Two cousins were sentenced to lengthy state prison terms today for the fatal shooting of a 34-year-old man in broad daylight in Berkeley two years ago. 

Maurice Thomas, 23, and Jevon Calland, 22, were both charged with murder for the shooting death of Zontee Jones in the 1000 block of Delaware Street between 10th Street and San Pablo Avenue shortly after 11 a.m. on Feb. 4, 2013. 

They pleaded no contest to the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter on Sept. 24, shortly before their trial was to begin. 

Following the terms of the plea agreement, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Paul Delucchi sentenced Thomas to 21 years in prison and Calland to 16 years. 

Prosecutor Glenn Kim said he believes Thomas fired the shots that killed Jones. 

Jones' sister, Zareta Jones, said in court today that her brother's shooting death was "a senseless act." 

Delucchi agreed, saying, "It was an incredibly senseless act that unfortunately we see all too often here." 

Berkeley police Officer Jesse Grant wrote in a probable cause statement that Calland had a motive to harm Jones and had threatened him in front of witnesses the day before Jones was shot to death. 

Grant didn't say what Calland's motive was but he said Calland "made a plan with several other people to do harm" to Jones, who he said was unarmed. 

However, Grant alleged that Thomas was the person who actually shot and killed Jones. 

Referring to the alleged plan to harm Jones, Grant said, "Calland summoned one of the other persons to the scene of the murder with a firearm." 

He said, "Calland engaged the victim (Jones) in a physical confrontation and the other persons assisted him." 

After Calland was sentenced today, he turned toward his family members in court, waved at them and said, "I love you all." 

Thomas and Calland will both be transferred from Santa Rita Jail in Dublin to state prison later today.

Safeway Inc. has agreed to pay nearly $10 million in civil penalties to settle a environmental protection lawsuit filed in Oakland alleging that the grocery store chain failed to properly dispose of hazardous waste at more than 500 California facilities over seven years. 

The San Francisco and Alameda County district attorney's offices said Alameda County Superior Court Judge Wynne Carvill approved the settlement this morning after 41 district attorneys and two city attorneys filed a complaint on Wednesday. 

District attorney's offices in Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties also participated. 

"This investigation touched nearly every county in California, and today's results could not have been reached without the collaborative work of the many offices involved," Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley said in a statement. 

Prosecutors alleged that Safeway sent hazardous waste including medication, aerosol cans, flammable liquids, batteries, electronic devices and other toxic materials to landfills instead of properly disposing of them. 

The materials were either sold at Safeway stores or used for work within Safeway facilities, such as for cleaning. 

They were disposed after the materials were spilled, broken, contaminated, their containers or labels were damaged or they passed their sell-by date, according to the complaint. 

The violations came to the attention of district attorney's investigators and environmental regulators when they conducted inspections of Safeway trash receptacles in 2012 and 2013, according to Alameda County prosecutors. 

The investigation revealed that Safeway was routinely sending such hazardous waste to landfills in violation of state and federal law.  

Furthermore, the Pleasanton-based company was disposing of pharmaceutical records without taking steps to protect customers' privacy, according to prosecutors. 

Once the issues were brought to the company's attention, it took steps to stop the improper disposal of the waste, implementing new procedures to redirect potentially toxic trash. 

A complaint against Safeway was filed Wednesday and quickly settled this morning, with Safeway agreeing to pay $9.87 million in civil penalties in addition to the new policies and procedures. 

"Today's settlement marks a victory for our state's environment as well as for the security and privacy of confidential patient information throughout California," O'Malley said. 

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon said in a statement, "If you take shortcuts that pollute our environment there will be consequences. Judgments like these are a reminder to companies everywhere that we will vigorously pursue violations that threaten the environment."

Mental health workers with the National Union of Healthcare Workers are planning a week of strikes against Kaiser Permanente starting a week from today, union officials have announced. 

Officials say it will be the largest mental health worker strike in the nation's history.  

Some 2,600 clinicians are planning to walk out because they say Kaiser is failing to provide timely and adequate care to patients.  

"For patients suffering from depression, anxiety and other debilitating mental conditions, these delays can be insurmountable obstacles, sometimes leading to tragic outcomes," said the president of the union's Northern California chapter of mental health clinicians Clement Papazian.  

Another 700 Kaiser workers, including medical social workers and registered dieticians, are planning to participate in the strike to protest problems with inadequate staffing, union officials said. 

In November, nurses at Kaiser Permanente went on strike because they said patient care standards had eroded at the HMO. 

Union workers are planning to establish 65 picket lines and strike at 35 locations across California. 

In the Bay Area, the union is planning to strike in San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa, San Leandro, Richmond, Oakland and other locations.  

Happy New Year to everyone, plus a belated Happy Holidays to cover all the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas when other demands on my time kept me from adding much that was new to this space. The world is, as usual, packed with problems to be addressed in 2015, but let’s focus on Berkeley for a while.

What are we likely to be obsessing about around here in the new year? Local government in California in this millennium seems to exist as a focus for dissatisfaction, even though the powers of our mayors and city councils to solve problems are increasingly limited, and the will to act seems even more limited.

Let’s just look at three topics which might conceivably attract the attention of more than what John Geluardi used to call the Berkeley 200, those few stout-stomached souls who feel it is their duty to keep track of what city fathers and mothers are up to. 

Two out of three involve land use, which is the only significant remaining decision area for local elected officials. Theoretically, they can say yea or nay to building projects which are outside of those automatically allowed by zoning or adopted land use plans, but Berkeley’s councilmembers more often than not defer to moneyed interests instead of to citizens’ wishes. 

San Francisco’s former Mayor Art Agnos has a good op-ed in today’s Chronicle, Ballot Box Planning Offsets Pay to Play Politics, pointing out that citizen initiatives have accomplished better results in his city than the action or inaction of their Board of Supervisors (the equivalent of the Berkeley City Council). That’s true in Berkeley too. 

