Back on page A17 in the April 10, 2022 edition of the East Bay Times under the header of Economic Divide is “California’s shrinking population could result in big consequences”. Further down into the article is the quote from Public Policy Institute of California (a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank) demographer Hans Johnson’s new analysis:

“California appears to be on the verge of a new demographic era, one in which population declines characterize the state…Lower levels of international migration, declining birth rates, and increases in deaths all play a role. But the primary driver of the state’s population loss over the past couple years has been the result of California residents moving to other states…The state’s high cost of living, driven almost solely by comparatively high housing costs, remains an ongoing public policy challenge – one that needs resolution if the state is to be a place of opportunity for all of its residents.”

A shortage of housing and the command to build is what is heard over and over. How much housing is needed starts with projections from the California Department of Finance, which are turned over to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) office, which in turn are divvied up to regional and local areas. For the Bay Area it’s the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, of which Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is President) that assigned Berkeley to provide 8934 new units. And that is broken down further according to housing needs. 2446 units (27%) are to be for extremely low and very low-income households, 1408 units (16%) for low income households, 1416 units (16%) for moderate income households and 3664 units (41%) for above moderate income households, also known as market rate, whatever a landlord chooses to charge for rent. 

The high cost of housing in Berkeley is real, and it often elicits the phrase “I can’t afford (or my child can’t afford) to live in Berkeley.” And it is repeated as if there is no other place to live. One thing the pandemic has demonstrated is that there are jobs that can be done from anywhere, and if that is the case there are options. Here is one listed last Monday that I know of because I stayed there pre-pandemic on a trip; 5 bedroom, 4 bath, 2684 square feet, in perfect move-in condition on 0.28 acres, one block from a nature reserve, in an excellent public school district with student diversity that can be easily seen in class pictures. It’s in a Chicago suburb, listed for $475,000. 

A house like that isn’t Berkeley. Berkeley is where the Community Advisory Group invested nearly two years to develop a joint vision and priorities for the transit oriented mixed-use, multi-unit housing projects sited for the BART Ashby and North Berkeley parking lots. Their vision would be larger 7-story buildings toward Ashby and Adeline and the Ohlone Greenway with stepdown buildings toward the neighborhoods. A taller 12 story complex was included as an alternative (alternatives are required in the Environmental Impact Report). The 12 story alternative was rejected by the City planning department staff because it did not include the project design and development standards, program priorities and open space elements. 

Not everyone is convinced that the Department of Finance has got the numbers right when it comes to the amount of needed housing. That was the subject of the press release of the California State Auditor’s Report published in the April 3^rd edition of the Planet. 

Banners advertising vacant units in the downtown never seem to come down. Elana Auerbach summed it up in her letter to the Planning Commission. According to the 2020 Census, Berkeley has a 9% vacancy rate with 4700 vacant units. That fits the assertion that it is not housing that is needed, it housing that people can afford in the broader context, not just affordable housing as defined by HUD, though that is sorely needed too. 

The long-awaited public hearing at the Planning Commission on the two BART projects was Wednesday April 6^th. 

The response to the projects fell into two camps, and each had its own sample letter which was copied and sent over and over. The talking points were repeated at the public hearing. 

Neighbors of the North Berkeley BART Station and the North Berkeley BART Neighbors Association requested a maximum of 7 stories (the minimum number of stories set by BART) and for maximizing affordable housing. South Berkeley was less vocal, but made their desire for affordable housing clear as their highest priority. The neighborhood seven story request was the same as the City recommendation. 

The YIMBYs and others in the build-tall crowd pushed the minimum of 12 stories with recommendation for going higher, with denser taller housing touted as the answer to climate change. There was a social media campaign directed both at Berkeley residents and those who didn’t live here but wished they did, asking them to show up online at the Planning Commission, which a number did. 

The neighbors asked for a complex that was in scale for the neighborhood of single-family homes. The build-tall crowd countered that it was the residential neighborhood that was out of scale, not their desired 12 story tower as the minimum height. 

After public comment closed, Commission Chair Elisa Mikiten called for a round of general comments to begin the conversation, but conversation and general comment were not on the mind of Ben Gould, there that night as the substitute commissioner for Councilmember Terry Taplin, District 2. Gould jumped quickly to move the YIMBY-backed 12-story alternative over the City staff recommended 7-story maximum. Chair Mikiten tried to bring the recommended number back, pointing out that developers could apply for a density bonus that could bring a 7 story plan to 12 and a 12`story to 18 stories. The YIMBYs won for 12 stories and higher with a 5 to 4 vote.  

The next evening the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) established a right-of-return preference policy for new affordable housing created via the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs. Even though Blacks have suffered displacement disproportionally in Berkeley, meeting discussion included the information that legally the right of return cannot be race-based, and therefore needed criteria independent of race. The HAC approved the following criteria for right of return policy. Displacement due to eminent domain for BART construction was the first (highest) priority, with a separate lottery. That was followed by a preference of one point given for each of the following conditions: displacement from Berkeley due to foreclosure since 2005, families with children, homeless or at risk of homelessness, ties to redlined areas, historical ties to redlined areas and displaced from Berkeley due to eviction within the past seven years. 

