Today two-term Berkeley City Councilmember and longtime community leader Jesse Arreguin announced he will be a candidate for Berkeley Mayor in the November 2016 election. Councilmember Arreguin launched his candidacy with an email to supporters this morning and with a new campaign website at www.Jesse.vote.
“We need a Berkeley that works for everyone,” said Councilmember Arreguin. “That’s why I’m running for Mayor. As I’ve done on the City Council and throughout my career, I’ll bring our city together and get results, so Berkeley moves forward and carries on our tradition of strong progressive leadership.”
Arreguin cited the affordability crisis as the number one challenge facing the next Mayor.
“We must ensure Berkeley remains a diverse and vibrant city,” said Arreguin, “That means protecting and expanding affordable housing and fighting displacement. It also means tackling health, economic, and educational disparities, so everyone in Berkeley has the opportunity to succeed.”
Arreguin is also running on a platform of modernizing City government and making Berkeley’s public services more innovative and efficient.
“For such a forward-thinking community, the technologies our City uses to serve the public are incredibly out of date,” said Arreguin. “Our core services - from fire and police response to permitting and pothole repair - could be made much more responsive and efficient. But it’s going require some fresh thinking and a Mayor who embraces the future.”
Arreguin will kick off his campaign for Mayor with a crowd of supporters on Thursday, November 12 at 6 pm [http://www.jesse.vote/kickoff].
“I’m looking forward to the campaign,” said Arreguin, “And to engaging in conversation with residents in every corner of Berkeley about the kind of future we want for our city.”
###
ABOUT JESSE ARREGUIN
As the son and grandson of farmworkers, a passion for social justice runs deep for Jesse Arreguin. At the young age of 9, Jesse volunteered with the effort to re-name San Francisco’s Army Street after his hero César Chavez. His public service continued through his youth and college years, and in 2008 he became the first Latino and youngest person ever elected to the Berkeley City Council. For the past 7 years, Councilmember Arreguin has represented our vibrant Downtown and portions of North Berkeley. He has also served as a Planning Commissioner, Rent Board Chair, and Sierra Club Boardmember.
On the City Council, Jesse has proven to be an effective consensus builder. He has helped move the City away from polarization, working constructively with his colleagues, local business, and community leaders to craft practical, forward-thinking solutions on pressing city issues. He has a demonstrated record of results, working to expand affordable housing, support local business, revitalize Downtown, and protect our environment.
Jesse Arreguin will be a dynamic, hands-on Mayor, who will put forth the energy, vision, and smart, 21st Century solutions needed to bring residents from every neighborhood to the table and give people from all walks of a life a stake in Berkeley’s future. And as he has done throughout his life, Jesse will champion social and economic justice for children, families, and seniors as the next Mayor of Berkeley.
Recently, the Berkeley Police Department received an additional report of girl being approached just before 6 pm on October 19th in the area of College Avenue and Webster Street as well (about 15 minutes prior to the previous report of the group of three girls).
After additional interviews by police detectives, the Berkeley Police Department is also updating the suspect’s vehicle description in these recent incidents to a black full sized cargo van (no side or rear windows). The suspect description remains the same— Hispanic Male, in his late 20’s to early 30’s, with dark hair and a “scruffy face.”
Investigators continue to search for any quality video surveillance that may have captured the suspect. The Department continues to provide additional patrols before/after school. As suspects may change their appearance or vehicles, it remains important that community members remain vigilant and continue to report any suspicious vehicles or activities they see. If you see something, say something!
Please call 911 or 510-981-5900 with any immediate sighting so we can dispatch an officer as soon as possible. For any general information please contact our Special Victim’s Unit investigators at 510-981-5715. If a caller wishes to remain anonymous he/she may do so.
For 18 years, the United Nations Association Film Festival (UNAFF) has been searching the globe for exemplars of documentary cinema. In 1998, the Bay Area hosted only four film festivals—the UNAFF, the Mill Valley film Festival, the San Francisco International Film Festival and Cinequest. Today there are 54 Bay Area screenfests but UNAFF remains unique in presenting 60 films over 11 days—"documentaries that will change your view of the world." Films about pollution, war, rebellion, restoration, redemption and renewal.
The theme of this year's UNAFF is "Running Out of Time," a reference to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals—to eradicate poverty and hunger; promote social, economic and gender equality; improve healthcare; address racism; reduce violence; and protect the global environment. The festival's eclectic fare features films from Afghanistan, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Pakistan, Nepa, Nairobi and the US. (For the complete schedule, click here.)
Despite the fact that the UN Charter was signed in 1945 at the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center in San Francisco, most of UNAFF's 2015 screenings are happening in Palo Alto.
The single evening of SF screenings is set for 7pm, October 19, at the Ninth Street Independent Film Center. The films to be show include Good Muslim Girls (the world debut of a seven-minute short exploring the world of two anonymous Iraqi women who challenge the prevailing dress codes at their university), The Sound Man (a 27-minute Ethiopia-Kenya-Somalia-Sudan-Rwanda-USA collaboration about a journalist who has spent 35 years recording the cacophony of riots and revolution across East Africa), and Finding Hillywood (a 58-minute tribute to Rwanda's pioneering film industry, which has managed to introduce movies to rural villages for the first time by deploying large, inflatable outdoor screens). Filmmaker Leah Warshawski will join a panel discussion after the screenings.
UNAFF's 2015 collection showcases the work of 11 local filmmakers: Pratibha Parmar's Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth; Dave Iverson's Capturing Grace; David Collier's Free; Ken Schneider and Marcia Jarmel's Havana Curveball; Elizabeth Lo's Hotel 22; Jacob Kornbluth's Inequality for All; David Chai's A Knock on My Door; Chistopher Beaver's Racing to Zero: In Pursuit of Zero Waste; Abby Ginzberg's Soft Vengeance: Albie Sachs and the New South Africa; John Antonelli's Unfair Game: The Politics of Poaching; and Vanessa Warheit's animated, anti-gasoline short, Worse than Poop.
