Are Democrats failing to unify in the fight to beat Donald Trump? Here on day four of the Democratic National Committee Convention (DNCC) in Philadelphia, there is serious doubt on the part of some Bernie Sanders’ supporters that the call for unity is working. According to “California Bernie Delegates” co-chair, Dr. Bill Honigman from Orange County, “Very few in our delegation have come to the conclusion that they are ready for Hillary.” He adds ominously, “I’m not so sure Hillary can beat Trump.” 

More than twenty-five Bernie Sanders delegates and alternates were interviewed for this article and at least half are unsure, or will never vote for Clinton, while others will most likely move towards Hillary sooner or later. Almost all those interviewed say that by circling the wagons so tightly, especially by choosing Tim Kaine for vice president, someone they label “a moderate”, the Hillary Clinton campaign appears to be okay with leaving many potential foot soldiers, and voters, on the outside of the Democratic tent. 

It’s widely believed that Bernie Sanders supporters are passionate and hard working. Many of his 1,846 pledged delegates worked twelve and fifteen hour days, not just to get Bernie to Philadelphia, they say, but to inject Bernie’s message into the usually mainstream Democratic National Committee (DNC) platform document. According to several elected officials and party operatives, it would appear that the Sanders campaign, led by the California delegation, has indeed wrought profound progressive changes within the party’s platform. 

In fact, former California governor Gray Davis goes even further. Davis told the Planet, that “Bernie and his followers have already changed the face of American politics.” The ex-governor claims that “Sanders and Clinton have come up with the most progressive platform in my lifetime.” 

Sanders adherents keep pushing, though. Many are skeptical of Clinton’s ever pursuing single-payer healthcare, for example, and they also believe she will offer a wink and a nod as lame-duck president Barack Obama tries to push through Congress the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. Until speeches by Kaine and Obama last night, the Sanders people said they hadn’t been feeling much love from a party they are trying to bust into. 

“We should all feel the ‘Bern’ and not want to get burned by that other guy,” said Kaine to a huge ovation. 

Later, Obama was more specific and laudatory towards Bernie’s supporters. 

“So if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders supporters have been during this election,” Obama said midway through his keynote address. 

There seems to be an attempt to reach out and keep Bernie Sanders supporters—a potential army of door-knockers, phone-callers, and talented social media devotees—from being left party-less. It’s still unclear if Hillary Clinton herself will make amends with those supporters or how many Sanders delegates are willing to come over to her side. 

In interview after interview the Bernie-istas seemed to be feeling understandably downcast because their candidate is not the nominee, but they were also upset that superdelegates were included in the pledged delegate count Tuesday night, and that the whole convention seems like a preordained “dog and pony show.” But most often it was the ‘d’ word Sanders’ delegates used: “disrespected.” They were feeling no love from the Clinton camp. One of them even thought Bill Clinton lost an opportunity Tuesday night to build some party unity, to reach out to Sanders supporters and invite them to join the campaign, maybe even to bring Hillary and Bernie out on stage together and stand between them. 

Many Sanders supporters said they are anxiously awaiting her Thursday speech, wondering if she will extend an olive branch to the almost nineteen hundred delegates representing nearly thirteen million voters. After all, Sanders prevailed in twenty-two states. She might lay out the case as to why they should not join her, but why she would like to join them in defeating Donald Trump. It would be a bold and healing move. 

It’s clear that many Sanders delegates, all of whom mentioned here are long-time Democrats, are just not comfortable at the convention. They complain about the corporate sponsored breakfasts and logoed official canvas bags, the sometimes esoteric rules, and the DNC personnel grabbing at their Bernie and anti-TPP signs on the convention floor as examples. 

Several thought that there would be a chance to have real conversations, “to discuss policy issues,” according to Robert Shearer, a botanist and delegate from Humboldt County. 

“I understand unity but it’s too much too soon, it’s being forced on us,” said Laura Solis, a paralegal and delegate from Agoura Hills. Michael Riley Brown, a Santa Barbara delegate said, “At minimum, all we want is that they [DNC] play by the rules.” 

But the newbie delegates, along with feeling like they are unwelcome guests at a garden party, also say they are being steamrolled by party rules, which many veterans of past conventions know by heart and often use to squelch dissent on the floor, especially since so much of this gathering is being stage-managed for a national TV audience. 

Many Democrats continue to wonder where Bernie voters will end up this November. Shearer said that these voters will go “in all directions.” 

Perhaps the two extremes are represented by San Francisco delegate, Benjamin Becker, “This is the Democrat Party and it’s totally corrupt,” and San Fernando Valley delegate, Farid Ben Amor who “will support Hillary” Clinton without reservation. But somewhere between those two are delegates who are intensely focused on finding a way to “stop this country’s march toward fascism” as one of them was keen to point out. 

Sandra Reding, 57, is a nurse and a Sanders delegate from Bakersfield. When I caught up with her she was wearing a red t-shirt and sitting with several delegates who are nurses and also wearing red, a popular color among Bernie people. The California delegation breakfast was just ending, and Reding, an operating room nurse, said she sees lots of people who have no insurance or are under-insured coming through her hospital. She’s drawn to Sanders because of his stand on single-payer health care. 

“Bernie has always said the movement is beyond the man,” Reding said. She’s a strong union member and points over to the president of National Nurses Unite to reinforce her point. She’s not sure how she will vote in November but, “as a union we endorsed Bernie, and we will go back to our base and find out what’s the will of the membership.” Reding adds, “She [Hillary] has to earn our support. The platform should have included Medicare for all.” 

Bob Nelson is a retired astrophysicist, formerly at NASA and Cal Tech. He’s a Bernie Sanders supporter from Pasadena and this is his third convention. He was a delegate for Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Jerry Brown in 1992. Nelson’s tall, with wire rim glasses, sports a blue blazer and has a half inch gray beard. He says he believes in socialism and is glad it is making a comeback within the Democratic party. 

“It has not been a welcoming environment for first time delegates,” Nelson says. “I’m extremely disappointed that Bill Clinton could talk for an hour and not talk about our platform.” 

He says he’s not sure right now who he will vote for: “I’ll have to listen to what she says because this election has become one about fascism.” Nelson says that fascism thrives when the opposition is fragmented, and “the Clintons want us to go away, but they also want us to lick their postage stamps.” He says the Democrats welcomed African Americans and gays, “so now socialists can come out of the closet.” He smiles like someone in it for the long haul. 

Natasha Acevedo, 25, said she worked long days for the Bernie Sanders campaign in El Paso, Texas. She’s an educator and childcare provider at Fort Bliss. She’s also wearing a bright red t-shirt with ‘Democratic Socialists’ emblazoned in white letters. Acevedo was walking in the cavernous Pennsylvania Convention Center trying to find the “ethnic caucus” meeting when I flagged her down. 

“If we really want to build unity and progressive values we have to change our language and dialogue,” she says. She would like a Hillary delegate to just come up and ask why she supports Bernie Sanders. “We got the country to see his platform,” Acevedo says. 

She’s been doing some soul searching too. “I came to the convention ‘Bernie or Bust.’” She began fighting back tears. It’s a sad realization because we worked so hard…I don’t agree with (Clinton) her or her background, but it’s about the platform and we influenced it so much.” Acevedo goes on to say that it would be a shame not to pass the platform, and electing Hillary Clinton would be celebrating the work that so many Sanders delegates have done. 

“I will vote for this candidate,” she says with tears still in her eyes and obviously wrestling with this decision even as she speaks. “Voting for Jill Stein would be a sign of protest, and that time is over because there’s a lot at stake in this election.” 

Acevedo was perhaps most firm when she said, “We are going to hold this party accountable” and then adds, “and I’m glad we will have female representation.” 

How will Bernie Sanders delegates and supporters come around to supporting Hillary? If it’s up to Sanders supporters it will not be because of all the past good work she’s done, or because they want to elect the first woman president. What Bernie-istas want from her, if they don’t get recognition for changing political history, is a firm promise to implement the party platform that they fought so hard to bring about. 

Possibly the disillusionment felt by most Sanders delegates interviewed can be summed up by Sacramento’s Jrmar Jefferson, 35, a one-time reality TV constestant who recently lost out to incumbent Doris Matsui in a race for congress in California’s 6^th congressional district. 

“Why isn’t she reaching out to Sanders voters?” he wondered. “The problem with the Democratic Party is that we got fans.” Jefferson smiles and looks across the arena at the vast sea of glittering colors and symbols that display some of the convention theater. “Delegates are fans and they came here to be entertained, not to make change.” 

Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who represents Berkeley and Oakland and was a member of the convention’s platform committee, got the last word. The Planet caught up with her on the convention floor, sitting in the first row of the California delegation. Why should Bernie delegates vote for Hillary Clinton? 

“My best argument would be to look at our party platform, the values and aspirations of our party,” she said. She paused and gathered her breath as crowds moved around us, some pushing and shoving, with an endless stream of TV cameras on parade. 

“In the platform is language abolishing the death penalty, overturning Citizens United, addressing student debt and institutional racism, a $15 minimum wage and universal pre-school,” she said, maintaining intense eye contact as thousands continued to mill around us. “There’s no way we can allow a Donald Trump into the white house.” 

She said she voted on the draft platform with Bernie “95% of the time” and “I’m going to work with Bernie people, and Bernie, to elect Hillary Clinton.” Lee said her first convention was in 1972, working for presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm, who had “something like 400 delegates.” 

When Chisholm was soundly defeated, Lee wanted to throw in the towel on politics: “I said forget it, but Shirley said no, stay with the party…and she was right, it paved the way for Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama and now Hillary Clinton.” 

Trump’s taunts have had predicable consequences. Stung by personal insults, many elites of the Republican Party responded with seething anger, contemptuous of their presumptuous leader. 

Here are a few examples gleaned from Nicholas Kristof‘s recent article in the New Times. 

“He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot. He doesn’t represent my party. . . .” — Senator Lindsey Graham 

“A moral degenerate.” — Peter Wehner, evangelical Christian commentator. 

I won’t vote for Donald Trump because he isn’t a truth teller. ... he is a bigot, misogynist. A fraud. A bully.” — Norm Coleman, former Republican senator from Minnesota. 

“I don’t think this guy has any more core principles than a Kardashian marriage.” — Senator Ben Sasse 

“I will not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the K.K.K. That is not a part of our party.” — Republican Governor Nikki Haley 

“Donald Trump is unfit to be president. He is a dishonest demagogue . . .” — Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett-Packard. 

“To support Trump is to support a bigot”.— Stuart Stevens, chief strategist to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. 

I wonder how many of these Republicans would abandon their stated principles and vote for the man they so despise. 

In a rare moment of moral clarity, Bobby Jindal, former Republican governor of Louisiana, offered the most compelling reason why Republican should abandon their fearless leader - “Donald Trump is a madman who must be stopped.” 

There are also those cowardly Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell that fell in lock step in the interests of party power and feigned enthusiasm for their ‘Frankenstein’. Last but not least, let's call out Chris Christie who endorsed Trump in the rapacious hope that he would be nominated VP or Attorney General. 

 

 

Open Letter to Berkeley Public Library Board of Library Trustees Holcomb, Franklin, Moore, Novosel and Burton

At the recent Board of Library Trustees meeting (July 20, 2016), Trustee Winston Burton acknowledged the hundreds of emails he, the rest of the Board of Library Trustees (BOLT), and all the City Council members have received lately requesting support for the library whistleblowers. Our thanks go out to Mr. Burton for his comments acknowledging these hundreds of petitioners. His comments about this email petition, reflecting community outrage and support of the library workers, was one of the few hopeful moments at the BOLT meeting that night. 

 

Since Mr. Burton expressed a lack of clarity about the figures of “2,200” vs. “39,815” books tossed that the petition cites, it could be that others are also unclear. So here’s a little clarity. These are the figures that were pivotal in bringing a temporary stop to the rampant weeding of library items, the media coverage of the library’s crisis, and the BOLT’s decision to “accept” Jeff Scott’s resignation. (Mr. Scott resigned as Library Director after ten months.) 

We are in possession of a spreadsheet that has information about deleted items from the BPL collection in 2015. Click here to download the deleted book count spreadsheet. 

The numbers at the top of the list show how many items were deleted from January through July 2015, the main months when Jeff Scott’s centralized collection development and weeding plan was implemented. Adding the totals for each of these seven months gives the number of 39,973. These figures are taken from the library’s own computers. The figure of 39,973 is the number that Jeff Scott disagreed with, stating that only 2,200 items had been deleted in that time period. Where did he get his figures from? The Board announced that Jeff Scott was leaving because he “wasn’t a good fit for Berkeley.” 

Retired librarian advocates and City Council Member Kriss Worthington gave these numbers last summer to the City Council, and released a list of 15,000 titles - the “last remaining copies” that had been deleted - to the press. You recall the TV coverage on KTVU Channel 2 and the multitude of newspaper articles and radio coverage. The total figure of 39,000 is public record, and accurate. 

