Fire investigators today are returning to the scene of a three-alarm blaze that badly damaged two homes in the Berkeley hills on Wednesday night, a Berkeley fire official said.

The fire was reported at 8:32 p.m. in the 1000 block of Miller Avenue, near Grizzly Peak Boulevard. Firefighters arrived to find two homes burning and called for a second-alarm response, Deputy Fire Chief Gil Dong said.  

About 15 nearby homes were evacuated, and the fire went to three alarms at 9:12 p.m., he said.  

The houses that were burning are "nestled in the Berkeley hills" and surrounded by vegetation, Dong said, and there was concern about the blaze spreading.  

Firefighting efforts were hampered early on when a power line fell onto an engine that was supplying water to fire crews. 

"We had to resort to using another engine; our first engine was put out of commission," Dong said.  

However, firefighters eventually gained the upper hand on the blaze and had it under control at 10:41 p.m., Dong said.  

Four firefighters were treated for heat exhaustion and sprains, including an ankle injury and a knee injury, he said.  

There were no reports of injuries to residents, and no word of any missing pets, he said. However, both homes are uninhabitable and the American Red Cross is assisting the displaced residents.  

Investigators are still trying to determine where and how the fire started, he said.  

Firefighters from Albany, Oakland and Alameda County assisted Berkeley firefighters in battling the blaze.

I want to point out that the work at People's Park was carried out by a private company, not UC gardeners. While the University cuts the grounds department budget mercilessly, they contract out more and more of the landscaping(and other maintenance) work. Thus, reasonably paid unionized positions are cut and non-union companies are brought in to do the dirty work. And, if rats are the issue, they can start with the fat and healthy rat population in Sproul Plaza.

Bulldozers ploughed through the west end of People’s Park today turning decades of community garden into rubble. Dozens of police watched as crews tossed mountains of healthy plants and a community-built arbor into dumpsters, leaving behind stripped earth. 

A young student who claimed to be volunteering as a police assistant handed out university fliers which stated, “In response to park users and neighbor concerns, we are doing maintenance work to address the rat infestation and safety issues in People’s Park.” 

A UC press release described the activity as "an effort to provide students and the broader community with safer, more sanitary conditions." 

KTVU Channel Two News reported that the trees in the west end were being removed to improve the views for the university students who will someday inhabit the unfinished dormitory building currently being built in the Anna Head parking lot. 

Park historians note that the bulldozers destroyed decades-old trees and shrubs planted by community volunteers in the seventies in response to the university’s effort to transform the west end into an asphalt university fee lot. The asphalt parking lot, installed without community input, lasted only a few weeks before community volunteers tore it out and replaced it with a garden. 

Those who have gardened for years in the park called the university’s move an obscenity. None of the People's Park Community Advisory Board members were informed about the project, a board which was convened years ago specifically to make certain the community was kept informed about park issues. 

Arthur Fonseca commented that the bulldozing was “worse than the volleyball courts”, another ill-fated project the university tried to build in 1991, because the west end represented decades of dedicated community work on various gardens, fruit trees, pergolas, grape arbors, and benches. 

The university’s destruction in the west end included the Council Grove, a small circle of trees which were the setting for many of the early People's Park council meetings, which traditionally could only take place in the park itself.

Two men were hospitalized with gunshot wounds after being shot near the intersection of Sacramento and Woolsey streets in Berkeley around 12:40 p.m. today, according to police. 

Berkeley police Lt. Andrew Greenwood said police received several calls at about 12:41 p.m. from residents in that area reporting that shots had been fired. 

But when police arrived at the scene three minutes later they didn't find any victims or suspects, Greenwood said. 

A local hospital notified police a short time later that two male victims had been dropped off there suffering from gunshot wounds, he said. 

Witnesses at the scene said the suspect or suspects fled up Woolsey Street so police did a house-by-house search of a two-block area but didn't find anyone, Greenwood said. 

Police closed Sacramento Street south of Ashby Avenue after the shooting so they could investigate the crime scene and that section was scheduled to re-open at 6 p.m. at the earliest, he said. 

Greenwood said he doesn't have information on the victims' current condition.

Police said they'd enforce no-camping restrictions in Civic Center Park, but they didn't say when. When has since come and gone—and so has the encampment. Goodbye, and good riddance?

Twenty-five Occupy addicts, and some curiosity-seekers showed up at Thursday's general assembly, in Civic Center Park, to debate responses to the city's take-down of the camp. Many denounced the troubled camp, but some supported it.

One Occupier tried to rally the GA to march across the street to the Berkeley police station, but had to do so, himself. After 10 minutes, he returned—a man without a crowd.

The GA was disrupted repeatedly, as police staged a ten-man mop-up operation of the few remaining tents in the now barren and soggy park, as sprinklers tried to save the life of a trampled lawn. 

Disruptions were not caused by the police, who probably could have lived without scourging from the angry protesters, who raced from the GA to give the cops a chunk of their minds. 

Two tents were carefully removed in the surgical action. The confiscated tents can be reclaimed later, the police said: two tents, ten officers, city refuse vehicles, and angry rebukes. 

Where GAs will meet in the future is an open question, as is the future of Occupy Berkeley, which had hosted—and possibly become attached to—one of the longest surviving Occupy encampments in the nation. 

Late Wednesday OB tried to save some of the camp by relocating it to Bank of America Civic Center Plaza, where half a dozen tents shifted two blocks from MLK Park for a new lease on camp life. 

But by 5 a.m., according to reports from a camper at the scene, Berkeley Police, "snuck up on us, kicked us off the plaza, and took our gear." According to a source at the scene, a veteran camper lost his second tent, and "is pissed." 

Police also shooed-off close to a dozen occupiers, who posted protest signs at the front of Bank of America. According to one of the protesters the protest signs were confiscated. Now he too is "pissed," saying he plans to enlist District 7 councilman Kriss Worthington to help with a “violations of constitutional rights” complaint. 

A march around MLK Park's perimeter, which was called for 10 p.m. Wednesday by the O.B. general assembly, was a no-show. It was snot the first time a GA-backed initiative had died of inertia. 

Near midnight, the once fat city had turned lean, with only stragglers remaining. 

An OB veteran of nearly two months said, "we've been cut off at the waist, so that now we can grow from the head." Many veterans of Berkeley's Occupation movement say they are ready for a new phase. 

Protesters who spent Wednesday afternoon building up steam for a stand-off with police, kept the faith near midnight, exhorting on-lookers to either "go to your warm apartments, or camp with us." Few stayed. 

Boasts from Occupying Oaklanders, that their ranks would swell with fresh blood, turned out to be bravado, as a scene that might have spun out of control was reigned in, perhaps by a scare-squad of Berkeley police bearing shelter info leaflets earlier Wednesday night that no one took. 

Alan Wang, Channel 7, one of a gang of major media covering yet another Occupy eviction, contacted Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates at home sometime after 10 p.m. Wednesday. 

Bates held a brief (exclusive) interview with Wang near City Hall on Center street, according to Wang, in which the mayor disclosed that cops would not be moving in for the time being. 

Was the mayor out of the loop, or part of a plan? 

According to the Oakland Tribune, "police detained three people they believed were going to vandalize police headquarters late Wednesday night. 

"Campers said police then drove onto the park grounds in patrol cars and began confiscating tents. Some campers left while others stayed and confronted officers, who used batons to push them back, according to police and campers. 

A second confrontation happened at 1:15 a.m. when police say a crowd swarmed a public works crew and climbed onto their truck. Video from the early morning shows police striking some protesters with batons," according to the Trib. 

There have been 33 reported calls for BPD services related to Occupy Berkeley since October 23, 2011, 24 of which are classified as crimes. During some of the investigations at the scene, victims did not wish to cooperate with BPD officers. There are crimes and other incidents that may be unreported, thus are not documented by BPD.I

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit this week that claimed UC Berkeley had interfered with the speech and religious rights of Jewish students. The suit, Felber v. Yudof, was brought by one present and one former student and asserted that UC Berkeley failed to prevent anti-Israel demonstrations on campus. 

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, recognized UC Berkeley’s obligation to respect free-speech rights of those on both sides of the debate and cited the university’s ongoing efforts to bring the community together. The court stated that “the administration has engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the opposing parties in an attempt to ensure that the rights of all persons are respected, and to minimize the potential for violence and unsafe conditions.”  

The court ruling also permitted plaintiffs to re-allege one of their dismissed claims, but stated that it was “far from clear” that they would be able to allege sufficient facts to avoid another dismissal. 

“We are pleased with this decision,” said Christopher Patti, chief campus counsel for UC Berkeley. “The court has reaffirmed the fact that the university has been working hard to resolve conflicts between campus groups with opposing points of view.” 

“UC Berkeley is committed to maintaining an inclusive and respectful campus environment that is safe and welcoming for everyone, without regard to religion, race, ethnicity or ideology,” said Claire Holmes, university spokesperson. “The university is also committed to enforcing the law and protecting the rights of free expression for every single member of the campus community, and we are pleased that the suit has recognized our efforts in this area.”

According to Berkeley Police, property confiscated from Civic Center Park can be returned at 2nd and Harrison St., Tuesday and Thursday 12-4p.m., next week, and Berkeley Mental Health thereafter. People seeking more information should call the police at 981-5900. 

--Ted Friedman 

According to Berkeley Police, property confiscated from Civic Center Park can be returned at 2nd and Harrison St., Tuesday and Thursday 12-4p.m., next week, and Berkeley Mental Health thereafter. People seeking more information should call the police at 981-5900. 

—Ted Friedman

An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 2.7 shook Berkeley tonight, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. 

The quake struck at 9:18 p.m. and had a preliminary depth of 6.2 miles, the USGS said.

Police said they'd enforce no-camping restrictions in Civic Center Park, but they didn't say when. Now cops are on hold, as MLK Park occupiers skedaddle. 

By midnight Wednesday, only a stubborn minority from the massive encampment remained. 