At UNAFF's San Francisco press event, Christopher Beaver spoke about his experience producing a film about San Francisco's decision to become the nation's leading "zero-waste" city and is on track to cutting its pollution load by 40%. Beaver offered an example of the truth behind the power of a documentary to "change your view of the world." Back in January, Beaver learned of plans to construct a huge trash incinerator in Hilo, Hawaii. When he offered to fly to the islands and screen "Racing to Zero," local authorities were forced to hold a vote on whether he would be allowed to screen the film. The film was shown and, in a March vote, the incinerator plan was rejected. Beaver couldn't help smiling when he recalled the words of a local resident: "Your film literally changed Hawaiian history."
Yesterday, at approximately, 6:10 p.m., three females juveniles were walking in the area of College Avenue and Webster Street. As they were walking past a male suspect standing next to a van, he yelled at them to get in. The girls started to run away and the suspect started following them on foot. The girls started to scream and the suspect got back in his van and drove away south on College Avenue.
The suspect was described as a Hispanic Male, in his late 20’s to early 30’s, dark hair with a “scruffy face” with an older model, dark green or blue mini-van with possible tinted windows.
The victims in this case used excellent personal safety habits, immediately leaving the area of the suspect, and reporting the matter to authorities.
This incident is similar to an incident which occurred on September 18, 2015 near Willard School on Telegraph Avenue.
The Police Department has been in contact with the Berkeley Unified School District and other schools to share information regarding this incident and recommended personal safety measures.
BPD is providing extra patrols around the schools in the City. We are requesting the public’s assistance to be on the look-out for any persons matching the description of the person and van. Please call 911 or 510-981-5900 with any immediate sighting so we can dispatch an officer as soon as possible. For any general information please contact our Special Victim’s Unit investigators at 510-981-5715. If a caller wishes to remain anonymous he/she may do so
A reader forwarded this letter received from her child's elementary school:
Dear BUSD Families:
Yesterday (Sunday Oct.18, 2015), at approximately, 6:10 p.m., three females juveniles were walking in the area of College Avenue and Webster Street. As they were walking past a male suspect near a van, the suspect yelled at them to get in. The girls started to run away and the suspect started following them on foot. The girls started to scream and the suspect got back in his van and drove away south on College Avenue.
The suspect was described as a Hispanic Male, 20-30 years old, dark hair with a mustache driving an older model, dark green or blue mini-van with tinted windows.
The victims in this case used excellent personal safety habits, immediately leaving the area of the suspect, and reporting the matter to authorities.
This incident is similar to an incident which occurred on September 18, 2015 near Willard Middle School on Telegraph Avenue.
The Police Department has been in contact with the Berkeley Unified School District and other schools to share information regarding this most recent incident and some personal safety measures.
BPD is providing extra patrols around the schools in the City. We would encourage anyone with information regarding this incident to contact the Berkeley Police Department at 510-981-5900. If you a person wishes to remain anonymous he/she can call Bay Area Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477
This has not yet been confirmed by Berkeley Police.
A source within the University of California administration reports that the store will be located in the new ASUC Student Union building on the University of California at Berkeley campus.
The person hired, according to the advertisement, “will be responsible for the inventory of all packages, end-to-end flow of packages from when it enters the site to when it is placed for customer pickup; and all outbound processes including customer returns and abandoned packages.” He or she will manage one or two full-time and four to eight part-time staffers at the site.
The main activity will probably be delivery of products of all kinds which have been ordered from Amazon over the internet.
The Sacramento Bee reported that Davis signed a five-year agreement with Amazon in October of 2014 for a co-branded website. Amazon pays the university between 0.5 and 2.25 percent of gross sales, and Amazon has a no-rent campus location where students can pick up their purchases.
AC Transit is planning changes to most of the local routes in Berkeley and the F and J transbay routes. There are a number of informational meetings coming up as a public hearing on Nov. 11 at the AC transit office 1600 Franklin Oakland. 2PM and 5PM. The Berkeley informational meeting is Oct 24 10:30 AM at the South Branch library.
They're billing it as service expansion but there are changes in what streets the buses will traverse. For instance the F bus will no longer traverse Adeline, Market, 40th St. Service expansion will entail more transfers like what happened to the 51 line being split into A and B. I found a "Service Expansion Plan" brochure at a senior center. Hopefully they're available at the libraries also.
Other than meeting times and the ability to comment I couldn't find much information online. There is some at http://www.actransit.org/sep/
Ever since Richard Nixon’s hired thugs broke into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in Washington’s Watergate office complex, it’s been This-gate and That-gate for almost every instance of suspected political misconduct, of which there have been more than a few since 1972—the latest is “Benghazi-gate. It was only a matter of time before Berkeley acquired its own X–gate.
In the last couple of weeks our very own –gate soubriquet has appeared in the comment section of various of the Bay Area News Group’s multiple outlets as well as the online local Berkeleyside site.
What’s it being called? Cap-gate, of course.
What is Cap-gate? Well, that depends on who you ask, and when you ask them. (“What did he know, and when did he know it?")
It seems that Berkeley Councilmember Laurie Capitelli scored some number of thousands of dollars (we used to call them “Gs") from Police Chief Michael Meehan’s purchase of a home with a loan of about a half-million dollars from the city of Berkeley which had been approved by, among others, Councilmember Laurie Capitelli.
Isn’t that what we used to call a kickback? Again, it depends on who you ask.
In brief:
Long, long ago, way back in 2012 if you can even remember that year, the Planet brought you a hot little story by Zelda Bronstein, longtime political activist, Planning Commissioner and mayoral candidate turned journalist, who knows where a lot of bodies are buried in Berkeley.
She noticed that Capitelli was listed as the buyer’s agent on the sale, and that as Councilmember he’d voted to approve the loan. Despite this shocking revelation, the sky did not fall, and Capitelli was re-elected.
