it made it more onerous, a not very subtle message to voters in Portugal and Spain. But people in both countries didn’t buy it, in large part because after four years of misery their economies are still not back to where they were in 2008. 

The Troika can crush Greece—Portugal as well—but Spain is another matter. It is the 14th largest economy in the world and the fifth largest in the EU. And now Italy—the fourth largest economy in the EU—is growing increasingly restive with the tight budget policies of the EU that have kept the jobless rate high. 

But can these anti-austerity coalitions force the Troika to back off? 

A major part of the problem is the EU itself, and in particular, the eurozone, the 19 countries that use the euro as a common currency. The euro is controlled by the European Central Bank, which, in practice, means Germany. In an economic crisis most countries manipulate their currencies—the U.S., Britain, and China come to mind—as part of a strategy to pay down debt and re-start their economies. The members of the eurozone do not have that power. 

Germany pursues policies that favor its industrial, export-driven economy, but that model is nothing like the economies of Greece, Portugal, Spain, or even Italy. Nor are any of those countries likely to reproduce the German model, because they do not have the resources (or history) to do so. 

Complicating matters are political divisions among the Troika’s left opponents. For instance, Syriza is under attack from its left flank for not exiting the eurozone. Former Syriza chief economic advisor Jannis Milios charges that Syriza has abandoned its activist roots and become simply a political party more interested in power than principles. There are similar tensions in Spain and Portugal. 

But the choices of what to do are not obvious, 

Withdrawing from the eurozone can be perilous. In Greece’s case, the European Central Bank threatened to shut off the country’s money supply, making it almost impossible for Athens to pay for food, medical and energy imports, or finance its own exports. In short, economic collapse and possible social chaos. 

But following the policies of the Troika sentences countries to permanent debt, rising poverty rates, and a growing wealth gap. Portugal has one of the highest inequality rates in Europe, and Spain’s national unemployment rate is 21 percent, and double that among the young. Greece’s figures are far higher. 

The left coalitions are far from powerless, however. Portugal’s coalition government just introduced a budget that will lift the minimum wage, reverse public sector wage cuts, rollback many tax increases, halt privatization of education and transport, and put more money into schools and medical care. Which doesn’t mean everything is smooth sailing. The coalition has already fallen out over a bank bailout, and it disagrees on the debt, but so far the parties are still working together. Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected left leader of the British Labour Party, hails the Portugal alliance as the beginning of an “anti-austerity coalition” across the continent. 

There are also interesting developments going on in Spain that address the tensions between street activism and political parties. Emily Achtenberg, a long-time housing expert from Boston and a reporter/analyst for NACLA, has studied Barcelona’s “Platform of People Affected by Mortgages” (PAH). PAH came out of Spain’s catastrophic housing crisis brought on by the financial meltdown of 2008. Some 650,000 homes are in foreclosure, and 400,000 families have been evicted. 

With the help of Podemos, progressive activists won control of the big cities of Madrid, Barcelona, Cadiz, and Zaragoza. Ada Colau, the mayor of Barcelona, is a founder of PAH 

In Spain, homeowners are responsible for debts even after declaring bankruptcy, debts that can block them from renting an apartment, buying a home or purchasing a car. 

At the same time, according to the 2013 census, 34 million homes and apartments—14 percent of the country’s housing stock—are vacant, most owned by banks. And since the city has become one of Europe’s tourist magnets, “tens of thousands of once-affordable apartments are marketed to tourists through on-line platforms like Airbnb,” says Achtenberg, exacerbating the situation. But PAH and its allies on the city council have slowed down the evictions, cracked down on unlicensed Airbnb owners, and leaned on the banks to free vacant homes and apartments. 

PAH now has some 200 chapters all over the country and is planning to press the national parliament to end the “debt for life” law. While allied with Podemos, PAH has maintained its political independence, working both sides of the street: sit-ins and protests, and running for office. 

“A perennial question,” says Achtenberg, “is whether the impetus for progressive change comes from inside the institution, or from the streets. In Barcelona today, it seems that both strategies are needed, and are working.” As Colau says, for progressive movements “both are indispensible. For real democracy to exist, there should always be an organized citizenry keeping an eye on government—no matter who is in charge.” 