The next step is scheduled for May 31^st when City Council will consider the Planning Commission outcome. Hopefully the policy recommendation from the HAC will be considered the same evening. 

At the WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority) meeting on Thursday afternoon, the Board voted to “receive” (not accept) the Berkeley Ferry Service Plan. After reading the documents and attending the meeting, I have some takeaways from the Ferry Pier business plan and ferry service in general. WETA and the ferry service cannot survive without substantial subsidies. 

 

The recent WETA current ridership survey found ticket price was a very important factor for 59% of respondents in choosing the ferry. It was the pandemic additional subsidies to fares, which made the ferry less costly and competitive with BART, less costly than TransBay bus and driving, which brought these riders to the ferry. From survey comments it appears that if fares returned to pre-pandemic levels, which still don’t come close to covering operational costs (WETA’s minimum is for fares to cover 40% of operating cost), riders would return to other modes of transportation. 

From reviewing the WETA balance sheet of actual revenue and expenses, fares so far this year contribute 15.4% to covering operating costs. The Board voted to continue the pandemic reduced fares which were due to expire in June 2022 for another year. 

It is important to remember that the WETA ferry service between Berkeley and San Francisco was presented as the way to pay for a new / replacement pier. Berkeley would pick up the cost of extending the new pier for recreational use beyond what was needed for ferry service. That cost was portrayed as minor given all the proposed activity and revenue that would come with the ferry. 

The Berkeley Ferry Service Plan paints a different picture, one that includes determining a permanent source to subsidize ferry service not just the capital expenditures to build the infrastructure and purchase the ferries. The Berkeley share of capital costs is described with the nebulous phrase “…costs borne by WETA and the City of Berkeley will be determined at a future date…”  

The Berkeley Ferry Service Plan states, “It is not expected that the City of Berkeley will subsidize operations of the ferry service from its General Fund. However, local (City) funding sources may also be established, similar to the funding provided by a local property tax charged for the Bay Farm Island service or a portion of Contra Costa County sales tax revenue for the Richmond service…One option could include a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) surcharge on hotel night stays in the Marina that would reinvest in the Berkeley waterfront and support maintenance of the pier and shared parking facilities.” 

It should be noted that the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission submitted a proposal in 2021 to City Council for the TOT surcharge to be allocated to the troubled Marina fund instead of the general fund. The City Manager and City Council opposed assigning the TOT collected at the Marina to the Marina. 

There were other troubling inclusions in the Service Plan. The catchment area for ridership is the one to two mile radius around terminals, which leaves Berkeley challenged for future ridership. It is one mile from the terminal to the freeway. The Service Plan assumes shuttle service will be required. WETA has no electric zero-emission vessels, no electric vessel experience and “reliable cost information for zero-emission vessels is limited”. 

The Berkeley Ferry Service Plan read like a document created to support decisions that have already been made. Everyone needs to recognize that ferry rider or not, residents of Berkeley will need to step up and add to other subsidies to keep the proposed Berkeley ferry service afloat once it starts. 

This week I finished Profit and Punishment: How America Criminalizes the Poor in the Name of Justice. The author Tony Messenger, columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, chronicles how the lives of poor are ruined because they are unable to pay fines, court fees for minor infractions. Punishment for nonpayment can lead to driver’s license suspensions and escalate into arrest warrants and languishing in jail because of inability to pay and make bail. Then, in some jurisdictions, the poor are charged room and board for each day in jail. All of it spirals into lost jobs, lost housing, forever debt and, of course, it impacts family and children. 

Messenger’s dogged reporting brought occasional relief to the punished and most important changes to he law. Messenger reminds us that legislative wins aren’t permanent (something we see with Roe vs Wade and the Supreme Court). A watchful eye must always continue as those fines and court fees were used to bolster salaries, retirement packages, expand law enforcement and pay for military policing equipment.  

At the Saturday Berkeley Neighborhoods Council online meeting Andy Johnson described the residential parking meter plan in residential zones as a solution in search of a problem. It seems the City plans to put parking meters in various residential neighborhoods haven’t gone away. And why would it when another consultant has been hired to head it up, and there is a company behind him to collect the management fees? The program is called Smart Space, and if you go to the website you can fill out the survey https://smartspace.goberkeley.info/. 

As I listened to the discussion, I wondered who would be most harmed by the plan and considered it was probably those on the lower rungs of the income ladder. 

I haven’t seen any estimates on how much the City expects to gain from residential parking fees and tickets and whether those estimates will cover the cost of the consultants and the parking management company that comes with the program. We can always search for it in the upcoming budget meetings. 

I wonder if the City Auditor will ever total up for us just how much the City of Berkeley spends on consultants. 

Finally, if we are going to squeeze the gardener, the housecleaner, the caregiver, the family visitor for parking fees in residential neighborhoods, can parking enforcement please ticket the illegally parked cars in the fire zones? 

 

v

According to the April 2022 report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc), the window for limiting global warming to relatively safe levels is rapidly closing. Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in international action will result in an unlivable and unsustainable future for us all.  