Late Wednesday, Occupy Berkeley relocated its information table to Bank America Civic Center Plaza, where half a dozen tents, shifted two blocks from MLK Park to join them. 

But by 5a.m., according to reports from a camper at the scene, Berkeley Police, "snuck up on us, kicked us off the plaza, and took our gear." According to a source at the scene, a veteran camper lost his second tent, and "is pissed." 

Police also shooed-off close to a dozen occupiers, who posted protest signs at the front of Bank of America. According to one of the protesters the protest signs were confiscated. Now he too is "pissed," saying he plans to enlist District 7 councilman, Kris Worthington to help with a violation of constitutional rights complaint.  

A march around MLK Park's perimeter, which was called for 10 p.m. by the O.B. general assembly, was a no-show. It was not the first time a GA-backed initiative had died of inertia. 

Near midnight, the once fat city had turned lean, with only stragglers remaining. 

An OB veteran of nearly two months said, "We’ve been cut off at the waist, so that now we can grow from the head." Many veterans of Berkeley's Occupation movement say they are ready for a new phase. 

Protestors who spent Wednesday building up steam for a stand-off with police that never came, kept the faith near midnight, exhorting gawkers to either "go to your apartments, or camp with us." Few stayed. 

Boasts from Occupying Oaklanders that their ranks would swell with fresh blood turned out to be bravado, as a scene that might have spun out of control was reigned in, perhaps by a scare-squad of Berkeley police bearing shelter info leaflets that no one took. 

Alan Wang, Channel 7, one of a gang of major media covering yet another Occupy eviction, contacted Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates at home sometime after 10 p.m. 

Bates held a brief (exclusive) interview with Wang near City Hall on Center Street, according to Wang, in which the mayor disclosed that cops would not be moving in for the time being. 

Wang spent much of the evening justifying media to surly protesters. 

Kris Worthington and Jesse Arreguin, Berkeley city councilmen, both of whom visited the besieged camp, Wednesday, lamented being out-of the-loop in the decision by BPD and the city manager, Christine Daniel, that formed Wednesday night's strategy. 

Bo-Peter Laanen, a U.C. political science junior and early OB leader, said that the decision to take up residence in the park had been a mistake. 

In an interview earlier, Laanen said the troubled camp had exposed societal problems that the 99% needed to learn about." 

Protesters uploaded this video to YouTube. 

After members of the "Occupy Berkeley" camp were served with a notice that police planned to evict people lodging at Civic Center Park after 10 p.m. Wednesday night, a group has remained in the area despite small bouts of police action this morning. 

A group of about 20 people are at the park and outside of a nearby Berkeley police station at Center Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, as of 3 a.m. this morning as seen in live stream footage from the area. 

A Berkeley patrol car was idling across the street of the group of protesters as of 2:30 a.m. 

Media reports indicate many of the campers voluntarily cleared tents by the 10 p.m. deadline, but protesters still at the scene early Thursday morning spoke about sporadic police raids at the park throughout the night. 

An Occupy videographer known as OakFoSho who has been at the encampment throughout the night said police took down a handful of tents in three separate "hit-and-run" raids since 6 p.m. 

Just after 2 a.m. one protester, who others called "Bo," exited the police station down the block from the park and said he had been cited for obstruction of justice and his camera was taken away as evidence. 

He had suffered a chin injury after what two other protesters brought into the station for questioning with Bo said was a "hit in the face" by police, for which Bo said was treated at the station. Although after his release he accepted Occupy-based medical assistance where volunteers bandaged his chin outside the station. 

The notice protesters were served, which is dated Dec. 20, 2011, says that Civic Center Park, where the camp has existed largely unchallenged for the past two months, is closed at 10 p.m. and that those persons in the park when it is closed will be subject to arrest. 

"Starting December 21, 2011, anyone found camping in this park will be required to remove their tent and other property being used for lodging here," the notice reads. 

Anyone who fails to remove his or her property used for lodging will also be subject to arrest, the notice reads.

All day Wednesday occupiers in Civic Center Park prepared themselves for eviction. As the moment of truth approached, they used music, rhetoric, and solidarity to ready themselves.

They practiced maneuvers, gave interviews, and screwed up their courage for a confrontation with Berkeley Police, whom one occupier from Oakland called "pussies" compared to Oakland P.D. 

"At first, you choke on their gas," said one masked-man, "but then it gets to be sweet in your nostrils." 

Occupiers, who bragged to the OB general assembly Wed. night, that they would be joined by their occupier friends from Oakland—struck a common theme. We are willing to do whatever it takes to oppose police. 

A police van stood nearby, ready to facilitate protestors to "make the better move" to jail. 

As the general assembly convened in Civic Center Park, Berkeley police began a forceful stride at the Southeast end of the camp to pass out shelter information in prelude to a likely eviction of the camp, possibly at 10p.m. 

The OB general assembly, in a rare act of approved action, moved to stage a march on the walkways around MLK Park. The militant—self proclaimed radicals and anarchists—holding the encampment also agreed on the march, in yet another rare instance of consensus. 

The point of the march, as one occupier said, "is to let the cops take the camp, while we encircle it." 

As one of the occupiers, who had been in the camp since its founding almost two months ago put it, "this is the wildest general assembly ever—because the cops showed up." 

“The message has been consistent within the city that the City of Berkeley Police Department (BPD) officers have been monitoring the park for community, public safety and participant safety.” 

“City of Berkeley Police Officers (BPD) officers have continued to conduct daily checks and monitor Occupy Berkeley/encampment site for community, public safety and participant safety. BPD officers have been addressing any criminal behavior that they see. There have been 33 reported calls for BPD services related to Occupy Berkeley since October 23, 2011, 24 of which are classified as crimes. During some of the investigations at the scene, victims did not wish to cooperate with BPD officers. There are crimes and other incidents that may be unreported, thus are not documented by BPD. There has been an increase in calls for police services over time. There have been cases involving violence in the Occupy Berkeley encampment such as batteries, assault with deadly weapons, possession of dangerous weapons and an attempted rape.” 

“There has continued to be an increase in serious crimes and violence after the Dec. 15th flyers were passed out including an attempted rape last evening. The latest flyers are now providing warning that the law will be enforced. It speaks for itself. BPD would like the individuals in the park to follow the law voluntarily and the facts as to the encampment’s impact on community and participant safety is clear when reading the lists of crimes that have been occurring.” In addition to those crimes, BPD officers have issued 46 citations since December 15, 2011 for violations such as drinking in public, open containers of alcohol, smoking and other miscellaneous within the park.” 

“City of Berkeley Police Officers (BPD) officers have continued to conduct daily checks and monitor Occupy Berkeley/encampment site for community, public safety and participant safety. BPD officers have been addressing any criminal behavior that they see. There have been 33 reported calls for BPD services related to Occupy Berkeley since October 23, 2011, 24 of which are classified as crimes. During some of the investigations at the scene, victims did not wish to cooperate with BPD officers. There are crimes and other incidents that may be unreported, thus are not documented by BPD. There has been an increase in calls for police services over time. There have been cases involving violence in the Occupy Berkeley encampment such as batteries, assault with deadly weapons, possession of dangerous weapons and an attempted rape.”

It appears that Berkeley's city administrators plan to close down the Occupy Berkeley encampment tonight at 10, though they have not informed the public or councilmembers who have been visiting the encampment about their plans.

Last night (Tuesday) at 10 p.m. the Berkeley Police passed out this flyer to those in the Occupy Berkeley encampment, announcing their intention of evicting Occupiers tonight:

WARNING

10:00 P.M. PARK CLOSURE LAW AND ILLEGAL LODGING LAW WILL BE ENFORCED

Berkeley Municipal Code ("BMC") § 6.32.020 prohibits being in a City park from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. This park is closed at 10:00 p.m. Starting December 21,2011, this law will be enforced. Persons in this park after 10:00 p.m. will be subject to arrest for violating BMC §6.32.020 and their property will be removed.

Penal Code § 647(e) prohibits lodging on City property without permission from the,City. No one has permission to lodge in this park. Persons who are camping in this park are violating Penal Code § 647(e).

Starting December 21, 2011, anyone found camping in this park will be required to remove their tent and other property being used for lodging here. Persons who fail to remove their tent and other property used for lodging in this park will be subject to arrest for violating Penal Code § 647(!) and their property will be removed."

One of the protesters, who uses "B" as his name, sent this email message to protesters and supporters urging attendance at tonight's 6:00 General Assembly, which will be an opportunity for campers to decide how to react to any forceable eviction.: 

"Tomorrow's GA is probably the most important one ever please come if possible bring all friends and allies of #OB." 

It is not clear who made the decision to evict the protesters, or what the exact game plan for the eviction action might be. 

Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington told the Planet that "I didn't get any notice as a City Councilmember." Councilmember Susan Wengraf said "It's news to me."  

Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, who has authored a detailed proposal for how to deal with Occupy Berkeley, said that he is "very disappointed" that City Manager Chris Daniel and Police Chief Michael Meehan have not discussed whatever plan they might have for tonight's action with him, despite the fact that he met with Daniel yesterday. 

Daniel told the Planet today that "the statements we have issued speak for themselves" and would not comment any further on what the city's plans might be. The only statement on record from her office about the Occupy encampment is not listed under the city's press releases nor on its news page, but can be found here. It has no specific information about tonight's scenario.  

The Berkeley City Council will not meet until early January. 

The Berkeley Police Department's Public Information Officer, Sgt. Mary Kusmiss, told the Planet she had received no information about the police plan, and the city's media relations officer has not returned phone calls about it.

After weeks of street and walkway closures, and toxic, stinking fumes, this weekend's Telegraph Holiday (street) Fair, a twenty-six year tradition, breathed life into a moribund business district. 

Stinking fumes were courtesy of the Sequoia Apartments fire, at Haste and Telegraph, the worst Berkeley fire since 1991's hills fire, and reminiscent of the 1985 Berkeley Inn fire. 