Putting people in apartments and raising minimum wages does not overthrow capitalism, but many activists argue that such victories are essential for convincing people that change is possible and that the Troika is not all-powerful. They also play to the left’s strong suit: building a humanistic society. 

Finding that fine line between change and co-optation is not easy, and one formula does not fit all circumstances. Spain has more breathing room than Portugal and Greece simply because it is bigger. The Portuguese may find their path a bit easier simply because they have allies in the eurozone. As Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras says, “I think it is not so easy to change Europe when you are alone.” 

In the end the path may be like that old peace song: “If two and two and 50 make a million, we’ll see that day come ‘round.” 

 

 

---

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

 

 

After Bernie Sanders’ convincing win in the New Hampshire primary, many establishment Democrats are renewing the argument that Bernie cannot win in November because he is too liberal. It doesn’t hold up. 

In her February 5th column, Washington Post writer Ruth Marcus expressed the establishment case: 

The success of Sanders’s full-throated progressivism among the party faithful is no surprise, especially in liberal-leaning Iowa and New Hampshire. But, notwithstanding the current head-to-head polls that he likes to cite, Sanders at the top of the Democratic ticket threatens a general-election disaster, and not just for the top spot. True, more Americans overall identify themselves as liberal — up from 17 percent in 1992 to 24 percent in 2014, according to Gallup. But that leaves the vast majority with a different outlook, 34 percent who describe themselves as moderate, 38 percent conservative. How, exactly, are they going to respond to a democratic socialist’s call for a political revolution?

Of course, what happens if Bernie is the Democratic nominee will depend upon whoever the Republican Presidential nominee is. If the GOP proffered Donald Trump – a nominee with historically high unfavorability ratings – the outcome might be different than if the GOP nominee was Governor John Kasich, for example. 

But setting aside the context of voters’ decision, Ruth Marcus argues that Sanders is too liberal for the 2016 electorate and uses a 2014 Gallup poll to support this contention. But more recent polls paint a more complex picture. A January 2016 Pew Research Poll found that the electorate is very polarized: Democrats have shifted to the left and Republicans have shifted to the right. “94 percent of Democrats are more liberal than the median Republican.” “92 percent of Republicans are more conservative than the median Democrat.” 

The most recent Gallup Poll found that, over the past 16 years, Democrats have increasingly embraced the “liberal” label and there are now more liberals (42 percent) than moderates (38 percent) and conservatives (17 percent) in the Party. (Dems are considerably more liberal now than they were during the Clinton presidency, 1992-2000). 

A May 2015 Gallup Poll found that the 31 percent of all voters described themselves as “very liberal/liberal” on social issues and another 31 percent described themselves as “very conservative/conservative” on social issues. 

This implies that if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, he will have about one-third of the electorate behind him (Democrats and fellow travelers) and one-third of the electorate dogmatically opposed (Republicans and fellow conservatives). Therefore, he and the other Democrats running for public office will have to attract vote from the middle third. 

Bernie could attract independent/moderate voters on an issue-by-issue basis. 

At the moment, the number one voter issue is the economy. If this trend continues, it plays to Bernie Sanders strengths. In the January 17th Democratic debate Sanders said: 

Our campaign is about… thinking big. It is understanding that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we should have health care for every man, woman, and child as a right. That we should raise the minimum wage to at least 15 dollars an hour, that we have got to create millions of decent paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. So what my first days [in office will be] about is bringing American together to end the decline of the middle class, to tell the wealthiest people in this country that yes they are gonna start paying their fair share of taxes, and that we are going to have a government that works for all of us and not just big campaign contributors.

Sanders identified five key issues: healthcare, minimum wage, new jobs repairing our infrastructure, taxing the wealthy so they pay their fare share, and reducing the influence of money in politics. 

How do Americans feel about these issues? 

Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on individuals with incomes over $1 million. (This plurality includes 53 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.) 

Recent polls shows that 75 percent of Americans favor raising the minimum wage to $12.50 by 2020 and 63 percent favor raising it to $15. (Among those who favor raising it to $12.50 are 53 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats.) 

Recent polls shows that a majority of Americans (58 percent) favor a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system. 

Recent polls indicate that spending millions to repair America’s crumbling infrastructure was a high priority for 65 percent of respondents. 