In order to meet the goals of The Paris Agreement to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels—and failing that, to below 2°C—will take immediate and unprecedented action from every country.  

In response to the climate crisis, at least 200 countries met at the COP26 U.N. Climate Summit in Glasgow from October 31, 2021 to November 12, 2021. Notably China and Russia were not represented at the summit. The largest delegation was fossil fuel lobbyists who like the world the way it is. The delegates reached a consensus that all nations must do much more, immediately, to reach decarbonisation to limit future global temperature rise to 2°C, but ideally to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels by 2030.  

The lofty rhetoric of world leaders at the summit did not include an agreement on concrete action. Lots of talk, too little concrete action. Or as environmental activist Greta Thunberg put it, the COP26 climate summit was a failure; it was “blah, blah, blah.”  

The next climate summit will take place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, on 7-18 November 2022. Unfortunately, the next summit will probably end like the last with much talk and too little progress. And the United States, the second largest carbon polluter after China, will probably again be unable to show by example much progress as the $1.75 trillion Budget Reconciliation bill, which includes the Build Back Better Act with all its climate provisions intact. This would have been a $555 billion framework to combat the climate crisis.  

We have the knowledge, money, technology and affordable clean energy that we need to cut our carbon emissions in half by 2030. That’s the good news from the IPCC. What needs to be done is dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and cut methane emissions by one-third. According to the report, what’s standing in the way of reaching this goal is the lack of political will and sufficient funding.  

The U.S. has a toxic partisan government primarily concerned with the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If the GOP wins a majority in either the House or the Senate or both in the midterm elections, then it is unlikely any significant action on climate change will happen during the remainder of Joe Biden’ s presidency and possible beyond. We can then look to the consequences of too little too late on climate change.  

 

Thanks to all who asked why the latest issue has not yet appeared. I was in L.A. for a family memorial gathering, without easy access to a computer, so I'm just getting around to posting the latest excellent contributions, later this afternoon, in a new issue.

A general concept of crime

When we consider crime, we generally think of actions taken by specific people (individuals or intentional groups) against certain targeted others (either for who they are, or for what they own). An action will be recognized as a crime by the injury it imposes on its target. That injury could be damage to one’s body, or a loss of possessions or money, or a total abrogation of one’s personal autonomy. Insofar as such an action occurs against one’s will, and against which one is unable to defend oneself, one is reduced to victim status. Crime is generally conceived in terms of a perpetrator-victim relation. When the perpetrator is an organization, then it can also occur in terms of social control, and may involve turf wars, such as struggles for control of rackets, drugs sales, gambling, the commodification of sex, etc.

Because we look to government to protect us against crime, we often ignore the ways that government actions fit its description. One way is the existence of “victimless crime laws.” They are laws that prohibit certain personal behaviors that produce no injurious effect on other people. Hence, there is no discernible victim. It is only the enforcement of such laws that produces a victim in the person of the defendant. It can lead to arrest and conviction, loss of autonomy, abrogation of self-defense, captivity in prison, etc. And the police have impunity in doing so. Since, for a victimless crime, there is no complainant, the police can play that role and say what they like about their victim. 

Another area is the prison system itself. Its purpose is to punish an injury done to others by doing something similar to the perpetrator. To respond to an act of violence (and all acts that produce a victim are acts of violence) with another act of violence is to engage in vengeance. Imprisonment is a system based on vengeance. To respond to injury through vengeance is to obviate justice, insofar as the avenging act is itself criminal. Vengeance (imprisonment) doubles social criminality and social violence; it does not eliminate it. And when government grants itself immunity from being considered criminal (in its acts of vengeance), it creates a special form of criminality, one in which the suffering and bereavement of its victims are wholly without recourse. 

It is precisely this immunity that has become a national scandal. When police actions injure or dispossess (through asset forfeiture) or kill a person, those acts fit our description of a crime. Should a motorist refuse a police command during a traffic stop, that motorist can be dragged from their car, thrown to the ground, beaten and arrested. The police power to do this is proven by the absence of any sanction against a cop who has done it. The enormous injustice attendant upon such police violence is tripled. Not only is violence done to a person, and not only are they deprived of their autonomy by law (which bars all self-defense against the police), but they are taken into custody (captivity) as immediate punishment for having been attacked and victimized. (The Sandra Bland case became famous in this respect.) 

Crime and surveillance technology

As private individuals, we act to forestall criminal activity against us. We lock the doors to our homes, and to our cars, among many other things. We try to pay our taxes, as well as our ever increasing fees for driver’s licenses, and we obey police commands that may nevertheless seem entirely unreasonable. If we manage to forestall crime by these means, then those who might intend to act criminally toward us face the necessity of planning ahead. “Second-story men” will case a house before robbing it. One investigates a person’s habits and daily pathways in order to plan where and when to attack them. 

With respect to the police, surveillance technology can play that role of "casing" a person’s habits. That is not far-fetched once we recognize that one purpose for the insistence on obedience to the police is precisely to create the opportunity to criminalize a person when they disobey. Disobedience to the police is one of those victimless crimes (mentioned above) that can be, and routinely is used to criminalize (victimize) a person. 