After breathing life into a moribund business district, the fair almost choked, when the event's organizer, Janet Klein, learned Friday that city officials might have to close two blocks of Telegraph during next-week's fair—a crippling blow. 

Losing a half-block of booths to Sequoia-site fences was harmful enough, but losing two blocks, that was killer, Klein told me Sunday. 

How could the fair be disrupted? Turns out that on-going city toxicity tests could soon clear the debris for removal. According to Klein, the demolition team is spending $7,000 daily for removal equipment, and is eager to begin debris removal. 

If debris removal had begun, it would have closed two Telegraph blocks for safety reasons, hobbling the fair, according to Klein, who is being briefed regularly by city officials. The four-block, two hundred booth sub-township, would have been chopped off at the middle. 

But the ghost of the Sequoia, which had been haunting the fair, went up in smoke again; the fair survives its latest threat. I was interviewing Klein when she got word the Fair was spared. The city's permit governing debris removal, apparently prevents contractors from interfering with regularly-scheduled public events. 

At least that is everyone's understanding for now, because, as Klein puts it, "no one, not us, the city, or the building owners, or the demolition team, knows what's going on." 

Klein gave the city high marks in supporting the fair, by "expediting," the opening of Telegraph sooner than anyone expected. 

And then the sun shone through a lingering, Smokey haze, bathing the fair in gold, as the first week neared its close. 

The fair was on a roll—for the time being. 

"The public has no idea how complex the fair is," Klein said. 

Eddie Munroe, who organized the fair in the eighties, said that by the time he quit, the fair had already become "complex." You get the idea that is not good. 

Klein said that organizing a fair used to be "easy-peasy, before economic down-turns effected our artists incomes. We lost many regulars, but picked up a lot of craftsmen without business licenses, who pay more for their booths. We have to go to their workshops, sometimes far away, to make sure they are doing their own work, a requirement, if we are to observe our permits." 

Klein spoke to me from her crafts booth, which sports a red-cross. Her small booth is the event's first aid station. "I had to be trained to use some of the first aid equipment I have here," she said. 

"We have more regulations all the time," Klein said. 

Klein is assisted by a staff of 12, one of whom, "the cookie girl," is charged with cookie distribution to vendors throughout the day. 

Disabilities rights regulations require that ramps be placed up and down the four-block fair; one staffer coordinates that, according to Klein. The ramps are stored in two local businesses. 

According to Munroe, who designed the first ramps when he was event organizer, the ramps also serve to provide access to local businesses from spaces between booths. 

One of Klein's biggest tasks is as marshal of Dodge, a sheriff of sorts, who is to the fair as the captain to his ship—ultimate authority over artists and craftsmen, not known for their establishmentarianism. 

Vendors cried foul Saturday, as barricades in front of Intermezzo and Raleigh's cost them their pre-paid spots. When they were relocated to Haste, then pushed East by food stands, tempers flared, and matters were not improved when some Haste street vendors reported lost sales, on one of the biggest profit days of the fair. 

Klein says that other Haste vendors did just fine. 

Street vendors always seem to have complaints, according to Eddie Munroe, who should know. He founded and helmed the fair from 1984-1992. 

According to a Haste-Street vendor, who said his sales were down "we're all adults; we should be able to get along. It's all politics. We'll work it out Sunday." 

And work it out they did Sunday, when the disgruntled vendors were awarded Telegraph locations in the early morning "lottery" for booth position. 

And they did get cookies all day. 

On to next weekend. 

_____________________________________ 

Ted Friedman, who often reports for the Planet from South-side, never knew how much his holiday street fair meant to him until "they" tried to take it away.

Members of St John's Presbyterian Church in Berkeley sang Christmas carols for Occupy Berkeley after church on Sunday (Dec. 18th). The group was led by Pastor Max Lynn and Music Director Todd Lolly in their annual caroling expedition, which usually focuses on senior residents homes, because they wanted to show support for the occupy movement. 

"We are the 99%, and we just want to show support, as well as appreciation for those who are making the time to stand up for all of us", stated Pastor Max, "we are with them every day in spirit". Pastor Max visited the site earlier in the week to plan the Sunday visit, and because he overheard a discussion about the need for more protein and even meat for the occupy kitchen, the group arrived with a couple of cooked hams, huge cans of tuna and other food supplies. While the kitchen bustled with new activity, others joined the carolers or stood around listening to the music eating ham or tuna sandwiches. 

St John's Presbyterian Church was one of the first sanctuary churches in the US, providing refuge for Salvadorian and Guatemalan political refugees, and is a More Light Church, welcoming and supporting the LGBTQ community and their right to worship, marry and preach the word of an inclusive God 

I've been dismayed by the recent slew of movie posters advertising the new Sherlock Holmes sequel. Popping up on billboards and buses around the Bay Area, they show a smirking Sherlock and a blank-faced Watson brandishing handguns.  

Now call me old-fashioned, but I don't recall watching any of the original Holmes films in which Basil Rathbone walked around waving a pistol. Just when did Holmes decide to swap his meerschaum for a Mauser?  

A. Conan Doyle's Holmes used to rely on introspection, intelligence and dazzling powers of observation to solve crimes. Does anyone else find it disturbing that Doyle's "battle of wits" has been replaced by a Hollywood gun-battle of twits? Instead of "Elementary, Dr. Watson," Holmes' modern catchphrase would seem to be: "Hand me a new clip, Watson!" Now I'm gracious enough to forgive the filmmakers for the wardrobe decision to drop the deerstalker cap --but Holmes (as portrayed by Robert Downey Jr.) in drag? That's really lip-sticking it to us purists. In response to the encroaching pistolry and pyrotechnics in what passes for "modern cinema," my first thought was to call for a national campaign to ban weapons from our movie screens.  

If Hollywood directors can change their ways and show A-list actors to eschew on-screen smoking and start buckling their seatbelts before a car-chase, why not exercise a little restraint when it comes to the overbearing bearing of arms -- at least for the week of the High Holy Holidays?  

But since a Holiday Hollywood Handgun Ban looks unlikely, I've decided to take a different approach. Now that Doyle's dudes have been dolled up in Edwardian body armor, maybe it's time for the rest of us to join the trend and up-arm some other movie classics.  

Here are a few titles that occurred to me.  

Perhaps you can come up with others:  

Peter Pandemonium 

Mary Popguns 

Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang-Bang  

Gun-Slinging in the Rain 

To Blast a Mockingbird 

Machinegun Muppets Take Manhattan 

Hercule Poirot Goes Ballistic 

Dora the Explorer: Locked and Loaded  

E.T.: The Exterminating Terrestrial  

A Gunfight at the Opera (starring the Marksmen Brothers)  

Emeryville's Pixar Studios would be expected to join the fray with a holiday feature where Woody, Buzz and the gang return as a team of grenade-tossing mercenaries in Destroy Story.  

And, of course, Pixar's next Cars sequel would be called Tanks!

Being out and about in Berkeley in the week before Christmas provides a good window on the world in 2011. A lot of fuss has been made, rightly so, about the major divide between the 1% super-rich and the 99% others, but the old distinction of the haves versus the have-nots is still valid.

Berkeley has recently been certified as the center of this split. We have the biggest gap between the rich and the poor of any city in the Bay Area.

Of course, the simple explanation is that we’re the rich city most tolerant of also including some less-well-off residents, which can be construed as being praiseworthy. We’ve even had a historic commitment (now in the process of being breached) to adding a few less expensive units to our luxury condo developments and plush mini-dorm rentals which are being constructed downtown for U.C. students.

But by and large, the retail stores you see if you try to Shop Local are comfortable accommodations for the carriage trade, for people who don’t have to sweat the disposition of their purchasing dollars. Even our student population, once considered low-income, is increasingly drawn from more privileged segments because costs have gotten so high. 

The new face of Andronico’s is typical. The somewhat grungy stores on Telegraph and University with their increasingly bare shelves are gone, presumably because the demographics of the neighborhood didn’t measure up. But the Shattuck Avenue survivor location looks plusher than ever. Clearly the new owners have decided, like Willie Sutton, to go where the money is, and that would be North Berkeley,. 

Yet even the well-off in the past have been overhead whining that the chain under the previous owners was “just too expensive”. There’s little mention of the fact that past Andronico’s employees were decently paid union members, while those of the competitors Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and the Berkeley Bowl most emphatically are not. (The Andronico’s union might be at risk under the new regime.)  

Berkeleyans don’t seem to understand that getting a bargain might well be an indication that someone somewhere in the supply chain is underpaid—and this attitude is just as prevalent among self-identified “progressives” as it is anywhere. Cody’s Books, staffed in its glory days by family members and union employees, is gone, replaced for many of us by Amazon, which doesn’t even contribute sales tax revenues to our increasingly broke government. 

I overheard an avid middle-class supporter of the Occupy movement saying that she had little sympathy for the people whose homes were foreclosed on, because they should have known better than to borrow when they couldn’t pay back. She wasn’t even slightly dissuaded by arguments citing predatory lending practices by financial institutions. She’s a good example of how the politics of Occupy can too easily segue into the politics of resentment: “It’s not that I don’t have enough, it’s that a few others have much much more.”  

From a strategic perspective, the 99-1 dichotomy is a brilliant way of swelling the ranks, but from the point of view of justice it’s important to stress that the most painful divide is still between Having Enough and Not Having Enough. The disintegration of Occupy Berkeley was caused, in part, by an unwelcome infusion of those made crazy by Not Enough, including not enough shelter and no treatment facilities for medical and dependency problems . 

Around the time of the winter solstice, we humans are accustomed to cheering ourselves up against the possibility that the sun won’t rise again with using lots of lights in a variety of ways in quasi-religious observances. Music and alcohol are other popular media for deterring the demons of winter. 

It’s also been customary for the relatively fortunate members of various faiths to give what they can to the less fortunate approximately at solstice time as another way of driving off demons. That’s one surviving religious custom that’s should even be followed by their post-religious descendants.  