Fast forward to 2015:
In late September, ace reporter Thomas Peele, whose work appears in the multiple Bay Area News Group outlets, did some of his trademark prize-winning data mining, and wrote this story, complete with chart:
In the body of the story, Peele called out a few of the biggest beneficiaries of generous housing allowances scored by public officials. He didn’t mention Chief Meehan by name, but Meehan’s $500,000 loan from Berkeley at 3% interest was number 6 in the chart.
Another eagle-eye, former Planet reporter Fred Dodsworth, saw Peele’s story in the CoCo Times, remembered Bronstein’s 2012 piece and reprised the whole thing for the Planet’s op-ed section:
“In a move that ethicists call fraught with conflicts and cronyism, a City Council member who voted to give Berkeley police Chief Michael Meehan a $500,000 housing loan from public funds later worked as his real estate agent and took a commission on the chief's purchase of a home, records show.”
The story seemed finally to have grown legs—and Tom Peele even found some ethicists to tell you how wrong Capitelli’s behavior was.
Then there was a sidebar from yet another former Planet reporter, Richard Brenneman, on his frequently spicy blog, with another old Capitelli scandal:
“ ‘I reiterate that I received no compensation whatsoever from Red Oak from the sale itself,’ Capitelli said ... ‘I have had no financial interest in the company for several years. I did not, as reported, split any commission on the sale. I did receive a $5,925 unsolicited payment for dealing with a variety of questions and issues forwarded to me by the agent, which arose during their search for a new home.’ “
Oh, well then, it was just a measly $6K, chump change in today’s market. No problemo, right?
The commentariat went wild after that.
Here’s the neatest explanation of all the numbers being tossed around, from a pseudonymous commenter:
$1,185,000 times .05 = $59,250 (5% total commission paid on the house’s selling price)
$59,250 divided by 2 = $29,625 (half of commission to buyer's agent)
$29,625 times .20 = $5,925 (20% of the buyer’s agent’s commission paid to Capitelli)
Tidy, plausible, isn’t it? If the agents agreed to a slightly-lower-than-6% commission at 5%, which is common, it fits perfectly.
It might be just a random number chosen by Meehan’s agent as a fee for “dealing with a variety of questions…” but Occam’s Razor suggests that it was a 20% kickback.
Peele’s follow-up story dutifully reported Capitelli’s backpedaling (somewhat tongue-in-cheekily) but he and the Bay Area News Group stood by his story as first reported:
Why should we care, some readers asked, if Capitelli donates the cookies to charity after he’s been caught with his hand in the jar?
Well, it’s dangerous to have a councilmember with such a shaky grip on ethics.
Who else might he be taking money from? And what influence might people who pay him have over his Council votes?
And what’s this about? Capitelli’s now-former real estate firm, Red Oak Realty,was hiding behind his broker’s license on the sales document, even though he says he was no longer doing whatever the law wants the requisite licensed broker to be doing?
The payoff number is peculiar. The amount of money Capitelli took on this sale, whoever it was that paid him for whatever he did, is too much just for answering a few questions. At a very generous hypothetical $500 hourly rate, more than most attorneys charge, this would still represent at least 12 hours of work.
On the other hand, $6K is too little to sell your soul for. Doctor Faustus got a much better deal for his.
Surely Capitelli is not six thousand dollars this side of the poorhouse. His judgment is even more faulty than his ethical compass.
I’ve heard it said that “real estate ethics” is right up there with “military intelligence” as a perfect example of an oxymoron, but I’ve known plenty of honest and generous real estate people. When my sister and I sold my mother’s house we were given good advice on various problems by the three real estate people we interviewed, even though we eventually sold it privately before it was even listed, in today’s super-charged market. We practically had to strong-arm one agent who spent a lot of unpaid time with us to accept a nice dinner in a restaurant as a thank-you gesture.
I hate to say We Told You So, but a search in the Planet archives on Capitelli’s name produces other hints of future ethical lapses in the last decade or so.
It describes Capitelli’s fundraising party for heavy hitters from the building industry, which has contributed a lot more than a measly $6,000 to his campaigns in the intervening eleven years.
Now, once again, it might be time for the seeds the developers planted with Laurie Capitelli to bear fruit. He and his cronies in the City Council’s Immoral Majority are poised to give away a new installment of sugar plums right before the holiday recess in December, because expediter Mark Rhoades announced at the Zoning Adjustment Board that he needed a done deal by the first of the year.,
Per the script finalized on June 25, ignoring citizen protests, the Council will probably be letting developers of 2211 Harold Way off the hook, allowing them a deep discount on the significant community benefits we were promised if we voted in Measure R 1.0’s five tall buildings. The shameless giveaway of millions of dollars in SCB’s on the Rhoades-promoted building proposed for the historic site of the Shattuck Hotel embarrassed even the Zoning Adjustment Board majority members employed in the building industry who voted for the project. They were clearly uncomfortable with the token payment which they were forced to accept under the deal promoted at Council by Capitelli and his ally Mayor Tom Bates.
Will Berkeleyans rise up and reject Capitelli as Bates’s anointed successor next year? Will Cap-gate turn into Casti-gate? Well, considering that our lotus-eating voters quickly forgot that the Mayor himself stole and destroyed copies of the Daily Cal after the paper endorsed his opponent, I wouldn’t bet on their remembering Cap-gate a year from now at election time.
Why should we worry about small stuff like this when the lotuses are falling from the trees in our Gourmet Ghetto? Berkeley, after all, is The Best of All Possible Worlds, isn’t it?
It looks like Councilmember Jesse Arreguin is running for Mayor of Berkeley. Tom Lochner of the CoCo Times figured it out, based on a change to the name of Arreguin's Facebook page. The Planet will probably be the last to know for sure.
