A candlelit vigil in memory of the homeless woman whose body was found in the yard of a building on Martin Luther King Way in Berkeley, located very close to Berkeley High School and the headquarters of the Berkeley Police, was held on the steps of Berkeley City Hall tonight. During the observance, participants were notified that the police had identified the woman as Laura Jadwin, 55. 

The East Bay Times reported that Berkeley police said in an email that foul play was not suspected after the Alameda County Coroner's Office conducted an autopsy. No further information has been made available by authorities, but the owner of the property where she was found, who spoke briefly at the memorial, indicated that he believed she was a homeless camper. He and his partner had not seen her previously, he said.

Estragon: "The best thing would be to kill me, like the other."

Vladimir: "What other? (Pause) What other?"

Estragon: "Like billions of others."

I was talking with playwright James Keller not long ago, who casually said that the two great—or was it most influential?—plays of last century were Pirandello's 'Six Characters in Search of an Author' and Samuel Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot,' the first a sensation in Paris before World War II by an established Italian dramatist and fiction writer, and the second coming in with the War's aftermath, seemingly out of nowhere, a surprise hit in Paris, then elsewhere around the globe, by an obscure Irish expat poet, novelist and translator, written in French.

'Six Characters' isn't produced so much anymore (Paris' Théâtre de la Ville staged it—and very well—on tour here a few years ago for Cal Performances), though its influence still makes itself felt in elegant, mostly indirect ways. But 'Godot' (as well as its shy genius Beckett) has proven itself a keeper in theaters any and everywhere, as well as being taught in classrooms—and becoming a catchphrase, waiting pointlessly for someone or something that never shows ...

'Godot's' notoriously difficult to put on, despite a simple premise and set-up just as simple: two tramps wait in a barren landscape, graced only by a bare tree (which has put out leaves in the second of two acts) for the ever-absent Mr. Godot, who they seem to expect help from, but are given the message he won't be there today—apparently ad infinitum. Meanwhile, while waiting for their presumptive benefactor, they witness a kind of profane epiphany: the strange appearance, in this no particular place, of a roaming master with a whip and his exhausted manservant.

Most productions, even some that basically stick to the letter, inevitably gild the lily somehow, or (maybe more a fault of the past) try to discover some symbolism as key to it all—or chalk it all up to Existentialism—when it's like a theatrical poem, to be acted out literally and taken in whole by the audience—a recital. Somewhere along the line (and it's happened with Chekhov, too, and other modern playwrights), the realization set in that 'Godot' has much humor—Gogo & Didi (Estragon and Vladimir's nicknames for each other, all they're addressed by onstage) are old troupers, vaudevillians right out of Music Hall with their sad andeager jokes and occasional slapstick—and inevitably it's staged as a sketch or kind of stylized, heavy situation comedy, with no situation at all.

I don't know if I've ever seen a purely satisfying staging of it, just more or less interesting and enjoyable renditions. This new version, though, a collaboration between Oakland's Ubuntu Theater Project and Berkeley's Inferno Theatre, seems to be the closest yet, more and more interesting as it unfolds—and more and more enjoyable. 

Besides the genuine theatrical enthusiasm and overall excellence of the young cast, and the grace of Inferno founder Giulio Perrone's movement-centered stage direction, a couple of key ingredients, or moments, make it worth seeing all by themselves: 

The space—Brooklyn Preserve, a former Presbyterian Church, dating from the late 1880s, when the neighorhood, just east of Lake Merritt, was known as Brooklyn—now home to Ubuntu ... The sanctuary, where 'Godot'—which at moments is something like the bawdy Miracle Plays of the Middle Ages—is staged (though the audience sits back to the altar, watching the action take place where the congregation usually gathers) using the whole space of this elegant old religious interior, complete with carved and polished balcony wrapped around the hall above the pews below and the pipes of a massive organ ... It's a rare pleasure just to sit there, and it gives 'Godot' an indefinable atmosphere, different from any other staging of it I know. "There's no lack of void."(Though in the resonant sanctuary with its high, eight-faceted ceiling, heat escapes quickly—best to dress warmly for the two act play, plus intermission.) 

And the inset of Pozzo and Lucky, master and slave, one garrulous and self-loving, the other silent, grimacing with suffering, finally madly ebullient in the famed "Lucky's Speech"—especially framed by mainstays J. Jha and Kevin Rebultan as an appropriately Mutt 'n Jeff Vladimir and Estragon, showmen of sorts in their battered bowlers, courageous cowards, clowns of the open road ... the master and servant perform a curious tango of barked commands, a cracked whip, juggled baggage and Lucky's dance with the rope that is his leash ... Mohammad Shehata is a brash Pozzo—and Indigo Jackson an exquisite Lucky, with wonderful gargoyle melancholia broken by quick, meticulous dancing and acrobatics and a blythely absurd recitation. 

Uma Channer plays the deadpan Boy who comes on high with tentative, coy messages from Mr. Godot—and the rest the interplay between the two old down-&-out pros, Didi & Gogo, finding Lucky's discarded thinking hat and holding it pensively for a moment, like Hamlet held Yorick's skull, before clapping it on the head—to no effect ... or the wonderful juggling of three hats by the two mad hatters ... 

The casting of two women (and a transgender actor) in this play of all-male outcasts, vagabonds, refugees adds astrangely subtle accent to its tender androgeny of sometimes unwilling companionship. 