As the BOLT meeting was getting underway last week, ABC TV Channel 7 aired a news feature on the Union and community protest at the library, reporting that whistleblowers on staff who exposed the discrepancies in the deleted book count are being investigated and are facing possible termination. Sarah Dentan told the TV reporter that the decisions about deleted, weeded books were based on their condition and whether they had “extensive local interest.” 

We know that the 39,000 deleted items from last year’s rampant weeding process were not deleted based on condition or local interest. They were deleted based on whether they had circulated over the past three years. And we’re all unfortunately familiar with Jeff Scott’s attendant centralized collection development policy, adopted by the BOLT, which prohibits librarians from doing their job of selecting and weeding the collection. The centralized collection development policy itself “isn’t a good fit for Berkeley,” just as Jeff Scott wasn’t. BOLT can amend that policy and let librarians do the work they were hired to do. 

And also, as the BOLT meeting was getting underway last week, two members of the City Council addressed the Union rally that had gathered in protest outside the Tarea Hall Pittman Branch. Perhaps further action from City Council members will be required to help restore the community’s and the staff’s trust in the library. 

As we expressed when Jeff Scott left Berkeley, it’s not about just one person. The crisis at the library - the harassment of workers, the deteriorated collection, the intellectual theft of community resources and cultural legacy - is at a higher point than ever. And at that recent BOLT meeting, we learned that the selection process for the new director will be handled only by the BOLT members, without staff input. A community panel will be involved, but those members will be anonymous, provoking no trust in this process. 

We need: 

 

• mediation -transparent, balanced,
• fully committed intervention by leadership with library background and
• an immediate halt to the investigations of the whistleblowers.

Sincerely, 

 

 

• Margaret Goodman
• Pat Mullan
• Anne-Marie Miller
• Andrea Segall
• Marilyn Simons

for LibraryAdvocateOfBerkeley@gmail.com / www.savethebplbooks.org 

 

 

Copies to City Council Members 

 

News analysis of first two days of the DNC

A thunder and lightning storm raged on over Philadelphia Monday night as feelings and factions in the Democratic Party ebbed and flowed, if not to healing at least toward tolerance. Packed tightly into the Wells Fargo Center, the DNC stage line-up on the first night of the convention consisted of arguably the party’s best rhetorical set of speakers. 

It was an all-star team from the center left—FLOTUS Michelle Obama, N.J. Sen., Corey Booker, Mass. Sen., Elizabeth Warren, and ending with, Bernie Sanders, still a presidential candidate in what was perhaps his political send-off,. While many of the more than nineteen hundred Bernie Sanders supporters hooted, catcalled, and chanted the name of their candidate throughout the night, the strategy on the part of mainstream Democrats was to make their left flank, Warren and Sanders, feel comfortable and loved by employing a big tent attitude. The applause for all four speakers was remarkably loud and exuberant, and in marked contrast to the divisive scenes that have unfolded here since Sunday. 

Sanders supporters marched Sunday in two large rallies through the streets of Philadelphia, making it clear that Bernie backers were not going down without a fight. Thousands of “Bernie or Bust” activists, a youthful army supported by hundreds of gray-haired peace and justice activists, took to the streets advocating for bread and butter progressive issues. In multiple interviews with marchers what seemed to matter most to them, not being sufficiently addressed by the Democratic National Committee, or at all in the party platform, were the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, a ban on fracking, publicly financed elections, more stringent climate change rules, and single-payer healthcare. Most of the marchers interviewed were articulate, focused and united in their passion for Bernie Sanders’ agenda, yet disappointed he did not wait until the convention roll call vote tonight before endorsing Hillary Clinton. 

Daniel Hanley, 34, is a software developer and fitness instructor. He had just finished the 12-hour drive from Atlanta, Georgia in a van with eight others including three Sanders delegates. He was looking for coffee at Starbucks on Sunday morning. “I’ve slept one hour,” he said. Philadelphia is “a convergence of people who are deeply outraged.” 

About what? 

Kia Hinton, a community organizer is mad about our continued reliance on “dirty energy, we have to go a different way,” she says. “Bernie made space to hear people, he listens to Black Lives Matter too.” 

Peter Lumsdaine, 61, from the state of Washington, made Philadelphia a stopover on his family’s vacation just to be here. He said, “Personally my central concern is the destruction of the environment and the marginalization of poor people that’s occurred.” 

Well over 4000 demonstrators took to the streets in a “People’s Climate March,” demanding immediate action on climate change and also advocating for Bernie Sanders. Mara Heilker, 39 from Charlotte, N.C. said she’s “expecting major changes in the Democratic party” and hopes that this convention will be the end of super-delegates. Dion Lerman of Philadelphia held peace-keeping training sessions for marchers. He says you can’t create a revolution through a political party. “A revolution comes from people,” he said, “and people taking the power from entrenched authority.” 

While the climate march left from the back of Philadelphia’s city hall, another march, “Shut Down the DNC,” was assembling at the front. This march was filled with more outspoken Bernie supporters than those in the climate march, and was a bit smaller. A little over 3000 were counted by this reporter. 

FDR Park is six miles from Philadelphia city hall and a few hundred feet from where the DNC is meeting. Martha Wildy from Vancouver, Washington, was there only to praise Bernie She said this was “one of my last opportunities to show him I admire him. What’s important is that we take this home to our local politicians.” 

Silvia Mauer, an immigrant from Germany came from Kendall, Wisconsin. She is voting in her first election, but said she “doesn’t like [her] choices for president.” She will vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, she said. 

Joe Ferraro, who runs a computer company in Audubon, Pa. says he can’t vote for Hillary because of her 2002 war vote, and besides that “I think there’s enough people who are pissed off about the cheating, you know, the WikiLeaks story?” 

To make matters worse for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, on the minds of many Sanders supporters was the WikiLeaks document dump of 20,000 DNC emails last Friday. Several of these emails seem to indicate to these people that the DNC conducted a dirty tricks campaign against Sanders. With events moving quickly, just before these rallies started came the news that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, had resigned, which they took as evidence that she participated in undermining the Sanders campaign. Many protesters said they suspected a DNC plot against their candidate long before the scandal broke. 

Then on Monday at the California delegates’ breakfast Bernie supporters began to shout down elected officials who were actively endorsing Hillary Clinton. As each breakfast speaker brought up the name of Hillary Clinton, Sanders delegates rose to their feet and broke into chants of “Bernie, Bernie.” Even Rep. Barbara Lee of Berkeley, arguably the most liberal member of congress, was not immune, and when she asked delegates to join her in voting for Clinton, dozens of Sanders supporters rose to their feet shouting “Bernie, Bernie.” 

But the most ire was directed at California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla who is in charge of elections. Bernie supporters contend that over a million California votes were not counted in the presidential primary. The voices became even louder. “Count our votes, count our votes,” they chanted over and over. 

When asked later about the Bernie supporters’ outburst, Lee seemed unfazed. She told the Planet, “It comes with the territory. I did not endorse Clinton or Sanders in the primary and I worked hard on the platform committee to embrace the most progressive positions,” she said. “It’s the most progressive platform in our nation’s history,” Lee added. 

Bob Mulholland, an adviser to the California Democratic Party and one of Clinton’s superdelegates, witnessed the brouhaha. “No delegate is worth their salt if they don’t speak up for their candidate,” he said, “but no Sanders delegate should get in the face of other delegates.” 

Rep. Maxine Waters from Los Angeles was more sanguine. “In a setting like this you get a chance to do that (protest),” she said. Mulholland added, “Look, the voters decide…she has three and a half million more voters than Sanders.” 

On Monday afternoon, before his convention speech that evening, Sanders met with his pledged delegates. “The Bernie meeting was notable,” said an alternate delegate who had slipped into the delegates-only meeting told the Planet off the record. “There was a high level of enthusiasm until he said he was voting for Hillary, and then he was booed quite loudly.” 

The booing and chanting of “Bernie, Bernie?” was consistent, and at times quite passionate during the evening convention session. Often throughout the night when Clinton’s name was mentioned the chanting began in earnest. But because there are 4, 764 delegates, Bernie’s 1900 are spread throughout the arena, and as a result there was never a coalescing of voices to clearly disrupt podium speakers. Although Sanders was not booed inside the DNC last night during his lengthy and well-received speech, he was jeered today when he addressed California delegates. 

He was a surprise guest at the same breakfast that a day earlier saw loud chants and boos from many of his California delegates. While he was warmly received when first announced today, some of his words were not. “Elections come and go, and our immediate task is to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton,” he said and the boos started in earnest again. 

Sanders paused for a moment and shot back, “In my view, it’s easy to boo but it is harder to look your kids in the face when they are living under a Donald Trump presidency.” He finally added, “What a political revolution means is that we keep going. 

Later, the Planet caught up with pioneer civil rights activist, Rep. John Lewis from Georgia. Lewis told the Planet, “Every voter should make his or her vote count. If you vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson you are throwing your vote away.” 

In interviews with some Sanders delegates today, they said that they were firm, that the protests would continue. Their demands continue to be, according to a dozen interviewed after this morning’s breakfast, to get rid of the superdelegate process, put language that opposes the Transpacific Partnership (TTP) trade agreement into the party platform, to ban fracking nationwide, to institute single-payer healthcare, and to rein in Wall Street. In addition, Sanders supporters also were discouraged by the choice of Virginia Gov., Tim Kaine for vice-president, but seem to believe organized opposition would be futile now. 

Perhaps Mulholland, the long-time advisor to the Democratic Party, characterized the turbulent presidential process best when he said in an interview on the convention floor last night that running for President of the United States was like climbing Mount Everest. Six hikers start up the mountain and three die along the way he said. “Do you stop? No, you want to reach the top, so you step over the dead bodies” and continue. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a practicing Sikh, I was profoundly disappointed to hear a Sikh, Harmeet Kaur Dhillon, vice-chair of the California Republican Party offer a Sikh prayer at the Republican National Convention. It is sad to see Dhillon embrace the failed policies of Donald Trump. In 2004 she actively supported the election of President George W. Bush – one of the worst president’s in US history that even Trump acknowledges. Remember it was Bush/Cheney that aggressively promoted torture and rendition – the antithesis of Sikh teachings. 

Donald Trump epitomizes all that practicing Sikhs oppose, namely insatiable greed, dishonesty (in his business practices), an inflated ego, misogyny, and a gross intolerance of people of other faiths. Republicans of Trump’s ilk are both anti-Christ and anti-Sikh. Sikhism teaches equality of all people. Sikhism preaches that people of different races, religions, and sexes are all equal in the eyes of God. Sikhism teaches the full equality of men and women. Sikhism emphasizes daily devotion to the remembrance of God. Sikhism teaches religious freedom. All people have the right to follow their own path to God without condemnation or coercion from others. Sikhism emphasizes a high moral and ethical life. Sikhism teaches service to others. The primary task in life is to help the poor, needy, and oppressed. Sikhs have a long heritage of speaking out against injustice and for standing up for the defenseless. The word Sikh means disciple or student. Sikhs are the disciples of God. 

Bernie Sanders gave a rousing endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Monday night, but it won’t stop reporters from clinging to a false narrative of Democratic disunity. The media’s pre-convention stories were dominated by the disunity story line, and there are enough Sanders supporters booing every mention of Hillary Clinton’s name to sustain it.

The media’s problem is that it confuses unity with unanimity.

This means that despite Sanders’ national speech and promotion of Clinton, the media sees the existence of a small group of Sanders backers who refuse to back Clinton as evidence of Democratic disunity. They reach this conclusion without even exploring whether the Sanders delegates booing Clinton were even Democrats prior to 2016, or have any longterm commitment to the Democratic Party. 

It’s the same exaggeration of dissent that the media made at the GOP Convention following Ted Cruz’s refusal to endorse Donald Trump. Post-election polls showed that contrary to media claims, the convention did solidify GOP support for Trump. 

The problem is reporters reliance on preexisting narratives. That’s why when something unexpected occurs—-such as Melania Trump’s allegedly plagiarized speech—the 15,000 credentialed media entirely missed the story. It took laid off journalist Jarrett Hill watching the proceedings at Starbucks to recognize the similarity between Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech and Trump’s 2016 address. 

Reporters missed the story because it did not fit into their pre-existing narrative for the Republican Convention, which was to highlight Party disunity. This story line was fueled by the absence from the event of both former president Bush’s and the last two GOP presidential nominees; Ted Cruz then kept it going. 

Here are the pillars of the media’s false “Democratic Disunity” agenda: 

Progressives (Allegedly) Oppose Kaine 

Like many, I thought Elizabeth Warren would be a more strategic VP choice. But the media has grossly distorted progressive opposition to Kaine, ignoring his support from AFSCME and people like former Communication Workers of America leader Larry Cohen, who led the labor campaign for Sanders. 

I talked to Kaine at a small private party in the Mission last November about his being Clinton’s choice as opposed to Warren. He told me that he did not consider himself competing for the VP slot with Warren, Sherrod Brown or anyone else, because he brought different strengths. 

In reviewing the less known parts of Kaine’s record, he has long focused on Virginia’s housing and homelessness crisis, making him among the few national politicians with that background. Much of his 18 year legal career was devoted to fair housing. He is also a “bit of a crusader against sprawl,” and promoted open space acquisition when Governor of Virginia. 