The first land use controversy here is the one with the broadest base of support across Berkeley’s political—the temptation is to say spectrum, but that term is much too linear for the many dimensions of opinion which exist within the Berkeley 200. In brief, the United States Postal Service is the semi-privatized outfit which now is charged with delivering U.S. mail. To fund this enterprise, they’ve started selling off the buildings built for postal use with public funds, many of them historic, beautiful and centrally located in America’s towns and cities. 

There’s federal law which is supposed to ensure extensive public process to review proposed sales of such public properties in order to protect their historic significance, but that law is honored more in the breach than in the observance. Berkeley’s downtown post office, a 1914 classic described on the National Register of Historic Places as a "'free adaptation of Brunelleschi's Foundling Hospital in Florence", has already been listed for sale by a real estate firm partly owned by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum. 

There’s an ongoing legal effort on the part of the city of Berkeley to make the USPS follow the law, prodded by a series of citizen protests, demonstrations and petitions. After initiative petitions placed a protective zoning change on the November ballot, councilmembers proactively adopted it, though they could repeal it at any time. 

The best way to protect the building if it’s to be sold would be by enforceable guarantees attached to any sales agreement, but so far what the USPS has offered instead are wishy-washy, toothless “covenants” which the city of Berkeley would not have the power to enforce on buyers. Potential buyers fronted by local developers entered into a sale contract, but withdrew when legal action threatened. 

The city’s lawyers are now trying to get declarations and injunctions from the courts requiring the USPS to follow the appropriate laws in subsequent sales attempts. “Save the Post Office” can be expected to keep the pressure on the city council to continue the legal case—but it’s also likely that the council will be tempted to fold if an appealing proposal is floated by a powerful buyer. 

Attorney Antonio Rossmann of the Rossmann and Moore firm in downtown Berkeley, retained as outside counsel by the city, says that the Postal Service has until January 22 to bring a motion to dismiss his office’s latest petition for injunctive relief on mootness or other grounds, and that they give every indication of wanting to do that. Berkeley has until February 12 to oppose that motion, opponents have until February 26 to reply, and the hearing would then be on March 19. Stay tuned. 

Moving to a more controversial issue, we’ll be hearing a lot more about the 18-story behemoth which is proposed for a downtown site which now houses, among other things, the historic Shattuck Hotel and the 10-screen Landmark Shattuck movie theater. 

Confusing to public perception, the project address is listed as 2211 Harold Way, though the major impact will be felt around the corner on Shattuck. 

You can get a good round-up of what’s up here on the Berkeleyside website. One update to that story is that now today, January 2, is now the last day to submit your comments on the draft environmental impact report mentioned in the story, since opponents succeeded in getting the deadline extended. There’s still time to email asage@cityofberkeley.info with your point of view, though what effect that might have is debatable. 

Over the holidays, at parties and elsewhere, I chatted with several people who have belatedly had OMG moments as plans for this project filtered into their selective consciousness. Film fans in particular are just waking up to what will be lost if it proceeds as proposed. It might be too late. 

Berkeley is full of Big Picture people who are slow to react to react to what’s going on under their nose until it’s too late. Typical comment from a partygoer: “I voted against Measure R, and I’ve never opposed any development, but this one is just too much.” (If you don’t even know what R was, you might be one of those people.) 

I heard that lament everywhere this season, both at an elegant soiree in the Claremont Hills and at our customary lefty New Year’s Eve party, where traditionally the Internationale is sung at midnight instead of Auld Lang Syne. (Perhaps tellingly, no one seemed to remember the words any more: many of the altacockers who used to know them by heart have passed on. We tried Siri but she was clueless as always.) 

As a result of pressure created by the ultimately unsuccessful Measure R 2.0, project purveyors have announced a variety of concessions in their plans. They are now flacking a new six-screen theater for the complex, though the first version eliminated the theater altogether. 

However, once demolition has taken place on that big downtown block, no more movies for a long, long time. Any replacement theater would be five years out at best. 

And really, all you have to say about this proposal is “Fine Arts”, the name of the pioneer Berkeley art film house which Patrick Kennedy demolished for a much more modest development amid promises, promises to replace it which the city didn’t enforce and which were never kept. The theater’s gone, gone, gone, though the marquee lingers on as a reminder of what went down. Why shouldn’t the same thing happen with the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas? 

The Harold Way project struggle will play out in the next few months. There’s a good account of organizing efforts by opponents in this issue’s Public Comments section. The next opportunity to tell officialdom what you think will be next Thursday, Jan. 8, at the Zoning Adjustment Board meeting at the Maudelle Shirek Old City Hall on Martin Luther King Way, at 7 p.m. The announced topic will be what community benefits if any this complex would provide, theoretically a major consideration affecting whether backers get the many approvals they would need to go forward. 

The third big issue in the new year will be the Berkeley Police reaction to various fraught situations. At the top of the list: Why on earth did Berkeley’s city officials, specifically the city manager and the police chief, decide to authorize cops to tear-gas and club peaceful protesters on Telegraph on December 6, during the demonstrations following the decision not to charge the killer of Michael Brown in Ferguson? Yes, yes, we all know that smash-and-grabbers did their best to exploit the situation, and they should have been arrested, but the good guys in the group were the ones attacked by the BPD with no obvious justification. 

Mayor Bates was hors de combat that night, attending a political testimonial dinner in South County with his wife the senator, and other councilmembers were also out of the action. Who decided on the gassing? 

To compound matters, Bates and his council allies then cancelled the next city council meeting to avoid hearing citizen complaints, and moved the subsequent one to an out-of-the-way school site. Instead, he proposed special city council meetings, one at 10 on a Saturday morning, January 17th, and another on January 20^th at 5:30, for a discussion of “police relations”, whatever might mean. Final decision on the agenda will be made on Monday at the council’s agenda committee. 

According to an email from Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, “there is nothing on either agenda [for the special meetings] that directly relates [to] the use of teargas or the police response on Dec. 6th. Also we cannot take action at both meetings [because] they are essentially work sessions.” 

He said that he wants to place three items on the January 20th council agenda to take action on these issues, including mandating changes to standing orders regarding police procedures and calling for an independent investigation into exactly what happened on December 6. The council majority could axe these ideas. One variable is how newly-elected District 8 Councilmember Lori Droste will vote. 