The only other version I can think of as inventively interesting was Theatre of Yugen's, done in a variety of old Japanese theater forms (including puppetry) at the old Theater Artaud, now Z Space, just over thirty years ago, a show Beckett himself expressed interest in. 

I urge you to go see it—running just this Saturday at 8, Sunday at 2 and Mondays at 8 through February 27th. MIchael Moran of Ubuntu writes in the program that the production is to see what relevance 'Godot' has, with its sense of absence, to America today—and it's a capital success, showing presence underpinned by absence, and what a sublime thing Beckett's unexpected masterpiece still can be. 

Brooklyn Preserve, 1433-12th Avenue (between 14th Street/International Boulevard & 15th Street, near Foothill), Oakland. $15-$35 reserved online, pay-what-you-can at the door. www.ubuntutheaterproject.com

A man police believe killed one woman and wounded another in two separate knife attacks in Berkeley earlier this month was arraigned on four felony charges in Alameda County Superior Court today. 

Police say that on Jan. 6 Pablo Gomez Jr. killed 27-year-old Emilie Inman at her home on Ashby Avenue. 

Officers discovered Inman's body while investigating the stabbing of another woman about a mile away on Ridge Road earlier that same day. 

Gomez, 22, is facing one count of murder, one count of attempted murder, one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of residential robbery, according to documents filed today by the Alameda County district attorney. 

Gomez was arrested on Jan. 7 in Burbank. 

At the time of her death, Inman, who was born in France and moved with her family to San Luis Obispo when she was ten, was working at a private educational center in the hills of Lafayette called Sienna Ranch. 

The school offers classes on nature, woodworking, horseback riding and gardening, among other things. 

"Emilie Inman was a brilliant, passionate, creative teacher and a sparkling, joyful, sincere person. Her loss has shaken our community to the core," says a statement on the Sienna Ranch Facebook page. 

The school has opened a scholarship fund in her name, to which members of the public can donate via PayPal or by visiting https://www.facebook.com/Sienna-Ranch-108820902513191/.

It’s been over two months since the devastating presidential election; time enough for liberals to ask each other, "What lessons did we learn?" Four come to mind. 

1.Initially, Democrats had the right message. Americans of all political persuasion believe "the system is rigged." Democrats started off with this message and then frittered away their advantage. 

In her 2012 Democratic Convention speech, Senator Elizabeth Warren said, "People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: They're right." When Warren chose not to run for President in 2016, Bernie Sanders launched his "A future to believe in" campaign. Sanders also argued that the system is rigged: "Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, the super PACs, and their lobbyists." 

Relatively late in his campaign, Donald Trump adopted "the system is rigged" message. In his address at the Republican convention, Trump said: "I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens." (Trump used the fact that no charges were brought against Clinton -- over her email scandal -- as evidence the system was rigged in her favor.) 

One of the revelations in Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land" is that some Louisiana Tea Party voters resonated with Bernie Sanders campaign because they believe the system is rigged. However, they differ from liberals because the Tea Party voters feel that government is the sole problem: the system is rigged because the Obama Administration favors women and people-of-color over hard-working white men. 

"The system is rigged" message never worked for Hillary Clinton. For conservative voters, she was seen as part of the "big government" problem. For many Sanders supporters, Clinton was seen as inauthentic. 

2. Economic Inequality didn't work as a replacement message. Instead of "the system is rigged, Clinton opted for "stronger together." 

The economic component of "stronger together" focussed on strengthening the middle class with Clinton's jobs program and emphasis on the value of economic equality. This value resonates with the Democratic base but not voters in general. 

Voters believe that the system is rigged but they don't agree on why that is; conservatives and liberals have differing internal stories about why US democracy isn't working. As Arlie Hochschild illustrates, Tea Party voters believe the system is rigged because government has intervened on behalf of "slackers," Americans who receive preferential treatment but don't deserve it. As a consequence, Tea Party voters believe that only big business can fix the broken system. (Typically, these voters admire those who belong to the one percent. They voted for Trump because he was perceived as a successful businessman, who "can fix things.") 

Conversely, liberal voters believe the system is rigged because of the influence of big business. They are suspicious of the one percent. (Liberals didn't vote for Trump for many reasons; one of which was that he was perceived to represent the moneyed elite.) 

Liberals and conservatives agree that America needs better paying jobs. And, they agree that the system is rigged; that it's not working for the average American. But they disagree on the first step to take; conservatives want to start by dismantling government, liberals want to strengthen it. 

Conservatives and liberals live in different media silos. Conservative views of the world are heavily influenced by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Liberal views are shaped by Rachel Maddow and The New York Times. Nonetheless, Hochschild suggests that a critical difference is that conservatives don't differentiate between "main-street capitalism" and "wall-street capitalism;" they don't understand the impact of multinational capitalism and monopoly capitalism. Tea Party voters still believe that all capitalism is good. 

3. Democrats didn't build the necessary grassroots infrastructure. As the presidential battle raged, Democrats comforted themselves with the (false) belief that their vaunted ground game would secure the Presidency. 

Hillary Clinton was the Democratic presidential candidate so it's easy to blame the debacle on her. But the reality is that since Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, the national Democratic Party has weakened. This has produced a situation where Republicans control Washington as well as a majority of state governments. 