Downtown Berkeley Association CEO Jon Caner’s apology before the City Council for gratuitously removing public posters legally placed downtown on October 13, 2015, was curiously undercut by references to a “complaint process” which consists entirely of a form on the Downtown Berkeley Association’s website.
This is no way resembles the independent complaint process recommended by the Homeless Task Force in May of 2015. For over six years complaints made directly to the Downtown Berkeley Association regarding the issue of posters and other issues have been ignored or dismissed. DBA “Ambassador” supervisor Lance Goree wrote me a letter in response to my complaint about content-based flier removal stating flatly that only the city was entitled to put posters downtown.
Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, who represents the downtown area, stated “there’s a complaint process” at the Berkeley City Council meeting to CEO Jon Caner as though he is satisfied that the Downtown Berkeley Association should conduct its own internal investigation of complaints despite its having violated fair campaign laws, hired employees who insult and even assault members of the public, and tear down public posters as though they were nothing but garbage.
The Downtown Berkeley Association is in no position to protect the public’s interest. It has lobbied consistently for ordinances which the Department of Justice, in its August 6th, 2015 Statement of Interest, has declared unconstitutional violations of the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment and continues to push for the criminalization of homelessness.
We do not currently have the independent complaint process needed to provide the public with objective recourse when the employees of the private patrols hired by business interest violate the public’s rights. The Berkeley City Council, and Jesse Arreguin in particular, needs to address this matter as soon as possible as clearly recommended by the Homeless Task Force.
The public is frustrated about daily gun violence. Families grieve over their loved ones, but this has no effect on our legislative chambers. The right for the poorest and weakest to live in a secure and healthy environment is often ignored by our representatives. Our tax dollars are often spent in providing adequate safety to rich and powerful politicians. We don’t pay sufficient attention to ordinary citizens.
I would like our tax dollars to be used to reduce crime and violence at home. Let us hear the broken voices in our own country. Citizens of the U.S. should not have to live in fear and insecurity.
I am urging lawmakers to bring peace and harmony to our country by spending more money on police training and gun control. Let us learn to respect the lives of all of our people.
On October 1 the Berkeley minimum wage increased to $11 an hour. But unfortunately, for the majority of workers the raise is fictional. The City of Berkeley has notified the business community, and Berkeley businesses are supposed to post the wage increase in a place that is conspicuous and accessible to their workers. But so far, most minimum wage workers are not being informed. Notices are not being posted and nor are employees notified in any other way. In other words, large number of businesses are breaking the law.
The Berkeley City Council has failed to approve a budget that would provide a larger staff -- there is only one staff member now -- to assure that the law is enforced. It hasn't because the majority on the Council favor the interests of business even though many employers are ignoring a wage law that was passed by the City Council.
There is only one option left for progressives. We have to take on the task of assuring that workers don't suffer from wage theft. Wage theft is a serious problem in California. It costs workers $1.2 billion every year. On the other hand, it is a winnable issue but only if many of you are willing to help. We got small business size cards that provide workers with what they need to know. I am requesting that you take 3-5 cards (unless you want more) that you could give to a wait person at a restaurant, post on a bulletin board, or just hand out a card to a worker in any business.
Please send me your mailing address and I'll get a few cards to you. Unless many of you are willing to join this wage campaign low wage workers will continue to be illegally screwed. My email address is harry.brill@sbcglobal.net.
Predictably, the pressure cooker situation in Israel has finally exploded with spasms of violence by Palestinians and Israelis. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right wing government have incited much of the violence by expanding Jewish settlements and ignoring settler terrorist attacks. About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Settler terrorism has been ongoing for decades with complete impunity. No settler has ever been charged with vandalism or other acts of violence.
The cycle of violence will continue as long as the US government continues to show its blatant partiality by sending huge shipments of weapons and deflecting censure and criticism of Israel by using its veto power at the UN.
The situation in Israel has reached a ‘South Africa’ moment when more and more European countries and American Jews are voicing frustration and anger at the deteriorating situation and lending support to the growing BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement. By assuring Israel of our unshakable support and alliance, regardless of its appalling history of human rights violations and suffocating occupation, we are complicit in the ongoing mayhem. This is not a gesture of support for Israel but a monumental betrayal.
There is an extremely disturbing crusade being launched by the ruling B.J.P. to stifle free speech in a country that used to pride itself on free speech. Secular liberals are facing major challenges – how to voice their contrarian opinions without invoking the wrath of extremist Hindu groups and exposing themselves to mortal danger. Renowned scholar, M.M. Kalburgi, an outspoken critic of Hindu idol worship, paid the ultimate price when he was gunned by fanatics. Crores (10 million) of rupees are spent on religious rituals at the behest of religious magicians who misguide worshippers in believing that God can only be realized through physical objects or idols. The great sage, Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, vehemently denounced the prevailing caste system and all idolatry as impediments to God-realization. Kalburgi was right to challenge the validity of idol worship. All religious customs must be challenged for their relevance and outdated and irrelevant rituals discarded.
Contrarians continue to suffer from the rising tide of Hindu extremists. Earlier in February, the communist leader, Govind Pansare was killed. In 2013 Narendra Dabholkar was murdered for campaigning against religious superstitions. Narendra Modi deafening silence is being interpreted as quiet acquiescence in concert with his shared ideology with the far-right Hindutva groups.
The notorious leader of another, Hindu extremist group, Sri Ram Sene, and his thugs raided pubs and assaulted women found drinking and issued an ominous warning to writers who criticized Hindu Gods would have their ‘tongues sliced off’. He stated that the ultimate goal was to create a Hindu nation. This comes as a direct threat to Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs and the preservation of a secular democracy. Again, Narendra Modi failed to condemn these criminal acts.
