A series of robberies targeting Bay Area restaurants ended with the arrest of three suspects last week, Berkeley police announced today. Kristoffer Jones, 18, of Albany, and two Oakland residents, 40-year-old Shawan Spragans and 46-year-old Merl Simpson, were arrested in connection with 23 takeover-style robberies since early March, according to police. The trio was arrested while allegedly attempting to rob a San Francisco bar on Friday. Nine of the robberies have been in Berkeley, police said. Businesses in San Francisco, San Leandro, Albany, Oakland and Hayward were also targeted during the spree.  

Berkeley police called it a "steadily evolving robbery series" in which restaurants were hit after closing time by the same suspects, who had a calm demeanor during the incidents. After the third Berkeley location was robbed, Berkeley police detectives began working jointly with other local police departments as well as the FBI on the investigation. It was when the suspects tried to rob a San Francisco bar that was under surveillance by the San Francisco Police Department early Friday morning that arrests were made in the case, police said. Police are asking anyone who has additional information on the case to call (510) 981-5900. 1127a04/28/16 

CONTACT: Berkeley police (510) 981-5780 

Copyright © 2016 by Bay City News, Inc. -- Republication, Rebroadcast or any other Reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited. 

/www/bcn/general/04/newsclip.16.04.28.11.28.00.1.txt

On Saturday, April 30th the Berkeley Progressive Alliance, Berkeley Citizens Action and Berkeley Tenants Union are holding a joint meeting to endorse candidates who support their progressive agenda. The meeting for endorsements will be heldfrom 2 pm to 5 pm at the MLK Jr Young Adult Project (YAP) Recreation Center at 1730 Oregon St., west of MLK. Members of BPA, BCA and BTU will vote to endorse candidates for Berkeley's Mayor and City Council. For more information please contact the Berkeley Progressive Alliance at berkeleyprogressivealliance@gmail.com 

These organizations are part of a network of progressive Berkeley citizens working to curb the influence of special interests and make local government accountable to the residents of Berkeley. They include a campaign in to increase funding for affordable housing in Berkeley. 

The Berkeley Progressive Alliance was formed to support the election of a progressive mayor and City Council in the November 2016 election and to promote progressive policies. Many in Berkeley find that their voices are being ignored and that a grassroots response is needed. 

Teach-ins, public meetings, and online petitions by BPA, BNC and BTU successfully opposed the Mayor's housing proposal that would have allowed development to occur without a transparent, public process. Their efforts, along with those of other community groups, have encouraged civic leaders to consider several innovative affordable housing strategies and preserve Berkeley’s diversity. They are also working to advance green sustainable policies. 

The BPA affordable housing platform and mission statement and progressive agenda can be found on-line at http://berkeleyprogressivealliance.org/ 

Holds over 12 to 1 Cash on Hand advantage over nearest opponent

Nancy Skinner continues to hold a massive financial advantage over her two Democratic opponents for State Senate in District 9.

In reports filed yesterday, covering the period from 1/1/16 to 4/23/16, Skinner held a more than 12 to 1 cash-on-hand advantage over her closest opponent, Sandre Swanson.  

Raised Cash on Hand 

Skinner $147,282 $1,016,568 

Swanson $107,594 $81,482 

Welch $120,175 $43,730 

Swanson’s weak position was also undercut by the disclosure that he had $46,894 in outstanding debt, meaning he has less than $35,000 available to spend. Skinner reported $8,837 in debt and Welch had no debt. 

With the primary election less than 6 weeks away, Skinner’s financial advantage will allow her to reach far more voters than her oppoents. 

About 30 residents of an apartment building at the corner of Shattuck Avenue and Delaware Street in Berkeley remain displaced today following a one-alarm fire on Tuesday night that caused an estimated $100,000 worth of damage, a Berkeley fire spokeswoman said. 

The damage was caused by the fire and the subsequent rupture of a water pipe, according to Berkeley Fire Department Deputy Chief Donna McCracken. 

No one was injured by the blaze, which was reported at 6:48 p.m. on Tuesday and quickly contained, McCracken said. 

The building is a three-story structure with commercial businesses on the first floor and about 20 residential units on the upper two floors, according to McCracken. 

The damage occurred on the residential floors and the businesses on the first floor have been able to remain open, she said. 

The Red Cross is helping the displaced residents find alternative accommodations, McCracken said. 

It might be possible for residents to return to some of the units in a few days but it won't be possible for people to return to the most seriously damages units for "a while," she said. 

The cause of the fire hasn't yet been determined, according to McCracken.

Two of Berkeley's progressive councilmembers are running for Mayor--videos below  

See the video of Mike Lee's presentation at the joint endorsement meeting on Saturday.  

Overall Results:

Mayor:  

109 valid ballots counted, one invalid. Jesse Arreguin achieved 60% threshhold on first round of rank choice counting. 