Some blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was head of the Democratic National Committee from 2011-2016, but the problem is much deeper. It's symptomatic of the Democratic malaise that the presidential candidate who drew the most grassroots enthusiasm was Bernie Sanders, who wasn't really a Democrat. 

Sanders believes that the Democratic Party has to be rebuilt from the ground up. He's right. There's a strong populist base that needs to be harnessed before the 2018 mid-term elections. 

4. Racism was a powerful factor in the election. When Barack Obama was elected President, liberals hoped that we'd moved to a "post-racial" society. Conservatives responded by fanning the flames of racial animosity and, as a consequence, Republicans elected a white supremacist, Donald Trump. 

If Democrats are to recover from the debacle of 2016, they need to go back to their central message, "the system is rigged," rebuild the party from the ground up, and counter racism. 

When European Union President Jean-Claude Juncker addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg this past September, he told them the organization was facing an “existential crisis” and “national governments so weakened by the forces of populism and paralyzed by the risk of defeat in the next election.”

Indeed it has been a bad year for the huge trading group: 

• The “Breixit,” or the United Kingdom’s vote to withdraw.
• Rome’s referendum to amend the country’s constitution was trounced, and several Italian banks are in deep trouble.
• The austerity policies of the EU have kept most of its members’ economies either anemic or dead in the water. Even those showing growth, like Ireland and Spain, have yet to return to where they were before the 2008 economic melt down. Between 2007 and 2016, purchasing power fell 8 percent in Spain and 11 percent in Italy,

But the crisis of the EU does not spring from “populism,” a term that many times obscures more than it reveals, lumping together neo-fascist parties, like France’s National Front and Germany’s Alternative for Germany, with left parties, like Spain’s Podemos. Populism, as Juncker uses it, has a vaguely atavistic odor to it: ignorant peasants with torches and pitchforks storming the citadels of civilization. 

But the barbarians at the EU’s gate did not just appear out of Europe’s dark forests like the Goths and Vandals of old. They were raised up by the profoundly flawed way that the Union was established in the first place, flaws that did not reveal themselves until an economic crisis took center stage. 

That the crisis is existential, there is little doubt. In fact, the odds are pretty good that the EU will not be here in its current form a decade from now—and possibly considerably sooner. But Juncker’s solutions include a modest spending program aimed at business, closer military ties among the 28—soon to be 27—members of the organization, and the creation of a “European Solidarity Corps” of young volunteers to help out in cases of disasters, like earthquakes. But there was nothing to address the horrendous unemployment rate among young Europeans. In short, rearranging the Titanic’s deck chairs while the ice looms up to starboard. 

But what is to be done is not obvious, nor is how one goes about reforming or dismantling an organization that currently produces a third of the world’s wealth. The complexity of the task has entangled Europe’s left in a sharp debate, the outcome of which will go a long way toward determining whether the EU—now a house divided between wealthy countries and debt-ridden ones—can survive. 

It is not that the European left is strong, but it is the only player with a possible strategy to break the cycle of debt and low growth. The politics of racism, hatred of immigrants, and reactionary nationalism espoused by the National Front, the Alternative For Germany, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Denmark’s People’s Party, and Austria’s Freedom Party, will not generate economic growth, any more than Donald Trump will bring back jobs for U.S. steelworkers and coal miners and “make America great again.” 

Indeed, if the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany Party gets its way, that country will be in deep trouble. German deaths currently outnumber births by 200,000 a year, a figure that is accelerating. According to the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, to have a sufficient working-age population that can support a stable pension system, the country will require an influx of 500,000 immigrants a year for the next 35 years. 

Many other European countries are in the same boat. 

There are several currents among the European left, ranging from those who call for a full withdrawal, or “Lexit,” to reforms that would democratize the organization. 

There is certainly a democracy deficit in the EU. The European Parliament has little power, with most key decisions made by the unelected “troika”—the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank, and the European Commission. The troika’s rigid debt policies mean members have lost the ability to manage their own economies or challenge the mantra that debt requires austerity, even though that formula has clearly been a failure. 

As economists Markus Brunnermeier, Harold James, and Jean-Pierre Landau point out in their book “The Euro and the Battle of Ideas,” growth is impossible when consumers, corporations, and governments all stop spending. The only outcome for that formula is misery and more debt. Even the IMF has begun to question austerity. 

But would a little more democracy really resolve this problem? 

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, a long-time critic of austerity, argues that while the EU does indeed need to be democratized, a major problem is the common currency. The euro is used by 19 of the EU’s 28 members that constitute the Eurozone. 

Stiglitz argues that the Euro locked everyone into the German economic model of modest wages coupled with a high power export economy. But one size does not fit all, and when the economic crisis hit in 2008, that became painfully obvious. Those EU members that used a common currency were unable to devalue their currency—a standard economic strategy to deal with debt. 

There is also no way to transfer wealth within the EU, unlike in the U.S. Powerful economies like California and New York have long paid the bills for states like Louisiana and Mississippi. As Stiglitz points out, “a lack of shared fiscal policy” in the EU made it “impossible to transfer wealth (via tax receipts) from richer states to poorer ones, ensuring growing inequality between the core and the periphery of Europe.” 

Stiglitz proposes a series of reforms, including economic stimulus, creating a “flexible” euro, and removing the rigid requirement that no country can carry a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP. 

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, however, argues that the Union “is not suffering from a democratic deficit that can be fixed with a ‘little more democracy’ and a few reforms here and there.” The EU, he says, “was constructed intentionally as a democracy-free zone” to keep people out of decision-making process and to put business and finance in charge. 