The Berkeley public has a short attention span. It’s not clear whether these three pressing issues have legs to propel them very far into 2015. We’ll wait and see. 

 

Here's Congresswoman Barbara Lee telling us what she did for us last year: 

As always, more in the pipeline to come, so keep checking back.

 

Dan O'Neill

 

 

Dan O'Neill

 

 

Gar Smith

 

 

Dan O'Neill

 

Why do we love Berkeley? Isn’t it because of our culture?

Berkeley’s culture is a rich ferment of the intellectual, artistic, and political. We appreciate ideas here, we have strong opinions, and yes, we lean left (though on the whole, not nearly as left as many people believe). And the entertainment we value embodies our culture.

But we have been losing our culture, not through natural evolution, but through large development projects. The latest threat is the proposed tear-down of the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas, a 10-screen venue known for its spacious vestibule, plush retro lobby, and intellectually rich films. It is remarkable that so small a city as ours can boast this large venue, which hosts several yearly film festivals from around the world and is one of the few places that screens independent, locally made films.

Did you know about its planned demolition? If so, you’re in the minority. Most Berkeley citizens don’t know since it’s not easy to keep track of what’s going on in the Planning Department, where these decisions are made. How can it be otherwise, given that talks between developers and Planning begin as private conversations, sometimes at social gatherings? Years later, after basic agreements about these projects have already been made, public comment is allowed (more like tolerated) at largely-ceremonial, poorly advertised meetings whose agendas often obscure the significance of their subject matter – as is the case with the opaquely named 2210 Harold Way Project, where the Landmark now sits. 

Here are some key points about this project: 

• The new building will be 18 stories high, squeezed into the space between Harold Way, the Shattuck Hotel, and the Library Gardens/Main Library complex.
• We don’t know, even this far into the project, whether the developer will create condos, apartments, or both. But in either case, only upper-middle-class people will be able to afford the vast majority of the completed units. Development is, above all, a class issue.
• The developer, Mark Rhoades, promises that after “significant community pushback” on his original plan to omit a theater from the finished project, he will now construct a six-screen cinema complex, two of which will be “art house” theaters. So we’re down from ten art house screens to two, yet Rhoades claims that his inferior replacement is a “significant benefit” to the community.
• If another cinema complex really gets built – there’s no written agreement to this effect, and we remember the empty promises about the Fine Arts Theater – we don’t know whether the Landmark will inhabit it, at the increased rentals the new building will command (two dollars per square foot now versus three fifty per square foot after completion).
• And if another cinema complex really gets built, it will be jammed into a basement corner of the completed edifice.
• Lastly, if another cinema complex really gets built, the Harold Way building won’t be ready for several years, during which time only the small California and Albany Theaters will remain to show the nuanced and challenging films that Berkeley – a University town, after all – wants to see.

Speak out about this! Come to the second round of public comment concerning the “benefits” of the 2210 Harold Way Project, which is scheduled for the January 8^th Zoning Adjustment Board meeting (next Thursday, 7:00 PM, in the Old City Hall). Dissenting voices have pushed approval of the final EIR back to mid-February, and made it clear that the scale of this development and the demolition of the Landmark Cinemas are untenable. We need to keep the pressure on, and to extend that pressure to City Council meetings. 

You can sign our petition and get more information about this situation on our Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/saveshattuckcinemas. 

 

Cuba is yet another example of our government’s penchant of imposing its will and military might on smaller nations – with disastrous results. Our relations with Cuba have been frayed for more than half a century. The botched attempt by the CIA to overthrow the Castro government is generally considered one of the greatest military fiascos of the modern era.  

Fabian Escalante, the former head of Cuban counterintelligence, estimated at least 638 assassination attempts on Castro’s life. Preceding Castro’s rise to power was the thoroughly despised dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who was closely allied to the US mafia making huge profits from opulent hotels and casinos. His regime engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and executions. Under his rule, the Cuban people suffered in dire poverty with virtually no access to education, health care or decent paying jobs. This established the climate for a violent revolution and Castro was initially lauded as a great hero of the Cuban people.  

While Castro certainly has his detractors, today Cubans enjoy the same life expectancy as the US and experience less infant mortality. Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world far surpassing the US. The island has developed one of the finest medical systems in the world sending doctors to the Ebola crisis and, earlier, to victims of Hurricane Katrina. President Obama made the right decision to begin the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Congress should follow his example by lifting the crippling embargo. 

Have you heard that the Berkeley City Council will be voting on Tuesday, January 20 on a proposal to require homeowners in Berkeley to pay for mandatory energy audits?

Under this proposed ordinance, owners of single family homes, and of small building with up to four units, will have to pay the city a $79 filing fee and also pay a “Registered Service Provider” approved by the city for the mandatory energy assessment. The Berkeley Energy Commission, which proposed this ordinance, estimates that it will cost $400 for a single family home. The ordinance says that assessments will be done by private entities who will set their own rates, and there is no limit in the ordinance on what homeowners could be asked to pay.

$479 is a lot, and it could be more than that. Homeowners will have to pay for these audits every ten years, so this is not a one time thing. 

You can find the proposed ordinance here: It’s item #1; click on the item to see the ordinance. This item was postponed to January, fortunately, when the City Council canceled their Dec.16 Council meeting during the recent protests. As a result, there is still time to comment on the ordinance. 

The Berkeley Energy Commission’s report to the Council can be found here: It’s item 38. Very few people knew about this as there was only one communication to council on the issue. Since then, more people have become aware and the proposed ordinance has been generating criticism. 

While I think this ordinance is well intentioned, it is also poorly thought out. Making people pay for assessments of their homes won’t necessarily lead to any increases in energy efficiency beyond what would otherwise occur. The ordinance doesn’t require anyone to make any changes, just requires them to pay for an expensive mandatory audit. There are already requirements in place for homeowners when they sell their homes. 

Many Berkeley homeowners are already aware of, and concerned about, the energy efficiency of their homes. Many are taking steps, as they are able to afford them, to make their homes more efficient:solar panels, new windows, LED lighting, buying Energy Star-star rated appliances with maximum efficiency, etc. 