Jesse Arreguin 65%, Kriss Worthington 24%,Mike Lee: 4%, Ben Gould: 3% 

Write ins: 2 for Kate Harrison, 1 for Moni Law, No endorsement: 2% 

Total votes for Jesse Arreguin for 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice: 97. Total votes for Kriss Worthington for 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice: 74 

District 2 City Council – 98 valid ballots. Nanci Armstrong-Temple achieved 61% after ranked choices were counted 

Nanci Armstrong-Temple: 61% Cheryl Davila: 26% No Endorsement 13% 

District 3 City Council – 103 valid ballots (3 invalid ballots): Endorsement goes to Ben Bartlett, who achieved 87% on first round of rank choice counting 

Ben Bartlett: 87% Mark Coplan: 12% Deborah Matthews: 1% No endorsement 0 

District 5 City Council – 85 Valid ballots: Sophie Hahn achieved 78.9% on first round of rank choice counting 

Sophie Hahn 78 91% Stephen Murphy: 6% No endorsement: 2% 

District 6 City Council – 94 valid ballots, 2 invalid: Endorsement goes to Fred Dodsworth achieved 78.9% on first round of rank choice counting 

Fred Dodsworth: 78% Isabelle Gaston: 9% Susan Wengraf: 5% No Endorsement: 9%

In this issue you’ll find a press release about an endorsement meeting which will take place this Saturday under the joint auspices of Berkeley Citizens Action (BCA), Berkeley Progressive Alliance (BPA) and Berkeley Tenants’ Union (BTU). Full disclosure: from time to time in my 40+ years in Berkeley I’ve been a member of all three, even though I haven’t actually been a tenant since I’ve lived here.

I’ve never been an active decision-maker in any of them, though I’ve shown up to vote on endorsements and platforms from time to time if I remembered to pay my dues on time, and have almost always voted for the candidates one or more of them supported.

BCA was here when I came, when councilmembers were elected city-wide and mostly were on the progressive end of liberal. It lost influence when district elections brought more conservative councilmembers on board. Successive rounds of gerrymandering by incumbents created ultra-safe council districts held by the same person, in some cases, for more than 20 years at a stretch.

BPA is a recent phenomenon, an offshoot of the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition, formed out of the outrage over the deal that went down around the 2211 Harold Way project. It has especially attracted environmentalists and affordable housing advocates.

Mostly, in recent years, the candidates I’ve voted for have lost, of course, which is why (in my opinion) Berkeley is in such a mess. 

As a card-carrying member of some or all of the sponsoring groups, I’d be eligible to vote on Saturday. I might or might not make it before the end because of pre-existing family obligations to a granddaughter turning 14. 

(Here I must say with some pride that Mayor Tom Bates Is Not My Fault. Fourteen years ago at this time he was endorsed by a similar meeting hosted by similar folks of good will, but my granddaughter was born that very same day and I wanted to be present at her birth, so I missed what amounted to a coronation. Progs are often suckers.) 

According to an earlier joint press release from the three organizations, these candidates will be present to ask for endorsement for these offices: 

Mayor:
Jesse Arreguin, Ben Gould, Mike Lee, Kriss Worthington
District 2
Cheryl Davila, Nanci Armstrong-Temple
District 3
Ben Bartlett, Mark Coplan
District 5
Sophie Hahn
District 6
Fred Dodsworth III 

Since I’ll probably miss the meeting, I’m going to take advantage of this space to put my opinion as of the time of this writing on the record, though I reserve the right to change my mind. 

For Mayor: What?? Arreguin and Worthington, colleagues on the City Council for at least 8 years in the progressive minority, are both running? Yes, that’s what it looks like. There’s a rumor around town, and I’m betraying no confidences here, that they hope to agree to run cooperative campaigns to take advantage of the mathematics of ranked choice voting. That’s how Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan managed to defeat Don Perata for Oakland Mayor, with their respective supporters agreeing to put the other one as second choice. Some claim that Quan was not the perfect mayor, but she was a whole lot better than Perata would have been. Some supporters of these two Berkeley mayoral candidates (including me) believe that either would be a whole lot better than Realtor Capitelli, and that this strategy is the best way to ensure that one of them gets the job. 

Unfortunately, as far as I’ve been able to figure out, the predetermined rules for Saturday’s meeting require choosing only one candidate for each office—dual endorsements not allowed. In my opinion that’s a mistake—I haven’t been able to discover if some kind of preferential voting, or a vote which says “not yet” would be a possibility. 

The rules should be posted on someone’s website, but they’re not. Someone who went to the Berkeley Tenants’ Union Rent Board endorsement meeting last Sunday told me there was a long messy discussion about the rules there—this could happen again. 

Mike Lee (running as “The Old Bum”) has put forward a number of interesting ideas, some in this space, and as of now I’d probably rank him as #3 if the election were today. 

Grad student Ben Gould, who has a very professional-looking website, seems to have drunk the developers’ Kool-Aide, believing with the BARFers that more market rate housing will somehow trickle down to create affordable housing. Nope. 

And just to make this even more confusing, a friend who is a critic of the council majority and active in neighborhood issues but not part of the BPA etc. configuration told me he’d run into East Bay Municipal Utility District commissioner Andy Katz (sort of a progressive), who said he wasn’t endorsing any mayoral candidates yet because he’s thinking of running himself. Uh-huh. His name will not be in play on Saturday. 