Is the machine so flawed that it ought to be dismantled? That is the opinion of British Pakistani writer and journalist Tariq Ali and King’s College Reader in politics, Stathis Kouvelakis, both whom supported the Brexit and are urging a campaign to hold similar referenda in other EU member countries. 

But since that that position is already occupied by the xenophobic right, how does the left argue for Lexit without entangling itself with racist neo-Nazis? Varoufakis, a leading member of the left formation, DiEM25, asks whether “such a campaign is consistent with the Left’s fundamental principles” of internationalism? 

He also argues that a Lexit would destroy the EU’s common environmental policy and the free movement of members, both of which find strong support among young people. 

Is re-establishing borders and fences really what the left stands for, and wouldn’t re-nationalizing the fossil fuel industry simply turn environmental policies over to the multi-national energy giants? “Under the Lexit banner, in my estimation,” says Varoufakis, “the Left is heading for monumental defeats on both fronts.” 

DiEM25 proposes a third way to challenge the disastrous policies of the EU, while avoiding a return to borders and “every country for itself” environmental policies. What is needed, according to Varoufakis, is “a pan-European movement of civil and governmental disobedience” to create a “democratic opposition to the way European elites do business at the local, national and EU levels.” 

The idea is to avoid the kind of trap that Greece’s left party, Syriza, has found itself in: running against austerity only to find itself instituting the very policies it ran against. 

What DiEM25 is proposing is simply to refuse to institute EU austerity rules, a strategy that will only work if the resistance is EU-wide. When Greece tried to resist the troika, the European Central Bank threatened to destroy the country’s economy, and Syriza folded. But if resistance is widespread enough, that will not be so easy to do. In any case, he says, “the debt-deflationary spiral that drives masses of Europeans into hopelessness and places them under the spell of bigotry” is not acceptable. 

DiEM25 also calls for a universal basic income, a proposal that is supported by 64 percent of the EU’s members. 

Portugal’s left has had the most success with trying to roll back the austerity measures that caused widespread misery throughout the country. The center-left Socialist Party formed a coalition with the Left Bloc, and the Communist/Green Alliance put aside their differences, and restored public sector wages and state pensions to pre-crisis levels. The economy only grew 1.2 percent in 2016 (slightly less than the EU as a whole), but it was enough to drop unemployment from 12.6 percent to 10 percent. The deficit has also declined. 

Spain’s Podemos and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party have hailed the Portuguese left coalition as a model for an anti-austerity alliance across the continent. 

Debt is the 800-pound gorilla in the living room. Most of the debt for countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland was not the result of spendthrift ways. All three countries had positive balances until the real estate bubble pumped up by private speculators and banks burst in 2008, and taxpayers picked up the pieces. The “bailouts” from the troika came with onerous austerity measures attached, and most of the money went straight to the banks that had set off the crisis in the first place. 

For small or underdeveloped countries, it will be impossible to pay off those debts. When Germany found itself in a similar position after World War II, other countries agreed to cut its debt in half, lower interest rates and spread out payments. The 1952 London Debt Conference led to an industrial boom that turned Germany into the biggest economy in Europe. There is no little irony in the fact that the current Berlin government is insisting on applying economic policies to debt-ridden countries that would have strangled that German post-war recovery had they not been modified. 

It is possible that the EU cannot be reformed, but it seems early in the process to conclude that. In any case, DiEM25’s proposal to practice union-wide civil disobedience has not really been tried, and it certainly has potential as an organizing tool. It is already being implemented in several “rebel” cities like Barcelona, Naples, Berlin, Bristol, Krakow, Warsaw and Porto, where local mayors and city councils are digging in their heels and fighting back. 

For that to be successful throughout the EU, however, the left will have to sideline some of the disputes that divide it and reach out to new constituencies. If it does not, the right has a dangerous narrative waiting in the wings. 

University of California President Janet Napolitano has been hospitalized due to side effects from ongoing cancer treatments, university officials said today. 

Napolitano, 59, was diagnosed with cancer in August and is nearly finished with her treatment, according to a statement from the university. 

She has continued working "at full capacity, without interruption or impact," during that time and has kept the UC Board of Regents informed about her progress, the statement said. 

However, unspecified side effects she experienced on Monday led to her being hospitalized. She is doing "extremely well" and is expected to be discharged from the hospital "in the next day or so," according to the university. 

"While she is recuperating, UC's senior leadership will continue to support President Napolitano in the management of the UC system and in advancing the University's key priorities," university officials said. 

This is Napolitano's second bout of cancer after a previous diagnosis was successfully treated, according to the university. She was governor of Arizona and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama before she was hired to head the UC system in 2013.

Police are investigating a shooting that occurred early Saturday morning in Berkeley. 

Officers responded at about 1:30 a.m. to a report of shots heard near Acton and Russell streets, according to Berkeley police Sgt. Andrew Frankel. 

Upon arrival, officers found at least two cars that had been struck by bullets. Officers were unable to locate any victims, Frankel said. 

No arrests were made and officers are continuing to investigate the incident, according to Frankel. 

Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to contact Berkeley police at (510) 981-5741 or police@cityofberkeley.info.

A property owner in Berkeley called police after finding a body at the property Saturday morning, according to police.