Finally, recent polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans want a change in the campaign finance system: 48 percent think the current system should be scrapped and 38 percent believe it needs “fundamental changes.” 

These polls indicate that Bernie Sanders is running a campaign based upon issues. And his positions on the key issues resonate with the majority of Americans, Independents as well as Liberals. He is not “too liberal” to be elected. 

---

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

As Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination have increased, so have the attacks. Hillary Clinton advocates argue he has no chance of delivering the fundamental change he touts. Nonetheless, Bernie can do it. 

Sanders has been remarkably consistent about what his objectives are and how he plans to accomplish them. At the January 17th debate, he said, “What my first days [in office will be] about is… to tell the wealthiest people in this country that yes they are gonna start paying their fair share of taxes, and that we are going to have a government that works for all of us and not just big campaign contributors.” 

At the February 11th debate, Sanders explained, “This campaign is not just about electing a president. What this campaign is about is creating a process for a political revolution… What this campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.” 

While Sanders has policy differences with President Obama, his fundamental criticism is on process: Sanders feels that, in 2008, Obama built a movement (“Change we can believe in”) and then failed to harness its energy to make fundamental changes to the US economy. 

The Sanders process model is not the Obama campaign but rather the civil-rights movement led by Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK also talked about revolution, calling for a revolution of values: “We must rapidly begin … the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” Sanders advocates a shift in values, where capitalism is subordinated to democracy. 

University of California Economics Professor Robert Reich Reich described Sanders’ perspective as a kind of “agitator-in-chief, “ where the president mobilizes “the public to demand [big things] and penalize(s) politicians who don’t heed those demands.” 

If Sanders is going to assume the role of “agitator-in-chief” it has to start before the November 8th election day. Bernie has to mobilize voters to support his presidential campaign as well as that of like-minded candidates for the house and senate (and state legislatures and other elective offices). He has to generate an election tsunami that will sweep “business-as-usual” politicians out of office. 

Many thoughtful Democrats don’t believe this will happen. Writing in The Daily Kos ”jhannon” observed” “Bernie is talking about a political revolution in ways that make no sense to me….I can’t imagine him leading as much as a change in the majority party in the House and there is no way any of his more dramatic proposals have any chance of passing give the composition of Congress.” Writing in Slate, Michelle Goldberg said, “Bernie is a mensch whose politics are more or less my own, but I’m convinced he’d be eviscerated in the general election…. As long as I have been following politics, it has been a left-wing fantasy that legions of disconnected non-voters will suddenly flood the polls if they’re offered a sufficiently progressive candidate.” 

I believe these writers have been discouraged by the history of the Obama administration which started out as a revolution, and quickly became business as usual – particularly with regards to Wall Street. Moreover, these writers are ignoring the civil-rights progress made over the last sixty years where the progressive movement has accomplished objectives – such as the legalization of same-sex marriage – that were once thought impossible. 

Most progressives agree that reducing the power of the one percent must happen. While I’m sure “jhannon” and Michelle Goldberg support getting big money out of politics, they don’t believe that Bernie can accomplish it and they fear that in the process he will be “eviscerated” in the general election . 

Consider this: Bernie Sanders has a higher favorability rating than any other candidate. In head-to-head matchups Bernie Sanders defeats any Republican candidate. (Many observers believe that Sanders matches up particularly well with Donald Trump.) 

53 years ago, Martin Luther King Junior wrote forcefully about the necessity for direct action: 

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never."

 

2016 is not the time to wait. It is a time for direct action. That’s what the Sanders campaign is all about. 

---

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

 

 

 

 

I have viewed the YouTube video of the killing of 26-year old Mario Woods on December 2, 2015, in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood by five San Francisco police officers. The autopsy report shows that Woods suffered at least 20 bullet wounds, many of them in the back. 

In the video, Woods is against a wall supposedly carrying a knife, but appears not to comprehend what was happening. This is understandable considering that the autopsy showed the presence of methamphetamine, marijuana, antidepressants, and cough medicine in his system. Woods was allegedly responsible for an earlier stabbing but at the time of the later shooting, the police did not appear at the time of the shooting to be in imminent danger of attack by Woods. It was as if Woods was facing a firing squad, or an execution if you will. 