Berkeley probably has a certain representation of the insanely rich .01%, but it has a much higher proportion of those who have Enough, or even More Than Enough. Those of us who are in the latter category should not be lulled into a complacent expectancy that Taxing the SuperRich will take care of the poor anytime in the near future, because it’s just not likely to happen. Unless and until it does, though it might seem less than fair, the 80-99% will just have to continue to carry the burden that their richer brethren have shunned.  

So happy holidays, whichever ones appeal to you, to anyone of the 99% who’s listening. Whether you’re waiting for the Messiah, the Apocalypse, the Rapture or the Revolution, if you have enough, celebrate by giving something to those who don’t.  

Merry Xmas, Baby, from Aunt and Uncle Scrooge in Berkeley! If we believe the flyer distributed last night at the Occupy Berkeley encampment by Berkeley police, tonight’s the night for the big bust.

Let’s stipulate, for starters, that the site’s turned into an awful mess. No one I talk to would deny that anymore, even the most loyal supporters of the occupy concept. Something should certainly be done about it, and Councilmember Jesse Arreguin’s suggestions would be a good place to start.

But...how stupid is it that the city’s hired guns, the city manager and the police chief, don’t seem to have made the most desultory attempt to get buy-in from Berkeley citizens or the elected officials who have spent the most time working with the protesters?

Maybe someone, somewhere, in Berkeley’s city bureaucracy (oops, almost wrote autocracy) should have a chat with Robert Birgenau or Jean Quan before giving the police carte blanche to go full steam ahead.

There are many opportunities for things to go wrong tonight. Even though we’ve all got better things to do, it might be a good idea for anyone who is concerned with civic peace and civil liberties to observe whatever proceedings materialize at 10.

Joseph Young

Dan O'Neill

Here is part of what I want to say:

I don't regard the camp as having any remaining political legitimacy. It still has political significance, but not legitimacy.

Here is what I mean: 

The camp is *significant* because there are some people there with some real problems. 

The camp is significant because many of those real problems reflect problems of the larger society. The cycle of poverty, drug abuse, violence, and other crime effects us all. 

The camp did not create those problems. 

The camp can not cure those problems. 

But the camp is significant because it brought all those problems right into the center of town, right in the middle of town. Right in everyone's way. 

The camp brought those problems of poverty, violence and drugs right in the way of children and teenagers, of vets, and of families. The camp brought those problems right in the way of farmers and city council members, bankers and baristas. 

The camp is politically significant because the community is forced to end it -- while trying to wrestle as justly as possible with the ongoing problems of poverty, drug abuse, violence, and other crimes. 

But "significant" doesn't mean "legitimate". 

The camp lacks political legitimacy. 

What I mean by that is that camp offers no solution to the problems it has created. The camp offers no insight into how to solve those problems. Some elements of the camp seem to positively wallow and revel in these problems. 

The camp has no legitimacy because it doesn't ask the community for help -- it demands food and tells donors to fuck off. 

The camp has no legitimacy because it tells the police to fuck off but internally runs on might makes right. 

The camp has no legitimacy because it claims to be non-violent yet it covers up and therefore rewards violence in its own ranks. 

The camp claims to be against greed but then squanders its own precious resources on the selfish desires of a few. 

One must always say, up front, and loudly: I do not speak for Occupy. 

With that disclaimer, I will say this: 

That camp ain't Occupy. 

Later: what I think is Occupy. Hint: it might be you.

As far as I can tell Bill Bahou, popular longtime owner of the neighborhood Roxie Deli in South Berkeley, is in the cross-hairs of both the Walgreens Corporation and—thanks to Walgreens' highly paid lawyers—Berkeley City bureaucracy. 

As part of a "battle of the beer and wine licenses" (ironically temporarily 'on hold' as this is written) Walgreens' lawyers found a way to harass and financially damage the "mayor of Ashby and Shattuck": They went to the City with a complaint that he had installed tables for in-store service and that he opens too early in the morning (5:30 a.m.), without benefit of a special permit. And the City took the bait. 

The tab for a "special permit"? $5,000! Is he "guilty"? Technically, perhaps. Would this have come up if Walgreens hadn't targeted Bahou? My guess is no. Is this a major hit for this small business? Definitely! $5,000 would be chump change for Walgreens, but between the fine and the loss of a small but significant chunk of his business, this could have a big impact on Bill. 

As of now, the beer and wine license issue is moot, since Walgreens has withdrawn their application for the time being. But Bill still faces bureaucratic hurdles and a $5000 fee for conditions that have existed for years at the Roxie with never a murmur of complaint or any problems for the neighborhood. (When told he needed a permit, he had gone to the City this year and paid $180 over the counter, but his permit was later withdrawn after someone higher up decided he needed the "special" $5000 type.) 

HOW TO HELP: One way is to go by the Roxie before January 9th and sign the petition to the City of Berkeley. It will likely be before the Council on January 31st, and the 9th is the deadline for submissions. 

Another is to call or email Council members, asking that the fee be waived on grounds of of both hardship and problems with the process. We think that if there's a strong show of support from local residents, the City Council will grant the waiver. 

PLEASE NOTE that this is the Roxie at Ashby and Shattuck, a separate business from the one on Dwight Way west of Telegraph..

Editor's Note: The Planet received this letter tonight (the first night of Chanukah) from Rabbi Lerner:

Challenged by interviewer Michael Krasny on the NPR affiliate KQED's Forum show Tuesday morning Dec. 20, 2011, to defend one part of Embracing Israel/Palestine (my claim that the path to peace requires a transformation of consciousness, and that Israel and Palestine not only could live together in peace but that there is no peace and justice for Israel without peace and justice for Palestine, so the best way to be both pro-Israel is to be pro-Palestine, and the best way to be pro-Palestine is to also be pro-Israel) I argued that the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians actually want peace but cannot believe that the other side wants it too. It is this depressive paranoid certainty that "the other" wants to destroy us that has been a central part of what keeps Israeli and Palestinians from finding the path to their common interests, just as it is a similar paranoid and pathogenic fantasy that keeps the US population willing to finance an inflated military which keeps in an ending state of hyper-alertness and makes it a ready tool for imperial ambitions of the wealthy. I also presented my psychological assessment of both sides and my view that consciousness transformation, though difficult, is both possible and absolutely necessary, both in Israel/Palestine and in the U.S.
The answer from the Jewish Right came tonight in the 4th attack on my house, this time on the first night of Chanukah (tonight, Dec. 20th). This one was relatively mild—two black-hooded men pasted signs on the outside of my house and garage saying "Palestine is an Arab fantasy." They were taking their clue from Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich who has tried to out-do his Republican opponents in the primaries by, among other things, showing that he can be even more extreme on Israel than anyone else. Thus the notion that Palestine is an "invented nation." 

It seems obvious to me that the attack, while responding to the NPR interview with me this morning, is part of the same attempt to terrorize me and my family as the past three assaults. As the police made clear to us the last time, the goal is not to destroy property as much as to remind us that they know where we live, and that we are not safe. Needless to say, in a world where Israeli right-wingers this past week burned a mosque and assaulted an IDF (Israeli army) post for allegedly being too pro-Arab, there is no way to be sure that all these warning shots at me are only meant to scare and do not suggest that worse may be coming if my book gets more attention. But of course I will not be intimidated, and we will continue to look for venues to speak about the book and to reach out to media to challenge the way they tend to present all Jews as standing behind Netanyahu, or at least to only quote those who do. And the best way you can help is to take my new book and talk about it to friends, neighbors, and create a study group in your neighborhood, your college or university, your church or synagogue, in which you read it carefully (and critically—because we at Tikkun don't seek "followers" but rather "comrades" to help us in the task of building a new consciousness, and that requires having the sophistication that only comes when one listens and reads critically and not as though I was "a guru" to be followed, but merely a teacher whose teachings need to be thought about seriously). [And once again, I forgive these psychological terrorists—I believe that they must be driven by great fear for our people and great inner pain, and I pray that they may recover from all the anger that leads them to project onto me the hatred that is eating away at their souls.] 

I thought, however, that you might be interested in reading the article by MJ Rosenberg whose columns we publish on our website www.tikkun.org. He takes on Newt Gingrich's perspcective and answers those who think that Palestine is just an Arab fantasy. 

By MJ Rosenberg 

It is hard to believe that anyone who defends Israel's legitimacy as a state would buy into former Speaker Newt Gingrich's argument that Palestine is an "invented nation." 

The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people — Israel and the Israelis — from scratch. The first Hebrew-speaking child in 1900 years, Ittamar Ben-Avi, was not born until 1882. His father, the brilliant linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, created a modern language for him to speak by improvising from the language of the Bible. 

The founder of the Israeli state was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), an assimilated Viennese writer who was convinced by the Dreyfus trial in France and the horrendous right-wing anti-Semitism that resulted from it that Jews had to get out of Europe. 

In 1897, he wrote the book that would essentially inaugurate the Zionist movement. It was called Der Judenstaat (meaning "the Jews' state" or "the Jewish State"), which was his proposal for moving the Jews out of Europe and into their own country. 

He didn't specify where the Jewish homeland should be. He was more concerned about quickly obtaining territory anywhere for Jews to seek refuge. 

Later he decided that Palestine made the most sense because that was where the Jewish people both began and exercised self-determination in ancient times and where there already was a small minority of Jews. But he also spoke of finding a place in Africa or the Americas if Palestine was unavailable. 

The reaction to Herzl's idea was primarily that he was a bit crazy. Jews committed to assimilation insisted that Jews were not a nation but a religious faith. Their nationalities were French, German, Polish, Iraqi, or American — not some imaginary Jewish nationality that had not existed for 1900 years. 

As late as 1943, during the worst days of the Holocaust, the American Jewish Committee — which adhered to the assimilationist view — resigned from the body created by American Jews to respond to the Nazi catastrophe over its "demand for the eventual establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine." 

Seventy-plus years later, it is impossible to argue that the Israeli nation is not as authentic and worthy of recognition as any in the world (more authentic than some, in fact). 