Moving on down the line: 

In District 2: Cheryl Davila and Nanci Armstrong-Temple both show up well in a Google search for various activities, but I don’t know much more about them. It’s obvious either would be preferable to incumbent Darryl Moore, so they might also benefit from a cooperative strategy vis-à-vis ranked choice. 

District 3: Ben Bartlett, Mark Coplan. Ben, a Planning Commissioner, has been endorsed by retiring Councilmember Max Anderson to be his successor, which counts for a lot. I don’t know him personally, but as we used to say, “I know his people”, i.e. his father, Dale Bartlett, longtime aide to Councilmember Maudelle Shirek, who used to bring Baby Ben to work at City Hall sometimes (and doesn’t that date both of us?) I’ve encountered Mark Coplan over the years he’s done public relations for the Berkeley Unified School District, and he seems to be an honest, straightforward fellow with some good ideas. 

One factor that should be considered: the preponderance of Berkeley’s diminishing population of African-Americans live in Districts 2 and 3, now both represented by African-Americans. Both candidates running against Darryl Moore, District 2 incumbent, are Black, as is he, so that’s not an issue. However in District 3, where Anderson is retiring, Ben Bartlett is an African America, as is another opponent who’s not asking for progressive endorsement. She’s dreadful, another real estate agent and a ZAB member who usually votes with developers. 

District 5: Sophie Hahn, now on the Zoning Adjustment Board, is excellent and has run before against Capitelli, who’s now quitting to try for Mayor. Her newbie opponent, who is not asking for progressive backing, was hand-picked by the current council majority, who gerrymandered District 5 to include his home. 

District 6: Fred Dodsworth III, a major backer of BCA, is running against majority incumbent Susan Wengraf. No other district candidate has asked for this group’s endorsement, though Isabelle Gaston, also announced for the race, is considered more liberal than Wengraf. She could win as everyone’s #2 in ranked choice. 

There is no primary any more for any of these local elections—the adoption of ranked choice voting did away with both primaries and run-offs. Voters get one, and only one, shot at choosing local officials, in November. A perhaps unintended consequence is that many Berkeley voters in November will be drawn to the polls for the first time by the national elections, and will know little or nothing about local candidates. 

The main issue, as always, is land use, the only area where there’s still some measure of local control, many other topics having migrated to the state or national level. The major problem in Berkeley is that we’re already one of the very densest cities in the state, but increasingly a sought-after destination for spillovers from San Francisco’s start-up housing crush. 

Development capital, like the boll weevil “just looking for a home”, has targeted our already crowded city for cash-register multiples, the market-rate-only high-rises which promise to engulf downtown Berkeley and beyond. The current majority councilmembers, especially the mayor and his lieutenant and designated successor Capitelli, have been all too eager to give developers everything they want here in Speculation City. 

Student voters especially, stressed by overcrowding, might be tempted to believe, like candidate Gould, that some of this largesse would trickle down to create affordable housing for them, though the data say otherwise. The best candidate for mayor (I guess, in this all-male field, that would be the best man) will be the one that can explain it all in such a way that even novice voters get it. 

And don’t forget, candidates have until August to file. The landscape could change by then. 

We're going to start making more use of the "Next Issue" button, which appears at the top of the home page as soon as I start posting new pieces for next Friday's new issue, which I'm going to start earlier as much as I can. If you want an advance look at what's in the works, just click on Next Issue and see what lies ahead. On Fridays the Current Issue becomes the Previous Issue and the Next Issue becomes the Current Issue, what you see when you type berkeleydailyplanet.com into your browser.

The ramshackle tent, free box and sleeping bags may be gone from the steps of the Berkeley Main Post Office but the spirit of the long-standing (and squatting) grassroots protest encampment remains. 

Originally prompted as a protest against plans to sell off Berkeley's historic landmark Main Post Office Building, the protest village soon expanded to address the plight of the homeless. 

During its 17-months as a People's Republic mini-state, the site also became the official campaign headquarters of "Mike" Lee, who is running for local office under the slogan "Old Bum for Mayor." 

Gone but not forgotten. That was the message brought to the PO's steps last Saturday as a small band of musicians—Dave Welsh and the Funky Nixons—set up instruments and amplifiers in front of the building (and under the watchful gaze of a uniformed security officer). 

This was prep for a 1PM rally dubbed the "Must Go On!" celebration. An ad hoc fete cobbled together by the Berkeley Post Office Defenders and First They Came for the Homeless, the expressed purpose was to "say Thank You! to everyone who sustained the occupation. Though our occupation has been torn down, the fight to preserve public resources, free speech, and the rights of homeless people must continue 

After the occupiers were rousted early on the morning of April 12, the sidewalk was power-washed to erase a variety of "people's slogans." If you have any doubts about the resilience of the resistance, just check out the new set of messages scratched on the sidewalk—the People's Chalkboard—in the aftermath of the April 23 salute. 

"This is where the Free Box was to share clothing." 

"This is where food was shared." 

"This is where first they came for the homeless who protected your rights." 

"At this location, a disabled activist was violently dragged over fifty feet for organizing for the homeless." 

"That which you do to the least of them, you do to God." 

"All you need is Love is all you need. R.I.P. BPOD." 