What concerns me is that San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr so quickly called the shooting justifiable and the Police Officers Association (POA) right on cue voiced support for the police officers involved, who I understand are back on the job. The whole ugly incident does not give citizens of San Francisco much confidence in our police department, the POA, or the Board of Supervisors for their day of remembrance for Mario Woods, before all the facts were in. 

Luckily, there will be a much-needed U.S. Department of Justice investigation of the San Francisco police force. Hopefully, this investigation and the federal lawsuit against the City of San Francisco on behalf of the family of Mario Woods will replace the too-quick-to-judge responses with facts.

The Berkeley Psychic Institute (unless they have changed since the last time I was there, a number of years ago) teaches students to believe that many of the emotions and other sensations in your body and mind can be attributed to outside influences. This creates a big problem for people who tend to have psychosis. When someone with psychotic tendencies believes that what happens inside has external causes, and when this becomes a basic assumption, it can create an avalanche of delusional thoughts that, in one's mind, will be accepted and believed instantly.  

Regardless of whether you believe extrasensory perception is or isn't a real phenomenon, someone who suffers from psychosis needs to know that one's thoughts and emotions come from oneself. Furthermore, for a psychotic person to get over some of the symptoms, they need to incorporate an assumption of the likelihood of error in the thinking.  

If a person recovering from psychosis uses, as a "rule of thumb" that they should review their thoughts for error, it is a great way of clearing out delusions and remaining stabilized. This is also where "reality checking" has a place. Therapists or family members who aren't also psychotic are usually good to ask if a thought sounds realistic or not.  

When a psychotic person learns to question the thoughts, this is usually a sign of progress. On the other hand, when erroneous or unlikely thoughts are instantly incorporated into the thinking, it brings rapid deterioration into psychotic illness.  

It is not so farfetched to believe that living things have auras, energy fields that can transmit and receive to or from other living things in the environment. Science can't disprove this and may in the future be able to analyze it. We already know that an electromagnetic pulse directed at the brain can disrupt its function. This may soon lead to new treatments for psychiatric problems.  

We already know that nerve cells, in the brain and other parts of the body, operate through electrochemical impulses, with a remote resemblance to battery cells. We may one day devise technology that can transmit information directly into the brain through a type of induction. We also know that brain waves can be charted and measured through an electroencephalograph.  

Why, then, is it so impossible for people to be able to sense "energy" in their environment? However, for someone who tends toward psychosis, adopting the belief that we can know something via extrasensory perception can be psychologically poisonous.  

A person suffering from psychosis or some other psychiatric illness needs to operate under different rules than a non-afflicted person. Sometimes these rules may seem unfair. It isn't fair that we got this illness either. However, we have it, and we must make the best of it.  

Persons with mental illness must base our belief systems on things that are apparent from the five physical senses, and from things that are proven, concrete, and widely accepted. This is a form of self-discipline.  

While conventional thinking isn't perfect (far from it) people with mental illness must maintain a solid foothold in the belief systems that most people follow. You could call this an intentional form of ignorance, you could call it conformity, or you could call it a mental block. Whatever you'd like to call it, it produces much better results.  

The above doesn't mean we need to be brainwashed by television commercials or operate from the naiveté encouraged by the mental health treatment system. It simply means we must not operate from farfetched beliefs, whether or not they may have a grain of truth.  

---

As always, my books can be ordered from Amazon. I have a memoir, a self-help manual, and a collection of short stories. To find them, go to Amazon and just put my name into the search box.

In an All Mozart program which I attended on Saturday evening, February 6, in Berkeley’s First Congregational Church, Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra offered works from diverse periods of Mozart’s all too brief life. Under the direction of conductor Nicholas McGegan, the orchestra performed the 17 year-old Mozart’s Symphony No. 27 in G Major and the 32 year-old’s Symphony No. 39 in E-flat Major. In between these symphonies, the orchestra was joined by internationally renowned early keyboard artist Kristian Bezuidenhout on fortepiano in the 29-30 year-old Mozart’s Concerto for Fortepiano No. 23 in A Major. 