The Hebrew language is spoken by millions of Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli culture is unique, bearing little resemblance to any other in the world. In fact, diaspora Jews have as little in common with Israelis as African-Americans have with Africans. 

Israelis are not just Jews who happen to live in Palestine, even though the concept of Israel-ness started just over a hundred years ago as nothing but an idea. They are Israelis, entitled to self-determination, peace and security in their own land. 

And the Palestinians are every bit as much a nation. If the ultimate definition of authentic nationhood is continuous residence in a land for thousands of years, the Palestinian claim to nationhood is ironclad. They never left Palestine (except for those who either emigrated or became refugees after the establishment of Israel). 

Those who deny that Palestinians have a nation base their case on two arguments, both of which are logically incoherent. The first is that Palestinians never exercised self-determination in Palestine; they were always governed by others from ancient times to the present day. 

The answer to this is: So what? 

Most nations in the world lacked self-determination for long periods of their history. The Polish nation existed between 1790 and 1918 even though the state was erased from the map — divided between Russia and Austro-Hungary. It achieved independence in 1918 only to again lose it to the Nazis and then the Soviets from 1939 until 1989. Would anyone today argue that the Polish nation was invented? 

The idea of it is ridiculous, especially when offered by Israelis or Americans (or Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, etc.), whose national existence would have been unimaginable a few centuries ago. 

The second argument is that Palestinians never thought of themselves as Palestinians until Jews started moving into their territory, that Palestinian nationalism is a response to Zionism. 

Again, so what? 

When European Jews docked in Jaffa, Palestine in the early immigration waves of the late 19th century, there were Arabs waiting at the port. When the Jews purchased land, it was Arabs who had to move out. 

And if those Arabs didn't call themselves Palestinians until the Zionist movement began, neither did the Jews call themselves Israelis. Until 1948, they were just Jews. But each of the two peoples knew who they were and who the other was. 

The bottom line is that today the Palestinian nation is as authentic as the Israeli nation, and vice versa. Those who think either is going away are blinded by hatred. 

To put it simply, the first part of the phrase self-determination is the word self. Both nations have the absolute right to define themselves as two nations which, hopefully, will evolve into two states. The alternative is national catastrophe not for one nation, but for two. 

Why would Newt Gingrich care about that? 

(Foreign Policy Matters)

In recent advertisements in their attempt to gain control of people’s opinions, the oil companies have reached a new level of brazenness. They have now come out and said, in a straightforward manner, that we ought to be in favor of more oil exploration and of the use of “oil sands” in Canada, which is actually a nicer way of saying “oil shale.” It would be a strip-mining of large areas of wilderness to get the oil contained in the rock. They would like to see the public approve of more offshore drilling. 

Their ads claim that they are on the forefront of solar and of other alternate forms of energy. This is like saying that the coyotes are on the forefront of the egg laying chickens nearby. 

When the oil companies do research of alternate, advanced forms of energy, it is only for the purpose of obtaining a patent that will block anyone in the future from using that technology. The oil companies oppose alternate forms of energy because they are a threat to their ability to continue profiting from oil. 

For example, this hasn’t happened, but let’s say someone invents a device that will conveniently and safely extract atomic energy from hydrogen fusion. This advancement will provide limitless, clean energy with minimal repercussions to the environment. Such an invention would spell the end of most other forms of energy. Furthermore, the supply of hydrogen can’t be regulated, controlled or sold for profit. This is because hydrogen can be easily extracted from water. Your middle school science teacher probably demonstrated it for you. Such an invention would spell the end of 99 percent of the profit generating activity of the oil and energy companies. 

In reality, the oil and energy companies oppose solar power, because you can not profit from something available to almost everyone, the sun. If you can climb a ladder, you should be able to set up your own solar panel on the roof. It won’t entirely eliminate your need for electricity or motor fuel, but it will put a dent in it. If people invested in solar across the US, we could eliminate the need to invade, or buy oil from, countries in the Middle East. 

The oil and energy companies want you to go into a mode of apathy and surrender. They do this by promoting the idea that you are helpless to do anything about the energy situation in the US, and it is hopeless to try anything. These emotions will prevent you from getting on that ladder and installing solar panels on your rooftop. One of their chief weapons that they use is to confuse your thought processes by bringing up alternate forms and claiming “We’re already working on it.” In fact, they are already working against it, and they need you to vote for the candidate who espouses more offshore drilling. 

When President Obama brings up “clean coal,” (a term which is an oxymoron intended to deceive people) it indicates that to an extent he is on the payroll of the energy giants. This might explain the three year delay in pulling the last of our troops from Iraq. US citizens need to move ahead despite the cold feet of Congress and the President. If there were another grassroots movement that resembled the “occupy” movement, only directed at energy independence, it might end the chokehold that big corporate energy has on all of us. It could all start with the good example of one concerned citizen.

Mr. Rosenberg's remarks about the dispute between Monterey Market and its neighboring businesses ignores the history of laws against unfair competition and "loss leaders," that have been in place in California since 1933. It is illegal to sell items at below cost (including overhead and business expenses) in order to drive a competitor out of business. 

Unfortunately, the desire to drive someone out of business must be a "conscious purpose." Monterey Market may be selling items at below its cost in order to bring in more customers or to drive is competitors out of business. The former is legitimate and the latter illegal. No lawsuit is likely to be filed in order to find out the Market's intent. It is extremely difficult to prove "conscious intent." 

Even without such an intent, the resulting closing of nearby businesses is a serious issue. Selling below cost is commonly referred to as "predatory pricing." This gives a short term advantage to the buyer, but does long term harm to the economy and ultimately the customer, because selling below cost is unsustainable in the long run. Once the competitor is out of business, the predator can charge what it pleases. 

I don't know the facts, so I don't presume to judge whether Monterey Market's pricing is predatory; but I don't buy into the idea that any practice that lowers prices to consumers is a good thing. Business prosper better when they are located near other similar thriving businesses, even if they compete. That's why shopping centers were created. Empty store fronts are bad for business, and ultimately bad for the economy, including customers. 

Here's a link that gives a brief rundown on the issue of predatory pricing. 

Monterey Market, primarily but not only a produce market, has been a Berkeley institution for decades. The produce is fresh, the varieties endless, the prices low. 

Nearby shops are complaining that Monterey has started selling "cheese, tea, lunchmeats, chocolate, wine, pies/cakes, and flowers - all at PREDATORY PRICING". The nearby shops are hurting, fear they may go out of business. They have begun a petition drive to protest these "unfair, competitive tactics". 

The nerve of Monterey! Selling better products at lower prices! It's UnAmerican! or UnBerkeleyian. 

This being Berkeley one may expect protests at the planning/zoning committee and a lawsuit. 

Monterey's competitors should ask themselves why their customers need them when those customers can buy better and cheaper at Monterey. Before going out of business I would ask myself if there might be something, goods or services, that I can supply and that Monterey cannot. Business prospers when customers do.

“On his recent trip to Asia Pacific, the President made it clear that the centerpiece of this strategy includes an intensified American role in this vital region,” Financial Times Nov. 28, 2011 —Tom Donilon, President Barak Obama’s national security advisor 

“An Indo-Pacific without a strong U.S. military presence would mean the Finlandisation by China of countries in the South China Sea, such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore,” Financial Times Nov. 30, 2011—Robert Kaplan, senior fellow Center for a New American Security and author of Monsoon: The Indian Ocean the Future of American Power 

Donilon is a long-time Democratic Party operative and former lobbyist for Fannie Mae and a key figure in the Clinton administration’s attack on Yugoslavia and the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. Kaplan is a Harvard Business School professor and advisor on the Mujahedeen war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, as well as current U.S. military intervention in the Horn of Africa. 

Something is afoot. 

Indeed, it is. The Obama administration is in the middle of a major shift in foreign policy—a “strategic pivot” in the words of the White House—in two regions of the world: Asia and Africa. In both cases, a substantial buildup of military forces and a gloves-off use of force lie at the heart of the new approach. 

The U.S. now has a permanent military force deployed in the Horn of Africa, a continent-wide military command—Africom—and it has played a key role in overthrowing the Libyan government. It also has Special Forces active in Uganda, Somalia, and most of the countries that border the Sahara.  

But it is in Asia that the administration is making its major push, nor is it coy about whom the target is. “We are asserting our presence in the Pacific. We are a Pacific power,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the National Defense University in August, “we know we face some long-term challenges about how we are going to cope with what the rise of China means.” 

There is whiff to all this of old fashioned Cold War hype, when the U.S. pumped up the Russian military as a world-swallowing force panting to pour through the Fulda Gap and overrun Western Europe: the Chinese are building a navy to challenge the U.S.; the Chinese are designing special missiles to neutralize American aircraft carriers; the Chinese are bullying nations throughout the region. 

Common to Clinton’s address, as well as to Kaplan’s and Donilon’s opinion pieces, were pleas not to cut military spending in the Pacific. In fact, it appears the White House is already committed to that program. “Reduction in defense spending will not come at the expense of the Asia Pacific,” Donilon wrote, “There will be no diminution of our military presence or capabilities in the region.” 

The spin the White House is putting on all this is that the U.S. has been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing China to throw its weight around in Asia. Donilon’s opinion piece was titled “America is back in the Pacific and will uphold the rules.” 

It is hard to know where to begin to address a statement like that other than with the observation that irony is dead. 

Asia and the Pacific has been a major focus for the U.S. since it seized the Philippines in the 1899 Spanish-American War. It has fought four major wars in the region over the past century, and, not counting China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it deploys more military personnel in the Pacific than any other nation. It dominates the region through a network of bases in Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Marshall Islands, and island fortresses like Guam and Wake. The White House just announced the deployment of 2,500 Marines to Australia. 

The American Seventh Fleet—created in 1943 and currently based in Yokosuka, Japan—is the largest of the U.S.’s naval fleets, and the one most heavily armed with nuclear weapons. 