One problem with the ordinance is that the exception for people who have already done work to make their homes more efficient is very vague. “Any building that completes a multi-measure energy improvement project with a verified minimum improvement, as determined by Administrator”. If someone has been gradually replacing windows (very expensive), putting on solar panels, adding more efficient lighting, over a period of years, is that good enough? It seems to me that anyone who is doing any of these things should be exempt from any audit requirement, and it shouldn’t be necessary for them to have extensive paperwork. I didn’t save receipts for my new windows or my more efficient light bulbs, etc. 

The League of Women Voters has said that the cost of the audit could be onerous for many homeowners of modest means. The way the ordinance is written now you have to be in default or receivership or provide proof of participation in “energy efficiency income qualified programs” to get a hardship deferral. The mandatory costs are likely to be burdensome for many seniors on fixed incomes. So far, the League’s concern has been ignored by the Council. 

I think it would make more sense if the City negotiated a volume discount with some energy auditors and made voluntary audits available at a reasonable price for those who want them. I think people who voluntarily pay for audits will be far more likely to make recommended changes than those who are coerced into paying for an audit. While they’re at it, they could do bulk purchasing of LED lighting and make that available to homeowners at a discount. The City can also publicize available energy efficiency incentives in the annual report they send out to residents. Incentives for actual energy efficiency improvements are a better idea than mandatory audits. 

And before the City pushes homeowners to save energy, maybe the City should deal with its own buildings. Are there solar panels on City Hall or the main library? Are those buildings as energy efficient as they could be? Why was only one of the newly rebuilt branch libraries built to a zero net energy standard? Why not all four? It seems that most of the progress with respect to solar energy in Berkeley is due to individual homeowners, not the City. 

In my view the best thing the City Council could do would simply be to drop the audit requirement for small buildings, ask the Energy Commission to look into ways of making it cheaper for homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements and then publicize affordable ways to make your house more efficient. 

The City's discretionary income has grown rapidly in the last ten years, substantially outstripping the inflation rate. In particular, the City's transfer tax is generating a lot of revenue. Some of that revenue could be used to pay for energy audits for homeowners who want them. The Berkeley Association of Realtors suggested using property transfer tax revenues to pay for energy audits of single family homes. 

The next best thing to going back to the drawing board would be to make some substantial modifications to the ordinance, including the following: 

To comment on the proposed ordinance, you can send an e-mail to the Council at council@cityofberkeley.info Put “Letter to Berkeley City Council” in the subject line, and reference Building Energy Saving Ordinance BMC chapter 19.81 in your e-mail. It’s best to send e-mails in a week in advance of the Tuesday, Jan 20 meeting, though you can send e-mail right up to the day of the meeting. It’s also a good idea to copy e-mails directly to councilmembers. Their e-mail is first initial, last name at CityofBerkeley.info . So my councilmember, Max Anderson in District 3, is manderson@CityofBerkeley.info. The Mayor is mayor@CityofBerkeley.info. If you prefer the US Postal Service, send your letter to the Berkeley City Council at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 

 

As the presidents of the three largest police unions in the Bay Area, our overriding responsibility is to ensure that each and every police officer we represent makes it home to his or her family after every shift. Police officers must swear to uphold our constitution, and we also take seriously our responsibility to protect the First Amendment rights of the public we serve. Unfortunately, recent events threaten to bring these two great responsibilities into conflict. 

Our members and their families have been shaken to the core by the brutal slayings of two New York City police officers and a Tarpon Springs, Florida police officer. All of our members are on heightened alert. In the line of duty deaths of police officers are up significantly: 120 police officers have already paid the ultimate price for protecting their communities in 2014. 

The protests that followed the grand jury decisions in Missouri and New York are a legitimate expression of our First Amendment traditions. The reaction is not unexpected but the vilification of front-line public servants by some politicians and media pundits has been demoralizing and unjust. Public safety in the Bay Area and the nation will be a subject of major debate going forward and we will each participate vigorously in that debate.  

But what few have acknowledged until now is that too often the legitimate expression of views has devolved into vilification and violence against this nation’s front-line public safety servants. Demonstrators in New York chanted in unison: “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” That was disgraceful. So, too, was witnessing protest marches in the Bay Area degenerate into violence, destruction and mob rule. Despite the efforts of organizers, too often protests were hijacked by shameful cowards who take refuge behind the truly law abiding demonstrators while destroying property and injuring our officers. 

The overwhelming majority of our members—who represent the most diverse police departments in the nation—bear such malice in dignified silence. Even following the murder of three of their own, our officers continue with their duty, answer your calls, respond to your crises, fulfill their mission, and honor their commitment to the people of San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. 

In short, they will always be there when you need them. In return, as their “voices” we simply ask that you join them in a cooperative effort to keep our streets safe, and to engage in constructive dialogue that calls for a common sense approach to very complex issues. 

May we all take this holiday season as a time to reflect and pray for one another and search for solutions together as the law enforcement community honors those who have fallen in the line of duty.

It is baffling why Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, should stubbornly defend the heinous torture practices authorized by former President Bush. There was a time when the United States urged all nations to strictly adhere to international treaties and respect for human rights, freedom of expression and liberty for all. American leaders denounced dark dungeons where people were held without charge, tortured and killed. All that changed during the disastrous years of the Bush/Cheney (BC) administration. In a short eight years BC gave the green light to the CIA and US military to establish rendition sights to conduct medieval torture, violating every norm of human behavior and decency – and international law. By so doing the Bush administration has dishonored our former high moral standing and squandered the respect of nations who now rightly accuse us of dishonesty and hypocrisy. 

Not only did President Bush and his aides condone torture and appalling abuse of mostly innocent victims at secret prisons, but also conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress and the American people. 

Following the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush ordered the creation of Gestapo like interrogation sites where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to use brutal torture methods to extract confessions from the hapless victims. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, exposure to extreme heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The Japanese who conducted waterboarding on prisoners were tried and hanged. A compliant US media and a thoroughly meek Congress were cowered into silence by a nasty and thoroughly belligerent White House. 