That people preferred Warren to Kaine does not support a claim of “Democratic disunity.” But some in the media are so committed to this narrative that no testimonies on Kaine’s behalf from prominent progressives and even Sanders supporters can change it. 

DNC Emails 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was on her way out as head of the Democratic National Committee before resigning yesterday over emails that showed she backed Clinton over Sanders. But the media saw an opportunity to fit the emails into their “Democratic disunity” narrative, using it as an opportunity to again highlight that some Sanders supporters saw the primary process as “rigged” and still oppose Clinton’s candidacy. 

I doubt that the vast majority of voters even know who headed the DNC prior to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s resignation. This is a classic insider politics issue that many reporters love because it requires no work or thinking to create. Few if any voters are switching from Clinton to Trump because of anything Schultz did at the DNC. 

Booing Hillary 

On Monday, some Sanders delegates booed Bernie Sanders at a private meeting when he urged them to back the Clinton-Kaine ticket. Some also booed Clinton’s name whenever it was mentioned from the convention podium, ignoring Sanders’ own plea that they stop. 

Others put tape over their mouths saying “Silenced by the DNC.” Sarah Silverman, a huge Sanders supporter, told the “Bernie or Bust” folks booing pro-Clinton comments that “You’re being ridiculous.” 

But despite Silverman’s directive, and the estimated only thirty Sanders delegates doing the booing (all from California), the media continued to promote a false narrative of “Democratic disunity.” 

The Washington Post reported on Monday that 90% of Sanders voters were backing Clinton. So the opposition from Sanders delegates is both atypical of Sanders supporters and miniscule. 

At the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver I saw a lot of people wearing so many huge Hillary buttons that one would think Clinton and not Barack Obama is the nominee. The media exaggerated the “Democratic disunity” narrative at that convention as well, as the November election results proved. 

Both Parties are Unified 

When the Democratic Convention ends Thursday night, even media promoting a false “Democratic disunity” storyline will likely conclude that unity has been achieved. The media will assess the convention by its success in building Democratic unity behind the Clinton-Kaine team. 

And notwithstanding Cruz’s non-endorsement and opposition to Trump from high-profile conservative journalists, Republicans are also overwhelmingly unified. The vast majority of Republicans will back Trump in November, because as the same media promoting the disunity narrative has also pointed out, Trump reflects the core views of the Republican base. 

For all the polls showing that Trump and Clinton are unpopular, they got millions more votes than their opponents. Both are far more popular than recognized. 

After all of the complaining and internal battles, 2016 will be a presidential election that will be a true plebiscite on which party’s core views best represents the majority of American voters. That’s why the stakes are so high, and voter turnout records will be broken. 

---

Randy Shaw

Randy Shaw, a Berkeley resident, is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. This piece appeared first in Beyond Chron.

The 2016 Republican convention concluded with Donald Trump’s 75-minute rant that only he could protect America from the barbarians at the gates. Other than further proof of Trump’s demagoguery, we learned five things at the convention. 

1. Hillary Clinton united Republicans.Republicans came to Cleveland promising to unite around Trump. That didn’t happen. Cruz, Kasich, and the Bush family didn’t endorse Trump and he denounced them all. 

Instead, Republicans united by bashing Hillary Clinton. Tuesday night’s theme was supposedly “Make America Work Again,” but the featured speakers didn’t discuss jobs and the economy; instead they blasted Hillary. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mentioned Hillary 24 times and Donald Trump only 5. The delegates chanted, “lock her up” -- some delegates suggested that Hillary be executed for treason. 

The Trump convention’s overall theme became “Make America Hate Again.” 

Many Republicans aren’t for Trump; they’re against Hillary. Will that get them to vote on November 8th? Probably not if Hillary seems to have a big lead. 

2. Given his CEO credentials, Trump did a lousy job organizing the convention. Each day saw some epic screw up with the convention program. Monday featured Melania Trump’s speech with lines plagiarized from Michelle Obama. Tuesday was supposedly about “Make America Work Again” but instead turned into a Hillary hate-fest. Wednesday saw Ted Cruz’s epic non-endorsement of Trump. And Thursday featured Trump’s epic rant – the longest and darkest acceptance speech in modern times. 

Since he won the GOP nomination in May, Trump hasn’t run a smart campaign. The Republican convention was more evidence of this. 

3. Trump can’t be trusted off the teleprompter. One of Trump’s objectives for the week was to not act crazy, but he couldn’t restrain himself. Monday, he called in to Fox News Host Bill O’Reillyin the middle of the convention tribute to “heroes of Benghazi.” Wednesday he walked into the convention and interrupted Ted Cruz’s speech. Thursday he gave a rambling foreign policy interview to the New York Times. And Friday, he gave a rambling press conference where he denounced Ted Cruz and suggested that Cruz’s father was a pal of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

The GOP convention may give Trump a modest ratings bounce but it won’t last because he can’t stop acting crazy. 

4. Trump doesn’t want the job. During the convention, the New York Times reported that Trump’s son Donald Junior had approached Ohio Governor John Kasich about being Trump’s running mate. Trump Junior reported that, if he accepted, Kasich would be “the most powerful vice president in history;” Trump Junior explained that Kasich would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. When queried what job “President” Trump would do, Trump Junior explained, “Making America great again.” 

This tale appears to confirm what many of us have suspected, Trump does not have the wherewithal to do the job. Therefore, if he were elected, Trump would be a figurehead President with the substantive day-to-day work done by others. 

5. Republicans have abandoned Christian morality. 

Unique to a modern Republican presidential speech, Trump never mentioned God. Instead he mentioned himself, over and over; notably “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” 

There was no mention of “the Golden rule” and no mention of the phrase, “I am my brother’s keeper.” Trump eschewed Jesus message in “The sermon on the mount” for the dark imagery of the book of Revelation. 

Trump said his theme would be “I’m with you” but it actually is “I will say and do anything to win.” 

---

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

The party’s over. Long live the Republican Party. 

Or is it a case of mistaken identity, and to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the party’s death are greatly exaggerated. 

If it was the passing of a political party, then what was that on the elevated stage surrounded by so many lights and mirrors this past Thursday night in Cleveland? 

The Republican Party has been through political change before. It’s 162-years old, but the political shape-shifting that’s taken place at this convention has left dozens, if not hundreds, of the party’s conservatives and moderates on the sidelines horrified at a party they do not recognize. 

With the nomination-coronation of Donald John Trump here in Cleveland by an enthralled and near delirious GOP faithful, we now have a candidate for President of the United States like no other in this nation’s history. Businessman, huckster, and showman, now he is also the national noodge on sending back immigrants to Mexico, raising trade tariffs on China, and barring Moslems from entering the country. 

Not since Lincoln and Reconstruction, not since Barry Goldwater’s 1964 insurgent “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” speech, and surely not since Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy, which perfected George Wallace’s segregationist populism, have we seen anything like a Trump-Mike Pence ticket. 

Folks, this has not been Ronald Reagan’s “morning in America” campaign either. The mood has been dark and gloomy this week over the birthplace of rock ‘n’ roll. There’s been a constant drumbeat of what’s wrong in America, that terrorism and police shootings are all Hillary Clinton’s fault, and how if you elect the prophets-of-profit Republicans all will be well again. 

“We will make America great again,” they kept saying. 

But if the Trump-Pence ticket loses this November, will the Republican brand be left atop the ash heap of history? If they win, a political party metamorphosis on a Grand Old Party scale will have taken place, completely revamping one of our country’s two major parties. 

America has had a front row seat this week on what an extreme party makeover might look like. It was reality TV by the lake. 

Remember, the Bush Father and Sons’ wing was dispatched early-on in the campaign, and in a very personal way. The party’s standard-bearers in 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney, never made it to see Lake Erie this week. Even Sarah Palin, who endorsed Trump very early in the campaign, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio were no-shows. Even former Presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich was nowhere to be seen, and this was his state. 

Out of the distant past emerged only 93-year old Bob Dole, and given no stage time he could only sit with the Kansas delegation and watch his party’s self-immolation, or maybe he was betting on a historic reinvention. Not a single old-school face was near the convention stage during four nights of often divisive, bellicose verbal combat. 

But taken as a whole it was often nothing short of pure entertainment, far from the tightly scripted movie that the often hapless campaign manager Paul Manafort had hoped. Each day a new and uncontrollable storyline would emerge from inside Camp Trump. 

The most noteworthy tale of intrigue was Melania Trump’s plagiarizing of a Michelle Obama speech in 2008. It was still being parsed when day three arrived and the new narrative was the Ted Cruz long-winded non-endorsement of Trump. What followed was one of the most caustic group moments during the convention: several thousand people booed Cruz off the Quicken Loans Arena stage. With ideological havoc about to break out, in came VP nominee, Mike Pence who delivered near-flawless oratory. Seeking to cover Trump’s weakened rightward flank he began his speech, “I’m a Christian, a Conservative, a Republican, in that order.” But it was likely not enough to overcome the Cruz stabbing of the Donald’s back. 

Perhaps the only glue that held the Republican stage presence together was a unified bash-the-hell-out-of-Hillary theme. From former New York mayor and presidential contender, Rudy Giuliani's red meat calls for more police and more fire and brimstone to rain down upon ISIS, to Lt. Col. Mike Flynn’s blood-curdling crowd-whooping “U-S-A” chants, and to all of the Trump children’s similar paeans to their “father” nobody, with the possible exception of Melania Trump, missed an opportunity to scold, bloody or just plain berate the other party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Her emails, Benghazi, and even Whitewater and Vince Foster were brought up. Nothing was out of bounds. In fact, there were nights when minute-long chants of “Lock her up” would frequently interrupt speakers at the podium. 

The California delegation sitting in front of the stage was perhaps the most vocal inside the Q. They received a good spot near the stage, and in the middle of one of their innumerable standing ovations for speakers I asked one of the delegates if Trump could win the Golden State this fall. “Yeah, like he’s got like a five-percent chance,” she responded with a sly grin. 

I offer four examples of how this new Trump Republican Party has changed the course of political history. Without a doubt this group does things differently. This new party has been unfolding since seventeen candidates stood right on this very stage almost a year ago. 

Remember, Trump is the first Republican Party presidential nominee since Dwight D. Eisenhower never to have held previous political office. But Trump, unlike Ike, never spent any time in the military. Number two, Mike Pence the VP candidate said “the heroes of my youth were John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.” Enough said. Number three, on the final night of the convention PayPal co-founder, Peter Thiel was wildly cheered by a packed arena when he talked of being “proud to be gay.” And finally, Ivanka Trump, seeking to salvage any credibility her father might have with women said that her father would champion equal pay for women and “quality affordable childcare” as well. 

These themes were not part of any of Bush, McCain or Romney campaign. While it is clear that the current Team Trump may be grumpier, more obnoxious, outspoken and blunt than previous campaigns, it has also proved to be bolder in its willingness to embrace some of the Democratic Party’s bread and butter social issues. What is also clear from this reporter’s view after more than forty interviews and over one hundred conversations with Republicans inside and outside the convention arena during the week of pomp and spectacle, lying and deception, is that if the Trump organization can carry out even a mediocre political ground game, then Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are in serious trouble come this November. 

If Reagan was the Teflon president, Trump is a new and improved version given that he has received only mild castigation for his numerous insults of women, minorities, along with rants against the press and his fellow candidates. On Friday, Trump had to take another swipe at Cruz, even going so far as to say his Wednesday speech might signal the end of Cruz’s political career. (On another hand, it may very well have been the beginning of his 2020 presidential campaign.) 

What was perhaps most stunning to this observer during this convention was the raucous and rude tenor of voices, not only on the stage but coming from many delegates on the floor. In the last three national political conventions I’ve attended it was rare to see and hear such non-stop rancor. 

The continuous chants of “build the wall,” “USA,” “Trump, Trump, Trump,” and the most prevalent one of all, “Lock her up,” were usually shouted in defiance often exuding a fierce kind of pent up hostility. If Republicans sought to murder political correctness, they took out civility, discretion and reason along with it. Compassionate conservativism was left in the arena parking lot on most evenings. These 4000-plus delegates and alternates wanted change, and yelling and screaming was definitely in style. 

After Cleveland we may be left with several Republican mini-parties. The Trump-Pence current brand is on top for now; the moderate-conservatives led by the Bushes and a few old neo-cons are now left to mope; the moderate-light party of McCain and Lindsey Graham is fading fast; and the religious conservatives led by Cruz will remain strong but diminished because of Cruz’s odd behavior. 

A fifth-wheel party candidacy might be in the cards for Ohio’s, Kasich. Party mainstays like Nikki Haley, Joni Ernst, and Marco Rubio most likely have their eyes set on 2020 as well. The big losers this year are Governor’s Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and the Bushes. They have all been marginalized, down and maybe out. 

What none of the sixteen candidates, the entire Republican establishment, and especially the Bushes can back away from is pretending that Donald Trump is somehow an aberration on the Republican landscape, something not of their own creation. 