We aren’t “back,” we never went anywhere. 

But the argument fits into the fable that U.S. military force keeps the peace in Asia. Kaplan even argues “A world without US naval and air dominance will be one where powers such as China, Russia, India, Japan and others act more aggressively toward each other than they do now, because they will all be far more insecure than they are now.” 

In short, the kiddies will get into fights unless Uncle Sam is around to teach them manners. And right now, China is threatening to upend “the rules’ through an aggressive expansion of its navy. 

China is indeed upgrading its navy, in large part because of what the Seventh Fleet did during the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis. In the middle of tensions between Taipei and Beijing, the Clinton administration deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups into the Taiwan Straits. Since there was never any danger that China was going to invade Taiwan, the carriers were just a gratuitous slap in the face. China had little choice but to back down, but vowed it would never again be humiliated in its home waters. Beijing’s naval buildup dates from that crisis. 

And “buildup” is a relative term. The U.S. has made much of China acquiring an aircraft carrier, but the “new” ship is a 1990 vintage Russian carrier, less than half the size of the standard American Nimitz flattop (of which the U.S. has 10). The “new” carrier-killer Chinese missile has yet to be tested, let alone deployed. Only in submarines can China say it is finally closing the gap with the U.S. And keep in mind that China’s military budget is about one-eighth that of the U.S. 

If the Chinese are paranoid about their sea routes and home waters, it is not without cause. Most invasions of China have come via the Yellow Sea, and 80 percent of China’s energy supplies come by sea. China ships much of its gas and oil through the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. With major suppliers based on the west coast of Africa, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, it has little choice. Those sea-lanes are controlled by the U.S. Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain and the Seventh in Japan. 

China is also building friendly ports for its tankers—the so-called “string of pearls”—and why Beijing is suspicious about the sudden thaw in U.S.-Myanmar relations. China plans to build a “pearl” in Myanmar. 

Indeed, a major reason why China is building pipelines from Russia and Central Asia is to bypass the series of choke points through which its energy supplies pass, including the straits of Hormuz and the Malacca Strait. The Turkmenistan-Xingjian and Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean pipelines are already up and running, but their volume is not nearly enough to feed China’s 11 billion barrels of oil a day appetite. 

In spite of protests, the U.S. recently carried out major naval operations in the Yellow Sea, and Washington has injected itself into tensions between Beijing and some of its neighbors over the South China Sea. In part, China has exacerbated those tensions by its own high-handed attitude toward other nations with claims on the Sea. In responding to protests over China’s claims, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi remarked, “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that is just a fact.” 

China’s initial arrogance on the issue has allowed the U.S. to wedge itself into the dispute and portray itself as the “protector” of small nations. Less than 40 years ago it was trying to bomb several of those nations back into the Stone Age, and Vietnam just recorded its 100,000th casualty since 1975 from explosives left over by the American war.  

Beijing has since cooled its tone on the South China Sea and is backing away from defining it as a “core” Chinese area. 

Why the “strategic pivot?” Undoubtedly, some of it is posturing for the run-up to the 2012 elections. Being “tough” on China trumps Republican charges that Obama is “soft” on foreign policy. But this “pivot” is more than cynical electioneering. 

First, China does not pose any military threat to the U.S. or its allies in Asia, and the last thing it wants is a war. Beijing has not forgotten its 1979 invasion of Vietnam that ended up derailing its “four modernizations” drive and deeply damaging its economy. 

Part of this “China threat” nonsense has to do with the power of the U.S. armaments industry to keep the money spigots open. When it comes to “big ticket” spending items, navies and air forces top the list. An aircraft costs in excess of $5 billion, and the single most expensive weapons program in U.S. history is the F-35 stealth fighter. 

But there is more than an appetite for pork at work here. 

China is the number two economy in the world, and in sharp competition with the U.S. and its allies for raw materials and human resources. It is hard to see the aggressive U.S. posture in Asia as anything other than an application of the old Cold War formula of economic pressure, military force, and diplomatic coercion. From Washington’s point of view, it worked to destabilize the Soviet Union, why shouldn’t it work on China? 

“If you are a strategic thinker in China,” says Simon Tay, chair of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, “you do not have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to think that the U.S. is trying to bandwagon Asia against China.” 

Since U.S. foreign policy is almost always an extension of corporate interests, squeezing China in Asia, Africa and Central Asia helps create openings for American investments. And if such a policy also protects the multi-billion dollar military budget, including the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, so much the better. 

It is a dangerous game, first, because military tension can lead to war, and, while that is an unlikely event, mistakes happen. “If we keep this up, then we are going to leave the impression with China that we are drawing battle lines,” Douglas Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told the Financial Times. In fact, the Obama administration has drawn up a plan called AirSea Battle to deny China control of the Taiwan Straits. 

The consequences for those caught in the middle will be severe. China has pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but it still has a ways to go. An arms race will delay that. For the average American, racked by double-digit unemployment, a vanishing safety net, and the collapse of everything from education to infrastructure, it will be no less of a tragedy. 

We’ve been getting a lot of traffic and a rewarding variety of species at the bird feeders this fall. Or maybe it’s just the observer effect, influenced by the late onset of the rains. In any case, it’s been a good opportunity to watch bird behavior up close while waiting for the drier cycle to finish. 

This season’s undisputed star is an adult male Townsend’s warbler: a snazzy little bird with crisp black-and-yellow markings, including the diagnostic black throat. He’s been coming around since at least Thanksgiving. I’ve seen another Townsend’s, a yellow-throated female or juvenile, in the mulberry tree out front, but he or she hasn’t visited the back porch where the feeders are. The male warbler is fond of suet. This surprised me at first, since I had thought warblers insisted on live insects (with a few exceptions like the seed-eating pine warblers back in Arkansas.) But there’s a reference in Arthur Cleveland Bent’s Life Histories of North American Wood Warblers to Townsend’s warblers being attracted to peanut butter, cheese, and marshmallows. 

The suet also brings in chestnut-backed chickadees (up to four at a time), oak titmice, and once or twice a ruby-crowned kinglet. We’ve been buying an alleged woodpecker blend, containing both peanuts and corn. So far the woodpeckers—we’ve had both Nuttall’s and downy in the neighborhood—have ignored it. The titmice are considerably more wary than the chickadees, waiting in the nearby bay tree until they’re convinced they can make a safe approach. 

Since mid-November we’ve had an influx of dark-eyed juncos, all of the Oregon type so far. At first they didn’t seem to know what to make of the suet feeder. One—typically an adult male, recognizable by its darker gray hood—would perch on top of the suet cage for a while as if studying it, then fly away. I don’t know which junco figured out you had to get inside the cage, but the breakthrough eventually came. Now they’re constant customers, with voracious appetites. Juncos can go through a lot of suet. They also seem to dominate the smaller chickadees, which I’m not so happy about. My sources say juncos eat mostly seeds in winter, so the suet matrix may be just a bonus. 

The juncos also frequent the thistle feeder down in the yard, picking up what the goldfinches spill. So, less often, do the resident California towhees and the wintering white-crowned sparrows. The gang of house sparrows that use the seed feeder next door haven’t shown any interest in the thistle, which is just as well. 

We’ve also had an unexpected guest at the back-porch hummingbird feeder: an orange-crowned warbler that perches on it and sips the sugar-water solution. This is a much less showy bird than the Townsend’s, overall greenish; the orange crown is only visible when the warbler is really exercised about something. The species account in Cornell’s Birds of North America notes that it has been attracted to feeders with suet, peanut butter, and doughnuts (what is it with the doughnuts and marshmallows?), but our orange-crown has never investigated the suet feeder. 

The BNA account goes on to say that orange-crowned warblers in Colorado feed on sap from wells drilled by the local red-naped sapsuckers. The birds have a daily route, visiting the most productive wells in sequence. It could be that the orange-crown is pre-adapted to take advantage of hummingbird feeders. 

Other residents, transients, and winter visitors could care less about the feeders. For all its curiosity, the local Bewick’s wren doesn’t appear interested in the suet. Nor are the yellow-rumped warblers, bushtits, or hermit thrushes. 

Feeder-watching may not be science. Beats television, though.

It’s been 168 years since Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol to illustrate the horrific living conditions of the English poor and promote the true nature of Christmas. If Dickens were still alive, he’d be compelled to update his tale. 

On Christmas Eve, Bob Cratchit comes home from work and tells his wife, Emily, he’s been laid off, “They’re shutting down the tractor factory and moving it to China.” “How are we going to pay for the Christmas presents?” she asks. “We’ve already maxed out all our credit cards.” Emily just came off a long shift at Walmart and she’s exhausted. “I don’t know,” Bob responds, “but what I’m most worried about are Tiny Tim’s medical bills.” Their only son, Tim, is short for his age and has brittle-bone syndrome. When Tim was a baby, the Cratchits lived near a chemical plant that contaminated the groundwater. Rather than deal with the damage, the chemical corporation declared bankruptcy. 

Bob Cratchit goes to the YMCA to work out and encounters Ebenezer “Eb” Scrooge, who inherited the tractor factory from his father, Jacob. “How’s it going, Cratchit? How are your wife and little boy?” Eb says with false bonhomie. “Not so well,” Bob answers, “because you decided to move the factory, I’m out of a job.” “It wasn’t personal, it was business,” Eb snaps, “You shouldn’t have any problem finding a job, Cratchit. You can build a web site or something.” 

Eb returns to his mansion and falls sleep. In the middle of the night the gleaming ghost of his father, Jacob Scrooge, wakes him up. “So you’d move the factory, would you,” Jacob wails. He transports Eb thirty years into the past. Jacob and Eb Scrooge are in the factory cafeteria at a Christmas Party for the employees and their families. Jacob thanks everyone, “All of you shared in our accomplishments, so all of you will share in the profits. I’m giving each of you a bonus.” As cheers fill the room, Jacob hugs Eb and says, “This factory is my second home and these employees are members of my extended family. I trust that you will always take care of them.” 