The concert began with Mozart’s 27^th Symphony. It is a decorous work, yet hardly suggestive of the greatness to come in Mozart’s career. A portentous opening consists of four loud chords, which, as Bruce Lamott’s Program Notes indicate, were meant to silence the audience as the music got underway. Lamott also notes that the ensuing first theme is spirited but harmonically unadventurous. The same might be said of the entire first movement, which proceeds in short phrases to a simple minuet. Only the agitated passages in the first and second violins interrupt the stately but unimaginative minuet. The second movement, marked Andantino grazioso, is a gentle serenade featuring muted violins, pizzicato lower strings, and paired flutes and horns. This is a dreamy movement, full of sighing appoggiaturas. The final movement, marked Presto, begins with the first movement’s opening four notes but sets them against a countersubject, as if in a fugue. However, this intimation of a fugue almost immediately gives way to a lowly waltz. In this ‘low’ style, the work rapidly comes to a close. All told, it is a fairly uninspired work. I would have preferred to hear Mozart’s 29^th Symphony in A Major, which is generally considered the finest of his Salzburg symphonies. 

Next on the program was Mozart’s 23^rd Piano Concerto in A Major, this time played on fortepiano by Kristian Bezuidenhout. A specialist in early keyboard instruments, Bezuidenhout here performed on a fortepiano built by Thomas and Barbara Wolf in Washington, D.C., after an instrument by Schantz, c. 1780. After a brief orchestral opening, Bezuidenhout enters playing delicate phrases on the fortepiano. The work is scored for flute, two clarinets, two horns, and bassoon, which form a woodwind chorus that is heard over the strings or in dialogue with them. There are also passages in which the woodwind chorus, called a Harmonie, engages in a dialogue with the solo piano. Mozart himself wrote out the two cadenzas played in this movement, the first leading to the recapitulation and the second coming at the close of the first movement. The second movement, an Adagio, opens with solo piano, soon joined by winds and strings. Everything here is delicate, as if we were listening in on intimate personal feelings expressed in sighing phrases of melancholy. This intimacy is continued in descending chromatic lines and pregnant pauses. A throbbing pizzicato passage momentarily agitates the gentle rocking rhythm but the music simply fades away. The final Presto gets off to a rollicking start full of exuberance. There ensues, however, a brief disturbance of the generally optimistic mood, as plummeting phrases in the piano answered by sighing woodwinds add a note of emotional turmoil. This is soon dissipated, however, and the coda brings the work to close with a happy ending. Throughout this 23^rd Piano Concerto, the delicate sonority of the fortepiano, as opposed to the fuller, larger sonority of the modern piano, offered us the opportunity to hear this work the way it would have sounded in Mozart’s day; and Kristian Bezuidenhout gave us a brilliant, memorable performance. 

After intermission, the orchestra returned to play Mozart’s Symphony No. 39 in E-flat Major. This is the first of the three great, final symphonies Mozart composed in 1788, and it features music that reminds us of the brilliant overture to the opera Don Giovanni. The work begins with a French-style overture full of commanding majesty. The Allegro offers a gentle minuet with a long transition to the second key. In the second key, Mozart separates the woodwinds from the strings over a drone-like bass.  

In the second movement, the strings introduce a rondo form. The winds then play together in a choral mode, before resuming their role of providing harmony over the bold phrases of the strings. A bit later, the winds – here a bassoon, two clarinets, and flutes – almost function as a wind ensemble. (Note that this symphony, and this one alone, does not include an oboe.) In the rustic trio of the third movement, the two clarinets interrupt the stodgy minuet by playing a folk dance Ländler from the Alpine region. The final movement, marked Allegro, offers a lively, exuberant romp in which the flute, clarinet, and bassoon engage in animated dialogue with the strings, bring this great symphony to an exciting close. Throughout this work, and indeed throughout this entire concert, the conducting of Nicholas McGegan was outstanding in its combination of taut structures and delicate passagework. 

Opens February 12 at the Landmark California

There are at least three good reasons folks should consider lining up for Michael Moore's newest documentary broadside: (1) Where to Invade Next is a very entertaining, informative and timely film, (2) The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has hobbled audience access with an R-rating, and (3) the director won't be able to promote the film as planned since he only recently emerged from an Intensive Care Unit in a New York hospital.