He is not an alien Republican who just showed up one day wanting to hijack your party and run for president. Trump is a creation of the past forty years, at least since Reagan, of the lack of bipartisanship, the attitude that climate change is a myth, the general underfunding of most programs targeted for children, race-baiting populism, cold warrior fury rechanneled toward the war on terror, and the shrinking of government so it’s small enough to drown in a toilet as Grover Norquist once proudly opined. It must not be conveniently dismissed or forgotten that these misguided policies have yielded up the Trump nomination.

Thursday, July 28, 2016, 6:00pm – 8:00pm

Bobby G's Pizzeria

2072 University Ave

At its July 28 meeting, the Zoning Adjustment Board will have another look at Berkeley Honda’s proposal to shoehorn a “full service auto dealership” into the historic old Berkeley Bowl building, a site half the size of Honda’s former home. At the June 9 ZAB meeting, neighbors detailed a long list of detriments, in addition to complaints about deceptive supporting documentation from Honda. Honda argued for jobs and sales tax revenue. Honda also argued that the site is theirs by right as a result of the City Council’s Dealership Overlay ordinance. Could this claim be true? 

DEALERSHIPS IN SOUTH BERKELEY  

The Berkeley City Council did ZAB no favors when it passed the notorious “Dealership Overlay” ordinance. The 2013 ordinance undermined existing zoning prohibitions on new or relocated auto sales in the Commercial South Area (C-SA) district. It explicitly contradicts elements of every Berkeley policy document guiding development in the area, including the South Area Plan, the South Shattuck Strategic Plan, and the emerging Adeline Corridor Planning Project. Members of the organized opposition to the Honda project were involved in developing every one of these citizen-driven policy initiatives. Yet curiously nobody in this unusually engaged neighborhood was aware of the “Dealership Overlay” until the Honda project became public in the spring of 2015. The Honda proposal is the first attempt to transform the South Shattuck streetscape under authority of the new overlay ordinance. But is it legal? 

A CHANGE OF USE  

2777 Shattuck was originally built as a bowling alley in 1940, and has served a number of businesses since its origins. Several storefront businesses operated from the Shattuck frontage of the bowling alley from the 1940s to the 1970s. During the 1950s, part of the building was the theater home of the ambitious Berkeley Drama Guild, and the site of the first complete performance of Allen Ginsberg’s landmark poem “Howl,” five months after the more famous Six Gallery reading of “Howl, Part I”. Most recently, Any Mountain sporting goods retailer leased the building. According to its former manager, Any Mountain lost its lease—contradicting the developer’s narrative that the store was forced to leave due to poor business. 

The building’s most famous occupant was the Berkeley Bowl Market, an icon of local food culture, from 1977 - 1999. But 2777 Shattuck has never been permitted for any automotive business. Consequently, the Honda project constitutes a “change of use,” language that is meaningful in the zoning code, and should be determinative for city planners and board members. 

Changes of use to auto sales and repair are exceedingly rare in urban areas—partly because dealerships tend to establish on sites with previous histories of commercial auto use and partly because other cities view the impacts of auto repair as fundamentally incompatible with residential neighborhoods. Unlike Berkeley, these cities have protecting zoning ordinances that include minimum lot sizes for dealerships, large setbacks from residences when they allow these uses to abut at all, and a low maximum lot coverage. 

The 2013 overlay ordinance reversed a decades-long prohibition against new and relocated auto sales in the C-SA district, but one restriction did not change: C-SA District zoning still prohibits a change of use to auto repair and parts service as the primary use of a building, allowing this use only if it is “ancillary” to auto sales. (An ancillary use is one “that is both dependent on and commonly associated with the principal permitted use of a . . . building and that does not result in different or greater impacts than the principal use.”) 

In fact, C-SA is the only commercial district in Berkeley to prohibit a change to repair and parts service as the primary use while allowing auto sales. Which is why ZAB had such a hard time at the June 9 ZAB hearing night reconciling the Honda proposal with what is legally permitted. 

In fact, planning staff, Honda, and ZAB all struggled at the June 9 ZAB meeting to find a reason to consider Honda’s proposed “sales” operation as anything other than a stalking horse for a prohibited repair shop. The planning department staff proposed tweaking the square footage devoted to the separate sales and repair uses (a “solution” vehemently opposed by Honda and the developer), while Honda proposed to demonstrate “sales” revenue disproportionate to “repair” revenue—and even attached a letter from its accountant asserting the point. 

Interestingly, in a December 2013 letter to then-city manager Christine Daniels, Tim Beinke of Berkeley Honda pleaded for a building permit waiver on the grounds that “when we make profits at all, we make them less on the sale of new cars than on quality service and the sale of used cars.” The letter did go on to claim that auto sales benefit the city as one of its largest sources of tax revenue, and that “sale of new cars remains essential to our overall business model.” Granted, profits are not revenue—but it’s remarkable that such esoteric debating points are deployed to argue the validity of a use permit. 

Because it is patently obvious that the actual activities taking place in a building determine its “primary use.” 

Thus, in order to approve Honda’s application, ZAB must come to 2 insupportable findings:
1) Honda’s primary activity at 2777 Shattuck is auto sales, not service & repairs, AND 

2) the detriments stemming from the repair operation—to pedestrian & bicycle safety, traffic, parking, noise, etc.—are not different and not greater than than detriments stemming from auto sales. 

Will existing zoning standards be scrupulously enforced at ZAB? Neighbors are skeptical, given the city’s recent history of approving development projects with disputed authority, and in the face of significant citizen opposition, like Harold Way. Parker Place is another such example. The multi-use development project faced significant neighborhood opposition, carries significant unaddressed impacts, and expanded well in excess of its original scope. 

In a very real sense, the current Honda proposal is Parker Place metastasizing beyond its 2600 Shattuck address. 

HOMELESS HONDA  

Honda was kicked out of its long-term home at 2600 Shattuck, a structure purpose-built in 1926 for auto sales and service, to make way for the Parker Place multi-use development project of Citycentric Investments. Ironically, Citycentric managing partner Ali Kashani is now representing Honda’s bid to occupy the old Berkeley Bowl. 

In a letter to ZAB, former mayor Shirley Dean suggested that promised occupancy of the old Berkeley Bowl may have been part of a deal to secure Honda’s cooperation as Citycentric sought approval for the Parker Place mixed use development: 

“From its very inception, the move by Honda to this location has given every indication it is based on a ‘promise’ made to Honda that if they moved to make room for other projects, they would be given the right to locate to 2777 Shattuck Avenue . . . If one examines the very first time this subject appeared on the Council agenda, before any zoning or planning review, statements were highlighted to Council Members regarding the City’s loss of revenue should Honda leave, but there was no real explanation regarding what permits such a proposal would require, what the possible impacts of such a move would involve, nor that any notification or discussion with the surrounding residential neighborhood had ever occurred.”  

It’s impossible to know if any such promises were made, but it should not be difficult to understand the neighbors’ suspicions. Moreover, Honda has apparently been led to believe that the Berkeley Bowl site would be theirs by right, that the neighborhood opposition, if any, would be slight, and that the city approval process would be speedy. If so, Honda should be extremely unhappy with its paid advocates. 

At any rate, for all the concern about the potential loss of jobs and tax revenue, it’s clear that nobody in city government was concerned about them when Parker Place was allowed to evict Honda. Yet the concerns are real, even if they were late coming, and even if they were raised only when the neighborhood claimed a role in the permitting process. 

ZAB’s discomfort at its predicament, stemming from the incompatibility of the Dealership Overlay with the purposes of the C-SA District, was evident at the June 9 hearing. It was reflected in its questions to staff concerning definitions of the key terms “primary” and “ancillary”, and about the authority of the Dealership Overlay ordinance in case of contradicting zoning language. It was evident that at least some ZAB members were not happy to have been placed in such a position by the city council. 

Most ZAB members expressed intimate familiarity with chronic traffic congestion on the 2-lane portion of Shattuck between Ashby and Ward, and sensitivity to the neighbors’ concerns for safety, noise, parking and to other detriments inherent to the proposal. Yet they also signaled an obligation to protect Honda’s business, its jobs, and its tax contributions. ZAB’s sympathies are divided, and they are irreconcilable. Honda is disinclined to accept any mitigation that doesn’t include a repair shop at 2777 Shattuck, and the neighbors will consider mitigation meaningless if a repair shop is permitted. 

ZAB has ample justification to deny the Honda application based on unavoidable detriments contingent upon bringing a prohibited repair shop to a fundamentally unsuitable site. ZAB has an obligation to deny the application based on the absolute prohibitions in C-SA zoning for the business’ primary activity. No mitigation can overcome these defects. 

It is absolutely guaranteed that Honda would appeal a ZAB denial. And it is probably as likely that the city council will ultimately give Honda what it wants. Recent history indicates this, as does the hidden process by which the Dealership Ordinance came to an unsuspecting neighborhood with a long history of deep engagement with city planning initiatives. 

ZAB cannot split the baby. The question for the zoning board is whether or not to provide the council with a fig leaf for an insupportable decision in the service of spot zoning. Or will it follow the law, deny the project, and force the city council to own its back-door deal making when Honda appeals the denial of permit?

Editor's note: The article which follows first appeared on San Francisco's 48hills.org news site. It's relevant for Berkeley, because on Tuesday night Mayor Bates and the City Council majority managed to drag out the proceedings for such a long time that they were "unable" to vote on Councilmember Jesse Arreguin's drafted letter to Governor Jerry Brown expressing Berkeley's doubts about the proposed state legislation described in this article. One might wonder if a meeting something like the one described below also too place in Berkeley before that happened...if so, the Planet wasn't invited.

---

Why is SF mayor backing plan that would undermine local ability to demand more affordable housing?

I went to the strangest press conference today. Ed Lee was there; so was Ben Metcalf, who is Gov. Jerry Brown’s director of housing and community development. We met at SPUR’s downtown headquarters, at a little after 11am.

There were only a handful of reporters – me, J.K. Dineen from the Chron, Liam Dillon from the LA Times. Kim Mai Cutler showed up late.

And it wasn’t clear why we were really there – except that for the past couple of hours, Lee, Metcalf, and a group of “stakeholders” (mostly big nonprofit housing developers like Bridge, the Bay Area Council, and the pro-any-kind-of-development Housing Action Coalition, and the law firm of Holland and Knight, which represented a tech startup illegally using space in Chinatown) had been meeting privately to figure out how to promote the governor’s plan to allow developers to build housing without the normal community oversight.

The measure has been pending in the state Legislature, but community housing groups all over the state have tried to slow it down. It would override local laws and allow anyone who wants to build any type of housing to do that “by right” if it complies with existing zoning and has a tiny minimum of affordable housing – wiping out the ability of community groups to try to cut better deals with developers. 

“While this proposal claims to merely streamline the approval process for housing projects, it will in fact cause significant negative impacts on the environment, jobs, working and low-income neighborhoods, and the public’s right to participate in decisions impacting their everyday lives,” a statement issued today by ten community groups, including ACCE California, the Chinatown Community Development Center, Tenants Together, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, and Public Advocates, noted. 

And instead of holding public hearings on the legislations, the groups said, “invite-only meetings are being conducted by the administration that exclude a full presentation of the facts and open dialogue about the plan’s far-reaching implications.” 

Some labor groups aren’t too happy about it, either. 

So there we were, at the end of one of those “invite-only” meetings, to which the press was not among those invited. In fact, there wasn’t much advance notice of the meeting at all – those of us who showed up either found out about it from activists and asked if we could come or got notice a few hours before the meeting started. 

And there wasn’t a whole lot of concern in the room about that the secrecy. 

I asked Metcalf why there had been no public hearings on the plan, and he told me that the measure was part of the governor’s budget process, which “is not a public process.” 

Of course, he told me, the governor is “open to all possible feedback.” Not clear how that feedback will get delivered. 

I asked the mayor why he would support a measure that undermines his own land-use authority, and he said that “I feel very strongly that in the governor’s proposal, we already have the right” to make local zoning decisions. 

And he said that some developers have already agreed to affordable housing levels as high as 40 percent. 

But that’s happened only when community groups were able to force negotiations with those project sponsors. Under the governor’s plan, much of that housing would be built at the lowest levels that local inclusionary laws allow -- about 12 percent in San Francisco, as little as 5 percent in some other cities. 

Gabriel Metcalf, the president of SPUR (no relation to the guv’s Metcalf) told me that the proposal would have regional and statewide application – that it would allow housing to be built in places like Cupertino, where tech companies have set up offices with tens of thousands of workers but no dense housing ever gets approved. 

But those communities still have zoning laws that can block dense housing. Much of the new development would happen in places like San Francisco. 

I asked Ben Metcalf why he wasn’t suggesting a more productive approach – a law that would require any community that approved commercial developments creating more than, say, 200 jobs to authorize and force the developers to pay for workforce housing. 

That would mean no huge Apple headquarters in Cupertino, no Google and Facebook complexes, unless the communities that get the tax benefits also provide housing for the tens of thousands of new workers. 