Surveillance data may sometimes make it easier to name a suspect for a crime already committed. But in the long run, the study of the daily habits of people is one of its unspoken purposes. Though government may say that its technology is for our protection, we know that is rhetoric. In collecting data about our social activities, it does not care who we are. Its use of that data remains unspoken. When it studies personal habits, whether to plan an attack or not, it is compiling a future-oriented store of knowledge. Its use will ultimately depend on decisions made by people we don’t know, in a future we do not envision, and against which we will have no defense. 

Civilian defense against the use of surveillance is a serious consideration. There are no doors to lock against its presence. Legal remedies against its abuse would have to be in place before the technology was installed. For us in the US, it is already too late for that. The US government, in association with others, such as NATO, have established a massive program to archive all electronic communications in the world. The project is called "Echelon." It records all phone conversations, emails, electronic writings, broadcasts, zoom meetings, and the data acquired by license plate readers, cameras in parks, surveillance equipment on commercial establishments, etc. 

Insofar as one’s conversations, associations on the street, habits of movement, stores frequented, etc., are known and compiled, a certain knowledge of each person is acquired. It is not knowledge about personality, or intentions, or one’s emotional life, except as recognized through its data. It has nothing to do with "who" we think we are; it draws an outline of "what" it thinks we are. It categorizes through a matrix of key words. Data is amassed by extraction from social behavior, used as threads to weave a fabric of institutional logic. Its product is something that power may someday use in the interest of social control. 

None of it may be of particular importance to the government at present, but it will be there in the future if policy changes call upon it. It is not its existence that would make it useful. It is its future political context that will make its existence useful. Insofar as it provides for actions by government toward us over which we have no control, it constitutes a loss of autonomy that crosses the line into the domain of crime and criminality. 

Berkeley’s crime problem

Recently, the police have been giving us warnings, complete with data, about our “crime problem.” The term “crime wave” gets used, and appears in City Council proposals for more surveillance technology. In the face of civil rights groups and social justice movements demanding alternative responses to non-criminal events, such as mental health situations, emotional trauma episodes, and domestic disputes, the police have shown that they do not want to relinquish control. Though people in personal crises do not benefit from a response by “men with guns,” which generally aggravates the situation, and while the movements argue that people undergoing emotional episodes are not criminals, and primarily need kindness and human caring, police opposition to such “special care units” composed of social workers remains strong. (In Portland, Ore., however, the use of such units has become a precedent, with significant success.) 

The police have started to modify (or sanitizing) their rhetoric, calling their power-preserving efforts “Problem-Oriented Policing,” instead of the “crime suppression unit.” They now propose “Flex-team” policing. And it has caused City Council to drag its feet with respect to funding the “Special Care Units.” 

Ironically, Problem-Oriented Policing proposes to begin by developing a Strategic Plan (see Berkeley city council April 2022 agendas). One might laugh if it did not so egregiously ignore its own history. To approach a person in crisis with a strategic plan in hand means to have decided what to do about the situation before arriving at it. In effect, it already throws the specificities of the person’s reality to the side. 

But “strategic plan” is used for rhetorical benefit. It relates to creating “a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.” "Prepared" is the strategic part; it means “pre-emptive.” The "connected" part has to do with the surveillance technology by which people in their daily lives will be transformed into a fabric of data (for future use). The term "safe" is the variable. Since we have been living through periods where the police have been shooting and killing people, primarily black and brown, the term "safe" has come to refer to police "safety," and not the idea of being "safe" from police violence and brutality. When the police approach people sitting in a car, and have their guns drawn, it is police safety they are thinking about. It was merely a year ago (here in Berkeley) that a police officer attempted to kill a homeless man who was suspected of having stolen a sandwich from a Walgreens. The cop chose to shoot him in the head. Though the man was standing still, 40 feet away, the cop’s militarism, his strategic plan, took control of him. 

Of course, not even the middle class taxpayers are "safe." Police killings and injuries have cost city governments millions of dollars in civil suits (e.g. for wrongful death). The police don’t pay the court awards. It is the city that must cover the cost of police violence. So the taxpayers ultimately pick up the tab. That award-money might replace the earning potential of the dead family member, but it would not replace the presence of the person, nor the warmth and joy that person may have brought to those he or she knew and associated with. 

We bemoan the civilian casualties in the Ukraine, but keep giving more money to a source of civilian casualties here in the US. The toll in 2015 was 1100 people shot to death in the US by the police. According to the Washington Post (2/9/22), the toll in 2021 was 1055 people killed. Both average out to around 3 per day. 

Nevertheless, the police attempt to be specific about the “crime wave” warning. They speak (ironically) about shootings. In 2021, in Berkeley, there were some 50 shootings. And put that way, it suggests a truly massive criminal presence, in which someone actually shot at someone else (the way the police do) in 50 cases. But all but 6 of these "shootings" were simply gun discharges, with no target or victim claimed. The police simply record that they found shell casings on the street in the morning. A person takes out his gun and shoots a few rounds into the air (as one man did in a store parking lot on San Pablo Ave. one day. No one was hurt.). It is perhaps like setting off a firecracker to express extreme frustration. Firing a gun is a lot more dangerous than setting off a firecracker. But it is not as dangerous as driving 40 mph down a city street. Neither firecrackers nor speeding drivers make it to the list of events that constitute the “crime wave.” 