No, Governor Jindal, Bush was not a good man. He was a bad man – a very bad man who, with his co-conspirators, should be tried for war crimes. I urge you, as a devout born again Christian, to review the Good Book and ask yourself whether Jesus would condone such appalling abuses. Finally, contrary to your false assertion that Bush helped keep America safe, his torture practices and Rambo attitude were the impetus in generating so much anger and hostility towards the United States. 

Looking back at the years of fury and carnage, Colonel Angelo Gatti, staff officer of the Italian Army (Austrian front), wrote in his diary: "This whole war has been a pile of lies. We came into war because a few men in authority, the dreamers, flung us into it."

No, Gatti, caro mio, those few men are not dreamers; they are schemers. They perch above us. See how their armament contracts are turned into private fortunes—while the young men are turned into dust: more blood, more money; good for business this war. 

It is the rich old men, i pauci, "the few," as Cicero called the Senate oligarchs whom he faithfully served in ancient Rome. It is the few, who together constitute a bloc of industrialists and landlords, who think war will bring bigger markets abroad and civic discipline at home. One of i pauci in 1914 saw war as a way of promoting compliance and obedience on the labor front and—as he himself said—war "would permit the hierarchal reorganization of class relations." 

Just awhile ago the heresies of Karl Marx were spreading among Europe's lower ranks. The proletariats of each country, growing in numbers and strength, are made to wage war against each other. What better way to confine and misdirect them than with the swirl of mutual destruction. Meanwhile, the nations blame each other for the war. 

Then there are the generals and other militarists who started plotting this war as early as 1906, eight years before the first shots were fired. War for them means glory, medals, promotions, financial rewards, inside favors, and dining with ministers, bankers, and diplomats: the whole prosperity of death. When the war finally comes, it is greeted with quiet satisfaction by the generals. 

But the young men are ripped by waves of machine-gun bullets or blown apart by exploding shells. War comes with gas attacks and sniper fire, grenades and artillery barrages, the roar of a great inferno and the sickening smell of rotting corpses. Torn bodies hang sadly on the barbed wire, and trench rats try to eat away at us, even while we are still alive. 

Farewell, my loving hearts at home, those who send us their precious tears wrapped in crumpled letters. And farewell my comrades. When the people's wisdom fails, moguls and monarchs prevail and there seems to be no way out. 

Fools dance and the pit sinks deeper as if bottomless. No one can see the sky, or hear the music, or deflect the swarms of lies that cloud our minds like the countless lice that torture our flesh. Crusted with blood and filth, regiments of lost souls drag themselves to the devil's pit. "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate." (Abandon all hope, ye who enter.) 

Meanwhile from above the Vatican wall, the pope himself begs the world leaders to put an end to hostilities "lest there be no young men left alive in Europe." But the war industry pays him no heed. 

Finally the casualties are more than we can bear. There are mutinies in the French trenches! Agitators in the Czar's army cry out for "Peace, Land, and Bread"! At home, our families grow bitter. There comes a breaking point as the oligarchs seem to be losing their grip. 

At last the guns are mute in the morning air. A strange almost pious silence takes over. The fog and rain seem to wash our wounds and cool our fever. "Still alive," the sergeant grins, "still alive." He cups a cigarette in his hand. "Stack those rifles, you lazy bastards." He grins again, two teeth missing. Never did his ugly face look so good as on this day in November 1918. Armistice comes like a quiet rapture. 

A big piece of the encrusted aristocratic world breaks off. The Romanovs, Czar and family, are all executed in 1918 in Revolutionary Russia. That same year, the House of Hohenzollern collapses as Kaiser Wilhelm II flees Germany. Also in 1918, the Ottoman empire is shattered. And on Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, at 11:00 a.m.—the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month—we mark the end of the war and with it the dissolution of the Habsburg dynasty. 

Four indestructible monarchies: Russian, German, Turkish, and Austro-Hungarian, four great empires, each with millions of bayonets and cannon at the ready, now twisting in the dim shadows of history. 

Will our children ever forgive us for our dismal confusion? Will they ever understand what we went through? Will we ? By 1918, four aristocratic autocracies fade away, leaving so many victims mangled in their wake, and so many bereaved crying through the night. 

Back in the trenches, the agitators among us prove right. The mutinous Reds standing before the firing squad last year were right. Their truths must not be buried with them. Why are impoverished workers and peasants killing other impoverished workers and peasants? Now we know that our real foe is not in the weave of trenches; not at Ypres, nor at the Somme, or Verdun or Caporetto. Closer to home, closer to the deceptive peace that follows a deceptive war. 

Now comes a different conflict. We have enemies at home: the schemers who trade our blood for sacks of gold, who make the world safe for hypocrisy, safe for themselves, readying themselves for the next "humanitarian war." See how sleek and self-satisfied they look, riding our backs, distracting our minds, filling us with fright about wicked foes. Important things keep happening, but not enough to finish them off. Not yet enough. 

***** Michael Parenti's most recent books are The Face of Imperialism (2011); Waiting for Yesterday: Pages from a Street Kid's Life (2013); and Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies (forthcoming early 2015).

Happy New Year! Welcome to the start of the presidential campaign marathon. For your consideration are five likely candidates, each representing a distinct segment of the US political spectrum. 

Republicans have three probable candidates. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush would represent the business conservative wing of the GOP – Pew Research estimates this is 12 percent of likely voters. Bush would be the favorite of the big GOP spenders, the one percent that favors capitalism over democracy. Jeb’s strengths are national name recognition, personable manner, Hispanic spouse, and reputation for moderation on social issues. His weaknesses: high unfavorability ratings and he appears too moderate for many Republicans. His likely platform: make America safe for big business, lower taxes and remove regulations. His slogan (before the Republican convention): “I’m as conservative as these other guys;” his slogan (after the GOP convention): “I’m not as conservative as those other Republicans.” Among business conservatives, Jeb Bush has three likely opponents: Chris Christie, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney. All three have more baggage than Bush: Christie has a reputation as a sleazebag, Perry as an airhead who doesn’t understand national politics, and Romney as a two-time loser. 

