Public Comment

UC CORRUPTION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The recent articles by Judith Scherr, my colleague Miguel Altieri and Eric Holt Gimenez concerning the BP-UC Berkeley agreement were timely excellent analyses of many of the current and future issues associated with the agreement. Yesterday I attended an Energy and Resource Group meeting that was supposed to explain the agreement to interested faculty. Unfortunately it raised more questions than it answered. It was clear that the faculty, other than the few who participated in writing bits of the proposal, and the public had been totally left out of the loop. Furthermore, it was clear that those sent to explain the details of the deal didn’t know them. It was apparent that this was merely another Novartis top down deal with none of the details of the agreement available for review before it is implemented. (I was a member of the College Executive Committee that forced faculty review of the Novartis deal, and I find the parallels of that early agreement to the BP agreement highly disturbing.) What does a brown corporation like BP gain from this agreement, how is the funding to be administered, how are the social science questions raised by Altieri and Holt-Gimenez going to be addressed, and why wasn’t an investigation of say the Brazil experience done? I have seen the Brazil experience develop first hand and can only say it is ecologically not sustainable—we are mining the soil and destroying the forests for short-term gains.  

As one of the pro-proposal attendees said, “…even if it doesn’t work out, it is a lot of money.” Can the agreement be viewed as the shipment of bales of millions to a scientific Iraq—is it corrupting? Maybe UC should enlist the help of Ambassador Paul Bremmer in allocating the money. 

We certainly need new cleaner sources of energy, but we also need to solve our addiction: to cheap energy, to increasing population growth that will always increase demands for resources, to the political hucksterism that promise quick fixes to important economic and environmental problems and, in the case of the BP-UC agreement, to accepting exploitive capitalism as the convenient path. What does BP get out of this deal, is it a permanent marriage with UC? What do the people of California get from it and is this deal in the best interest of the public University of California? 

Andrew Paul Gutierrez 

Professor in Ecosystem Science 

University of California  

• 

SHEEP 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

We cannot rely on the sheep we’ve elected to execute the will of the people to end the war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney won’t stop. We have to stop them. We, the people, must force our newly elected Congress to begin the process of impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney. He has failed to protect and defend the constitution as he swore to. He has consistently and perniciously lied about our reasons for going to war in the first place and now says we can’t leave because if we do things will get worse. He’s a liar and he needs to be held accountable. Bush is merely the pawn, paper work, window dressing used by Cheney as cover for his treason. Cheney would be easier to impeach anyway, he’s an obvious war profiteer and nobody likes him. He has publicly lied many, many times.  

Many of his lies have been caught on tape. Let’s make a movie of his taped interviews and count the lies he’s told. There are several groups calling for his impeachment; we can join them and grow their grassroots “Impeach Cheney” campaign into a movement. Let’s take Howard Zinn’s suggestion to hold “Impeach Cheney” town halls all over the country and screen the movie. We’ll get someone to write a catchy “Impeach Cheney” tune as a soundtrack to the movie. So many of us rely on commercial media for our information, we’d have to saturate as many media markets as we can to get the word out and motivate people to come out in support. 

I know these are dangerous ideas to write, and I believe I may even suffer consequences for speaking my mind. But silence is no longer an option. I implore the people of the United States and its Congress to act! Impeach Cheney now!! 

Joy Moore 

• 

WAR 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Isn’t it time we stopped talking about the situation in Iraq as a war? 

The president and Congress are in a tizzy; everybody has a plan for cleaning up the mess and every plan uses the language and/or imagery of war—“win,” “surge,” “succeed,” “withdraw,” etc. But is war the correct and most useful way to see it?  

To be sure, there is a great deal of killing. It is heartbreaking to see men, women and children by the hundreds getting killed and maimed daily; tragic that some killing is done by our own uniformed soldiers and repugnant and obscene that many more are killed by suicidal young people yearning for paradise.  