Six of those "shootings," however, had targets. 5 were domestic, a man or woman attempting to terrorize an intimate friend into paying a different kind of attention. A couple of arms and legs received real wounds. The sixth incident was that of the cop shooting the hungry homeless man and trying to kill him. That was the only shooting incident that year that could be said to be demonstrably malicious. Nevertheless, whatever the Flex program turns out to be, it will be hard to resolve the problem of unknown shooters in the night; and even harder to deal with the tendency of lovers to resolve their conflicts with guns. 

In any event, the "Flex" program marks a nostalgia for the “war on drugs.” That was the program that made the US prison system the largest in the world, using victimless crime laws and a Supreme Court decision that raised police suspicion, as pure subjectivity, to the level of evidence (Terry vs. Ohio). In the process, urban police departments became the most powerful political forces in every city. 

The first aspect of the “war on drugs” was police involvement in drug trafficking. They called it undercover work, but it seriously amplified their income. Their arrest record revealed that the "war’s" target was drug users and not traffickers. As a war, it was doomed to failure; as a crime wave, however, it was doomed to success. It enabled the police to harass neighborhoods, to turn the dealers they knew into a free informer network, and gave racial profiling impunity. On the one hand, drugs stoned out politicized communities. On the other, it created a crime problem that police used to gain increased appropriations from state governments. It was the police who controlled the crime problem. 

In this series of articles, we shall examine the nature of plea bargaining, the structure of special interests, the substitution of "input" for political participation, and the effect of autocratic responses to people with real needs. Hopefully, this will lead to enough people developing defenses against malfeasant power to save us from waves of injustice. 

l

A Taxing Time

Filled out your state and federal tax forms yet?

Granted, it's harder than ever since the IRS stopped shipping those free Tax Instruction manuals to the country's public libraries.

If you've been using the online paperless version to guide you through the filing process, you may have noticed the pie charts on (virtual) page 109. The graphic claims to present Major Categories of Federal Income and Outlays for Fiscal Year 2020. According to the Income pie chart, taxes on individuals account for 25% of federal spending money while corporations only contribute 3 percent. Nearly half of the income pie (48%) constitutes "Borrowing to cover the federal deficit." (The Feds are counting loans as "income"?)

The IRS manual also shows a second pie chart accounting for Outlays—i.e., spending. The outlays include 30% for Social Security, 28% for "social programs," and 17% for "physical, human, and community development"—totaling 75%. This pie that the IRS has placed before taxpayers also includes a slice for the tax money devoured by "national defense, veterans, and foreign affairs." The Pentagon's amount of the tax pie is shown to be less than 15%.

If only that were the case.

The IRS opted not to post a pie chart from the Peterson Foundation, which shows "defense" spending gulping down nearly half of the $1.6 trillion 2020 discretionary budget. Meanwhile, a pie chart served up by War Resisters League shows the Pentagon sucking up 48% of the budget ($1.66 trillion), while allotting only 42% of the fiscal pie to cover Human Resources ($1.46 trillion).

Could the selection of pie chart servings be attributed to a concern that taxpayers might not want to chip in when they discover that most of their tax-extracted funds are being spent to drop bombs, launch missiles, host military exercises, and maintain 750 military bases in more than 80 foreign countries? 

Fashion Plates 

• Last week I spotted a Chevy with a plate that read: M11THAL. 

The encoded combo had me confounded—until I tried pronouncing it. 

Genius! A tip of the hat to Emma Leventhal! 

• Another code I've yet to crack (spotted on a red Chevy Silverado): IVANGEO. 

Is the driver named "Ivan" and is she/he a GEOlogist? Or does the owner operate a Non-governmental Organization (as in "I've an NGO")? 

• Also worth a second look: a vehicle swaddled in a transparent ad-wrap that promotes "Supplements for Shame-free Self-Care" that will help you "Get out of your Hump Slump" with a dose of "Lovin' Libido," a product said to support "a healthy drive and sensation." The active ingredients for remaining active include: "Ashwagandha, Damiana & Maca." 

False Alarm: No Coup 

A recent email message from Bhaskar Sunkara began with a subject line that sent a chill down my spine. It read: "Hi Gar! I’m the new president of The Nation." 

What's this? Has there been a coup? Is Trump Speaker of the House? Is Mitch McConnell ensconced in the Oval Office? Is Steve Bannon the new head of the Joint Chiefs? Is Marjorie Taylor Greene Washington's new UN Ambassador? And who is Bhaskar Sunkara? 

Turns out Bhaskar Sunkara is the new president of The Nation—the 150-plus-year-old progressive magazine that "has been on the right side of history: opposing every form of exploitation, standing against militarism, and articulating a vision of American progress that benefits the many, not the few." 