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee would represent the conservative values wing of the Republican Party – Pew estimates this is 15 percent of likely voters. Huckabee would be the favorite of the Christian right, the zealots who favor Christianity over democracy. Mike’s strengths include his affability and national name recognition; plus he’s a Southern Baptist minister. His weakness is his dogmatic stance on social issues. His likely platform: make America a Christian nation. Slogan: “Let God decide.” Huckabee’s possible opponents include Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson. Cruz and Carson are big hits with the Tea Party base but lack national appeal. Rubio looks like a better choice for Vice President. 

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would represent the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party – Pew estimates this as 15 percent of likely voters. Paul’s strengths include his reputation as a maverick and his dislike for the national security state. His weaknesses: Paul is a waffle; for example, he was for ending aid to Israel and then he backed off; he was for legalization of same-sex marriages but now says he would leave it up to the states. His likely platform: get rid of big government and big business. Slogan: “Every man for himself.” 

Democrats have two likely candidates, both women. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would represent centrist and religious Democrats – Pew Research estimates this is 29 percent of likely voters. Hillary would the choice of Wall-Street Dems and most people-of-color. She appeals to big Democratic spenders who are liberal on social issues but against government regulation of their industry. Clinton’s strengths include: name recognition, experience, a popular husband, and moderation on social issues. Her weaknesses: high unfavorability ratings and unwillingness to reform Wall Street. Platform: stay the course – continue the progress of the Obama Administration; gender equity. Slogan: “It’s time for a women to lead.” 

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would represent the liberal wing of the Democratic Party – Pew estimates this as 17 percent of likely voters. Her strengths include her intelligence, her reputation as a maverick, and her stance against Wall Street (and big business in general). Weaknesses: low national name recognition, inexperience, and largely unknown foreign policy perspective. Platform: break up the big banks and make the one percent pay their fair share. Slogan: “The system is rigged.” 

(According to Pew Research the remaining 12 percent of likely voters are independents, Pew calls them “hard-pressed skeptics.”) 

On major issues these five candidates represent a broad spectrum of opinion. On economic inequality, Warren would take the lead promoting a equitable society. Clinton and Bush waffle on this issue. While Paul says, “Let the market decide,” and Huckabee responds, “Let God decide.” 

On job creation, Clinton and Warren support increasing the minimum wage and Federal job creation plans. Bush and Paul would, “Let the market decide.” 

On free trade, only Elizabeth Warren opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership. 

Clinton and Warren believe global climate change is real and would reduce carbon emissions via government regulations. Bush, Huckabee, and Paul respond, “I’m not a scientist.” 

Warren and Paul would reduce domestic surveillance and the size of US military and intelligence. Clinton, Bush, and Huckabee would leave things as they are. 

On immigration, Jeb Bush has a more humane attitude towards undocumented immigrants than do Huckabee and Paul (Bush said, “Immigration is not a felony but an act of love.”) Clinton and Warren support immigration reform and a “pathway to citizenship.” 

On social Issues (Abortion, Drugs, Same-sex marriage), Mike Huckabee is the most conservative. In January he told a Republican gathering “The government shouldn't help women who can't control their ‘libido or their reproductive system’ by providing co-pay-free birth control and that Democrats are encouraging women to be ‘victims of their gender.’” Bush and Paul are far to the right of Clinton and Warren. 

Welcome to 2015. Cover your ears and hold onto your wallets! 

---

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

Each year Dispatches From the Edge gives awards to individuals, companies and governments that make following the news a daily adventure. Here are the winners for 2014.

The Pandora’s Box Award to Israel and the U.S. for launching the world’s first cyber war and creating a monster in the process. In 2010 both countries secretly released the Stuxnet virus to disable Iran’s nuclear energy program, in the process crashing thousands of Teheran’s centrifuges. 

According to a report by the security company Cylance, “Stuxnet was an eye-opening event for the Iranian authorities, exposing them to the world of physical destruction via electronic means. Retaliation for Stuxnet began almost immediately.” 

The Financial Times now reports that “Iranian hackers have penetrated dozens of international organizations, including six top-tier oil and gas companies, six international airports, seven airlines, a blue-chip U.S. defense contractor, 10 prestigious universities, and the government computer systems of several Gulf states.” 

An Iranian hacker program dubbed “Cleaver” has, according to Cylance, “extracted highly sensitive materials” from governments and key companies in Canada, China, France, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Britain, China, Germany, India, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. 

What ye sow, so shall ye reap. 

The Golden Scold Award to Germany and Chancellor Andrea Merkel for lecturing the Greeks on profligate spending and forcing Athens to swallow crippling austerity measures, while at the same time bribing Greek military officials to spend billions of dollars on useless weapons. 

According to the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, arms dealers—mostly German, but also French, Swedish, and Russian—handed out close to $3 billion in bribes to secure $68 billion in weapons contracts over the next decade. One arms dealer dropped off a suitcase with over $800,000 in it at the Greek Arms Ministry. 

Athens spent $2.3 billion to buy 170 German Leopard II tanks, which are largely useless for fighting in Greek terrain. In any case, the tanks were sent without any ammunition (although this past August The Greek Defense Ministry coughed up $69.9 million to buy ammunition from the German company Rheinmetall) 

The Greeks also paid more than $4 billion to purchase German submarines that are still in dry dock, and, from all accounts, are very noisy. It is not good to be noisy in the silent service. According to Der Spiegel, the German company that makes the U-214 shelled out over $2 million in bribes to land the contract. 

In the meantime, the austerity policies forced on Greece by the “troika” of international lenders—the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank, and the European Union—has impoverished millions of people and driven the unemployment rate to over 20 percent (50 percent for those under 25). Since 2008, Greek infant mortality has risen 21 percent and child mortality is up 43 percent. Suicides are up 45 percent. 

In exchange for the military spending, the Greeks got submarines that sit on the land, tanks they can’t use, and lectures from Merkel about saving money. 