Where to Invade Next has already racked up a host of awards including Official Selection at the 2015 Toronto Film Festival and the New York film Festival. But the film also deserves a special trophy For Excellence in Timing.

You have to wonder whether Moore knew (before anyone else) that Bernie Sanders would be running for president in 2016. A Democratic Socialist couldn't have asked for a better film to debut in the midst of a maverick presidential campaign.  

 

Rë reason 3: Why the ICU? Well, as Moore explained: "I've come down with pneumonia." (In the course of shuttling between Flint, Michigan—to protest lead-poisoned water—and New York—to support Bernie Sanders.) "Let's just say things didn't look too good," Moore wrote from his hospital bed, "But thanks to a combination of good doctors, decent hospital food and 2^nd-term Obamacare, I'm doing much better." 

Rë reason 2: Why is the film rated R? Because of a single scene inside a bathhouse where three nonchalant Europeans casually—and nakedly—walk into a hot tub. (Moore refused to clip the five-second scene.) 

And that brings us to Reason 1. 

Where to Invade Next has already racked up a host of awards including Official Selection at the 2015 Toronto Film Festival and the New York film Festival. But the film also deserves a special trophy For Excellence in Timing. 

You have to wonder whether Moore knew (before anyone else) that Bernie Sanders would be running for president in 2016. A Democratic Socialist couldn't have asked for a better film to debut in the midst of a maverick presidential campaign. 

 

Contrary to Popular Opinion 

In Where To Invade Next, Moore uses some of his patented tropes to knock the blocks from beneath the wall of education/media-fed propaganda that, in today's America, passes for "popular belief." 

Moore points out that the United States—despite having the world's "largest army and greatest fighting force in history"—hasn't won a war since 1945. Since history shows Washington's bullets-and-bomb-based foreign policy doesn't yield positive results, Moore sets about invading a succession of other nations with an "untraditional" objective. Big Mike is not interested in seizing the mineral assets of his foreign targets. Instead, he's on a mission to expropriate the best ideas—proven, workable and affordable government programs that serve the people, protect public health, provide an educated electorate, and promote social equality and financial equity. 

Needless to say, he finds a lot of good stuff to steal. 

This is not exactly a new message. Life in the US has long suffered by comparison with the socialist nations of Scandinavia but Mike has his camera crew discover that even the near-bankrupt and struggling government in Italy continues to offer a buffet of social services that would make an average American drop-jaw-and-salivate in admiration. 

Facts on the Ground 

In Italy, Mike (our disheveled, larger-than-life Innocent Abroad) hangs out with a young Italian couple and expresses astonishment to learn that all Italian workers receive a two-month paid vacation. The Italians are equally astounded that Americans, on average, are lucky to get a one-week vacation. (Under current laws, US companies are not required to provide any vacation for employees.) If you're an Italian, however, you receive 13 months pay every year. That's right, you get paid for a 13^th month. Oh, and there are also two-hour lunches every workday and universal five-month paid maternity and paternity leave. 

In France, the camera shows Mike sitting down to sample some of the finest cuisine to be found in all of Europe. But he's not visiting some high-class French restaurant. Oh no, he's sharing a table with a classroom of grade school students who are being served food made from fresh ingredients by top-flight chefs working right there in school kitchens. And the kids don't have to line up to receive a daily dollop of "mystery food" plopped onto plastic plates, a la America. These kids are invited to dine with real glass cups, China plates and metal utensils. And they are served by crisply uniformed waiters who rush the cuisine directly to their tables. 

In Norway, Mike visits a prison that operates sans guns or punishment. Instead of harsh confinement, these open-air prisons rely on the chastising effects of ostracizing prisoners from society and separating them from friends and family. This is deemed a punishment enough. And it seems to work. With less crime in most European countries, there are fewer prisoners and fewer prisons. Instead of cells, inmates inhabit small cottages, complete with personal bedrooms, bathrooms and front yards for lounging whenever the mood strikes. In these facilities, it is the prisoners—not the guards—who hold the keys to their "places of confinement." 

Looking for a worst-case-scenario, Mike visits an isolated maximum security prison only to discover that the guards are unarmed and the walls are covered with modern art. 