The B.J.P. has adopted an unhealthy arrogance of India’s secular democracy. Following the assassination of Pakistani politician Salman Taseer, the Indian journalist, M.J. Akbar, the official spokesman of the B.J.P, boasted that “If Salman Taseer had been an Indian Muslim, he would still have been alive.” In 2014 India expressed concern over Bangladesh’s efforts to maintain a functioning democracy. As Nikhil Wagle, a prominent liberal journalist so aptly observed, “Without secularism, India is a “Hindu Pakistan.”
It is time India stop shielding itself from its own patina of legitimacy as being the gold standard of the world’s largest democracy by criticizing its neighbor’s shortcomings.
The Indian media has become so fearful of the heavy-hand of the BJP ruling party that it has adopted a culture of self-censorship, loath to challenge those in political power. A number of journalists such as Mr. Wagle have complained of receiving threatening calls from another right-wing Hindu group, Sanatan Sanstha. K. S. Bhagwan, a retired university professor who is highly critical of the Hindu caste system received a tweet threatening his life
The goal of transforming India from a secular state to a Hindu nation, which seems to be behind the murders, is abetted not just by the silence of politicians, but also by the Hindu nationalist policies of the ruling B.J.P.
What is even more troubling is the government’s efforts to purge moderate secular voices from major institutions such as the National Book Trust and Nalanda University and replace them with Hindutv ideologues. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of India’s secular state legacy, is being threatened by Modi’s aficionados. The director of the Nehru Museum and Library was removed and replaced by another religious ideologue who plans to change the name to glorify “dear leader’ Modi. This is absurd as changing the name of the Washington Monument to Obama museum. A prominent B.J.P. member of parliament recently glorified the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, Nathuram Godse, as a “great patriot”. His extremist views are shared by many of his colleagues. Godse was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an armed Hindu group, which has been instrumental in Modi’s rise to power. The culture and tourism minister, Mahesh Sharma, has promised to purge all western influence that promote secular values.
Emboldened by their election successes, Hindu fundamentalists feel empowered to purge all vestiges of western, secular values in the shadow of a Hindu nationalist government. Last December, the acclaimed Tamil author, Perumal Murugan, received death threats from local caste based groups, who demanded he burn his novel, Madhorubhagan, a gripping fictional tale of a childless couple beset by the tyranny of caste.
Unable to offer him protection, the police suggested he go into exile. Fearing for his family’s life, he destroyed his whole library of books and took a vow to give up writing.
The country is taking a dangerous plunge to tyrannical rule and intolerance that will have profound repercussions if the current trends are not reversed. Modi has silenced many who accused him of presiding over the communal mayhem in Gujarat in 2002. He harassed dancer Sarabhai who spoke out against the communal attacks on the Muslim minority and is now waging a campaign against activist Teesta Setalvad and NGOs who are campaigning for justice. A senior police officer who served in Gujarat at the time of riots and accused Modi of ordering the police not to stop the riots for three days to allow the slaughter to continue, has been fired. Modi’s hatchet man, Amit Shah, is busy setting up groups in various places in U.P. to spread the virus of communalism and foment riots to fortify B.J.P.’s power. If these trends are not halted, India will sink rapidly into becoming a fascist state.
All these disturbing trends have been sanctified by a hideous caste apartheid system whose inequities must be challenged. Hindu extremists are even dictating our cuisine. Cow slaughter and the consumption of beef is banned in many states. Why is the ‘holy cow’ singled out for special protection and reverence? Emaciated cows can be seen wondering the streets of every town and village. I have yet to witness anyone feeding these pitiful animals. The B.J.P. and its erstwhile leader, Modi, is sowing the seeds of intolerance and violence. Indians should be worried, very worried.
Most people are "successful" at most of the things they try to do. Yet many people who suffer from low self-esteem incorrectly believe themselves to be unsuccessful people, and generate negative, self-hating emotions accordingly. Comparing our levels of outward success to those of others is a bad habit that we have learned through unconscious assimilation. Society promulgates a misnomer that we need to have external success (as defined by certain criteria, especially having a lot of money), and if we do not have that, we don't deserve to like ourselves.
Many persons with mental illness get upset if they feel they can't compete in the job market. Yet, psychiatric illness, the effects of medication, and indoctrination into the mental health system (in which we are given low expectations) combine into a huge disadvantage if seeking work. Yet, in the absence of a job, mentally ill people often do not feel they deserve self-appreciation.
Despite the overwhelming barriers to employment faced by mentally ill persons, employed acquaintances may pull a superiority trip. People who work in the mental health treatment system may presume themselves superior, and so might people at large, since they incorrectly equate being a valid person with having professional employment. Thus, the pressure is real, and it doesn't originate with us.
In my late twenties and early thirties, I finally reached a point where I acknowledged that my psychiatric illness made me disabled, and I began to accept myself as a person, without applying unrealistic standards to myself. I lived for "the now," and I began to appreciate the good or even the interesting things in my experience of life. I was also somewhat cognitively impaired at the time. However, most of my thinking was on the right track.
Clarity can be elusive, and when we do not have clarity, we are probably not aware that we don't have clarity. Yet, if we can learn to think clearer, it puts us in a better position to go after whatever it is we might want, or to decide if we really want something after all.
A possible exercise is to make a list of things you believe you need, and then see what things can be either crossed off of the list, or moved from the "need" category into the "want" or "wish" category.
We should value ourselves as human beings, regardless of whether or not we live up to self-imposed standards, or the standards of others. We should look toward the things we did do successfully, and should not obsess about perceived shortcomings. We should not let anyone (whether he or she is a parent, a professional, or an acquaintance) tell us that we are not doing "good enough."
For some practitioners of meditation, the life goals are mostly intangible, and the measure of success is simply how much you can enjoy the experiences of the present moment. Wealth and status aren't necessities. In most teachings of meditation, peacefulness is sought. Or to take it a step farther than that, you are not seeking anything, including peacefulness, you just are.
While it isn't necessary that we become a Zen master, we can shift the content of our minds and stop thinking about who we supposedly are, and instead we can focus on whatever it is we are experiencing and doing.