Why We 'Must Go On' 

Here is the text of a handbill that was circulated during the April 23 event: 

Though the Main Berkeley Post Office is not currently up for sale, the USPS continues to pursue a “shrink to survive” strategy by reducing and outsourcing services, chiseling away at union employment, and selling post offices around the country. Management of this huge enterprise is neglected with only three Governors on the Board that is chartered for eleven. The Postal Service continues to ignore the strong recommendations of its own Inspector General to correct anti-competitive practices in its real estate division and to pursue financial viability by offering banking services to its customers. 

Allowing the USPS to wither in this way threatens the citizenry with the loss of universally accessible mail service, with a devastating injury to organized labor, with the elimination of public space on Main Streets throughout the country, and with the abdication of the Constitutional mission to provided a vehicle for the transmission of free speech. 

During our 17-month occupation of the Main Berkeley Post Office, we expanded our mission to protest the criminalization of homeless people. Solving the widespread social problems that result in homelessness is not, nor can it be, the job of the police. We will continue to raise awareness of this strategic miscalculation by city officials and to demand that truly affordable housing be created for the homeless so they can spend more time putting their lives in order and less time shifting their belongings from pillar to post. 

Our press conference will review the course of our 17-month occupation. We will thank everyone who played a role in sustaining our presence on the grounds of the post office. And we will discuss our strategies going forward: 

– To organize community members to call out the USPS for not using the Main Berkeley Post Office to its full potential, and for not heeding their Inspector General’s recommendations to crack down on their real estate division and to institute postal banking. 

– To invite candidates for election in November to use the Main Berkeley Post Office as a backdrop for supporting union labor, for Main Street Not Wall Street, and for attacking the predatory fringe finance industry. 

– To retain and build on the way we’ve used public space for free expression. No matter how one might speculate as to the reasons why the Postal Police tolerated our occupation for so long, we demonstrated that public officials may not have absolute control over the use of spaces they administer, but that communities can override authorities without relying on permits, petitions, lawsuits, lobbyists, threats, or bribes. We can just use those spaces. 

– To continue to nurture the community garden that we planted on neglected post office property over a year ago, and to which we are currently denied access by US Postal Police. 

First They Came for the Homeless: https://www.facebook.com/pages/First-they-came-for-the-homeless/253882908111999?ref=br_tf 

BPOD is affiliated with Strike Debt Bay Area: http://strike-debt-bay-area.tumblr.com/ 

For more on the privatization of the USPS: 

Saving the United States Postal Service as a Public Enterprise: http://tinyurl.com/ltqq7ng 

Privatization Is Social Cancer; Saving the US Postal Service: http://tinyurl.com/mbcbzrf 

Allies in the fight: 

Save the Berkeley Post Office www.savethebpo.com 

Save the Post Office (a national movement) www.savethepostoffice.com 

National Post Office Collaborate www.nationalpostofficecollaborate.com 

“West Berkeley Shellmound dates back 5,800 years and is the oldest Shellmound in the area by about 1,000 years” - Richard Schwartz. Berkeley Voice April 15, 2006.

News of this recent finding has brought me back to a summer when I traveled to Iran, my parent’s country, where I heard tails of a much different burial site. My grandmother and great aunt recounted the most intriguing childhood memory of their childhood home, in the province of Kermanshah. Their village, Kangavar, set in North western Iran was built on a few hills in the belly of the valley. It was a quiet and uneventful village which had a legend. This legend was formed by those who , while digging their gardens found human remains. Children believed there was a serpent living under them who would sacrifice humans. They lived in the shadow of this demon until the 1930’s when archeologists came to investigate.  

They claimed that the village was built on top of 2,000 year old remains which had to be studied to learn about ancient civilization. Half of the village was moved to an adjacent hill paid for by the government. Soon after archeologists unearthed the Anahita Temple – and a portion of the summer palace of the Archaemenian Kings dating back 2,000 years. Not only were notions of the serpent put to rest but the village took pride and set large pillars that had been unearthed in the middle of the city center. The Anahita temple put this small village on the map, and it became a tourist destination. 

It is painful to watch the mindless business protocol that places short term financial gains of a small group ahead of the knowledge and collective wealth of our community. The History of this land and its ancient inhabitants, the Ohlone, should be studied for more reasons then just the historical. How can we possibly make good decisions for future generations when we do not respect or even dare to stand up to the interests of developers and the short term profit motives that are steamrolling this city? 

Having traveled to my grandmother’s city, and witnessing this grand site, I came to understand a pride the citizens of Kangavar shared. The Fourth Street development project, which is now moving forward, will only yield a handful of high-priced boutiques and restaurants for the elite few whilst permanently closing the doors to our past and starving future generations of priceless knowledge of the earth they walk. 

I humbly ask the city council to act sustainably and as stewards of these valuable territories in their districts. If we plan to leave any sort of hope for our children we must act like caretakers and not pillagers and destroyers. 