In Iraq our soldiers fight an enemy in civilian clothes who possess no military training and operate under shifting and illegitimate chains of command. In Iraq (and Afghanistan) there is nothing resembling a conflict between opposing military forces. It is not war in the ordinary sense. 

War on terror, like war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, is war in the metaphorical sense. Also, the “war on terror” is everlasting precisely because acts of terror cannot be prevented by acts of war. Indeed, an act of terror is often a tactic of war. 

What we name a situation has a huge impact on how we deal with it. No one questioned calling 9/11 an act of terror. But was that the correct and must useful way to see it? Was it not a criminal act? And if president Bush had described it as “unprecedented wanton destruction resulting in mass murder” and acted accordingly, would he now be agonizing about what to do in Iraq? 

The people in authority today, the president and Congress, cannot agree because they see the situation in Iraq as something it is not, a war. We, the people who matter because we pay in lives and treasure, see it for what it is, a catastrophe from which we want out. Now! 

Marvin Chachere 

San Pablo 

• 

WHERE IS UNITY? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Headlines says it all: The GOP is thwarting debate on the war. Republican gridlock continues much as it has for six years.  

What happened to President Bush’s call for unity and bipartisanship in Congress? Republicans obviously didn’t hear that or what the American voters had to say in their November referendum: No more escalation of war. 

Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted with the Republicans saying, “Its (the resolution’s) passage would compromise America’s security.” Joe, you’ve bought into the Bush administration spin. There is no relationship between Iraq and our security here at home. 

Why do Bush and Republicans continue to think they can bomb their way to Peace? 

Ron Lowe 

Grass Valley 

The recent articles by Judith Scherr, my colleague Miguel Altieri and Eric Holt Gimenez concerning the BP-UC Berkeley agreement were timely excellent analyses of many of the current and future issues associated with the agreement. Yesterday I attended an Energy and Resource Group meeting that was supposed to explain the agreement to interested faculty. Unfortunately it raised more questions than it answered. It was clear that the faculty, other than the few who participated in writing bits of the proposal, and the public had been totally left out of the loop. Furthermore, it was clear that those sent to explain the detail of the deal didn’t know them. It was apparent that this was merely another Novartis top down deal with none of the details of the agreement available for review before it is implemented. (I was a member of the College Executive Committee that forced faculty review of the Novartis deal, and I find the parallels of that early agreement to the BP agreement highly disturbing.) What does a brown corporation like BP gain from this agreement, how is the funding to be administered, how are the social science questions raised by Altieri and Holt-Gimenez going to be addressed, and why wasn’t an investigation of say the Brazil experience done? I have seen the Brazil experience develop first hand and can only say it is ecologically not sustainable—we are mining the soil and destroying the forests for short-term gains.  

As one of the pro-proposal attendees said, “…even if it doesn’t workout, it is a lot of money.” Can the agreement be viewed as the shipment of bales of millions to a scientific Iraq – is it corrupting? Maybe UC should enlist the help of Ambassador Paul Bremmer in allocating the money. 

We certainly need new cleaner sources of energy, but we also need to solve our addiction: to cheap energy, to increasing population growth that will always increase demands for resources, to the political hucksterism that promise quick fixes to important economic and environmental problems and, in the case of the BP-UC agreement, to accepting exploitive capitalism as the convenient path. What does BP get out of this deal, is it a permanent marriage with UC? What do the people of California get from it and is this deal in the best interest of the public University of California? 

Andrew Paul Gutierrez 

Professor in Ecosystem Science 

University of California  

I have been a resident in the North Berkeley neighborhood for 40 years and am in favor of a plaza in the North Shattuck area. I have seen many changes in this area over the years and believe this newest idea is advantageous to the neighborhood. This is an intelligent and innovative community and if we are in favor of this plaza we have what it takes to find solutions to any problems that might arise in the planning. Those of us who are in favor of this concept need to speak up to be heard over the cacophony of the naysayers. I add my voice to the many others who want to see this improvement take place. 