Obtaining treatment for mental illness, if you suffer from that, is an excellent way to keep your head on straight; and then you could be in a position to seek realistic goals, or even to seek meditation. Life is always worthwhile.
1. It was a high-level debate, filled with discussion of Democratic policies and values. In contrast, the first two Republican debates featured a mixture of tired conservative maxims (cut taxes), opprobriums (dictator Obama), soft-ball questions (which woman would you put on the $10 bill) and personal attacks by Donald Trump . Democrats tackled substantial subjects including climate change, income inequality, race, campaign finance reform, domestic surveillance, Wall Street reform, the “one percent,” college affordability, diplomacy, paid family leave, healthcare, and the minimum wage.
2. Former Senators Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb should withdraw their candidacies. Both Chafee and Webb were embarrassed. Chafee flubbed a question about why he voted to repeal the “Glass-Steagall Act.” Webb came out in favor of an “all-of-the-above” energy sources including coal and nuclear power(!).
3. There was remarkable policy unanimity among the Democratic candidates. While differing in policy details, Chafee, Clinton, O’Malley, Sanders, and Webb agreed on most subjects.
4. Regardless of whom the Democratic candidate turns out to be, there are unmistakable differences between Democrats and Republicans. Whether the ultimate Democratic nominee is Clinton or Sanders, there will be a policy chasm between the Democrat and whomever the Republicans nominate. Democrats want to continue the policies of the Obama administration; Republicans don’t. Democrats believe climate change is a real threat and want to do something about it; Republicans believe climate change is “a hoax.” Etcetera.
5. Sanders had the best moment, setting the tone for the night: Sanders defended Clinton, attacking the media obsession with her emails:
let me say something about the media… as I go around the country, [and] talk to a whole lot of people. Middle class in this country is collapsing. We have 27 million people living in poverty. We have massive wealth and income inequality. Our trade policies have cost us millions of decent jobs. The American people want to know whether we're going to have a democracy or an oligarchy as a result of Citizens Union. Enough of the e-mails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America.
6. There were two “gotcha” attempts and neither one worked. True to form, Sanders never attacked Clinton. However, Sanders was attacked twice: Martin O’Malley tried to get at Sanders record on gun control by introducing two folks who had tried to sue a man who had sold 4000 rounds of ammunition to the Aurora shooter; however, the CNN host, Anderson Cooper, didn’t follow up. And, Cooper tried a soft attack on Sanders’ patriotism by noting, “You honeymooned in the Soviet Union,” but Bernie brushed it off. (Actually, Sanders went to the Soviet Union as part of a cultural exchange.)
7. Despite their agreement on most subjects, the five candidates disagreed on the greatest national security threat. Chafee said, “chaos in the Middle East.” Webb added, “cyber-warfare.” O’Malley said, “nuclear Iran.” Sanders responded, “climate change.” And Clinton said, “the spread of nuclear weapons.”
8. The political debate is Clinton’s ideal milieu and it showed. Clinton has a lot of debate experience; in 2008 Hillary debated Obama 25 times. As a result, Clinton gave a superb performance: she was confident, positive, and had the best body language of all the candidates.
9. Nonetheless, Sanders performed well. Bernie never got rattled, even when attacked by Martin O’Malley and Anderson Cooper. He stayed on message, concluding, “Here is the truth that very few candidates will say, is that nobody up here, certainly no Republican, can address the major crises facing our country unless millions of people begin to stand up to the billionaire class that has so much power over our economy and our political life.”
10. Hillary Sanders will probably be the Democratic presidential candidate but Bernie Sanders will compete with her for at least six months. Many Democrats were waiting for Hillary to screw up so that Vice President Joe Biden would feel compelled to enter the race. Clinton didn’t bomb and Biden probably won’t declare.
Clinton’s strong debate performance doesn’t mean Sanders is out of the running. Many observers were surprised at how well he did and most focus groups had Bernie winning the debate. Sanders should be around until at least “Super Tuesday,” March 1, 2016.
And, there’s no doubt that Bernie Sanders presence has driven Hillary Clinton to the left. (During the debate she said, “I’m a progressive.”)
The first Democratic presidential debate was good for Clinton and for Sanders. It was good for the Democratic Party. And, the debate was good for America.
San Francisco Opera’s new production of Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor may offer vague, confusing staging, but it comes through musically with great singing. What the staging lacks -- in failing to focus the drama in any particular historical period or culture, instead offering a mishmash of sleek marble walls and costumes of modern-day business suits mixed in with military outfits – the singing more than makes up for. This is perhaps as it should be, since, where other composers might choose to tell this lurid story in music of violent dissonance and rhythmic urgency, Donizetti relies almost exclusively on his highly expressive lyricism. This lyricism rings true in each and every moment of this great opera.
Adapted from an 1815 novel by Sir Walter Scott, Lucia di Lammermoor has always been a vehicle for great sopranos. Maria Callas made several highly acclaimed recordings of Lucia in the 1950s, and her Mad Scene is still considered tops. Aside from hearing the exquisite French soprano Mady Mesplé sing this role in Paris back in 1970, the finest Lucia I ever heard live was Beverly Sills, whom I enjoyed hearing twice in this role: in 1971 in Houston with John Alexander as a so-so Edgardo, and in 1972 in San Francisco opposite an outstanding Luciano Pavarotti. More recently, I heard Anna Netrebko sing a passionately engaged Lucia in 2003 at Los Angeles Opera, though her Edgardo was a thoroughly nondescript José Bros.