It would mean no Twitter tax break unless the city first found a way to finance housing for all the people displaced by the new tech workers. 

He told me that was a “creative” idea and promised to pass it along to the guv. 

Meanwhile, Brown’s housing plan is moving forward with very little public debate. 

Berkeley infiltrated the Republican National Convention (RNC). Claire Chiara and Natalie Davis, both students at Cal, were in Cleveland representing the Republicans of the 13^th congressional district as Trump delegates. They are part of an ever-shrinking Bay Area species, a Berkeley Republican. The Berkeley city manager’s web page reports that only 4% of the 80,963 registered voters in Berkeley are Republicans, narrowly beating out Green voters by one percentage point. 

With 172 delegates and 169 alternates, the California GOP delegation was by far the largest at the Republican convention. 

Chiara and Davis seemed comfortable, yet perhaps a bit awed by the convention glitz and glamour when I met them on floor of the Quicken Loans Arena. But who wouldn’t be? The place was packed with more than twenty thousand delegates, media and onlookers, and the Republican nominee for President of the United States was going to take the stage in two hours, only about fifty feet from these women. 

Davis, a political science major who works in the state legislature, even had a leadership position within the delegation. She was the “whip,” and on the very last night of the RNC she was pacing the aisle wearing her appointed greenish neon hat over a sleeveless black dress. Part of the whip job is not to respond to the press but to direct inquiries to other delegates. 

“I can’t talk to you right now, but I can find someone who can, what do you need?” she asked firmly, but politely. I later found a snarky retweet comment on Davis’ Twitter feed that reads: “Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.” I regret not having been able to converse with her more. 

The California folks were on their feet clapping, stomping, whooping it up, and otherwise showing outsized support for whoever it was speaking on the main stage--it didn’t seem to matter. Their rambunctious nature reminded me of a European soccer game, where the fans stand for the entire game. Up, down, and up again. 

This group of California Republicans is lively, and at times it has been unruly. When Sen. Ted Cruz failed to endorse Donald Trump in his lengthy floor speech, they let him have it with a loud chorus of boos. 

Davis finally found Chiara, a senior majoring in economics and political science. Shewas sitting around the third row center in the sprawling California delegation. It’s a prized location. If this had been a concert Chiara’s seat would be among the highest priced tickets. 

Davis moved her arms to signal to Chiara that she was wanted by the media and pointed to me standing in the aisle. The crowd sounds were deafening. Chiara wiggled past other delegates. Space is tight as chairs had been set closer together other yielding minimal leg room for delegates. Chiara recently ran unopposed in this year’s June assembly primary in California’s 15^th district, so following the Top Two rules she will go up against unopposed Democratic incumbent Tony Thurmond in the November election. 

Chiara previously expressed her opinions on feminism and marginalized Republican students at Cal through the op-ed pages of the Daily Californian. In one article she wrote, “As a 22-year-old female Republican UC Berkeley student, I am consistently trivialized for my beliefs, dismissed and marginalized by my own communities — students, women, young people, Bay Area residents.” She also wrote about feeling shut down in what arguably should be one of the free-est and most open academic environments in America. “On campus, my beliefs are fodder for mockery by both professors and students alike, and, rather than engage in debate with me, I am instead dismissed without any inquiry into the validity of my positions.” Tough stuff. 

As she approached I wanted to ask her about being politically isolated in Berkeley, especially since most observers might expect Cal to be open both politically intellectually. Born in New Jersey and raised in Redondo Beach in Southern California, Chiara came to Cal in 2013. At 22, she was the youngest California delegate. 

At first, she seemed surprised that someone from Berkeley wanted to interview her. “No, I’m not familiar with the paper,” she said. 

I told her I read a piece she wrote in the Daily Cal and sympathized with feelings she expressed about having her political views shut down by professors and fellow students. “UC Berkeley prides itself on being part of the Free Speech Movement, but that it is not representative of the campus now.. I feel like there should be a place to discuss [dissenting] opinions.” 

And what do you think of the convention, I asked. 

“I love it. I am so fortunate to be the youngest delegate for California.” she said. 

“We are the biggest delegation,” she says taking a long breath as she looks out over the small sea of California Republicans—the 15^th C.D. , she lamented in one of her op-eds, is only 7% GOP— “and there’s 100% pledged delegates for Trump here.” 

"How is it you find yourself here supporting Trump?" I asked. 

“It’s very surreal, at such a young age to participate at this grassroots level,” she repeated. having probably been reminded often by other delegates. “I’m in the College Republicans so that’s one way I got involved. ” 

She is pro-choice and supports gay marriage. Trump does too she says. 

She says she harbors few regrets and would still come to Berkeley if she had it to do all over. Back at Berkeley “I’m not talking anyone into changing their mind, I’m just asking them to be open to new voices.” She seems to believe Trump is one of those new voices. 

My earliest political memory is watching the 1952 Republican convention on the little round ten-inch screen of my family’s almost-brand-new television set on one of those hot humid St. Louis summer nights. That’s right, I’m so old I can remember both pre-TV and pre-AC—though not that well any more.

My recollection is that the hot issue on that hot night was Taft v. Eisenhower. I recall that my grandfather, a one-time finance guy who never got another job after “The Crash”, was for Taft, and everyone else was cheering for Eisenhower. My mother would later claim that she’d never been anything but a Democrat, but I don’t remember a word about Adlai Stevenson being uttered then.

My father, however, was a Republican of sorts, an Eisenhower Republican to be sure, who welcomed the opening that Ike provided in the closed world of the Taft types who dominated his party until then. That identity was consistent with his class interests as an up-and-coming middle manager in a big corporation, in the 50s bubble where all was right with the world for people like him.

When his employers moved us all to California in 1953, he voted cheerfully for the kind of moderate California Republicans epitomized by Governor Earl Warren and Senator Thomas Kuchel. But as the party turned meaner under the influence of people like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, he took up voting for Democrats in almost every election. My mother, however, insisted that he maintain his party registration through the 60s and 70s so she could fire off outraged telegrams over his signature as “Lifelong Republican”.

Neither of their long lives was long enough to require them to watch what passed this week for a Republican convention, for which I’m grateful. As I watched it on my desktop computer screen not much bigger than our 1952 TV, I felt like a space traveler who’d unexpectedly landed on Mars.

My husband’s grandfather, born in 1869, was one of the really real Republicans, an early inheritor of the party formerly known as the party of Lincoln, son of an Ohio Quaker woman whose obituary described her as “a lady abolitionist and classical scholar”. The racist Nixon/Goldwater “Southern Strategy” disgusted him and people like him and like my father, but the Republicans (formerly known as the Grand Old Party) managed to maintain a façade of quasi-civility since then, even (I can’t believe I’m saying this) during the regimes of Bush I and Bush II.

No more.

The Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle, corporate inheritor of what used to be the Republican house organ, the old Examiner, used this jump headline for their convention story: “Clinton Crudely Reviled”. Exactly.

Whatever happened to the respectable Republicans of my childhood? Who are these aliens?  

 

(And of course I use the word “alien” in the sci-fi sense, not in Trumpish derogation of foreigners.) 

Even more than like a space traveler, I feel like a time traveler as I watch the Republican convention faithful in their vulgar display of rancor against the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.  

“Vulgar”—now there’s an old-fashioned word, one much used by my grandmother but seldom invoked these days. It comes from the Latin “vulgus”, meaning the common people, though in its current usage it’s an unfair slur on the common folk. 

But as I watch the scene from Quicken Loans Arena (now there’s a crude name!) I think of another arena, the Roman Colosseum, where the populace enjoyed watching Christians being fed to lions and gladiators killing each other. It’s no coincidence that Lying Donald is a pro wrestling fan.  

Or for another historic snapshot, how about an auto-da-fé, a popular entertainment where the public cheered as heretics were burned at the stake? Or public hangings in medieval England? Or lynchings in the American South, right up through the 20^th century?  

Events like these have always had their fans. But what’s happened, I think, is that modern technology, starting with television, and extending now through the whole breathtaking range of anti-social media, has brought ugly spectacles like these back into the forefront of public life.  

(This week there was a bit of a flap about someone banned from Twitter because he orchestrated a Twitted attack on an African-American actress. Here’s a little tip: the First Amendment covers government regulation of speech, not decisions by private media that some expressions of opinion are too gross to facilitate. That’s why not all emails to the Planet are automatically posted.) 

I’m not a watcher of reality TV—in fact I don’t even own a TV anymore. But I gather much of television has devolved into a competition to see who can behave the worst. This year disgusting reality shows seem to have been transmogrified into the electoral process, including the debates which fueled the Republican primaries. Many regular Republicans, even those like John Kasich and Ted Cruz with whom I might disagree on almost everything, seem finally to have figured it out and distanced themselves from the results, though too late.  

But here’s the thing: what the convention’s shrieking delegates reflect is genuinely profound unhappiness with the status quo—and what with the widening gap between rich and poor, they have a point. It’s just that wearing funny hats and screaming insults won’t fix things. 

This is not new. A Roman satirist proposed a cure for an unhappy populace: Instead of changing things to serve the people better, distract them with bread and circuses. And that’s precisely what the Notorious DJT has always excelled at: circuses, with perhaps a little bread on the side. More precisely, he’s offering a side of what we’re now calling “red meat,” in the form of hysterical attacks on his opponent from the podium accompanied by antiphonal chanting of threats (“lock her up”!) by the audience.  

Will his strategy work? Well, it worked a while for Mussolini, for Hitler, for Stalin, for Franco, for Peron, for Marcos…the list of those who tried it in the last century is long, and many succeeded, at least at first.  

Most of the examples I can think of in the modern world eventually went down in flames, but there were some hard times before that happened. Will it work again? This is not reality TV, this is just plain old reality and our season’s almost up—we’ll find out in November.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Berkeley: City Council gives developer $13 million break ...East Bay Times Berkeley will give hotel project a $13 million tax break ...San Francisco Business Times (blog)

Anyone who's annoyed that the National Nurses United are still dissing Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia this morning might like to give them a call:

Contact: Michael Lighty, 510-772-8384 or Charles Idelson, 510-273-2246/415-559-8991

I recently considered taking the AC Transit 1R Rapid Bus from my home near Telegraph in Berkeley to the Registrar of Voters office by Lake Merritt in Oakland. When I went online to check the schedule, I was surprised to find that the 1R wasn't listed.Here is what I found on the transit.wiki website: 

"AC Transit 1R This route has been discontinued. Canceled due to BRT construction. AC Transit 1 provides local service along the corridor between San Leandro and Oakland. AC Transit 6 provides local service between Oakland and Berkeley." 

My understanding is that this is a permanent change caused by BRT, and not just an inconvenience during the construction project. 

AC TRANSIT BROKE THE 1 IN HALF AND GOT RID OF RAPID BUSES 

So now, with the coming of BRT, instead of an express bus that ran from San Leandro to Berkeley and back, riders will have to transfer between the non-express 6 and the non-express 1. 

When I predicted that the small speed increase of BRT wasn't worth the massive cost and environmental damage, it didn't even occur to me that BRT would make bus service slower. 

Now AC Transit is spending $174 million on a project to slow down bus service. That money could have put solar panels on the roofs of thousands of homes and actually helped the environment. 

IF FASTER IS BETTER, SLOWER MUST BE WORSE 

According to AC Transit's arguments that slightly faster bus service would get drivers out of their cars, much slower bus service will presumably get people off the bus and into their cars. 

And people called me an anti-environmentalist!

What are the steps we can take to ensure physical and emotional safety for our government officials here and elsewhere in the world? Thanks to technology and media whatever investigations go on here send a message to the whole world. Nothing is top secret any more. 

We are trying to understand the causes of the Benghazi attack which took the lives of our ambassador and other officials but I wonder if we are taking measures to make sure that such vulnerability is never repeated. 

The discussion I hear on TV focuses on placing blame. I don't hear discussion of ways of securing the safety of our officers in unstable countries at unstable times. It seems absurd to me that after two years of investigation by members of Congress we did not learn anything about how to avoid such danger for our diplomats in the future.  

In my view, the long-term method is to understand the situation of other cultures and to show great respect for the good people in each culture. Hatred will not improve the world but networks of good people can

If Trump builds a wall I hope it has lots of doors as I want out.

If you just beamed onto planet earth, you probably were shocked to learn that New Yorker Donald Trump, a celebrity entrepreneur, is the Republican presidential nominee. Here’s what you need to know about him. 

Trump is an ultra-nationalist. To a degree not seen since GOP candidate Barry Goldwater, Trump touts nationalism. One of his campaign themes is “America First,” last used by isolationists in the run-up to WWII. 

Trump’s nationalism has five parts. First, he lauds the military and claims Obama has weakened it – he hasn’t; Trump plans to spend an unspecified amount to strengthen it. Second, Trump claims that Obama and Hillary Clinton have humiliated America – he touts Benghazi as one example of this. Third, Trump preaches a form of economic isolationism, where the US would leave trade partnerships such as NAFTA, and impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico. (Trump has also mused about leaving defense partnerships, such as NATO). 