Barbara Lewis 

The letter published in The Daily Planet (Feb. 9), written by Ms. Joanna Graham, contains a gratuitous attack on Rabbi Jane Litman of Congregation Beth El in Berkeley. I am outraged by the vile and irresponsible statements made in the attack. As a resident of Berkeley and as a member of the Beth El community I know Rabbi Litman well and I am inspired by her honesty, devotion to fairness and commitment to this community.  

The letter states that: “She (Rabbi Litman) has connections with the ADL. She conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. And she is not averse to deceptive packaging.” What is wrong with having connections with the ADL? Rabbi Jane does not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. What deceptive packaging is Ms. Graham referring to?  

The “Conference for Progressives Constructively Addressing Anti-Semitism” which was was held in San Francisco on Jan. 28 had many voices, including critics of Israel. The sponsors included several organizations that are highly critical of Israel, including Americans for Peace Now and the New Israel Fund. Prominent critics of Israel such as Rabbi David Cooper were speakers and led workshops.  

Ms. Graham writes that Rabbi Jane Litman’s letter to the Daily Planet never mentioned that a war was taking place in Lebanon and that a war was never mentioned. Of course not. The letter to the Daily Planet, which I signed, was not about war but about anti-Semitism.  

Sanne DeWitt 

Chairman,  

Israel Action Committee of the East Bay (IACEB) 

Condo Insanity 

Every week we hear of a new condo project. And the first we hear about it is as a “done deal.” These projects are not just on abandoned lots or broken-down buildings. They plan to replace beautiful old Victorians or vibrant local businesses; our fantastic nursery, our consignment shop, nonprofit offices, our local printer. Where’s the neighborhood planning? Where’s the local government, the public meetings? There has got to be a way to stop these greedy land sharks from destroying all that is good in our communities. How can virtually every building in downtown Broadway have a “for lease” sign on it, and there is a seven-story condo going up in my little neighborhood? I call on local governments to make a public and democratic process for making these decisions that alter our town so drastically and permanently. 

Douglas Foster 

Oakland 

A recent reassessment of the damage done by the huge 1868 Hayward fault earthquake by Jack Boatwright, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, concluded that it was of magnitude 7.0 on the Richter scale, not 6.7 as previously believed. He did this by mapping in meticulous detail the damage that had been done, including damaged homes and structures that had not been previously mapped in the prior risk analysis. Although the difference between 6.7 and 7.0 may not seem very large, it actually amounts to a DOUBLING of the amount of energy released, due to the base-10 logarithmic nature of the Richter scale. There is a predicted 27 percent chance of a big temblor hitting the Hayward fault within the next 25 years—the highest likelihood of a large quake on any Bay Area fault, according to Jim Lienkaemper, a geophysicist at the USGS.  

It is estimated that tens of thousands of homes could be destroyed by an earthquake of such magnitude. Even with seismic upgrade, it is unlikely that any man-made structure directly straddling the Hayward fault line could withstand such an earthquake. This being the case, the regents of UCB would be exposing some 73,000 spectators to grave danger by insisting on keeping the decaying California Memorial Stadium. This is extremely irresponsible. It would be wiser to tear down the aging structure and play the six home games a year at the Oakland Coliseum until a new stadium in a safe, permanent location can be built. A forest of California native live oak, redwood and other trees could be planted on the existing site alongside their older brethren (the specimen 84-year-old trees of the California Memorial Live Oak grove currently adjacent to the stadium). This would provide a lovely continuity of forest from Gayley Road up into Strawberry Canyon for students and residents alike to stroll and meditate in.  

Ronald H. Berman, MD 

I was in Berkeley last weekend. These returns home are always bittersweet: I love Berkeley but live in Portland now. My new home is a fine place as cities go; downtown Portland is alive with possibilities and crowded with people. The Portland formula: Live where you work, and make your place inviting, innovative, interesting—and sustainable. 

Why is it so difficult for the strident critics of the Brower Center, who are circulating petitions to stop this project, to understand how the powerful combination of creative workplace and affordable housing will enliven Berkeley’s downtown? 