Here in San Francisco this season, Lucia is sung by Nadine Sierra, who stepped in as a late replacement for the fatigued Diana Damrau. A recent Adler Fellow who came up through the Merola program here, Nadine Sierra has quickly blossomed into an international star. Vocally, Nadine Sierra sang with a crystalline tone and displayed excellent command in her many coloratura passages. Dramatically, Sierra was a passionately engaged heroine. Lucia’s love for Edgardo Ravenswood was incandescent in Sierra’s portrayal. Yet through no fault of Sierra’s, the staging by Michael Cavanagh made this Lucia highly susceptible to ghosts. She sees them everywhere. Almost her first words in this opera speak of her encounter with a female ghost, the long-ago victim of a brutal murder by a Ravenswood lover. As Lucia sings of this past encounter with a ghost, the ghost appears to her—and to us. Lucia also sees the ghost of her recently deceased mother, who looks confusingly like the earlier ghost. When her brother, Enrico Ashton, bullies Lucia into agreeing to marry Arturo Bucklaw against her wishes, Enrico threatens to take his own life if she refuses, saying that his blood will be on her hands and his ghost will haunt her. Sure enough, director Cavanagh musters a ghostly double who appears right on cue. To make matters worse, when Edgardo sings of his vow to avenge the murder of his father by Enrico Ashton, director Cavanagh once again conjures up the appearance of yet another ghost. To paraphrase Emperor Joseph’s famous remark to Mozart about “too many notes,” this staging of Lucia di Lammermoor simply has “too many ghosts.”
If Lucia is portrayed in this production as all too susceptible to ghosts, there are hot-blooded dramatic and vocal characterizations on the male side offered by tenor Piotr Beczala as Edgardo and baritone Brian Mulligan as Lucia’s brother, Enrico Ashton. These two men, Lucia’s lover and her brother, find themselves locked in a blood-feud going back generations and fueled by their opposed political allegiances in the current situation. Whatever this latter may be is not clear in this confused, ahistorical staging of Lucia. However, what is clear, in the inspired singing and acting of Piotr Beczala as Edgardo and Brian Mulligan as Enrico, is that these two men are implacably opposed and hate each other with a passion. Beczala, who was last heard here in 2008 in La Bohème, was especially impressive in Lucia both for his powerful yet agile vocalism and for his energetic acting as Edgardo. Mulligan, on the other hand, while impressive in his sonorous vocalism, gave an over-the-top portrayal of Enrico as a blustering, bullying, all-out villain. As staged by Michael Cavanagh and costumed by Mattie Ulrich, Enrico seems to be a military man with huge political ambitions. He struts around bellowing orders and is backed up by what looks for all the world like black leather-clad storm-troopers armed with semi-automatic weapons. In this production, Lammermoor Castle is no castle at all, but rather a sleek, modern corporate retreat overlooking the Scottish coast. It is here, in this posh retreat, that Enrico makes use of a forged letter to persuade Lucia that Edgardo loves another woman, with the result that, succumbing to this blow, Lucia reluctantly agrees to marry Arturo Bucklaw. Then, after the wedding, Lucia has a mental breakdown, murders her bridegroom, and descends into madness.
Donizetti’s music features beautiful lyricism throughout. In Act I, Scene II, a lovely harp solo introduces the fountain scene where Lucia tells her friend Alisa of the ghostly legend of this fountain. Alisa, by the way, is here beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Zande Svede, an Adler Fellow. When Lucia’s lover, Edgardo, rushes in for a rendez-vous, there ensues a magnificent love duet. With the words, “Verrano a te sull’ aure”(“My sighs shall on the balmy breeze”), Edgardo pledges his love and vows that the thought of Lucia shall be ever present in his mind, though for the time being he shall be far away in France on a diplomatic mission. At the end of Act II, there is the famous sextet, often hailed as one of the finest dramatic ensembles in all opera.
Act III’s Mad Scene, of course, is the real showpiece of Lucia di Lammermoor; and it was beautifully sung here by Nadine Sierra, accompanied by the famed flute obbligato. Dramatically, this scene was staged with the nude body of the slain Arturo lying face-down and soaked in blood on their marriage-bed, while Lucia trailed the bloody sheets behind her as she wandered about in search of her lover Edgardo. My only reservation about Sierra’s singing in the Mad Scene occurred when Sierra, seeing a ghost appear, suddenly sang, “Il fantasma! Il fantasma!” For some reason, Sierra went against tradition and sang these words softly, almost hesitantly. This production opened Act IV with the sometimes omitted “Wolf Crag” scene in which Enrico Ashton confronts Edgardo Ravenswood on a mountaintop and challenges him to a duel the following morning at dawn. This duel never takes place for the simple reason that in the night Lucia dies of her madness. Edgardo, alone in the Ravenswood cemetery by the fountain, learns of Lucia’s death and launches into the great aria, “Tu che a Dio spiegasti l’ali” (”You who have flown from me to Heaven). When the words, “O bell’ alma innamorata” (“Oh beautiful beloved soul”) are reprised a second time, they are preceded by a lovely cello solo playing the same melody. Edgardo, utterly devastated by Lucia’s madness and death, commits suicide as he vows to be reunited with Lucia in Heaven.
Mention must be made of bass-baritone Nicolas Testé’s superbly robust singing as Raimondo, here portrayed as a spiritual advisor to Enrico Ashton. In a minor role, tenor AJ Glueckert ably sang the part of Normanno, a member of Enrico Ashton’s entourage. Musical Director Nicola Luisotti led the orchestra in a tightly knit performance; and the chorus led by Ian Robertson contributed grandly to the musical and dramatic unity of this great opera. Scenic and Projection Designer Erhard Rom contributed video images of the Scottish coast and highlands. If only Michael Cavanagh’s staging had been a great deal more focused, this would have been an exceptional Lucia di Lammermoor. In any case, I’ll take great singing anytime over whatever staging is offered; and great singing was definitely offered here.
Co-directors Robert Campos and Donna LoCicero have delivered an outstanding documentary about the boom times of the Bay Area comedy scene in the 1980s—a 90-minute romp filled with bouts of laughter, a pinch of pathos and insights into the craft of the stand-up comic. 3 Still Standing is a multi-level saga that spins a tale of great expectations dashed by a changing economy and talented spirits challenged but undaunted by fickle fortune.