The Misplaced Priorities Award goes the Indian government for spending $33 million on a nearly 600-foot bronze statue of Indian independence leader Vallabhbhai Patel, while, according to the UN, 213 million Indians are undernourished—the most for any country in the world and constituting one out of every four hungry people on the planet. Some 48 percent of children under five are below weight, and India and Nigeria account for almost one-third of deaths among children under five. Inequality in earnings is worse in India than in any other emerging economy in the world. Life expectancy is actually better in Bangladesh and Pakistan. 

Independent investigative journalist P. Sainath, who has covered rural India for decades, writes that “A total of 2,960,438 farmers have committed suicide since 1995.” In virtually every case the cause was debt to moneylenders and landlords. 

Dispatches suggests Indian government leaders design a program to aid farmers, feed the poor, and take a moment to read Percy Shelley’s poem “Ozmandias.” 

The Shoot-In-The-Foot Award to the Obama administration for ending the purchase of Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines as part of U.S. sanctions leveled at Moscow over the crisis in the Ukraine. The RD-180—a cheap, reliable workhorse engine that has lifted U.S. Atlas III and Atlas V rockets into space since 1997—will cost $1.5 billion and six years to replace. A new engine means that launch vehicles will also need to be re-designed and satellite programs delayed. In the end, that could cost $5 billion. 

In retaliation for the RD-180 ban, Russia will no longer lend its Soyuz rockets to supply the international space station. Asked how astronauts will get to the station, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin suggested they “use a trampoline.” 

The European Space Agency (ESA) will also take a hit. Besides losing the Soyuz taxi service to the space station, the ESA will lose access to the RD-180 engine as well, and will have to accelerate its troubled Ariane VI rocket program to replace the Agency’s Ariane V. The “VI” has been criticized as too big, too inflexible, and much too expensive—$4. 2 billion. 

Russia announced it would shift monies it spends on the International space station to joint space projects with China. 

 

The Dog Ate My Homework Award to the British Foreign Office for “accidently destroying” documents which would have shown that London was deeply—and illegally—involved in the U.S. CIA’s rendition program. Renditions moved terror suspects to countries that allowed torture, or kept the suspects in secret “black bases” where the CIA carried out its own torture program. 

Britain allowed over 1,600 CIA flights in and out of the country and permitted suspects to be held at the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Complicity with the rendition program is a violation of British domestic laws against kidnapping, arbitrary detention, and the right to a fair trial. It also violates international laws against torture. 

“It’s looking worse and worse for the UK government on Diego Garcia,” says Cori Crider, director of the human rights organization Reprieve. “They need to come clean about how, when, and where this evidence was lost.” 

Foreign Office Minister Mark Simmons says the records were lost due to “water damage.” 

The Mouse That Roared Award to the Marshall Islands for hauling the nuclear armed powers—the U.S., China, Russia, France, Britain, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea—before the International Court of Justice at Hague for violating Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI calls for the “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and nuclear disarmament.” India, Israel and Pakistan are not treaty members—North Korea withdrew—but its hard to argue with the Marshallese on the subject of nukes: in 1954 the U.S. vaporized Bikini Atoll with a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb and irradiated thousands of islanders. 

Over a period of 12 years, the U.S. detonated some 67 nuclear warheads with an aggregate explosive power of 42.2 megatons in the Marshalls. The Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. The Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal found the U.S. liable for $2 billion in damages, but so far Washington has only paid out $150 million. 

It wasn’t just Marshall Islanders who got zapped either. The Center for Investigative Reporting found that the U.S. Navy decommissioned some of the ships that had taken part in those tests at Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay. The Navy then buried the nuclear waste around the island, creating numerous “hot spots.” Some 2,000 low-income or homeless San Francisco residents—who live in subsidized housing on the island—were assured there was nothing to worry about, and then instructed not to let their children dig in front or back yards (“Look, Mom, this rock glows in the dark!”). 

Nuclear contamination was also found at several other California bases, including Alameda Naval Air Station, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, and McClellan Air Force Base near the state’s capital, Sacramento. 

Radiation, the gift that keeps on giving. 

Golden Lemon Award once again goes to Lockheed Martin for its $1.5 trillion F-35 stealth fighter-bomber—the most expensive weapon system in U.S. history—that can’t get its software to work, won’t fly in the rain, and burns up trying to get off the ground. In fact, foreign buyers are beginning to have second thoughts about buying the plane at all. Canada just tested the F-35 against the old U.S. F-18 Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and France’s Dassault Rafale and found the only difference was that the F-35 was much more expensive: between $116 million to $160 million per plane, vs., respectively, $60 million, $90 million, and $64 million apiece. 

The U.S. was forced to cancel the F-35’s debut at the prestigious Farnborough International Air Show in Britain because a plane caught fire trying to take off from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The F-35 has since been restricted to lower speeds and three hours flying time, not enough to make the hop across the Atlantic. 

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA also scored big in the Lemon category with their Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), the USS Freedom and the USS Independence. The $37 billion LCS program will build a fleet of shallow draft, high-speed warships that, according to a recent Pentagon study, won’t survive combat. The Defense Department’s Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, Michael Gilmore, says Lockheed Martin’s USS Freedom and Austal’s USS Independence, are “not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment and are not intended to be employed in a manner that puts them in harm’s way.”  

Translation: if they get in a fight, they’re toast. 

But that might not be a problem because the LCSs high maintenance requirements means the ships can’t get to where the action is anyhow. The USS Freedom spent 58 percent of its time in Singapore port—more than twice the average for U.S. Navy ships—and the USS Independence spent most its time tied up in San Diego. 

---

A Farewell to Fred Branfman, who died from Lou Gehrig’s disease at 72. Branfman helped expose the secret U.S. air war against Laos that killed tens of thousands of civilians and sowed that tiny country with millions of unexploded bombs, weapons that continue to inflict pain and death on Laotians today. The U.S. carried out 580,000 bombing missions over Laos, dropping almost a ton of bombs for every person in that country. Branfman help to found the Indochina Resource Center, which documented what he had seen in Laos as an aid worker. He later wrote “Voices From the Plain of Jars: Life Under an Air War.” 

Presente! 

---

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is important to realize as persons with a chronic mental illness who, all of us, are not getting younger, that we are not alone. The facts of life are applicable to all known forms of life. Life is temporary.  