"First They Came for the Homeless" has asked community members to gather for a memorial for the woman, as yet not identified by the police, on Tuesday at 5 on the steps of Berkeley City Hall at 2180 Milvia. 

At about 10:15 a.m. on Saturday, officers received a report of a woman's body found in the 2200 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley police Sgt. Andrew Frankel said. 

The property is located directly across the street from Berkeley High School. 

The woman appeared to be camping at the time of her death, according to Frankel. 

She has not been identified pending the notification of her next of kin, according to the Alameda County coroner's bureau. 

Police are looking into how the woman died, Frankel said.

Just as I was sitting down to my favorite espresso at Caffe Trieste, I glanced toward the window and to my utter surprise, sitting alone at a table was my old friend Simple. I hadn’t seen him in years. His real name was Jesse B. Semple, but everybody called him Simple.

“Jesse, how’ve you been?” I pulled a chair up to his table.

“Getting by, as always. You know what I mean. How about yourself?”

“I’m a survivor too, you know. Are you living around here these days or just passing through.”

“As they say, we’re all just passing through. You look a little down. Anything wrong?”

“Wrong? Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated in five days.”

“Is that all you’re worried about?”

“Isn’t that enough?”

“Trump’s not going to be president. That little weasel what’s-his-name is going to be president.”

“Who? Pence?”

“Where have you been? It’s all over the news.”

“I must have missed it.”

“That’s because it hasn’t all happened yet.”

“What do you mean?”

“You know those Moscow tapes that they got on Trump?”

“I heard something about them.” 

“Well you know,” Simple said, lowering his voice and bending close to me. “On those tapes is Trump with some Russian hookers. And they’re urinating on him. And that man Putin’s got the tapes of it.” 

“Really? Are they on YouTube?” 

“I haven’t seen them yet. But I figure that’s how this whole Trump thing started.” 

“How?” 

“Putin blackmailed Trump into running for president in the first place.” 

“Why would Putin do that?” 

“To get Crimea.” 

“I can’t believe that’s all true.” 

“It’s just a question of when the plane wreck will happen.” 

“Now I’m worrying even more.” 

“Just worry about the little weasel. They’re not going to let big weasel be president.” 

“The thought of President Pence makes me almost as sick.” 

“We’ll get through this, one way or another.” 

“I’m really glad to have bumped into you, Jesse. I like talking to you. You always see things that I miss. I wish I could figure out things the way you do.” 

“It’s not hard to figure things out,” he said, “Just be simple.”

Homeless woman's body found across from Berkeley High School --Daily Californian  

Body of homeless woman found near Berkeley Highby Frances Dinkelspiel,on berkeleyside.com:

From the photo caption on Berkeleyside.com: "The Pacific School of Religion and an Illinois-based nonprofit builder have nixed their plans to build 265 apartments for seniors on Holy Hill, citing Berkeley’s new development climate.“

Correct translation: PSR and an Illinois corporation have dropped their plans for expensive sort-of-kind-of-condo units with high monthly ”maintenance” fees, proposed in a dense and massive multi-story facility which would have obliterated a large part of Berkeley’s Holy Hill neighborhood.

Comment: No doubt the losers in Berkeley’s recent city elections will try to spin the PSR retrenchment as a loss of more “housing" but it’s not. While there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with an up-scale continuing care facility, it definitely is not what is being described in the news. And it’s definitely not a development which would help relieve the housing problems of Berkeley, especially for the neediest among students and low income.

In an online letter, David Vásquez-Levy,President of Berkeley’s Pacific School of Religion announced that the school has terminated its partnership with senior housing developer Mather Lifeways to build a very large project on its North Berkeley campus. The proposed building, one of the largest ever planned for Berkeley, would have replaced a number of historic buildings and apartments. The project encountered significant opposition from neighbors and others. Berkeley's newly elected mayor and councilmembers appear to be less friendly to market rate development than their predecessors, which might have something to do with the decision.

The school is seeking further projects for the site, however. The letter said: 

“Our intent, moving forward, is to leverage our real estate property towards a partnership that will strengthen our financial ability to fulfill our mission to prepare theologically and spiritually rooted leaders for social transformation within and beyond the church. And, as we did previously, we will consider implications on community, housing, and other factors as we explore partnership options. “We are pleased to say that there is significant interest in the property. The Board of Trustees has asked a small task force to engage in discussions with potential buyers and expects to arrive at a new partnership in the coming months. 

2017 is already shaping up as a year in which local control of development will come under unprecedented assault in California and in the Bay Area in particular.

We have rookie State Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 35, submitted only a few hours after Wiener was sworn in to office on December 5. Still in placeholder form, the measure would put legal teeth into the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and force cities to “meet” the allocation allotted to them by the state. This radical proposal—as Tim Redmond has observed, it could set off a housing war—did not appear on Wiener’s campaign website, nor, to my knowledge, did he ever he mention it on the campaign trail.

And now a new, Bay Area-centric attack on local control is on the way, via the Association of Bay Area Governments’ proposal to have the U.S. Economic Development Administration certify our region as a federal Economic Development District (EDD). Planning for this initiative began in June 2015, when ABAG staff broached the idea to the agency’s Executive Board and Regional Planning Committee. 

The EDA requires a planning organization that is applying for an EDA-funded EDD to assemble a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee to oversee the preparation of a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). The committee must represent “the main economic interests of the region” and “include Private Sector Representatives…as a majority of its membership,” as well as public officials, community leaders, representatives of workforce development boards, representatives of institutions of higher education, minority and labor groups, and private individuals. (U.S. EDA “CEDS Summary of Requirements”). 