In addition to the three comics who anchor this tale—Will Durst, Johnny Steele and Larry Bubbles Brown—the film uncorks some vintage footage of more than a dozen beloved comedians from the Golden Age of stand-up. There are interviews with Dana Carvey, Paula Poundstone, Rob Schneider, Bobby Slayton and the late, lamented Robin Williams.
As a bonus, 3 Still Standing is a beautifully filmed visual treat, garnished with crisp, richly colored scenes of San Francisco and extraordinary time-lapse captures of the Bay Area morphing into sundown and glowing at night.
This multi-level saga spins a tale of great expectations dashed by a changing economy and talented spirits challenged but undaunted by fickle fortune.
The film is dedicated "To Robin" and, in a final bittersweet cameo, a white-whiskered Robin Williams appears, sitting patiently for his interview, looking pleased and relaxed, crinkly-eyed and smiling like a kindly Santa Claus. (In a subsequent interview, Rob Schneider affectionately calls Williams a "performance whore," willing to perform anywhere on a whim and always guaranteed to bring out massive crowds.)
At the peak of the 1980s comedy renaissance, there were five working clubs in San Francisco. The Holy City Zoo, the Punchline, the Other Cafe, Cobb's Comedy Club and the Improv were merry-making magnets, attracting aspiring young comics from across the country. Drawing on remarkable archival footage, Campos captures the heyday of Bay Area bellylaughs, a magical time when the best and brightest of America's young comics strutted and fretted across the city's stages. The excitement is palpable on both sides of the microphone with the audience gathered like a pile of dry kindling and the comic scraping together both wit and performance skills to provide the spark. There is excitement and energy to burn.
Will Durst remembers his first week in San Francisco. He did eight shows. So what if there was no pay, Durst recalls, after all, "there was stage time." It was in SF that Durst learn the comedy ropes. In those days, Durst recalls, there were five levels of comedy: the Open Mike-ers, the Emcees, the Middle Acts, the Headliners and "people who left for Los Angeles." At the peak of the comedy renaissance there were five working clubs in San Francisco. The Holy City Zoo, the Punchline, the Other Cafe, Cobb's Comedy Club and the Improv.
Will and Debbie Durst provide a touching stand-up courtship story—one that includes a "meet-cute" encounter over a platter of half-smoked, slobber-soaked cigarettes.
Johnny Steele recounts his thwarted search for fame and fortune in Los Angeles, a city that is more interested in bankable commodities than developing artists.
Larry "Bubbles" Brown, a comic of depression and mordant commentary, reveals his professional challenge: "To find new ways to show how I'm a loser."
Just as there's a divide between SF and LA, there is a cultural divide between SF and Las Vegas. Local comics lament the appearance of clueless "road hacks," visiting comics who drift into town relying on sexist and misogynistic content. They wind up wondering why San Francisco audiences aren't laughing like the crowds in Vegas. Well, it's easy to get laughs if your jokes are all about bodily fluids, Durst cracks. So if you're going to San Francisco, forget the superficial casino jokes. Sophisticated SF humor stands on the high end of the comedy spectrum.
San Francisco, we are told, is the only city where comedy "is treated as an art form." As one of the principals fondly remembers: "We were little rock stars in this town."
Sadly, the comedy boom was fated to burst—a "comedic recession," as Williams puts it. As the economic stumbled and cable TV fare began to suck away the crowds, comics were forced to seek out one-night gigs in far-off burbs like Turlock, Modesto, Grass Valley, and Redding.
In a final desperate act, Durst and a bunch of fellow comics bought the failing Holy City Zoo. Durst called it "our inner sanctum for doing the craft" and comedians from all over soon called the Zoo home.
But journeyman/woman comics don't make the big bucks and the worker-owned club was fated to close. The Zoo turned off the lights in August 1993 following a marathon set of performances with Durst performing the final set.
As Debbie Durst recalls, "If you could pay with your heart, we would be open still."
For SF comic Michael Pritchard it was "like watching the doors close on your favorite chapel."
Durst put it simply. "We've been downsized."
Today, the clubs that still operate are the ones owned by corporations. Comics in Vegas nightclubs thrive while Bay Area talent struggles to survive. The corporate clubs are booking "name" comics from TV sit-coms—the "one percent" of the comedy world. Johnny Steele recalls one recent show where he did 30 minutes and made a couple of hundred dollars as a warm-up act for a celebrity headliner. The TV-blessed comic did a 40-45 minute act and walked off with a $25,000.
"Comics are a lot like blues musicians," Durst reflects, "We get better as we get older." But life is not getting any easier for these talented craftsmen. They have spent their lives honing performing skills that are as rare and accomplished as a diva delivering an aria or a master violinist performing a Paganini concerto. But there is no pension plan for aging comics and no one is getting an endowment.
We see Durst in his office, coming up with new jokes and struggling to cobble together some paid gigs—in addition to his ongoing work as a columnist, a voice-over artist, a radio commentator and an author.
Finally, we see Durst doing a show at The Marsh. "In San Francisco," Durst notes with satisfaction, "people in the audience still know how to read or [pause for a beat] … know somebody who does." Durst is magnificent on stage. His observations are unique and cutting, his vocal acrobatics are hilarious, his physical routines are inspired, wacky and polished.
Finally, we see Steele, experimenting with the power of social media and staging a successful "pop-up show" at Berkeley's Media Center on Alston Way.
And finally, we join Brown as he goes on the road with fellow comic Dana Carvey who (even with all his fame and success) must also resort to sharing a ride with other comics to score one-night gigs on stages in Modesto, Redding, and Grass Valley.
After watching 3 Still Standing, you'll want to lift these guys up off their feet and parade them around on your shoulders. This film, and the comics profiled in it, all deserve a well-deserved standing ovation.