At the Berkeley City Council meeting on Tuesday night, the Council voted six to three to place on the ballot a more modest proposal than the initiative developed by the City Council's Labor Commission, progressive activists and the union, SEIU. The community measure would raise the minimum hourly wage to $15 next year, in 2017. The hourly wage would continue to rise afterward until it approaches a living wage. The motion made by councilman Capitelli would instead postpone the $15 an hour wage until 2019. This would be one year later than in Emeryville and San Francisco. Also, except for cost of living adjustments there would be no further wage increase. 

The purpose of the Council's decision to put Capitelli's or a similar initiative on the ballot in November rather than enact any legislation is, obviously, to defeat the community ballot. Councilman Jesse Arreguin felt that placing another minimum wage initiative on the ballot was a cynical ploy to deliberately confuse the public. Indeed, It is also possible that due to the confusion, neither ballot measure would win. For the conservative members of the City Council, that would be just fine. And that outcome would certainly be welcomed by the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. 

Why are most members of the City Council so indifferent to working people being paid poverty wages? The illusion is that the City's elected council is made up of progressives. But that is certainly not the case. They claim that paying substantially higher wages would be harmful to small business. However, the reality is that the Berkeley City Council is a major violator of small business interests. To serve the interests of developers and the financial institutions they have cut available parking spaces tremendously in downtown Berkeley. As a result, it has appreciably reduced the number of shoppers in the downtown area. 

Moreover, its recent decision to demolish a ten screen theater in favor of building a luxury high rise will devastate many small businesses. The theater, which serves about 300,000 movie goers per year, is a magnet business. It attracts many consumers who also dine in the area before or after seeing a movie, and they shop at other small business establishments as well. 

Not least, the City has made no serious attempts to protect small business from the exorbitant rents that they have to pay.  

However, when proposals are made to significantly increase the wages of poverty wage workers only then do we hear about the plight of small business. There is a name for this phenomenon. It is called "hypocrisy."

In about two weeks, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley -- himself a desperate cartoonish candidate for clemency from the people of Alabama (who he has so profoundly betrayed) -- will be the sole arbiter of clemency for Mr. Vernon Madison, an African-American death row inmate; On May 12, Mr. Madison is scheduled to be executed in the death chamber at Holman Prison, in Atmore, Alabama, for his 1985 conviction for the murder of a Mobile police officer. 

Think how Vernon Madison's family feels -- themselves innocent of any crime; for Chrissake those folks are just the man's family! -- knowing only one governor in Alabama has ever granted clemency during the entirety of Alabama's brutal, bloody, and, as history will ultimately record, barbaric experimentation in state-sanctioned death.  

Think how Mr. Madison's family feels knowing that that one and only time a Governor of Alabama decided a human being was worthy of mercy was in 1999, when Governor Forrest Hood "Fob" James, Jr., -- on his way out of office -- commuted the death sentence of a white woman, Ms. Judith Ann Neelley (condemned for torturing and killing a thirteen-year-old girl).  

What minute hope can Mr. Madison’s family muster that Governor Bentley and his staff -- which may still include the mercurial and potentially manipulative influence of Ms. Rebekah Caldwell Mason -- will pay close attention to the clemency petition Madison's lawyers will surely file in their last ditch efforts to save their client's life? 

Even if Governor Bentley does studiously consider Mr. Madison's clemency petition and finds it meritorious, does anyone think he'll feel compelled to break the mold of 196 years of Alabama history (since statehood) by extending mercy to a poor black man like Madison?  

Furthermore, does anyone in their right mind think that even if Governor Bentley scrutinized Mr. Madison's clemency petition and believed, in his heart of hearts, that clemency was warranted -- that he would deign to grant it right now -- while he burns under the scorching, unremitting glare of media klieg lights currently feasting over his sickly, overly-sexed in-office shenanigans? 

Almost 90 years ago, famed Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in a Supreme Court opinion (Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, 486 (1927)) about the importance of executive clemency, stating it "is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed." 

If Holmes were still alive and around to debate the issue, a reasonable question to him from the citizens of Alabama might be: What happens when the "ultimate authority" has demonstrated by his own salacious conduct and bullheaded refusal to resign that he is in no position to rightly judge what best serves the public welfare?  

Perhaps an even better query of Holmes and all those who continue to support and promote the death penalty in Alabama (and elsewhere) might be: Doesn’t the screwed up clemency process really alert us -– in the same way that a gigantic flashing neon sign might -- that the only real “ultimate authority” who should be making decisions about which humans live or die, is God?  

About the Author: Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an assistant federal public defender in Alabama between 2012 and 2015. He has contributed to numerous magazines and newspapers in the United States and overseas. He writes full-time and lives in Woodland Hills, California.  

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

The 2016 presidential campaign drags on and on. As we grit our teeth at the prospect of six more months of Donald Trump tweets, it’s useful to look back on the past 12 months and consider what we’ve learned about Republicans. 

1. Each of their candidates is deeply flawed. In April of 2015, according to an CNN/ORC poll, the ranking of Republican presidential candidates was former Florida governor Jeb Bush (17 percent), Wisconsin governor Scott Walker (12 percent), Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (11 percent), Florida Senator Marco Rubio (11 percent), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (9 percent), Texas Senator Ted Cruz (7 percent), followed by surgeon Ben Carson (4 percent) and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (4 percent). At the time, pollster Nate Silver observed that most of these candidates had approval ratings that are “net-negative,” unfavorability ratings greater than favorable. 