Last summer ABAG convened a 38-member committee. The group met in July and September. Its next meeting is on Tuesday, January 10, from 1 to 3 pm in the Yerba Buena Conference Room at the Metro Center, 375 Beale, San Francisco. The agenda was posted on the ABAG website on January 6. 

The gist of the proposed CEDS—and specifically the proposed attack on local control of government—began to emerge at the July meeting, when the committee reviewed a draft Vision and Goals statement. In keeping with EDA requirements, a CEDS must cover a wide range of topics: business climate, workforce development, environmental protection, resilience, the use of technology in economic development, funding, housing and infrastructure, and metrics. 

The staff proposals that interested me the most were the ones that would severely curtail local control of development by standardizing permitting and zoning in the region across city boundaries. 

Two days after the September 13 meeting, I sent the committee members and associated ABAG staff the following email: 

Hello, all: 

I’m the 48 hills reporter who attended last Tuesday’s meeting about creating a federal Economic Development District for the Bay Area via the submittal of a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy to the Economic Development Administration. 

The agenda for the meeting included a question—Which strategies can we immediately agree on?—that was never actually posed. I’d like to pose it with respect to specific recommendations in the Draft Summary of Economic Strategies, under “Government," subhead “Ensure local regulations and permitting processes support retention and expansion of local business” (p. 7): 

"The importance of aligning and coordinating local permits and regulations at the sub-regional or regional level is a consistent theme across numerous economic development reports. Coordination among economic development providers and cities on local tax policy or permitting makes it easier and potentially less costly for companies to locate in the region and grow. 

* Coordinate permit and fees within a sub-region in order to make the overall area are attractive and to reduce competition between cities for firms. 

* Harmonize local regulations across multiple jurisdictions, where it makes sense (e.g. solar installation) while considering regional differences and industry dynamics. Develop consistent and streamlined regulations and permitting processes.” 

At the meeting, ABAG Economic Development Director Miriam Chion stated that the CEDS “is linked to and supporting Plan Bay Area.” 

Yet the staff Introduction for the recently released Draft Preferred Scenario for Plan Bay 2040 says that the scenario “does not mandate any changes to local zoning rules, general plan or prices for reviewing projects…As is the case across California, the Bay Area’s cities, towns and counties maintain control of all decisions to adopt plans and permit or deny development projects.” 

My question: do you agree with the strategies highlighted in red above? 

Thank you. 

No one responded. 

At the January 10 meeting I plan to ask the committee: How do you propose to reconcile the stated commitment to maintaining local control of development that appears in the Draft Preferred Scenario of Plan Bay Area 2040 with the proposals to undermine if not eliminate that control that appear in the draft Comprehensive Economic Strategy? 

That question becomes all the more urgent in light of the expanded CEDS Draft Vision and Goals that the committee will review on January 10: 

Goal 3: Housing and Workspace 

Objective 3.3: Ensure local regulations and permitting processes support retention and expansion of local business and infill development. 

Strategy 3.3.1 Coordinate permits and fees within a sub-region in order to make the overall area more attractive [to business] and reduce competition between cities for firms. 

Strategy 3.3.2 Develop more consistent and streamlined regulations and permitting procedures across jurisdictions, while allowing flexibility for regional differences and industry dynamics where appropriate. 

Strategy 3.3.3 To achieve a better balance of jobs and housing production and create stronger policy linkages between land use costs and benefits, explore opportunities for regional impact fees to allow for impacts to be compensated even if they occur in other jurisdictions. 

Objective 3.4 Advocate for state regulatory changes that impede local infill development and ensure cities have the appropriate resources to provide necessary services and future maintenance. 

Strategy 3.4.1 Modernize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). [This is code for rolling back the state’s premier environmental law.] 

Goal 4: Infrastructure 

Objective 4.2 Increase access to jobs, economic opportunity and capacity for all workers increasing transportation equity. 

Strategy 4.2.3 Require jurisdictions that apply for planning or transportation funding from ABAG or MTC to allow residential as a primary use on all parcels located in a Priority Development Area and within ½ mile of a high-capacity transit stop. 

Strategy 4.2.4 Require jurisdictions that apply for planning or transportation funding from ABAG or MTC to remove parking minimums for all residential uses located in a Priority Development Area and within ½ mile of a high-capacity transit stop. 

The implementation of these proposals would profoundly diminish cities’ ability to control development within their boundaries. As per EDA rules, the application is to be approved by amajority of the Bay Area’s nine county boards of supervisors. There are no provisions for review, much less approval, at the municipal level. 

My strong hunch is that very few city councils in the Bay Area are aware of ABAG’s EDD initiative. Only four members of the 38-member Strategy Committee sit on a city council—Monica Wilson from Antioch, Pradeep Gupta from South San Francisco, Dave Hudson from San Ramon, and Carmen Montano from Milpitas. The rest are all county supervisors (four), public agency staffers, or representatives of non-profits. 

In light of the EDA stipulations, Wilson, Gupta, Hudson, and Montano presumably represent the cities of the region, not just their own jurisdictions. Accordingly, they ought to demand that before the committee moves forward with an application to the U.S. EDA, the draft Vision and Goals and Comprehensive Economic Strategy ought to be vetted by every city council in the region, preferably at public hearing. 