Fourth, Trump is against immigration. He plans “to build a great, great wall on our southern border” and “have Mexico pay for the wall.” Further, Trump has called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Fifth, coupled with his anti-immigration stance, Trump has flirted with overt racism. He’s routinely re-tweeted tweets of white supremacists and suggested that President Obama has Muslim sympathies. 

Another of Trump’s campaign themes is “Law and Order;” resurrected from Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign. Trump acknowledged this connection: “I think what Nixon understood is that when the world is falling apart, people want a strong leader whose highest priority is protecting America first. The ’60s were bad, really bad. And it’s really bad now. Americans feel like it’s chaos again.” “I am the Law and Order candidate.” 

Trump is an independent running as a Republican. For the GOP, Trump is the ultimate alien invader. As recently as 2009, Trump was a Democrat. In 2012 he reregistered as a Republican and, beginning in 2015, managed to convince GOP primary voters that he was one of them. Trump accomplished this by campaigning as the ultimate outsider, promising to self-finance his campaign – a promise that he dropped, once he secured the GOP nomination. Trump has tacitly accepted the social conservative bias of the Republican base – he was once pro-choice but now, like most Republicans, is pro-life. 

Trump has adopted many mainstream GOP policies. He promises to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a “marketplace alternative.” He also promises to cut taxes, reduce the Federal deficit, and protect Social Security. (These claims are contradictory.) He promises to “renegotiate” the Iran agreement signed with China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States – even though this would require agreement with our allies. 

Nonetheless, Trump has not secured the endorsement of many prominent Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz, Governor John Kasich, and the Bush family. 

Trump is a loose cannon. Writing in the New Yorker, Adam Gopnik proclaimed: “Trump is unstable, a liar, narcissistic, contemptuous of the basic norms of political life, and deeply embedded among the most paranoid and irrational of conspiracy theorists.” 

Trump will say and do anything to win. The non-partisan website, Poltifact, rated him as the least truthful of all the 2016 presidential candidates; more than half of all his statements are false. Almost every news cycle features Trump uttering a blatant falsehood; on the convention’s first day he told Fox News that Black Lives Matter of “calling death to the police.” His convention speech was dotted with lies: “[Obama] has used the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color.” “[Hillary Clinton] wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment.” “America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world.” (More fact checking from the Washington Post.) 

It’s not only that Trump lies with shocking regularity but also that many of his sources of information are questionable: for example, white supremacist and conspiracy theory websites -- Alternet had counted 58 Trump conspiracy theories. 

It’s well known in New York business circles that Trump will carry a grudge indefinitely. And when caught in a mistake, Trump will not back down; he will instead change the subject. Famously, he never apologizes. 

Trump is a threat to democracy. It’s one thing to be a political outsider; electing an outsider might be good if it meant injecting fresh ideas into US politics. 

But Trump is not outsider but rather the consummate capitalist insider who has clawed his way to fame and fortune. Trump has navigated the blackest depths of American capitalism and by lying and bullying – doing anything to win – has secured the Republican nomination. Trump represents a form of social cancer that threatens to destroy US democracy. 

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

“Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger.” 

-William J. Perry 

U.S. Sec. Of Defense (1994-97) 

Perry has been an inside player in the business of nuclear weapons for over 60 years and his book, “My Journey at the Nuclear Brink,” is a sober read. It is also a powerful counterpoint to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) current European strategy that envisions nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war: “Their [nuclear weapons] role is to prevent major war, not to wage wars,” argues the Alliance’s magazine, NATO Review. 

But, as Perry points out, it is only by chance that the world has avoided a nuclear war—sometimes by nothing more than dumb luck—and, rather than enhancing our security, nukes “now endanger it.” 

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis is generally represented as a dangerous standoff resolved by sober diplomacy. In fact, it was a single man—Russian submarine commander Vasili Arkhipov—who countermanded orders to launch a nuclear torpedo at an American destroyer that could have set off a full-scale nuclear exchange between the USSR and the U.S. 

There were numerous other incidents that brought the world to the brink. On a quiet morning in November 1979, a NORAD computer reported a full-scale Russian sneak attack with land and sea-based missiles, which led to scrambling U.S. bombers and alerting U.S. missile silos to prepare to launch. There was no attack, just an errant test tape. 

Lest anyone think the Nov. 9 incident was an anomaly, a little more than six months later NORAD computers announced that Soviet submarines had launched 220 missiles at the U.S.—this time the cause was a defective chip that cost 49 cents—again resulting in scrambling interceptors and putting the silos on alert. 

But don’t these examples prove that accidental nuclear war is unlikely? That conclusion is a dangerous illusion, argues Perry, because the price of being mistaken is so high and because the world is a more dangerous place than it was in 1980. 

It is 71 years since atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and humanity’s memory of those events has dimmed. But even were the entire world to read John Hersey’s Hiroshima, it would have little idea of what we face today. 

The bombs that obliterated those cities were tiny by today’s standards, and comparing “Fat Man” and “Little Boy”—the incongruous names of the weapons that leveled both cities—to modern weapons stretches any analogy beyond the breaking point. If the Hiroshima bomb represented approximately 27 freight cars filled with TNT, a one-megaton warhead would require a train 300 miles long. 

Each Russian RS-20V Voevoda intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) packs 10 megatons. 

What has made today’s world more dangerous, however, is not just advances in the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but a series of actions by the last three U.S. administrations. 

First was the decision by President Bill Clinton to abrogate a 1990 agreement with the Soviet Union not to push NATO further east after the reunification of Germany or to recruit former members of the defunct Warsaw Pact. 

NATO has also reneged on a 1997 pledge not to install “permanent” and “significant” military forces in former Warsaw Pact countries. This month NATO decided to deploy four battalions on, or near, the Russian border, arguing that since the units will be rotated they are not “permanent” and are not large enough to be “significant.” It is a linguistic slight of hand that does not amuse Moscow. 

Second was the 1999 U.S.-NATO intervention in the Yugoslav civil war and the forcible dismemberment of Serbia. It is somewhat ironic that Russia is currently accused of using force to “redraw borders in Europe” by annexing the Crimea, which is exactly what NATO did to create Kosovo. The U.S. subsequently built Camp Bond Steel, Washington’s largest base in the Balkans. 

Third was President George W, Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the decision by the Obama administration to deploy anti-missile systems in Romania and Poland, as well as Japan and South Korea. 

Last is the decision by the White House to spend upwards of $1 trillion upgrading its nuclear weapons arsenal, which includes building bombs with smaller yields, a move that many critics argue blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. 

The Yugoslav War and NATO’s move east convinced Moscow that the Alliance was surrounding Russia with potential adversaries, and the deployment of anti-missile systems (ABM)—supposedly aimed at Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons—was seen as a threat to the Russian’s nuclear missile force.  

One immediate effect of ABMs was to chill the possibility of further cuts in the number of nuclear weapons. When Obama proposed another round of warhead reductions, the Russians turned it down cold, citing the anti-missile systems as the reason. “How can we take seriously this idea about cuts in strategic nuclear potential while the United States is developing its capabilities to intercept Russian missiles?” asked Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. 

When the U.S. helped engineer the 2014 coup against the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, it ignited the current crisis that has led to several dangerous incidents between Russian and NATO forces—at last count, according to the European Leadership Network, more than 60. Several large war games were also held on Moscow’s borders. Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev went so far as to accuse NATO of “preparations for switching from a cold war to a hot war.” 

In response, the Russians have also held war games involving up to 80,000 troops. 

It is unlikely that NATO intends to attack Russia, but the power differential between the U.S. and Russia is so great—a “colossal asymmetry,” Dmitri Trenin, head of the Carnegie Moscow Center, told the Financial Times—that the Russians have abandoned their “no first use” of nuclear weapons pledge. 

It the lack of clear lines that make the current situation so fraught with danger. While the Russians have said they would consider using small, tactical nukes if “the very existence of the state” was threatened by an attack, NATO is being deliberately opaque about its possible tripwires. According to NATO Review, nuclear “exercises should involve not only nuclear weapons states…but other non-nuclear allies,” and “to put the burden of the doubt on potential adversaries, exercises should not point at any specific nuclear thresholds.” 

In short, keep the Russians guessing. The immediate problem with such a strategy is: what if Moscow guesses wrong? 

That won’t be hard to do. The U.S. is developing a long-range cruise missile—as are the Russians—that can be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. But how will an adversary know which is which? And given the old rule in nuclear warfare—use ‘em, or lose ‘em—uncertainty is the last thing one wants to engender in a nuclear-armed foe. 

Indeed, the idea of no “specific nuclear thresholds” is one of the most extraordinarily dangerous and destabilizing concepts to come along since the invention of nuclear weapons. 

There is no evidence that Russia contemplates an attack on the Baltic states or countries like Poland, and, given the enormous power of the U.S., such an undertaking would court national suicide. 

Moscow’s “aggression” against Georgia and Ukraine was provoked. Georgia attacked Russia, not vice versa, and the Ukraine coup torpedoed a peace deal negotiated by the European Union, the U.S., and Russia. Imagine Washington’s view of a Moscow-supported coup in Mexico, followed by an influx of Russian weapons and trainers. 

In a memorandum to the recent NATO meetings in Warsaw, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity argued “There is not one scintilla of evidence of any Russian plan to annex Crimea before the coup in Kiev and coup leaders began talking about joining NATO. If senior NATO leaders continue to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between cause and effect, increasing tension is inevitable with potentially disastrous results.” 

The organization of former intelligence analysts also sharply condemned the NATO war games. “We shake our heads in disbelief when we see Western leaders seemingly oblivious to what it means to the Russians to witness exercises on a scale not seen since Hitler’s army launched ‘Unternehumen Barbarossa’ 75 years ago, leaving 25 million Soviet citizens dead.” 

While the NATO meetings in Warsaw agreed to continue economic sanctions aimed at Russia for another six months and to station four battalions of troops in Poland and the Baltic states— separate U.S. forces will be deployed in Bulgaria and Poland —there was an undercurrent of dissent. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called for deescalating the tensions with Russia and for considering Russian President Vladimir Putin a partner not an enemy. 

Greece was not alone. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeler called NATO maneuvers on the Russian border “warmongering” and “saber rattling.” French President Francois Hollande said Putin should be considered a “partner,” not a “threat,” and France tried to reduce the number of troops being deployed in the Baltic and Poland. Italy has been increasingly critical of the sanctions. 

Rather than recognizing the growing discomfort of a number of NATO allies and that beefing up forces on Russia’s borders might be destabilizing, U.S. Sec. of State John Kerry recently inked defense agreements with Georgia and Ukraine. 

After disappearing from the radar for several decades, nukes are back, and the decision to modernize the U.S. arsenal will almost certainly kick off a nuclear arms race with Russia and China. Russia is already replacing its current ICBM force with the more powerful and long range “Sarmat” ICBM, and China is loading its ICBM with multiple warheads. 

Add to this volatile mixture military maneuvers and a deliberately opaque policy in regards to the use of nuclear weapons, and it is no wonder that Perry thinks that the chances of some catastrophe is a growing possibility. 

 

---

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

 

 

 

 

 

I cringe at the thought of a president Donald Trump representing us at home and abroad. I am registered as an independent. While I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, I will vote for her in November. I figure a vote for a third-party candidate or not voting at all is really a vote for Trump. By voting for Clinton, I am really voting for the democratic platform, which is not perfect, but is, as Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA13) put it, "the most progressive Democratic Party platform in history,” unlike the republican one that looks backward. The progressive nature of the platform is due in large part to Bernie Sanders. 

I am appalled at the negativity of the republican convention, long on generalizations and platitudes but short on specific plans. But that has been true throughout Trump's campaign. I saw very little except "defend our freedoms" and "be faithful to the Constitution." I'm not sure which constitution they were talking about; it certainly didn't sound like ours.  

I would have expected attacks on Clinton but not so misogynistic. 

Ted Cruz's refusal to support Trump was the highlight of the convention for me. 

In sum, the republican convention was just more of Trump's divisive style and embrace of "white resentment politics," a time when discrimination and hate were not only accepted but celebrated. Let's look at the bigger picture, bite the bullet, and put Trump and Pence in the dust bin of history.

Life as a person with mental illness who doesn't live with parents or in institutional housing, and who isn't supervised, is more challenging than it was in the not so distant past. Economic conditions are harder, and we are seeing fissures and failures in the edifices of society.  

We see in the news that police are committing murder, and that others are murdering police. We see that there is massive turmoil in Europe. There is a madman running to become our President who has a very strong chance of being elected. We see numerous other signs of instability in the world. This is all very disturbing and this has an effect on mental health.  

It is harder than it was in the past for a person with a disability to survive. Society has changed, and more difficulties have come about. In the process of meeting our basic needs, which include housing, treatment, food, clothing, transportation, and so on, more obstacles have risen.  

Proceeding in life in an automatic or a haphazard manner will not work to survive with the challenges that exist for someone with mental illness living on their own. Thus, we have to figure out plans for what will work, and navigate accordingly. This is what must be done unless one lives in a supervised, institutional situation.  