Next, Jacob transports Eb back to the present, to the Cratchit home. Bob and Emily are hosting a potluck Christmas dinner with their neighbors. Ten adults share a scrawny chicken and one bottle of cheap wine. “What are we going to do?” one man asks, “There’s no work in town.” “We could try looking in Metropolis,” another says. “There’s nothing there unless you want to work in a McDonalds,” Bob observes. Tiny Tim interrupts the adult conversation, “Momma can I go outside and play with the others?” Emily forces a smile and says, “Yes. But be careful,” and watches Tim hobble out of the room on his crutches. “Closing down the factory is Scrooges’ fault!” one man bellows. Bob Cratchit sighs. “Eb’s not as strong as his father; he did what his accountants advised.” Bob lifts his half-filled glass, “but we have each other and somehow we will get through this. Merry Christmas!”  

Finally, Jacob transports Eb to the future. At the town graveyard, Bob and Emily Cratchit stare at a small pine coffin. Jacob whispers, “After Bob lost his job, they couldn’t afford the treatments Tim required.” Then Jacob transports Eb to the town square, which is covered with tents and ringed by heavily–armed police officers. Jacobs explains, “After Bob and Emily lost their house, they joined the Occupy Wall Street protest.” A police bullhorn blares, “Leave now or you will be arrested.” Bob and Emily face the police, hold hands with their neighbors, and chant, “We are the 99 percent. We are the 99 percent.” 

The original Christmas Carol had a happy ending. For 2011, here are two possibilities: 

Ending 1: Eb Scrooge wakes up on Christmas morning, remembering the dream of his father and Christmas past, present, and future. He goes to his liquor cabinet and pours himself a stiff drink. Well fortified, he dresses and calls for his limousine. Eb is driven to the Metropolis country club, where one of his friends is hosting Christmas dinner. After several drinks, the party is shown a video by Mitt Romney: “Merry Christmas,” Mitt says. “With your support, and that of other job creators, we can save America from…” He pauses and the guests chant, “Socialism.” Mitt continues, “Save America from those who would replace our merit-based society with an entitlement society.” The host proposes a toast, “To the 1 percent.” Eb and his friends raise their glasses, “To the 1 percent.” 

Ending 2: Eb Scrooge wakes up on Christmas morning, remembering the dream of his father and Christmas past, present, and future. He wanders through his lonely mansion until he makes a decision. He dresses and has his limousine drive him to the Cratchit home. “I’ve brought you a turkey and all the trimmings,” Eb says to the surprised Bob Cratchit. “And a present for Tim.” Over dinner, Eb announces that he has decided not to move his factory to China. “We can make better tractors in the USA. Besides, I learned one thing from my father, we can accomplish anything if we work together.” Tiny Tim says, “Merry Christmas, Mr. Scrooge.” 

Some states license older drivers but apply restrictions. Restriction numero uno on senior drivers is vision-related. It usually requires the driver to wear glasses or corrective contact lenses. Other common restrictions include using adequate support to ensure a proper driving position, no freeway driving, no driving without a right side mirror, no nighttime driving. A time of day restriction such as no driving during rush hour traffic is also possible. Only Illinois requires senior drivers to take a road test regularly. 

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), by the year 2020, 37 million Americans will be age 65+. And at least 90 percent of them will still be licensed to drive. The PBS NewsHour on August 25, 2011 aired an excerpt from the film, Old People Driving. (Flash Player and MP3 format, running time 7 minutes 10 seconds). Filmmaker- journalist Shaleece Haas looked at two elderly drivers, one her father, who are approaching the end of their driving years and facing the loss of independence that comes with turning over their keys.  

Driving does signify independence. To lose a license might mean one is getting old. Here are some perspectives and comments from Florida, Ohio, England, a Filipino American self-styled “expert”, and mine from California.  

xxxx 

Florida requires an eye test every six years for drivers age 80+. In 2009, statistics showed Florida drivers age 65 had a crash rate of 106.75 per 10,000 licensed drivers. By age 75, it was 98.27, and by age 85 it was 88.85. The same cannot be said for younger drivers. It is possible to make a confidential report to the state through a little-known Florida law. Form #72190 is on the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) website. It is claimed that no penalty can be brought against anyone who provides such information to the state. I’m skeptical. Anyway, I don’t plan on going to Florida—too hot most of the year, snakes, alligators, tourists. 

xxxx 

A retired Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper has adapted the contract idea from the informal contracts sometimes recommended for teenage drivers and their families. His experience had involved elderly drivers, who, after age 75, had worse crash records than younger ones and who were also more vulnerable to injury and death. “Families don’t know what to do. Physicians sometimes don’t want to get involved. Courts’ hands are tied because of sentencing guidelines. It’s a hot potato.” In 2008, he launched a business, Keeping Us Safe, that markets responses to the problem. He sells a workbook for family members and older drivers to use together to assess drivers’ skills and consider alternatives. He trains people to offer one-on-one assessments (up to $350. for a three-hour individual session) that help older drivers decide whether they can safely continue driving. He says he has “certified” people in eight states who are offering assessments. 

xxxx 

The International Longevity Centre (London, England) is a think-tank impacting longevity, ageing and population change. Policy-makers are seeking to respond to the potential impact of population ageing on road safety, but the Centre favors support so far as possible of the existing norm of self-regulation . It urges self regulation and application of the nudge system. Its proposals would nudge (“push against gently”) individuals towards an effective form of self-regulation while recognizing that most older drivers are safe and responsible road users. 

xxxx 

“Why Elderly Drivers Are Dangerous. Old People Cause Car Wrecks” was the title of a 2008 article on the Yahoo! Contributor Network. The young writer declared “I love the elderly. I just think that they are not meant to be behind the wheel of a car… Maybe their licenses should just be invalidated. The fact is that people's senses deteriorate with age… Along with young adults aged 16-20, the elderly (70+) are responsible for the most accidents. It is debatable which group is worse as, mile per mile the young adults (16-20) are more likely to get in an accident, but studies have shown that wrecks caused by the older people are more likely to be deadly.” He advocated “… After a driver reaches 70, they should have to be re-examined each year they decide to continue driving. And after age 85, they should not be allowed to drive. Good transportation should be provided for the elderly after the age 70 even at a small cost.”  

xxxx 

A California driver age 70+ must renew her/his license in person every 5 years at a DMV office by taking vision and knowledge tests. You don't necessarily have to prove yourself behind the wheel (the “road test”). 

Making an appointment will reduce stress. Get the free annual DMV handbook. Memorize the instructions that involve numbers.  

For self-assessment, the DMV provides online practice sets of multiple-choice questions like those on the written test. I practice until I’ve mastered them, and I’ve always passed the written and eye tests imposed by my decrepitude.  

For example: When you are merging onto the freeway, you should be driving [check one] At or near the same speed as the traffic on the freeway. OR 5 to 10 MPH slower than the traffic on the freeway. OR The posted speed limit for traffic on the freeway. 

xxxxx

On December 21, 2011, a goodly crowd gathered in the North Berkeley Senior Center in anticipation of being processed for their free Senior Clipper Cards. If you missed this, go online to www.BART.gov or www.Clippercard.com. Or phone Clipper Customer Service 877-878-8883.  

PBS NewsHour's partner, the Center for Investigative Reporting, conducted a year-long probe into one prominent hospital chain's bills to Medicare. California Watch reports that California-based Prime Healthcare Services buys financially troubled hospitals and turns them around. Last year, after a meeting with the new owner, Dr. Prem Reddy, Alvarado Hospital in San Diego experienced changes. For example, Reddy encouraged the physicians to stop documenting syncope (fainting or dizzy spell) and instead use the term autonomic nerve dysfunction, which reimburses at a higher rate. ("California Hospital Chain Eyed for Possibly Bilking Medicare for Millions," by Jeffrey Brown (US Public Broadcasting System _PBS Newshour, Dec. 19, 2011). In addition to the print transcript, video and audio transcripts (running time: 8 minutes, 35 seconds) are available at the site. www.pbs.org/newshour 

xxxxx 

MARK YOUR CALENDAR. Be sure to confirm. Share by email news of future events that may interest boomers, seniors and elders. Daytime, free, and Bay Area events preferred. pen136@dslextreme.com.  

Wednesday, Dec. 28. 1:30 P.M. East Bay Gray Panthers. 510-548-9696. Meets at North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst.  

Wednesday, Dec. 28. 1:30 – 2:30 P.M. Great Books Discussion Group. Albany Library, 1247 Marin Av. Holiday lunch and selection discussion. 510-526-3720 x 16. 

xxxx 

Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2012. 1-2:30 P.M. Book Club members will read French Lessons by Ellen Sussman. Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. Free. 510-747-7510. 

Tuesday, Jan 3. 12 Noon. League of Women Voters. Albany branch, Alameda County Library, 1247 Marin Av. Free. 510-526-3720. 

Wednesday, Jan. 4. 9 A.M. – 1:30 P.M. AARP Driver Safety Refresher Course specifically designed for motorists age 50+. Taught in one-day. To qualify, you must have taken the standard course within the last 4 years. Preregistration is a must. There is a $12 per person fee for AARP members (AARP membership number required) and $14 per person fee for non-AARP members. Registration is payable by check ONLY made payable to AARP. Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. 510-747-7510. 

Wednesday, Jan. 4. 12 noon. Playreaders at Central Berkeley Library, 2090 Kittredge. 510-981-6100. See also Jan. 11, 18, 25. 

Wednesday, Jan 4. 6 P.M. Lawyer in the Library. Albany branch, Alameda County Library, 1247 Marin Av. Free. 510-526-3720. Sign up in advance 

Thursday, Jan. 5. 10 A.M. Computers for Beginners. Central Berkeley Library, 2090 Kittredge. 510-981-6100. See also Jan. 12, 19, 26. 

Monday, Jan. 9. 6 P.M. Evening Computer Class. Central Berkeley Library, 2090 Kittredge. 510-981-6100. See also Jan. 16, 23 and 30. 