As a long-time subscriber, I will continue to pledge allegiance to The Nation. 

Time to Update Our Calendar 

The Memorial Solar Calendar mentioned in last week's column now has a new name (thanks to the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley Unified School District. According to site savant and gnomen-guru, Santiago Casal, the memorial is now to be known as "The Solar Calendar—Tribute to César Chávez & Dolores Huerta." 

Pausing to Acknowledge the Locals 

I recently participated in a Zoom conference to plan a week of global actions to protest war profiteering flying under the flag of #StopLockheedMartin (Lockheed Martin being the largest, wealthiest, and deadliest arms-dealer on Earth.) 

This particular Zoomiverse event included activists from the US, Canada, Colombia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and elsewhere. It began with brief intros where people were invited to identify themselves, their locations, and their organizational affiliations. But there was another indicator that cropped up in many of the intros: A good number of the activists (mostly from the US and Canada) identified themselves by including acknowledgements of the indigenous roots of the lands they currently call home. Some examples:
• From Oakland: "Hello from occupied Chochenyo Ohlone land."
• From Halifax, Nova Scotia: "Hello from unceded Mi’kma’ki land."
• From White Rock, British Columbia: "Hello from the unceded traditional territory of the Semiahmoo people."
• From Ontario, Canada: "Hello from the territory of the Petun, Anishnaabek, Haudenosaunee, Wendat-Wyandot-Wyandotte peoples."
• From Palo Alto, California: "Hello from the lands of Muwekma Ohlone people."
• The salutations also included several voices from activists in Australia—aka "Papaioea Aotearoa." 

The Global Mobilization to Lock Up Lockheed 

What's brewing: There will be a week of global actions criticizing Lockheed's war-profiteering running from April 21-28. And a local demonstration will carpool and congregate at Lockheed's Palo Alto office (location: El Camino at Page Mill Road) from 11:30 AM-1:30 PM on Good Friday/Tax Day on April 18. For more details, check CODEPINK. #StopLockheedMartin. To join Carpools/offer rides from SF and East Bay, call or text 510-365-1500. 

Sponsors include CODEPINK, Auckland Peace Action, Pacific Life Community, World Beyond War, Raging Grannies, War Resisters International, and more. 

 

The organizers released the following statement: 

"We are demanding that Lockheed disarm and convert to making things that sustain life, such as clean energy and transportation systems. We are demanding that Congress stop taking campaign contributions from the war industry and enact the Green New Deal to provide good green jobs for Lockheed employees so they don't have to participate in killing.  

"Since so much of our taxes go to war and weapons, on 'Tax Day' we need to look at Lockheed Martin—the largest weapons manufacturer on earth, with facilities in nearby Palo Alto. It's time to call out Lockheed for what they are—merchants of death, war profiteers making a killing on killing, and the greatest impediment to peace and security on the planet. Half of your federal tax dollars go to the military, and half of the military budget goes to the war industry, with Lockheed at the top of the list of war profiteers. . . . 

"Lockheed sells killing weapons to countries all over the planet, including to regimes that violate human rights, like the Saudis and Israel. Lockheed made the 500-pound bomb that killed 40 children in Yemen in 2018. Lockheed won big in Afghanistan, making 1000% profit on the failed US war and occupation. Lockheed is delighted that the war in Ukraine means more weapons sales.  

"Lockheed donates millions to members of Congress who continue to pass gigantic military budgets. Lockheed has facilities in 40 states employing thousands, making those states dependent on the war industry. 

"The war industry … is literally killing the planet with their fossil fuel-driven wars and military bases polluting countries around the world. We aren't going to stand for Lockheed Martin poisoning the earth any longer. Join us."  

Ending on a legal question: If it's true, that "corporations are people," wouldn't that mean that Lockheed could be tried as a war criminal? 

Amazon Intercepted 

The Intercept recently spilled some delicious beans by publishing an internal memo explaining Amazon's proposed plan to increase employee moral—and productivity—by introducing an "internal messaging app" that would enable workers to post "Shout-Outs" praising the work ethics of fellow employees. Participants would be rewarded. No, not with cash or Amazon purchase cards. Instead, they would be acknowledged with "virtual stars and badges" in a "gamified " online environment designed to "add direct business value." 

The Amazon memo expressed some concern about "the dark side of social media" and, in the name of cyber civility, devised an "auto bad word monitor" to prevent "offensive or harassing" language. Here are some of the "Amazon unfriendly" words that could trigger the deletion of a posted message:
slave, slave labor, plantation, unfair, freedom, harassment, representation, coalition, unite, unfair, grievance, injustice, petition, diversity, compensation, pay raise, union, ethics, and living wage. 

A pilot program was set to begin at the end of April but, when contacted by The Intercept, Amazon announced: "there are no plans" to launch the program and no plans "to use many of the words you're calling out." In short, Amazon insisted, if the program were deployed "at some point down the road," censorship would only be invoked "to protect our team." 

On April 1, Amazon workers in New Work's Staten Island fulfillment center voted to unionize. Jeff Bezos' delivery-service monolith (worth an estimated $1.5 trillion) spent $4.2 million to defeat the unionization effort. The small, independent union that won the election, did so with a campaign budget of just $120,000. 