The money I get from the government doesn't go as far, so what little there is of it has to be tracked and planned. Expenses must be anticipated. Spending must be done carefully if at all, so as not to overdraw a measly bank balance. The penalties for overdrawing a bank account, while for most people are an inconvenience, are, for a disabled person living on Social Security, a major threat to continuing to have basic needs paid for.  

Appointments, appointments, appointments. There are a lot of them. They must be written onto a calendar, and kept; or, if not, a call must be made.  

Pets must be cared for, fed, cleaned up after, and kept well--including taking them to see a veterinarian as needed.  

Prescriptions for psychiatric and other medications must be continually filled and refilled. Health must be monitored. Diet must be at least moderately healthy. Doctors must be seen. Psychotherapists must be seen.  

This is living as an adult, which, by my age, ought to be something I am used to. Yet it seems to be something that continually gets harder.  

Many mental health treatment practitioners, often younger than I, presume that I am not really an adult, and that I need to be taught basic skills. This is by virtue of being in the category of mental health "patient."  

It could be insulting when someone who doesn't know me but sees my name on a list of persons to call, presumes to be mentally superior, and assumes that I am a dummy because I have a mental health diagnosis. Yet, it is not a genuine insult.  

Housing for psychiatric consumers has always been an issue. Yet, now it has become a crisis. People who rely on Social Security are very fortunate if they can find a good housing situation, or any housing situation. Once housing is found, any issues with upkeep, neighbors, and property managers had better be addressed. 

In my situation, because I have an anxiety disorder that periodically kicks in, some of the time I have to stop what I'm doing and sit down at home, because of how uncomfortable the anxiety becomes.  

I practice meditation to deal with anxiety and cognitive techniques to deal with delusions. It is essential to remain one step ahead of the delusions, and this entails continuous vigilance. Medication, while indispensable, does only so much.  

I am married--and it takes work to maintain that relationship. From that I get companionship and an ally in life's battles.  

Because world events are disturbing, I have to compartmentalize. I am not yet directly affected by world and national events, but this could change. However, I have to minimize the amount that I become disturbed. I have begun tuning into less television and internet news, even though tracking the news is sometimes essential if I am to write relevant material.  

Keeping mentally balanced is a balancing act. When I find something in my environment has negatively affected me, I have to take time to remedy the mental damage. I do this through "editing" the thoughts, and through other methods.  

Things have become more challenging for me in the last couple of months. However, I find that the process of mobilizing to meet the challenges, paradoxically, has helped my mental health. I feel more grounded, and my thought processes seem more synced to those of most people. (This is not to say that I am asking for more problems.)  

Ironically, some of the people diagnosed as mentally ill are more sensible in many ways, compared to people at large. Yet, if we are doing well, we must guard our recovery against destabilizing influences.

"If by your art, my dearest father, you have/Put the wild waters in this roar, allay them./The sky, it seems, would pour down stinking pitch,/But that the sea, mounting to the welkin's cheeck,/Dashes the fire out." 

(From the Director's Notes: "The tempest rages, expressing Prospero's uncontrollable anger ... the tempest itself a dramatic invention, aimed to ignite action and unlock the vortex of human passion right from the start.") 

"Shakespeare's plays are always taken seriously," said Guilio Perrone, founder, stage director and designer of Inferno Theatre, which will be staging 'The Tempest' for free outdoors at Hinkel Park over the next three weekends. "But there's another side to his work we want to bring out--the theatricality, a sense of improvisation; how the actor makes the piece their own " 

Perrone was reflecting on the making of Inferno's production, their third free summer show in the amphitheater at Hinkel Park, and their first alone after two productions (Heinrich von Kleist's 'Penthesilea' and The Bard's 'King Lear'), both directed by Perrone, in collaboration with Actors Ensemble of Berkeley, which has just closed their free production of Beaumarchais' 'Marriage of Figaro' at Hinkel. 

"It's almost as if there're two different plays or more," he continued. "The play of Alonzo and his brothers [the usuper Duke of Milan, cast ashore by the shipwreck brewed up by exiled Duke and sorceror Prospero]; that of Caliban, Trinculo and Stephano, the clowns, right out of Commedia; and the play of [the romance between] Miranda [Prospero's daughter] and Ferdinand [Alonzo's son]. ... Different parts of society, and they don't all meet until the end. There's truth in every group. And there's much left unresolved when the Europeans leave, separating themselves from this island populated with spirits ... We want to concentrate on those different--very different--aspects of human relationships. Miranda and Caliban grew up together on the island; they have stories together. She's not a lady of the court! She has to discover the [European] world that she lost, find it through catharsis. Even Prospero renounces magic, becomes a politician again--but before renouncing it, he unfolds his magic on the island" 

And the magic: "Dark, black magic, always a possibility ... not just about the spell but about becoming something else, enjoyment of the element." 

Perrone, who studied Commedia Dell'Arte in his native Italy, designing and directing plays and opera, and worked at Pontedera with the Grotowski Center there, came to California years ago and has directed the renowned Dell'Arte School of Physical Theater at Blue Lake, near Eureka, before moving to the Bay Area, working as a freelance designer up and down the coast--and founding Inferno Theatre six years ago, staging his play 'Galileo's Daughters' at the Berkeley City Club. "We started almost underground. Within three years, we'd worked a lot in the community, founded our Diasporas Festival [running the last three years at South Berkeley Community Church, Inferno's home] with other performing arts companies and performers, and started staging free shows at Hinkel Park. This will be our first year doing that alone." 

He reflected on Shakespeare's plays--after 'lear,' this is the second he's ever directed--and the life his company has found of its own:"Shakespeare had a troupe; we'd like to recreate a little of that feeling of a troupe. We'll have worked together for two months; a real troupe takes years to grow. But we got into the spirit of the theatricality. And of the spirit of the island, which is pure invention, magic, what moves the story around. 

"It's like going back to childhood, creating with your imagination. Theater is an experience--and this experience should appeal to grown-ups and also to kids, to their sense of discovery. A new generation's sense of metamorphosis, how one thing can become another. That stories can change." 

Perrone's written in his Director's Notes about his commitment and that of his players in 'The Tempest' to "investigate the destiny of the theater as theatricality's pushed to the limits, requiring the audience to abandon themselves to the magic of the island and its inhabitants." 

'The Tempest,' with Simone Bloch, Thomas Busk, Andrea Ciandro, Valentina Emeri, Trevor Guyton, Karina McLoughlin, Fiona Melia, Benoît Monin, Michael needham, Jack Nicolaus, David James Silpa, Tenya Spillman, Emily Stone, Vicki Victoria, Ian Wilcox ... 

---

John Hinkel Park, Saturdays & Sundays, July 23 to August 7, 4 p. m. (amphitheater opens at 3 for picnicking), 47 Somerset Place off Arlington. Free. infernotheatre.org

The 36^th San Francisco Jewish Film Festival—"the world's first and largest Jewish film festival"—is set to screen 67 films from 15 countries before 35,000 filmgoers in five different Bay Area cities (SF, Oakland, Marin, Palo Alto and Berkeley) in 17 days (July 21-August 7). Shep Naches.

This year, the packed SFJFF calendar is bringing 30 films to Berkeley where they will screen at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre's Roda Theater.

"This year's Festival honors depth and complexity over formula and promotes an evolving definition of what constitutes Jewish film and media," says Jewish Film Institute Executive Director Lexi Leban. "We are proud to introduce new voices and emerging talent while honoring the contributions of iconic artists among us."

Ironically, SFJFF's two standout events have more to do with the TV Tube than the Big Screen. This year's SFJFF calendar includes a section devoted to "Televisionaries," including screenings of samplers from three episodic Israeli TV shows—False Flag, Shtisel, and The Writer.

The can't-miss screenings include a pair of documentaries profiling two of the tube's most iconic "televisionaries"—Norman Lear and Mr. Spock (memorably personified by the beloved Jewish actor, Leonard Nimroy).

For the Love of Spock, Adam Nimroy's "loving tribute" to his father, will have its West Coast Premiere at the Castro on July 31, with the director in attendance. There will be an added screening of the film in Berkeley on August 1 (See below for the full schedule of Berkeley screenings).

 

 

 

Freedom of Expression Award – Norman Lear
Since 2005, the SFJFF has presented its Freedom of Expression Award to honor "the unfettered imagination, which is a cornerstone of a free, just and open society." This year's award goes to television writer, producer and political activist Norman Lear in recognition of his "decades of work in television and political activism." Lear will be on-hand Sunday, July 24th at the Castro Theater in San Francisco to receive the Award. 

 

A live on-stage conversation with Lear, moderated by former SFJFF executive director Peter L. Stein, will follow a screening of Norman Lear: Just Another Version of You, Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing's chronicle of Lear's life, work and achievements. Ewing will also be in attendance. (There are additional screenings in Palo Alto and San Rafael but, inexplicably, not in Berkeley!) 

In the spirit of the Jewish value of Tikkun Olam," the organizers write, "SFJFF celebrates social justice filmmaking, and presents filmmakers and film subjects who are making a difference with their actions. 

The San Francisco screenings will be accompanied by a number of special events—including a daylong screening/discussions of social justice topics on July 29 and "an amazing food event connected to the screening of In Search of Israeli Cuisine"—an exclusive reception at Aaxte with the film's star, chef Solomonov. Several local chefs will collaborate on the creation of a special menu based on Solomonov's famed Zahav dishes. 

One SFJFF film that is tailor-made for the Berkeley crowd is being shown at the Piedmont Theatre in Oakland. Left on Purpose tells the story of Sixties activist Mayer Vishner, one of the critical cogs whose dogged, behind-the-scenes struggles helped power the Yippies and the antiwar Resistance. Vishner was part of the underground network that included counterculture heroes like Abbie Hoffman, Phil Ochs and John Lennon. Berkeley resident Judy Gumbo (also part of the Radical Renaissance of the 1960s) will be speaking with director Justin Schein at the film's California Premiere at the Castro on July 27 and again at a 2:25pm screening at the Piedmont Theatre on Saturday, August 6. "The film deals with some of the life and death issues that accompany the decline of any movement," Gumbo explains, "and it's had lots of amazing reviews." Take a look. 

 

The Berkeley Screenings 

July 29 

BENTWITCH SYNDROME  

Proceeded by SPRING CHICKEN
Friday 7/29, 11:50am
Documentary—Humorously examining Anglo-Jewish life of the 19th and 20th centuries, directors Gur Bentwich and Maya Kenig embark on a road trip to dissect the origins of their family. An array of aunts and cousins hold court, as well as the long-departed Bentwiches, who come to life through zany Monty Python-esque animations. 

ART AND HEART: THE WORLD OF ISAIAH SHEFFER  

Proceeded by MAKING MORNING STAR
Friday 7/29, 1:40pm
Documentary—Catherine Tambini's spirited documentary celebrates the life of Isaiah Sheffer, the founding artistic director of Symphony Space and host of Selected Shorts on public radio. Sheffer inspired everyone from Leonard Nimoy to Stephen Colbert. This intimate documentary by two Academy Award–nominated filmmakers relates the creation of Morning Star, a new opera by composer Ricky Ian Gordon. 

HOLY ZOO  

Proceeded by THE MUT'S HOUSE
Friday 7/29, 4:05pm
Documentary—In Jerusalem's Biblical Zoo, Israelis and Palestinians work alongside tending to the zoo's elephants, crocodiles and rhinos. Inevitably, tensions within and across animal species reflect themselves in the mostly good-natured, always edgy interactions between employees. Katharina Waisburd's keen eye gives us an unforgettable look into the current conflict in the Holy Land. 

NATASHA  

Friday 7/29, 6:25pm
Narrative—Writer David Bezmozgis adapts his acclaimed short story of forbidden love between two teenagers in the Toronto suburbs, highlighted by the extraordinary performance of newcomer Sasha K. Gordon as the sexually precocious girl with a dark past. 

FEVER AT DAWN  

Friday 7/29, 9:00pm
Narrative—A Swedish refugee camp doctor gives Holocaust survivor Miklós six months to live but the young man refuses to die before meeting the love of his life. He sends letters to 117 Hungarian women in sex-segregated camps throughout Sweden. Péter Gárdos's romantic drama, based upon his novel of his parents' post-Holocaust courtship creates indelible images of heartbreak and hope. 

 

July 30 

BABA JOON  

Saturday 7/30, 2:10pm 

Narrative—Israel's submission to the 2015 Oscars for Best Foreign Language Film, this poignant story about three generations in a family of Persian immigrants to Israel takes place in the early 1980s. 

 

IN SEARCH OF ISRAELI CUISINE  

Saturday 7/30,12:00pm 

Documentary—Michael Solomonov (​Zahav: A World of Israeli Cooking)​ explores a diverse cuisine drawn from numerous cultures. Chefs and farmers and prepare specialties that b​ oth preserve and update traditional recipes​. These i​rresistible dishes will make you hungry. 