If past is precedent, they will do no such thing but instead allow themselves to continue to be railroaded by ABAG staff into moving the application process forward. 

Item 3 on the September 14 agenda, a “Facilitated regional strategy discussion,” included asking “Which strategies can we immediately agree on?” and “Which strategies should not be considered at this time?” As I noted in my email to the committee, at the meeting, neither of those questions was actually posed. And indeed, in a meeting that lasted only an hour and a half, there was no way that any group could have even begun to review the dozens of strategies listed in the draft Vision and Goals. 

Yet near the end, ABAG Chief Economist Cynthia Kroll said, “Now that we have a set of strategies that we’re working from…” 

The next day I sent Kroll, ABAG Planning Director Miriam Chion, and Senior Planner Johnny Jaramillo an email noting the omission of the agendaized questions. Citing Kroll’s remark, I asked: “Does that mean that the answer to the question “’Which strategies can we immediately agree on?’” is effectively all of them?” I never got a reply. 

It’s a big week, this last week of the Obama presidency, ominously starting today with Friday the 13^th, including the anxious celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday, and followed even more ominously by the inauguration of “President” Donald Trump.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: As suggested by Charles Blow in the New York Times, this publication’s style sheet will now recommend the use of scare quotes around the fraudulent title of the man who will be installed in the henceforth-tainted office of “President” of the United States of America.]

It’s finally time to take a last look at the presidency of Barack Obama, so dry those tears, put away the handkerchief, and let’s see where we’ve been and where we’re going.

First of all, I’m profoundly grateful that I’ve had eight years of my life where I’ve never, not once, not for one minute, been ashamed of the President of the United States or his family. I’m glad that my mother lived to see the Obamas installed in the White House, especially Michelle Obama, whom she deeply loved and admired. I’m happy that my granddaughters, now between 15 and 21, lived their formative years with a first family they could be proud of, including similar-aged daughters who set a good example of how to be in the world as a young person. 

President Obama’s most significant accomplishment is that his term put an end, once and for all, to the myth of white supremacy. All of the other presidents in my adult life, all the rest of them White, were markedly inferior to Barack Obama, either personally or politically or both. He’s the champ. 

I just missed voting for John Kennedy, but I remember his presidency, and I’ve later learned that many of his policies before he was assassinated skated mighty close to the precipice. His personal life included the sordid tomcatting around that seems to have distinguished several of the White Democratic presidents in my lifetime. Jimmy Carter was an exception to that, but although he was personally above reproach he didn’t get much done in his single term. Lyndon Johnson got a lot more done than we gave him credit for, but there was little to admire in his personal life. Reagan, Nixon and the Bushes don’t seem to have fooled around much, but their political acts ranged from ineffectual to disastrous. And of course, there was Bill Clinton…not just his notorious lust, but his pursuit of wealth after leaving office. All of them have had their deficiencies, personal and political. 

On the personal level Barack Obama set an outstanding example. Raised by the White side of his mixed-race heritage in an international setting, as an adult he embraced the strongest aspects of the African-American culture, as exemplified by his chosen wife and her family. The “family values” of the African-America community into which he was graciously adopted include loyalty, honesty, a commitment to provide in a respectful way for the less fortunate, and courage in the face of adversity. He bought into all of them. 

And also, there’s just being cheerful and courteous, qualities which the incoming “president” profoundly lacks. Vulgarity (what an old-school word it seems now) is that oaf’s distinguishing characteristic. He’s also a liar. He exemplifies all that seems to have gone wrong with the dominant White culture in the U.S. \ 

Yes, I know that some of us White folks can be honest, courteous, etc. on occasion, but Drumpf is our guy, isn’t he? It was our voters who put him in place. Black Americans have often been blamed for the sins of the worst amongst them—now the shoe’s on the other foot. 

On the political side, many of my post-messianic Berkeley friends who salivate over alt-left conspiracy theories have been eager to express their profound disappointment that the first African-American president was not the corporeal embodiment of The Second Coming. It’s way past time, to use a surly cliché, for them to Just Get Over It. This kind of carping had something to do with the election disaster. 

It’s become clearer and clearer that the outstanding accomplishment of the Obama presidency will be the irrevocable acknowledgement that human beings, including Americans, have the right to decent health care. All the excitement among the newly empowered Republicans is about how to repeal AND REPLACE Obama’s Affordable Care Act. 

Nary a voice is raised to recommend just repealing the proudly nicknamed Obamacare without replacement, because—of course, we now say—Americans have the right, not only to health care, but to good health care, affordable health care, with none of that preexisting-condition nonsense. As our departing leader said in his farewell address, if you have a plan that works better than ours, we’ll happily endorse it. 

Oh, some alt-lefties have whined that the ACA was not single-payer. Yes, but do you remember, back in the day just eight years ago, when it was seriously argued that the government had no role in guaranteeing some kind of health care for all or at least for most? That’s over. 

Recognition of the right to care is the single biggest success of this administration, and now that the genie is out of the bottle it can never be put back. The best should not be the enemy of the good-enough—the merely good ACA is a stepping stone to what will be better. 

There’s been a long list of breakthroughs in the last eight years besides demolishing the white supremacy myth and establishing the right to health care, too many to discuss here. Some of these include acknowledgement of the need to combat climate change, normalization of relations with Cuba, the nuclear treaty with Iran , designation of many thousands of acres of protected lands, pulling out of a serious recession and many, many more. 