American Justice on Trial 

American Justice on Trial, a stunning Oakland-based documentary—about Black Panther founder Huey Newton's arrest, trial, and acquittal for the murder of a white police officer—will have its SF International Film Festival world premiere at the Roxie Theatre at 6PM on April 22. 

In 1968, Newton was accused of killing a white policeman after a pre-dawn traffic stop that left the Panther leader with a near-fatal wound. Shocking news photos from the time showed Newton clinging to life while shacked to his hospital bed. The fallout from the deadly encounter continued through the course of Newton's subsequent murder trail. 

According to the film's producer and co-director Andrew Abrahams, "The courtroom drama was unprecedented, as historic events and maverick individuals converged to put racism itself on trial." The film reveals how Newton’s radical defense team—Charles Garry and Fay Stender—insisted on a '"jury of one’s peers" and seated "a groundbreaking diverse jury headed by a pioneering black jury foreman." The jurors acquitted Newton and issued a historic verdict of "self-defense" that still stands as a stinging rebuke to 400 years of racial injustice in America. 

Producer and project creator Lise Pearlman is also a former judge and the author of two award-winning books about Newton's trial. After working on the documentary for nearly nine years, Pearlman says she is "thrilled that we get to premiere the film in the San Francisco International Film Festival, so close to where the story unfolded.”  

American Justice on Trial brings renewed attention to most important trials of the last century, a legal show-down that succeeded against all odds in overcoming the racial bias of the nation's criminal justice system. Click on this link to visit the film's website, where you can watch the trailer and purchase screening tickets. 

 

Nuclear Annihilation Notes 

Some snippets jotted down while listening to a recent Zoomcast on the possibility of the Russia/Ukraine war leading to a thermonuclear Apocalypse: 

President Harry Truman was the first to make "the Putin Threat"—i.e. threatening other world leaders with “consequences you have never seen.” 

In a troubling response, the US and EU (read: nuclear-armed NATO nations) refused to condemn Putin for threatening to use nuclear weapons. 

After destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman's White House threatened Japan with further destruction. Truman lied and initially told the American people the A-bombs had been dropped on a "military base." 

Nuclear abolition was the United Nation's Resolution 1. 

In 1961, the United Nations ruled that atomic bombs were illegal. 

The Pentagon prepares to "avoid" nuclear annihilation by playing a war game called "Global Thunder" but every time the simulation has been played it has escalated into a total nuclear war. 

Russia's military has a similar exercise called Grom (Russian for "Thunder"). Every time it's been "played," it has lead to escalations and ended in a catastrophic atomic exchange. 

When Putin was asked if he was prepared to destroy all life on Earth by launching nuclear-tipped missiles, he replied: "Why should I care about the world if there's no Russia?" 

Thanks to an army of war industry lobbyists, the Nuclear Machine enjoys major bipartisan support. It's seen as a "deterrent." But it's still illegal. 

As one US General replied when asked about the "nuclear response": "My job is to deter all threats all the time." As if nuclear weapons are the solution and not the greatest threat. 

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force on January 22, 2021 and has been ratified by 86 nations and 60 states parties. No nuclear-armed country has ratified the treaty. 

Joe Biden has reversed his "No First-Use" policy—at the worst possible time. 

"The Day After" Deserves to Be Seen Again 

On November 20, 1983, nearly everyone in the US watched the one-and-only broadcast of "The Day After," a sci-fi depiction of what nuclear war might look like if bombs fell on the US. 

 

Network censors repeatedly demanded the removal of certain scenes, at one point firing director Nicolas Meyer. The film was only screened once. The debate whether ABC would broadcast the film involved an agreement that—in order to reassure viewers that the government would never allow such a calamity to occur in real life—the broadcast would be followed by a live war game on ABC's Viewpoint, involving real-life politicians and policymakers—including Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, William F. Buckley Jr., Hamilton Jordan and scientist Carl Sagan (who argued against nuclear proliferation). The simulation played out but, unfortunately, it escalated to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. This failed experiment should have become a potent "teaching point" but the Viewpoint video has apparently disappeared from view. 

And, on a Lighter Note 

Some elderly takes on the process of aging: 

• I hate it when I see an old person and then realize we went to high school together.
• I came, I saw, I forgot what I was doing. Retraced my steps, got lost on the way back, now I have no idea what's going on.
• I thought growing old would take longer.
• Scientists say the universe is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. They forgot to mention morons.
• Scientists say the universe is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. They forgot to mention morons.
• I've reached the age where my train of thought often leaves the station without me
• If you're happy and you know it, it's your meds!

There are two schools of thought about resolution of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. One argues that there must be a negotiated settlement and the other believes the conflict will only end when Russia is "brought to its knees." The latter perspective carries risk but notable opportunities.

The negotiated settlement perspective suggests that Russia will stop the invasion if the eastern portion of Ukraine is ceded to Russia; that is, the Donbas region. Russia would require Ukraine to declare "neutrality." A negotiated settlement ends the conflict, for now; Russian bombing would stop, along with the horrific civilian casualties. It's unclear what would happen with sanctions or who would pay to rebuild Ukraine. 