Even though Donald Trump subsequently emerged as the GOP frontrunner, he is not popular; as of April 19th he had 8.7 million primary votes, 37.9 percent of the GOP total. Throughout the primary there has been a persistent minority of Republicans who said they would not vote for Trump if he became the GOP nominee; in New York these were 24 percent, in Pennsylvania 22 percent. 

2. Republicans have lots of money but don’t spend it effectively. Of the remaining GOP candidates, Kasich has raised the least, $29 million; Trump has raised $51m; and Cruz has raised $142m. (Jeb Bush raised $150m.) $25m has been spent on the “#nevertrump” movement. 

The Hill reported that Trump doesn’t plan to spend his own funds in the general election but so far Republican donors haven’t show interest in supporting him: “’Trump has insulted most of the contributors and fundraisers in the country,’ said Mel Sembler, a former Republican National Committee (RNC) finance chairman.” 

Meanwhile there are rumors that the notorious Koch brothers, said to have raised $889 million for the 2016 election, have no plans to support Trump. Politico reported the Koch brothers plan to spend millions on “issue-based attacks on Hillary Clinton and other Democrats” and a multi-state get-out-the-vote organization. 

3. The GOP has given up hope of increasing their share of the nonwhite vote. At one time, sensible Republican leaders talked about broadening their base beyond white (non-Hispanic) voters. Last year, Washington Post political columnist Chris Cilliza pointed out that over the past three decades the white vote, in a presidential election, has shrunk from near 90 percent to 72 percent (in 2012). Meanwhile, the white content of the Republican Party has stayed around 90 percent as the white percentage of the Democratic Party has shrunk to 56 percent. Cilliza noted, “If the [2016] GOP nominee wins the same share of the white vote as Mitt Romney won in 1012 (59 percent), her or she would need to win 30 percent of the nonwhite vote… [But] Romney won only 17 percent of nonwhite voters in 2012.” 

Donald Trump is not popular with nonwhite voters. The Los Angeles Times reported: “In a potential matchup against Clinton, only one in five nonwhite voters sided with Trump.” 

4. Republicans face a daunting electoral challenge. After Obama’s 2012 victory (332 Obama vs. 206 Romney), 538’s Nate Silver observed that Romney would have had to win the overall vote by 3 percent to carry the electoral college – instead Obama won by 3.8 percent. 

Going into the 2016 presidential election, it’s generally conceded that Democrats control 240 electoral votes with 270 needed for victory. 

The 11 swing states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia (137 votes). In 2012, Obama won 7 of these. 

4 of these states have rapidly growing Hispanic populations. For example, there are 4.8 million Hispanics in Florida (22 percent of the population), further tilting the state in the Democrat’s favor. As another example, there are 1.1 million Hispanics in Colorado (20 percent of the population). If both Colorado and Florida are carried by the Democrats, that would give their candidate 278 electoral votes. 

5. Republicans have cornered anger but not a compelling focus. Donald Trump insists on making this election about Barack Obama, but the President has positive ratings. Trump claims the economy is doing poorly but it isn’t – about 14 million jobs have been added under Obama. Trump’s opposed to raising the minimum wage but 75 percent of voters want this. 

Trump’s signature issue is immigration: he wants to deport 14 million undocumented immigrants and build a wall between Mexico and the US. However, Pew Research reports that 74 percent of Americans feel there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the US and 59 percent of voters oppose building a wall. 

Over the past 12 months we’ve learned that while Republicans are angry, they do not have their act together. Unless there is a radical change in American politics, Democrats should prevail in the 2016 presidential election. 

Television advertising and programming promote narcissism. Our culture is one that respects power, being able-bodied, not having "weakness," and other warped ideas of supposed human perfection that don't stand up to enlightened scrutiny. The concept that says, you are "unfit" if you need a medicine to survive, is a flawed concept.  

If you wanted to join the military, or become a firefighter, yes, I could see that you need to be a good physical and mental specimen. However, the reality is that we can contribute to society even if we do not live up to the Social Darwinist ideas of being a fit specimen.  

You might think that if we needed an artificial aid, and if we were stranded on an island, on a raft in the ocean, or in the desert, we would never make it. But is that idea connected to reality? No. Very few of us become stranded in the wilderness, there are probably no unknown islands left--and most of us do not need to be able to survive with nothing but a knife and a loincloth.  

We live in a society in which men are expected to be bodybuilders, and women are expected to be Victoria's Secret models. These social standards are harmful. If you look at mass media in recent times, they are promoting the idea than if you are a man, you need to be a "he man," and if you are a woman you need to maintain your "sexy" appearance.  

This brings us to people's ideas pertaining to having a psychiatric problem. When I was first mentally ill, the diagnosis affected my self-esteem, and it affected how people treated me if they had knowledge of my problem.  

As a teen, before I was diagnosed as mentally ill, I was brilliant in school. I took pride in this. Being told a few years later that my brain had a defect, did not compute. So apparently, some parts of my brain work well, while other parts work not so well. This has not been easy information to absorb.  