As persons with mental illness, it may be difficult to face getting older when many of us have lived at times with despair and deprivation, and we have been denied some of the finer things that non impaired people enjoy.  

As we get older, we might feel "ripped off" in our lives because we see so many people who appear more successful in life, with their careers, their houses and their vacations. However, we can instead be grateful for the fact that most of the people reading this probably have their basic needs met.  

Also, in note of the fact that we are in the Christmas/Hanukkah/other holidays, we should remember not to postpone enjoying life while we await something better that we may think we must have. Furthermore, it doesn’t help anyone to worry about things we cannot control.  

In living with a severe mental illness, perhaps the best we can do in our lives is to make the best of a bad situation. Lifespan can be increased if calories, refined sugar and animal fat are kept to a minimum, and if we can avoid tobacco and street drugs. Admittedly, these are tall orders when you are required to take one or more medications that largely block physical activity, that increase appetite, and that cause physical and mental miseries that beg relief.  

The best thing that I believe persons with mental illness can do to save ourselves and salvage lives that are already compromised, is to comply with treatment, to take care of our health as best we can, and to do something that gratifies us in our lives--that makes it worthwhile for us to live longer. This could include anything from doing artwork with pencils, pastels or paint, could include taking classes in a college, junior college or adult education, and could include something as simple as reading articles on the internet. Anything that you do that's legal, that doesn't harm anyone and that interests you qualifies.  

By complying with treatment, we have a chance to retain our liberties, to maintain our condition, and to make our lives better from a standpoint of sanity. If one's mind isn't working, then one has nothing.  

Although many employees of the mental health treatment system may not believe our lives to be valuable--since their job is primarily to manage us and to prevent us from being a nuisance to the general public--I believe our lives are valuable. Thus, while the outcome of life could seem disappointing, there are still numerous reasons to go on. 

Merely taking an interest in the things that life does have to offer, even the simplest of activities and occurrences, could make life more meaningful and thus worth living. To enjoy life, we needn't look at the big picture, and we can instead focus on what is happening in the moment.

President Obama’s move to normalize relations with Cuba deserves applause. Normalization, however, will not be complete until the U.S. ends its economic embargo and returns Guantánamo Bay to Cuba. 

Normalization, as announced by President Obama includes, among other things, establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, expansion of travel to Cuba, raising remittance levels from $500 to $2,000, expanding commercial exports/sales from the U.S. to Cuba, allow U.S. citizens to import additional goods from Cuba, U.S. credit and debit cards will be permitted to be used by travelers to Cuba, initiating efforts to increase Cubans’ access to communications, and U.S. review of Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

According to Obama, the normalization will include continued strong support by the U.S. for improved human rights conditions and democratic reforms in Cuba. Opponents of normalization argue that Cuba has a repressive regime with a poor human rights record. This concern comes on the heels of the release of the Senate Torture Report, which found, among other things, that the CIA engaged in torture such as waterboarding, shackling in painful positions, prolonged sleep deprivation, and slamming detainees against walls. 

While the International Human Rights indicator ranks Cuba 115th, India 120th, Egypt 124th, Uganda 200th, and Vietnam 204th, the U.S, which ranks 19^th, does not allow travel to Cuba, but travel and trade goes on with these other countries. 

The U.S. administration got along fine with Fulgencio Batista the thug Castro overthrew. Yet, Americans were free to frolic at the nightclubs, casinos and beach resorts during Batista’s thuggish regime. But then Batista was in our pocket, whereas Castro is not. 

Isolating Cuba has not worked. Fidel Castro took power in Cuba in 1959 and then handed power to his brother Raúl in 2008. Thus, the Castro brothers have outlasted seven U.S. presidents. 

Full normalization must include the return of Guantánamo Bay to Cuba. The Platt amendment to a U.S. Army Appropriations Bill of 1901 gave the U.S. the right to intervene militarily in Cuban affairs whenever the U.S. decided such intervention was warranted. Cubans were given the choice of accepting the Platt Amendment or remaining under U.S. military occupation indefinitely. The U.S. has intervened militarily in Cuban affairs at least three times. U.S. intervention endowed Cuba with a series of weak, corrupt, dependent governments. In 1903, the U.S. used it to obtain a perpetual least of Guantánamo Bay, a blatant example of U.S. gunboat diplomacy. 

The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be illegal and the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law. 

Full normalization must also include lifting the trade and economic embargo against Cuba – it is nothing but a relic of the Cold War. On Feb. 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447 to declare “an embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba.” The night before he signed the embargo, JFK sent his Press Secretary, Pierre Salinger, to procure as many Cuban cigars as he could find. Salinger returned with a stash of 1,200 Petit Upmann cigars. 

On Feb. 8, 1963, the U.S. prohibited travel to Cuba and in July of that year the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) were issued as a comprehensive economic sanction outlawing financial transactions with Cuba. The regulations also prohibit the purchase or importation of any merchandise of Cuban origin, with the exception of “information or information materials” (such as publications, recorded music, and certain artwork). 

My wife and I traveled “legally” to Cuba in November 2003 on one of the last “People-to-People” tours. We visited Havana, Viñales, and Santiago de Cuba. We thoroughly enjoyed our trip, learned a lot and enjoyed meeting Cubans. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Treasury Department stopped issuing “People-to People” licenses. 

While we were in Cuba, the United Nations cast its yearly vote to end the embargo. Every nation but the U.S., Israel, and the Marquesas, voted to end the embargo. Of course, as a member of the Security Council, the U.S. has veto power. The vote was televised throughout Cuba. Last year, the UN General Assembly voted nearly-unanimously – for the twenty-second year – calling for an end to the U.S. decades-long economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. 

As Obama noted, “Today, America chooses to cut loose the shackles of the past so as to reach for a better future –- for the Cuban people, for the American people, for our entire hemisphere, and for the world.” 

I believe that more direct contact between Americans and Cubans in Cuba will likely promote positive change in both the U.S. and Cuba. 

For a detailed discussion of U.S.-Cuba relations, I recommend "Cuba Embargo-Pros and Cons."