The examples of a "parallel universe" of alternative realities abound. In Finland, Moore discovers, children are not burdened with homework. In school they are encouraged to cooperate and build things rather than engage in traditional learning and rote exercises. In Portugal there are no drug laws. Instead, there are drug treatment programs. And, consequently, there is no drug problem. In many European nations—including Slovenia and Germany—there is no such thing as "student debt" because university education is free and open to all. 

In Tunisia, Mike discovers that abortions are perfectly legal. While the Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass muster in the United States, Article 57 of Tunisia's post-revolution constitution assures that the rights contained in the ERA are guaranteed in Tunisia. Think of it: An Arab nation with a predominantly Sunni population provides free, state-supported abortions and health care for women! 

In Iceland, the country (unlike the US) refused to bail out the bankers, speculators and hedge-fund manipulators responsible for the global economic meltdown of 2008. Instead, they actually put a number of bankers on trial and marched them off to prison. There was just one bank that did not fail, Moore reports. It was the only bank owned and operated by women. 

Moore's footage makes the point with two contrasting scenes. The first shows a mob of testosterone-fueled male traders making bets, taking risks, jostling for space, gripping smartphones, yelling and shaking fists full of paperwork. These are the guys whose banks crumbled. 

The next scene is quite a contrast. Here, the bankers are sitting down, comforatblty relaxed in a neatly organized office where piles of transactions stand neatly bound and stacked on tabletops. This is the bank that didn't fail. Why? Maybe because the people behind the desks are all women. And they are all relaxed and smiling. 

Mike's observation: "With men it's 'me'. With women it's 'we.'" That is why, in some Scandinavian nations, the law requires that at least 40% of all board members must be women. Neither men nor women can constitute more than 60% of a board. This is one of several examples where Where To Invade Next displays a very clear—and well-argued—feminist bias. (At a November 2015 film screening, a group of female reviewers hung back in the lobby, smiling broadly and praising Moore's work. As one woman happily observed: "He really gets it!") 

"Hammer! Chisel! Down!" 

Mike even gets to "invade" Germany and revisit the Berlin Wall. Thanks to some archival footage, we are treated to a 1989 flashback of Michael and a friend helping to chisel away the once-implacable barricade. (This is one of several spots in the movie where you get the idea that Michael Moore never travels anywhere without a film crew in tow.) Mike's point here is that this monolithic impediment was long deemed irremovable but it came it down—spectacularly—not because of some government dictate or mass corporate mobilization. No, it was taken down by thousands of human hands grabbing small tools—hammers, mallets, chisels—and having at it. 

Mike's Takeaway: When it comes to changing human history—even when faced with seemingly impossible odds—collective human effort can work miracles. In a case of the Berlin Wall, it was a simple matter of "Hammer, Chisel, Down. Rinse and repeat." 

In several of his stops, Big Mike asks where these crafty foreigners came up with these bizarre strategies for dealing with imprisonment, healthcare, quality food, and humane working conditions. More often than not, he is told that these ideas we're borrowed from America—a different, younger America. The surprising and sad truth is that the US has a long (albeit largely forgotten) history of introducing progressive social experiments. 

Mike's concluding observation is that, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, the ability to "find our way back home" has been right under our noses all along. The film ends with a close-up of Dorothy's feet in her ruby slippers and her heels clicking three times. 

Moore's last voice-over in the film is a simple, engaging question: "Kansas anyone?" 

The closing music features the line: "Will you lead or will you follow?" 

The message is clear: Come on, Toto. Come on, Bernie. It's time to get clicking. 

Friction Quartet--Keven Rogers and Otis Harriel, violins; Taija Warbelow, viola; Doug Machiz, cello--will play Beethoven's String Quartet Optus 59 no. No. 1 (1806), String Quartet no. 1 by Andy Akiko (New York-based composer, winner of 2015 Lili Boulanger. emorial Fund) and Benjamin Britten"s String Quartet no. 2, no. 36, a tribute to Purcell with reference to Britten's opera Peter Grimes, 8 p. m. followed by a complimentary winerrr and cheese reception with an opportunity to meet the artists. Next Tuesday, February at the Berkeley City Club Ballroom, 2315 Durant Avenue near Bowditch. $30 general admisson, high school students free, post-high school students $15. 525-5211 or berkeleychsmberperform.org