It took me years to get my self-esteem back. I eventually decided that I am "good enough" to respect myself. I decided that my self-respect and self-esteem could be hinged on how I handle the cards I've been dealt, and not on what characteristics nature has or hasn't given me. 

A psychiatrist told me that being mentally ill doesn't mean a person isn't intelligent, but that it affects "harnessing of intelligence." This idea probably holds true for most persons with mental illness.  

Finally, as I got older, I arrived at a state of acceptance. With acceptance came the ability to commit to medication "compliance" and it allowed me to grow more and to work with the reality of what I've got.  

A person can not correct their mistakes if their ego gets in the way too much. Being able to acknowledge, accept, and deal with the mental illness, in the absence of it affecting how I feel about myself, made me able to move on in life and to get increasingly well. 

If other people view me as a "sick person" that's their problem, and I do not need to buy into that perception. I am not a bodybuilder or an athlete, nor am I as smart as Albert Einstein was. However, I can respect myself as I am. I am good enough.  

My wife and I arrived in San Francisco in 1971. Since at least that time, getting the homeless into housing or shelters has been a "concern" or a "priority" for every administration. Yet, the number of homeless keeps increasing from about 6,248 in 2005 to about 6,686 in 2015.  

San Franciscans are concerned about homelessness too. According to a new San Francisco Chamber of Commerce poll, 51 percent of respondents show homelessness to be a major issue facing the City, compared with 35 percent last year, and 29 percent in 2014. Homelessness has overtaken affordability as the No. 1 concern among San Francisco residents. 

True, in the past two years, San Francisco has housed 1,629 homeless people and sent another 1,614 home to relatives or friends out of California. According to a 2016 survey, 29% of the San Francisco homeless migrate here from another state or another California county. Could it be that as fast as we find housing or temporary shelter for some, new arrivals take their place?  

However, 71% of the homeless were living in San Francisco when they lost their housing for many reasons, among them the loss of job (25%), alcohol or drug abuse (18%), divorce (17%), argument/family or friend asked person to leave (12%), and eviction (13%).  

Are these polls so high because homelessness is so visible? I see the homeless everyday in tents, in doorways, on the street, and in our parks. If we increase the number of Navigation Centers (shelters) and bring most, if not all the homeless, into these centers, the homeless problem would not be so visible — out of sight, out of mind. If homelessness were not so noticeable, would the poll numbers go down? If they did, would this take the pressure off this administration of providing permanent housing for the homeless?  

A homeless person can get a one-night emergency shelter but anything else -- supportive housing, longer-term shelter beds, mental health care, substance abuse service -- requires a waiting list. Although the waiting list may be closed when the list has becomes too long. Even single-room-occupancy hotel rooms now cost as much as $1,500 per month. 

Rental assistance is available. It is a type of housing subsidy that pays for a portion of a renter's monthly housing costs, including rent and tenant-paid utilities. This housing assistance is available under the Section 8 program, and HUD Section 202 and 811 properties.  

For many rental assistance programs, however, there are minimum rent regulations requiring recipients to make a minimum payment of between $25 and $50 per month no matter how low their income. Presently, the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) is not accepting Section 8 project-based voucher waiting list pre-applications. The SFHA Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list is also currently closed. 

In 2004, San Francisco implemented the Care Not Cash program. Under Care Not Cash, homeless CAAP (county adult assistant programs). Simply put, it cut General Assistance money to about 3,000 homeless in exchange for shelter and other services. A certain number of shelter beds are set aside for Care Not Cash homeless. Later, an amendment called "Real housing, real care," was voted upon by the Board of Supervisors. It was created to ensure that the "Care" element of "Care not Cash" was in place; that is, to mandate a certain level of housing and services to be available before the city cut General Assistance payments. Yet, for every homeless person sheltered or housed, it seems like two more arrived to take their place. 

Until then, because of a lack of supportive housing, the "housing first program" or finding permanent housing for the homeless, is unrealistic in San Francisco. Why has this happened? Because San Francisco has become the bedroom community of Silicon Valley and gentrification has spread throughout the City. Let's face it, even those earning a low or moderate income have problems finding affordable housing to buy or even rent in San Francisco. 

In the meantime, the best we can do is expand the Navigation Center Program, which provides one-stop help for the homeless, and offers temporary shelter, if not permanent housing, for the City's homeless. Until the Navigation Program is expanded, 

priority should be given to the severely mentally ill, families with children, homeless veterans, seniors, and only lastly to young, relatively health men.  

Presently, there is a veterans resource center —a collection of resources exclusively for veterans.  

Laura's Law was implemented in San Francisco last November. Laura's Law is an assisted outpatient treatment program that allows court-ordered, intensive outpatient treatment for people with severe mental illnesses who refuse medication because their illness impairs their ability to make rational decisions. I realize it may be too early to tell, but how is the program working? 

Project Homeless Connect -- a one-stop place -- tries to connect the homeless to the resources they need, 

San Francisco Homeless Outreach Team (SFHOT). SFHOT is a collaboration between the Department of Public Health, Human Resources Agency, SF Public Library and the non-profit Public Health Foundation Enterprises that serves individauls on the street who are severely disabled.  