The "bring Russia to its knees" perspective argues that the invasion will only stop when the Russian economy is so weakened that Putin can no longer afford to have armed forces in Ukraine. This is the position argued eloquently by Bill Browder in a recent Renew Democracy podcast (https://renewdemocracy.substack.com/p/-winter-is-here-ep5-how-do-sanctions?s=r) 

In essence, Bill Browder's argument has three parts; 

1.The west can't negotiate with Putin because he is a psychopath. Browder argues that the US and our allies cannot trust Putin, because he invades neighboring countries as a tactic in his grandiose scheme to stay in power. Therefore, from Browder's perspective, a negotiated settlement is impossible because Putin will use this as an opportunity to rearm; Putin will not be deterred by an settlement in Ukraine. Speaking to Barron's magazine(https://www.barrons.com/articles/putin-sanctions-bill-browder-51646267765) Bill Browder observed, "“Putin has no reverse gear. His whole psychology is prison-yard psychology. You can’t show any weakness. You have to be more brutal than anybody out there.” 

In recent days, as Russia has withdrawn from northern Ukraine, we have seen graphic evidence of Russian war crimes. This underscores Browder's contention that Putin is a psychopath. 

The only way to stop Vladimir Putin is to (metaphorically) put him in jail. He cannot actually be put into prison, because he is in Russia. Therefore, the strategy has to be to isolate all of Russia. There must be a total blockade. 

2. The best way to stop Putin is through sanctions. One way to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine is for NATO forces to enter Ukraine, to fight alongside Ukrainian troops and force all Russian forces out of Ukraine. The west hasn't chosen to do this because of our belief that Putin would respond by using weapons of mass destruction and the conflict would escalate into world war III. 

Browder believes Putin will stop the war in Ukraine when Russia runs out of money. Browder notes that Putin is financing the war by using funds gained from selling fossil fuel to the west. (Estimated to be $1 billion per day.) That is, the current sanctions have diminished the flow of EU money to Russia but not eliminated it. Russia is wounded but not yet "brought to its knees." 

Renew Democracy is grading the sanctions (https://fight4ukraine.com ). The US grades at B-.
Sanctions are broken down into seven categories: condemnation, military support for Ukraine, financial sanctions, sanctions on individuals, diplomatic isolation, propaganda, and replacement of Russian energy. Renew Democracy observed that the US is doing well on "condemnation" and "financial sanctions" but needs do more work on the other categories such as "military support" and "sanctions on individuals." The US and our NATO partners are sending increased level of military support to Ukraine. 

The key problem is that NATO is not united in the severity of sanctions. Some NATO members are buying lots of oil and gas from Russia and have implemented only limited financial sanctions. (They can't block money transfers to all Russian banks because they need to have a payment channel.) Most Russian fuel exports go to EU countries: the largest customer is Germany which gets 49 percent of their fuel needs from Russia; the second largest is Italy (46 percent); then Turkey (65 percent); France (24 percent); Hungary (72 percent); Finland (100 percent); Slovakia (100 percent); Poland (60 percent); Czech Republic (82 percent) and Austria (63 percent). If Russia were to cut off fuel exports to the EU, these countries would be severely impacted. 

On April 8, the US Congress voted to ban all Russian oil imports. (https://thehill.com/news/senate/3261477-senate-passes-package-to-limit-trade-with-russia/) The same day, the European Union voted to stop all Russia coal imports by August (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/business/russia-coal-europe.html ) : "Imports from Russia accounted for 47 percent of coal coming into the European Union in 2019." 

To use a deliberately disturbing metaphor, NATO is a fossil-fuel junkie that finds itself at war with its dealer. It is proving difficult for NATO to stop using Russian fuel imports. So NATO continues to fund the Russian war in Ukraine. 

Obviously, this is an opportunity for a massive shift to renewable energy. 

2. Another way to stop Putin is to seize the assets of Russian Oligarchs. Bill Browder estimates that Vladimir Putin and his associates have looted $1trillion from Russia. Browder estimates there are more than 100 "oligarchs." They have a straightforward relationship with Putin: half of their assets belong to him; they do his bidding without equivocation or they die. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/meet-the-oligarchs-sanctions-russian-billionaires ) 

NATO has begun seizing the assets of these oligarchs; for example, seizing their super-yachts and planes. However, many of these assets are hidden deep in a web of legal deception. Like sanctions, dealing with the kleptocrats will take time. 

This is an opportunity to deal with kleptocrats, in general. For example, the US has oil barons. 

Summary: Once again, I'm conveying a grim message. Nonetheless, I do not feel pessimistic; i feel determined. We're at a moment similar to that in "The Wizard of Oz" when the curtains are lifted and we see the Wizard for who he truly is -- a fake. The curtains of Russia have been lifted and we've seen Vladimir Putin for who ihe truly is -- a psychopath. We can't play nice with a psychopath. 

We know what to do. Now we must do it. We must take the actions necessary to bring Russia to its knees.