My daughter—David Brower’s proud granddaughter—encountered these petitioners shortly after she’d detoured by the parking lot now at Oxford and Kittredge to see where the Brower Center, Berkeley’s challenge to Portland, will rise.  

It upset her a little; it’s hard not to take this personally when Brower is part of your name. But more to the point: the petitioners not only lack vision; they haven’t done their homework. Despite the very tall order mandated by the city (requiring that the project squeeze not only an office-and-public space complex, and almost a hundred family housing units, but also underground parking onto that small lot), the project has lined up funding, prospective tenants, and the support of nearly everyone who’s been paying attention over the last several years of City Council deliberations and public discussion. 

Here is Berkeley’s chance to lead with a LEED platinum building and a lively live-and-work environment. I hope this ill-informed and mean-spirited effort dies quietly. Even though it means I’ll have yet another reason to be sad I don’t live there any more, Berkeley needs the Brower Center and Oxford Plaza. 

Barbara Brower 

What makes Berkeley such a wonderful city in which to live? 

It’s a combination of so many wonderful things, such as its proximity to open space, its climate and its setting between the hills and the S.F.Bay. However, what truly makes a city buzz are the people who inhabit it, and Berkeley, like San Francisco, has a diverse mix of cultures, yet on a smaller and more manageable scale. 

It’s what makes these cities so interesting. People from different parts of the world bring a little bit of their culture with them and that enriches each of our experiences. We can go to Berkeley Bowl and have the choice of 10 or more different kinds of mushrooms, or several different kinds of eggplants, any variety of tomatoes, potatoes, bananas, etc.; the variety is astounding and the population is present here, in this city to take advantage of these choices. We have a range of exciting restaurants and stores to equal S.F. Our city Berkeley, however, is so much “greener” than San Francisco and so pleasant to walk and smell all the fragrances from the variety of plants.  

When I heard about the proposed plan to make a “walking plaza” ie. no cars, on the service road next to Shattuck, between Vine and Rose, I was thrilled at the idea. Who wouldn’t support it, I thought? This will be Berkeley’s “piazza” – the place in so many European, South and Central American cities, where everyone congregates. It is the place that “throbs” with life on the weekends and on holidays. This will be our place where children can play safely, where teenagers can hang out with their friends, a place where the locals can eat their take out food from the Epicurean Garden, or Cheese Board, or The Collective, or Massi’s or any other eatery in the neighborhood, a place where we can hang out with our friends, an area set up already for the Farmer’s Market, without having to close the street, a place for our artists and musicians.  

Who would not want this, I thought? 

Well, there are some loud opposing voices full of prophecies of doom and gloom. There are some valid issues that they raise, but all these issues can be addressed. Please don’t let these negative voices put a stop to a wonderful idea, that I think would revitalize and enhance this neighborhood, an area where I would shop more, eat more and where generally I would love to spend more time. Berkeley, let’s come together to make our city an even better place. 

Robert Brower 

As the never-ending polemic regarding the Middle-east heats up in the Berkeley Daily Planet once again, it’s distressing to see how the pages of our local paper have become a forum for intolerance, racism, ad hominem attacks, and, yes, blatant anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling a much-needed role as a bridge for understanding, the editorial pages of the BDP have become a place where divisive, antagonistic, and hostile accusations are hurled about, all too often regardless of either fact or any attempt at mutual understanding. I challenge the editors of this paper to change the unfortunate role the BDP has come to serve in our community, and instead attempt to fill a more positive role than that of a mirror that reflects only the ugliest side of Berkeley’s much-vaunted diversity. There is no magic bullet that will make everyone in this infinitely complex problem see eye to eye, but it is certain that the current editorial free-for-all only contributes to the polarization in our city. It’s time for the BPD to take the lead and stop allowing itself to be a forum for divisiveness, and instead become a forum for building a stronger and more cohesive community. 

Joshua Greenbaum