San Francisco Supervisor David Campos has called for the Board of Supervisors to declare a state of emergency on homelessness to help speed up the opening of additional Navigation Centers. Whether there is a "state of emergency" or not, Campos' call has put Mayor Ed Lee on the hot seat forcing him to speed up the expansion of Navigation Centers. Clearly, there is a need for more shelters and services for the homeless.  

Mayor Ed Lee intends to create a Department on Homelessness that would bring all the housing, health, employment, counseling and related programs that serve the homeless under one roof. This is a much needed step. However, the Navigation Center in place now has a capacity of 75 individuals whereas the number of homeless is more than 6,000. Thus, it will take a lot of Navigation Centers to even begin to shelter all of San Francisco's homeless.  

Even Gavin Newsom , former mayor of San Francisco and proponent of the Care Not Cash program and the 10-year plan, was pessimistic on ending homelessness in San Francisco: “There’s a mythology that you can — quote unquote — end homelessness at any moment, but there are new people coming in, suffering through the cycles of their lives,” he said. “It’s the manifestation of complete, abject failure as a society. We’ll never solve this at City Hall.” 

After a 10-year plan to end homelessness, which ended in 2014, new ideas, seeing some successes, the homelessness problem seems as intractable as ever in San Francisco with a highly visible crisis on our streets juxtaposed with million dollar homes and booming downtown technology companies.  

On Sunday, May 1, I attended the Opera Parallèle production of The Lighthouse, a 1979 opera by Peter Maxwell Davies. Based on a true story about lighthouse keepers who mysteriously disappeared in 1900, leaving no trace, from a lighthouse on Flannan Island in the Outer Hebrides, The Lighthouse by Peter Maxwell Davies is heavy on atmosphere but somewhat spare and chilling in musical terms. The orchestra offers an unusual mix of jangly out of tune piano, guitar, banjo, flexatone keyboard, blaring brass, strings, and exotic percussion. The music is jagged, often piercing, and the singing is largely declamatory. Three singers play the three lighthouse keepers. They seem to switch back and forth between the keepers who mysteriously disappeared, on one hand, and those who discovered that the original keepers had disappeared into thin air, or, possibly, into the sea.  

Nicole Paiement conducted, and her husband Brian Staufenbiel directed this austere production, which was offered both Friday, April 29, and Sunday, May 1, at San Francisco’s Z Space on Florida Street in SOMA. Featured in the cast were tenor Thomas Glenn as Sandy, baritone Robert Orth as Blazes, and bass David Cushing as Arthur. In a lengthy Prologue, A Court of Inquiry in Edinburgh examines the three men who discovered the mysteriously empty lighthouse. They recount what they saw, contradicting one another on this or that detail. The Court reaches an open verdict, unable to determine what happened to the keepers who disappeared. 

After this Prologue, the scene shifts to the lighthouse. The same three men who testified at the Inquiry are now the lighthouse keepers, though whether they are the original keepers who disappeared or their replacements is not entirely clear. Presumably, they are now portraying the original keepers, because it has already been established that the lighthouse has now been automated and no longer needs human keepers. Nonetheless, ambiguity remains. What is important is that these three men, cooped up for months on end, often beyond their appointed duty-time, begin to get on one another’s nerves. Arthur is an evangelical Christian who’s always exhorting his comrades to atone for their sins. This holier-than-thou attitude enrages Blazes, who accuses Arthur of blatant hypocrisy, for he too is a sinner. Sandy tries to keep the other two men separated.  

Sandy suggests they each sing a song to lighten the mood and relieve tension. Blazes, robustly sung here by baritone Robert Orth, sings of a troubled childhood, gang violence, a robbery and murder of an old woman, and the death of his parents. Sandy, ably sung here by tenor Thomas Glenn, sings of an erotic dream; but there are undercurrents of incest and homosexuality in his song, as we later see more clearly when each man has to deal with his own ghosts. Arthur, the evangelical, sung here by the stentorian bass David Cushing, sings of (what else?) salvation in the Lord, his deep voice suddenly rising to a piercing falsetto on the name of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, a storm brews, and the lighthouse is engulfed in a dense, murky fog. Arthur activates the foghorn, which blares forth from the French horn. Suddenly, four dancers who wrap themselves in fabric appear, representing ghosts that confront each man with his past sins. Here we learn that Sandy’s erotic dream may have been about his sister; and we learn as well that he was caught by a prying priest and officious schoolteacher in some sort of homosexual act with a young boy. As for Arthur, he believes that the ghosts have been sent by the Beast, and he exhorts his comrades to take up arms against this Satanic Beast. At its frenzied climax, the fog is lifted, the ghosts disappear, and suddenly the three men seem to become the relief crew who discovered that the original keepers were missing. The orchestra has the last word in this macabre mystery, screeching out one final burst of jagged, angular sound that is reminiscent of fingernails scraping on a blackboard. As I said at the outset of this review, The Lighthouse is heavy on atmosphere but spare and chilling as music. 

It's rare to have professional Noh actors here from Japan to perform their intensive style, which is physically based in a spare, rigorous form of stage movement and dance that resembles a martial art, the longest-lived continually performed style of theater onstage today, with its origins in the 14th century.