(THE) SETTLERS  

Saturday 7/30, 4:15pm
Documentary—Award-winning Israeli filmmaker Shimon Dotan traces the hotly contested history of Israeli settlements in the West Bank since Israel's decisive victory in the 1967 Six Day War. 

 

(THE) LAST LAUGH  

Saturday 7/30, 7:10pm
Documentary—The Last Laugh​ explores the role of humor and its limitations in confronting tragic events, including the Holocaust—a journey across a comedic landscape marked by speed bumps, caution signs and potholes big enough to swallow a clown car. Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner and Sarah Silverman will leave you laughing and appreciating the importance of humor even in the face of events that make you want to cry. 

July 31 

MR GAGA  

Sunday, 7/31, 11:30am
Documentary—Inspiring, tough, charismatic, and prickly, rock star choreographer Ohad Naharin (Mr. Gaga) is the subject of this exciting documentary. Naharin invented his own playful style of movement called "Gaga" and returned to Israel to create some of the most provocative and physically demanding choreography of the 21st century. 

KOUDELKA SHOOTING HOLY LAND  

Proceeded by THE MAN WHO SHOT HOLLYWOOD
Sunday 7/31, 1:55pm
Documentary—Award-winning photographer Josef Koudelka captures how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed the landscape of the Holy Land. Koudelka is relentless in pursuit of his craft but increasingly dismayed at seeing a sacred land disfigured by walls, barricades and security checkpoints. 

WRESTLING JERUSALEM  

Sunday, 7/31, 3:55pm
Aaron Davidman gracefully embodies 17 characters grappling with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, moving deftly from male to female, Palestinian to Israeli, American to European as the film shifts from backstage live performance to the desert. 

FALSE FLAG  

Sunday, 7/31, 6:30pm
Narrative TV series—In False Flag, five Israeli citizens discover they are suspects in the kidnapping of the Iranian defense minister. The resulting news coverage turns their world upside down. 

WHO'S GONNA LOVE ME NOW  

Sunday, 7/31, 9:00pm
Documentary—In this honest and emotional documentary by Tomer and Barak Heymann (C​ lose Up: Heymann Brothers​, SFJFF 2008), Israeli expatriate Saar Maoz lives in London, where he's active in the London Gay Men's Chorus and struggling with HIV. When his Orthodox parents ask him to come back to Israel, Saar must decide where his future lies and how to make peace with his family as they struggle to accept his identity and his HIV status. 

August 1 

DISTURBING THE PEACE  

Monday, 8/1, 1:15pm
Documentary—Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters come together to form Combatants for Peace, a nonviolent group that uses dialogue, theater and art to try to end the Israel-Palestine conflict. ​Disturbing the Peace​ doesn't shy away from harsh realities and, somehow, still leaves you inspired. 

THERE ARE JEWS HERE  

Monday, 8/1, 3:40pm
Documentary—This quirky and poignant documentary examines the challenges of Jewish life in small-town America. Focusing on four tiny Jewish communities, the directors examine what happens to a congregation when there are scarcely enough Jews left to form a quorum for religious activities. 

(THE) WRITER  

Monday, 8/1, 6:15pm
Narrative TV Series—Critically acclaimed Israeli Arab author Sayed Kashua (writer of the hit TV series Arab Labor, SFJFF 2008–13), delivers a nuanced dramatic series about Kateb, a 40-year-old Israeli Arab writer. 

FOR THE LOVE OF SPOCK  

Monday, 8/1, 8:30pm 

Documentary —Leonard Nimoy, the man behind the pointy ears, left an indelible mark as an artist and as a mensch. Featuring clips from Nimoy's career and interviews with the Star Trek cast, director Adam Nimoy has crafted a loving tribute both to his father and also to the man we know as Spock. 

August 2 

STRIETS: MATZO AND AND THE AMERICAN DREAM (FREE)  

Tuesday, 8/2, 2:40pm
Documentary—Just as its iconic pink box has graced Passover seder tables for generations of American Jews, so, too, Streit's matzo factory has stood for some 80 years on the Lower East Side. This is all challenged by the need for modernity, the pressures of foreign competition and enticing real estate offers. 

 

GERMANS AND JEWS  

Tuesday 8/2, 4:40pm
Documentary—This thoughtful documentary ​is a subtle examination of the history of Germany's postwar Jewish population and of the fragile relations between Jews and non-Jews. Structured around a dinner party attended by Germans and Jews, the film negotiates sensitive questions of memory, guilt, identity and redemption. 

(THE) TENTH MAN  

Tuesday, 8/2, 6:30pm
Narrative—Daniel Burman's heartfelt romantic comedy centers on a man who returns to the place of his youth (the El Once Jewish district of Buenos Aires) and ultimately finds himself and a little love along the way. 

SAND STORM  

Tuesday, 8/2, 8:25pm
Narrative—When their entire lives shatter, two Bedouin women struggle to change the unchangeable rules, each in her own individual way. 

August 3 

SONG OF SONGS  

Wednesday, 8/3, 2:05pm
Narrative—Ukraine, 1905. Ten-year-old Shimek tells his darling Buzya fairy tales of the faraway, imprisoned Tsarevna, as their dreams of inhabiting a larger world beyond the shtetl blend with the first stirrings of young love. An inspired adaptation of the iconic stories from Sholem Aleichem's Tevye the Dairyman​ (the source for Fiddler on the Roof). 

RABIN IN HIS OWN WORDS  

Wednesday, 8/3, 4:15pm
Documentary—This examination of the life and times of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is constructed largely from archival footage, photographs and interviews, from Rabin's early days to his tragic death. Director Erez Laufer (​One Day After Peace​, SFJFF 2012) takes us from Rabin's childhood, through his experience fighting in three wars, to his assassination, and reminds us of the possibility for peace that remains for those who want it. 

(THE) PEOPLE VS FRITZ BAUER  

Wednesday, 8/3, 6:30pm 

Narrative—This film chronicles the dangers faced by a Jewish lawyer intent on bringing the infamous Nazi Adolf Eichmann to justice in a 1950s Germany whose government is intimately implicated in its country's recent crimes. 

FREEDOM TO MARRY  

Wednesday, 8/3, 8:45pm
Documentary—What's the definition of a mensch? Here's a two-word answer: Evan Wolfson. Founder of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry and the acknowledged "godfather" of the marriage equality movement, Wolfson's struggle to bring about justice for millions of gays and lesbians is the heart of this fascinating history. 

August 4 

A NEW COLOR: THE ART OF EDYTHE BOONE  

Proceeded by ARC OF JUSTICE
Thursday, 8/4, 1:50pm
Documentary—Bay Area artist and civil rights activist Edythe "Edy" Boone is a sprightly septuagenarian who seems only to gain energy over the years. Since she was a girl, this celebrated muralist has aspired "to develop a new color no one has seen in life." Her unflagging drive and determination are captured by Berkeley filmmaker Mo Morris. 

SHTISEL: SEASON 2  

Thursday, 8/4, 4:20pm
Narrative TV Series—Shtisel ​returns to SFJFF for Season 2! Follow Shulem and clan once again in this critical and commercial success as they navigate adolescence, engagement, siblings and death. 

A TALE OF LOVE AND DARKNESS  

Thursday, 8/4, 6:30pm
Narrative—Natalie Portman makes her directorial feature debut with an adaptation of Amos Oz's autobiographical novel A Tale of Love and Darkness. At its core, Amos's story is about his relationship with his tragic, complicated mother, portrayed by Portman. Determined to make the film in Hebrew, Portman took eight years to write the script and find funding. The result is a beautiful rendering of the bestseller. 

UNCLE HOWARD  

Thursday, 8/4, 8:45pm
Documentary—Filmmaker Howard Brookner epitomized the promise and talent of New York's vibrant independent film scene of the 1980s, but he has been largely forgotten since his death from AIDS at age 34. In a poignant act of documentary remembrance, Howard's nephew Aaron, who hero-worshiped his uncle as a child, goes on a treasure hunt through New York's counterculture to reconstruct Howard's unconventional life. 

For ticket information, please contact the box office at 415.621.0523 or visit the Jewish Film Institute online at www.jfi.org.  

On Friday evening, July 22, the San Francisco Symphony offered an all-Russian program at Davies Hall led by conductor Edwin Outwater, Music Director of the Symphony’s Summer concerts. On tap were the Festive Overture by Dimitri Shostakovich, the Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor by Sergei Rachmaninoff, and the Fourth Symphony in F minor by Piotr Tchaikovsky. Many Russians and Russian-Americans were noticeably in attendance for this concert. 

Shostakovich’s Festive Overture was commissioned in 1954 by Moscow’s Bolshoi Theatre to celebrate the 37^th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. Shostakovich, who had spent many years going in and out of favor with Soviet watchdogs, took this opportunity to compose a fairly light-hearted paean of praise to the Bolshevik Revolution. His Festive Overture, only six minutes long, opens with a portentous brass fanfare. Soon, however, the music becomes light and breezy, as a lyrical strain is developed, reminiscent of the comic opera music of, say, a Rossini. After a pizzicato section, this short piece races to a fortissimo climax that is similar to a Rossini crescendo. 

Next on the program was Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor, Opus 18, with pianist Natasha Paremsky as soloist. Paremsky, born in Russia but naturalized as a US citizen before the age of 11, has won numerous awards, including the Classical Recording Foundation’s Young Artist of the Year Award in 2010. Here, in Rachmaninoff’s 2^nd Piano Concerto, Paremsky began with the oft-repeated opening chords in the piano’s low register, which always remind me of the tolling of bells in a Russian Orthodox cathedral. (The deeply resonant bells of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sofia, Bulgaria, are indelibly printed in my audio memory.) After these opening chords, there is a brief melody heard in piano and violins. Then the strings combine with a clarinet to establish a simple but elegant melody. For once, Rachmaninoff, who usually gives the lead to the piano, allows the orchestra to establish a fertile give-and-take with the solo instrument. Soon, however, the piano strikes out on its own in the Grand Romantic manner. There is much turbulence in this movement, and the pianist is obliged to handle many difficult passages. Natasha Paremsky handled them adroitly. 

The second movement, an Adagio sostenuto, is one of my favorites among Rachmaninoff’s piano concertos. Its haunting melody is played first by piano and flute, then by piano and clarinet. There is something soft and poignant about this melody, and it is deeply moving. Natasha Paremsky was particularly expressive in this lovely Adagio. Again, there is give-and-take between orchestra and soloist here. A sudden scherzo erupts, which turns into a splashy cadenza for piano, until paired flutes return to the main melodic theme. As the third and final movement begins, a march is heard. It begins as a vigorous march but soon gives way to one of those lovely melodies Rachmaninoff seems to spin effortlessly. This wonderful theme is developed at length until it builds to a big fortissimo conclusion, bringing this concerto to a resounding close, rounded off in powerful fashion by Paremsky. As an encore, Paremsky played Rachmaninoff’s Étude Tableau, which she executed with panache. 

After intermission, conductor Edwin Outwater spoke to the audience and introduced one of the Symphony’s native Russians, second violinist David Chernyavsky, who spoke about growing up hearing Tchaikovsky’s music in St. Petersburg, then Leningrad. Chernyavsky called attention to the Russian folk song heard in the final movement of Tchaikovsky’s 4^th Symphony, which we were about to hear. This, he said, is a song, The Little Birch Tree, known by every Russian. He also recalled the first Tchaikovsky music he played as a child on violin, the Russian dance from Swan Lake, which he promptly played for us. Then, with no further ado, conductor Edwin Outwater led the orchestra in Tchaikovsky’s 4^th Symphony. 

The opening bars of Tchaikovsky’s 4^th Symphony have been likened to the opening bars of Beethoven’s 5^th Symphony. In both cases, scholars have noticed, the theme of fate knocking at the door is introduced at the outset. However, there is a difference. As one Russian wag put it, whereas Beethoven resigns himself to Fate and devotes the whole of his 5^th Symphony to embracing Fate, Tchaikovsky hears Fate knocking at the door at the beginning of his 4^th Symphony and immediately runs for the windows seeking any possible way to escape Fate.  

Fate, for Tchaikovsky, seems to have been construed in terms of his own problematic homosexuality, which he tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to keep hidden. He also tried, also unsuccessfully, to go straight, rushing into marriage with a former pupil, Antonina Ivanovna Miliukova, who wrote him a letter expressing her crush on him. Unable to handle this switch, Tchaikovsky fled in sexual panic and never con-summated his marriage, though he never lived with his wife but never divorced her. Some of this trauma is present in Tchaikovsky’s 4^th Symphony, where the theme of Fate not only opens the work but also returns at the end to strike a negative note. In between, there is some fine interplay heard in the reeds, with flute, oboe and clarinet. There is also extended pizzicato development. However, in the fourth and final movement, a bombastic fanfare opens the proceedings, which only become ever more bombastic, with Tchaikovsky’s characteristic repeated clashing of cymbals leading the way to ultimate perdition, as the Fate motif is reintroduced to give the whole symphony a decidedly negative cast. Under Edwin Outwater’s direction, this was about as good a reading of this fairly depressing work as one might hear; but it is simply never going to be one of my favorite orchestral works.