Monday, Jan 9. 6:30 P.M. “Castoffs” Knitting Group. All levels are welcome and some help will be provided. Kensington Library, 61 Arlington Av.. Free. 510-524-3043. 

Tuesday, Jan. 10. 1 P.M. Sugar Blues or What? Come be inspired, find ways to beat cravings, find specific tools to make healthier choices with Certified Health coach-Yoga teacher Neta O’Leary Sundberg. Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. 510-747-7510. 

Tuesday, Jan. 10. 7 P.M. Poetry Night. Albany branch, Alameda County Library, 1247 Marin Av. Free. 510-526-3720. 

Wednesday, Jan. 11. 12 noon. Playreaders. Central Berkeley Library, 2090 Kittredge. 510-981-6100. See also Jan. 18, 25.  

Thursday, Jan. 12. 6 P.M. Lawyers in the library. Berkeley Public Library south branch. 1901 Russell. 510- 981-6100. 

Thursday, Jan. 12. 7 P.M. Café Literario. Berkeley Public Library west branch. 1125 University. Facilitated Spanish language book discussion. January title: La tabla de Flandes by Arturo Perez-Reverte. 510-981-6270. 

Friday, Jan. 13. 9:30 – 11:30 A.M. Creating Your Personal Learning Network. Learn to use the Internet and tools like Twitter and YouTube Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. 510-747-7510. Also Feb. 17. 

Wednesday, Jan. 18. 7 P.M. Adult Evening Book Group. Ian McEwan’s Atonement. Albany branch, Alameda County Library, 1247 Marin Av. Free. 510-526-3720. 

Thursday, Jan. 19. 12 Noon. Learn what identity theft is, how to prevent it, and what you can do if you become a victim. This is one in a series of free financial education seminars taught by USE Credit Union. Central Berkeley Library, 2090 Kittredge. 510-981-6100.  

Thursday, Jan. 19. 6 P.M. Lawyers in the Library. Berkeley Public Library west branch. 1125 University 510-981-6270. See also Jan. 26. 

Sunday, Jan. 22. 1:30 P.M. Book Intro Film: Romeo and Juliet. Discussion group participants read the play at home and then gather at Berkeley’s Central Library, 2090 Kittredge Street to view the film adaptation. Following the film, participants will discuss the play, the film and the adaptation process. Sponsored by the Friends of the Library, this free program offers adult and teen patrons the opportunity to discuss books, films and the art of adaptation. Participation is limited and registration is required. 510-981-6236. 

Monday, Jan. 23. 10:30 – 11:30 A.M. Learn to Create a YouTube Video Jeff Cambra, Alameda Currents producer, will share the basics of shooting a good video and how to get it uploaded to YouTube. No equipment or experience needed. Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. 510-747-7510. 

Monday, Jan. 23. 12:30 P.M. YMCA/Albany Library Brown Bag Lunch. Speaker’s Forum: Fariba Nawa’s Opium Nation. Albany branch, Alameda County Library, 1247 Marin Av. Free. 510-526-3720. 

Monday, Jan. 23. 7 P.M. Kensington Library Book Club. The Surrendered by Chang-rae Lee. 61 Arlington Av. Free. Book group meetings are usually held on the fourth Monday of every month in the library at 7:00 p.m. Each meeting starts with a poem selected and read by a member with a brief discussion following the reading. New members are always welcome. 510-524-3043.  

Tuesday, Jan. 24. 1 P.M. Doggie Communication 101. Does your dog pull you down the street? Not get enough exercise because you have mobility challenges? Growl or snap? Bark too much? Other annoying or worrisome behaviors? Bring your questions and join dog trainer Ruth Smiler. Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. 510-747-7510. 

Wednesday, Jan. 25. 12:15-1 P.M. Michael Goldberg, guitar: Noon Concert Series.  

UCB Hertz Concert Hall. Sponsor: Department of Music Faculty recital.
Luis de Narvaez: Three Fantasias. Turina: Sevillana Bach: Suite in E Major (BWV 1006a). Ponce: Sonatina Meridional. Tickets not required. 510-642-4864 

Wednesday, Jan. 25. 1:30 P.M. Great Books Discussion Group. Albany branch, Alameda County Library, 1247 Marin Av. Free. 510-526-3720. 

Thursday, Jan. 26. 1:30 P.M. Music Appreciation Class. Join William Sturm, Volunteer Instructor. Piano recital and discussion about “The Classical Romantic: Johannes Brahms.” Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. 510-747-7510. 

Monday, Jan. 30. 7 P.M. Ellis Island Old World Folk Band Performance. 

Kensington Library, 61 Arlington Ave. Performance will include both Old World and New World repertoire emphasizing the transition that took place when Jews came to America at the beginning of the last century. Tunes from the Yiddish theater and radio featuring vocals made popular by the Barry Sisters, who were the queens of 1940s Yiddish Swing. As a pioneer in the revival of klezmer, lively and soulful Eastern European Jewish music, the Band has been honored with awards from Berkeley, Albany, and Alameda. Free. 510-524-3043 

xxxx 

Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012. 1:3-3 P.M. Fred Setterberg will discuss his book, Lunch Bucket Paradise, a true-life novel about growing up in blue-collar suburbia in 1950s and 60s East Bay. Albany Library, 1247 Martin Avenue. Free. 510-526-3720. This is a program in the Alameda County Library’s Older Adults Services series; for dates and branches throughout the county, call 510-745-1491. 

Friday, Feb. 24. 9 A.M.-4 P.M. Annual convention. United Seniors of Oakland and Alameda County. 510-729-0852. www.usoac.org 

In a recent New York Times article the newspaper’s senior science writer, William J. Broad, takes a dig at Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s obsession with the possibility of a “nightmarish of doomsday scenarios: a nuclear blast high above the United States that would instantly throw the United States in a dark age.”

The phenomenon that Gingrich refers to is an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), one side effect of a nuclear explosion. EMPs can destroy or disrupt virtually anything electrical, from computers to power grids. As the Times points out, Gingrich has used this potential threat to advocate bombing Iran and North Korea. “I favor taking out the Iranian and North Korean missiles on their sites,” he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2009. Gingrich has also talked up the EMP “threat” on the campaign trail.

Broad dismisses EMPs as “a poorly understood phenomenon of the nuclear age” and quotes Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner poo-pooing the damage from an EMP attack as “pretty theoretical.”

While the Times is correct in dismissing any Iranian or North Korean threat—neither country has missiles capable of reaching the U.S., Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, and both have never demonstrated a desire to commit national suicide—what Broad does not mention is that the effects of EMP are hardly “poorly understood”: the U.S. has an “E-bomb” in its arsenal. 

More than that, the Pentagon considered using it during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Asked directly if the U.S. was considering using an EMP weapon, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answered, “You never know.” 

The U.S. has known about the effects of EMPs since 1958, when a series of nuclear tests in the Pacific knocked out streetlights in Hawaii and radio reception in Australia for 18 hours. In large enough doses, EMPs can fry every electrical circuit in range, many of them permanently. One would essentially go from the 21^st century to the 19^th century in a few nanoseconds. 

The U.S. began researching how to use EMPs as weapons shortly after the Pacific tests, and, while the details are classified, the Livermore and Los Alamos national labs have apparently come up with a working version of an “E-bomb.” 

The principle is simple enough: a tube filled with explosives, wrapped with copper wire, encased in a metal shell. The copper wire is used to create a powerful magnetic field and when the explosives are fired, they compress the magnetic field to produce a powerful burst of electromagnetic energy called the “Compton effect.” 

A large enough device can generate up to two billion watts, about what Hoover Dam turns out in a day. 

The weapon is attached to a cruise missile. Any piloted craft would run the risk of frying its own electronics, because EMP waves can bounce off objects, like the ground, and be reflected back at the attack craft. 

Britain’s Matra Bae Dynamics has produced an artillery shell that generates an EMP wave and is capable of knocking out electrical systems for several square miles. 

The idea behind the “E-bomb” is that it would blind and disable any military force, but not inflict casualties (except if you are wearing a pacemaker or have electrical implants). “The electromagnetic pulse generator is emerging as one of the strongest contenders…to find effective weapons to defeat an enemy without causing loss of life,” writes David Fulghum, an EMP expert. 

But EMP waves would also paralyze ambulances, hospitals, power plants and water pumping systems, a specific violation of the Geneva Conventions. Article 54, for instance, explicitly forbids rendering “useless” any “drinking water installations.” 

There are ways to shield devices from EMPs, but they are expensive. So-called Faraday Cages intercept EMPs and redirect them into the ground, much like lightening rod. 

While the exact details of the U.S. “E-bomb” are classified, its existence is hardly a secret. Nor is the U.S. the only nation currently researching the uses of EMPs. Any country with a nuclear weapon—Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—is undoubtedly aware of its capabilities. 

The fact that the effects of EMPs are well known, and that the U.S.—and apparently a number of other nations—has weaponized the phenomena, make it all the more curious that the Times treated the issue so lightly and failed to mention the U.S. program. Indeed, Broad says, “many scientists consider it yesteryear’s concern.” 

That would certainly come as a surprise to the Livermore and Los Alamos National labs and the U.S. Air Force’s Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force base in New Mexico. There is also a test lab in Virginia. 

Any such weapon should certainly be illegal under the strictures of the Geneva Conventions. Like poison gas, EMPs do not distinguish between military and civilian and, as such, are illegal under Article 48 requiring that warring parties “shall at all times distinguish between civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operation only against military objectives.” 

Gingrich’s apocalyptic views on EMPs are longstanding, but he also uses them as raw meat for the “bomb Teheran and Pyongyang” crowd, a cynical election ploy from one of the more cynical politicians to grace the current U.S. stage. 

But the “E-bomb” is real, and the general rule is, if you give the military a new toy, eventually they will want to test it in the real world. That world is filled with civilians— so-called “collaterals”— who will end up absorbing the brunt of this weapon. 

Isn’t that worth reporting?