Sadly, we’re now entering a Moses-in-the-desert historical period. As the story has it, after successfully leading the Israelites out of Egypt, the poor guy wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, dying with the promised land in sight but not in reach. But they did get there eventually. [No, I’m not taking sides here about what’s going on there now.] 

It’s pretty clear that there was not much wrong with the campaign or the candidate per se. The outcome was caused by (1) the peculiarities of the electoral college system (2) Russian meddling with confidential email communication, exquisitely timed to tip key states at the last minute and (3) James Comey, obviously working on behalf of god-knows-who to discredit the Democratic candidate. Could he be a Russian mole? 

We should keep firmly in mind that our team, yes, even the whiners on our side, did win the election—we did convince the American people that we were right about most things. The fact that the new “president” will be someone else is a very unpleasant detail, but it’s not the message we should take away from what happened on November 9. 

We are out of Egypt now, and we will get to the promised land, perhaps not in my lifetime, but eventually. One of our daughters or granddaughters will be the first woman president…on a platform of ensuring healthcare and housing and all the other acknowledged human rights for all. 

Meanwhile, however, it looks like things could be pretty weird for a while. One cliché I’m really getting tired of is “you can’t make this stuff up”. But you know, you just can’t. 

However we should not let the baroque embellishments of the current sordid political plot line distract us from taking a moment to acknowledge the outstanding success of the remarkable Barack Obama presidency. Whatever bizarre events will be happening in the near future, they can’t take that away from us. 

We were there, and we’re proud to say so. In the not-so-distant future, we will overcome. 

Avanti! 

Hundreds of skeletons found at Berkeley site decades ago , By Tom Lochner

And the Los Angeles Times endorses the idea.

And then there's good ol' Berkeley, where developers are the largest bankrollers of council candidates.  

Inaugurations are celebratory events, a time to welcome the peaceful transition of power and honor the new administration. On January 20^th, I will not be celebrating or honoring an incoming president who rode racism, sexism, xenophobia and bigotry to the White House.

Donald Trump ran one of the most divisive and prejudiced campaigns in modern history. He began his campaign by insulting Mexican immigrants, pledging to build a wall between the United States and Mexico and then spent a year and a half denigrating communities of color and normalizing bigotry. He called women ‘pigs’, stoked Islamophobia, and attacked a Gold Star family. He mocked a disabled reporter and appealed to people’s worst instincts. I cannot in good conscience attend an inauguration that would celebrate this divisive approach to governance.

After the election, many hoped the president-elect would turn toward unifying our country. Instead he has shown us that he will utilize the same tools of division he employed on the campaign trail as our nation’s Commander-in-Chief. We need look no further than the team he is assembling to find signals that the era of Trump will be one of chaos and devastation for our communities. 

The president-elect has named Steve Bannon, a white nationalist as his chief strategist. He has nominated Senator Jeff Sessions to the office of Attorney General, despite his long career of opposition to civil and human rights. And in perhaps the most damning sign of the chaos to come, the president-elect has expedited the process to repeal the Affordable Care Act and make America sick again.” 

To make matters worse, after the intelligence community reported Russian interference in our election, Donald Trump frequently and forcefully defended Vladimir Putin. He insulted senior intelligence officials in order to preserve his reputation and disguise the truth. The American people will never forget that when a foreign government violated our democracy, Donald Trump chose the interests of another nation over our own.

Donald Trump has proven that his administration will normalize the most extreme fringes of the Republican Party. On Inauguration Day, I will not be celebrating. I will be organizing and preparing for resistance.” 

Following a world-wide trend, India elected a populist politician, Narendra Modi, in May 2014. Since his election, India has shifted dangerously to the right. 

Modi’s latest action was the demonetization of India’s currency. 

On Nov. 8, he announced, with much fanfare, that all 500 and 1,000 rupee notes would soon cease as legal tender. Over 23 billion notes would soon be rendered worthless. Following the bombshell announcement, Modi declared the old notes would be replaced by new 500 rupee and 2,000 notes. Unfortunately, he provided a very short window to make the exchanges. The alleged reasons for the announcement were to withdraw counterfeit and black money from circulation. Surprisingly, only 2% of the population pays any taxes.  

Modi’s decision to withdraw 86% of the cash in circulation plunged the country into complete chaos. The impact has been extremely painful for businesses that pay their workers or suppliers with cash. 

Long lines soon formed outside banks and ATMs. Millions waited for hours to exchange their old notes. Many fainted and a few died. More frustration was experienced when they reached the front of the lines only to be told there was a limited supply on hand. Few working ATM’s had been set up. Most ATMs were rapidly depleted of low demonization 100 ($1.50) rupee notes. People who were lucky enough to get their hands on the new coveted notes found few traders had enough change to execute transactions. 

Many of the poor, who don’t have bank accounts, were disproportionately affected unable to store their new cash in safe places. Tens of thousands of laborers, artisans and weavers have lost jobs in many cities such as Agra, Varanasi, Kanpur, Moradabad, Allahabad, Ferozabad and Aligarh. Farmers have been baldly impacted unable to sell their perishable fruit and vegetables. 

There are lingering suspicions that demonization had more self-serving interests by the ruling BJP party whose members have got a ‘heads up’ on the currency plan and were able to exchange their old bank notes before the announcement. This would give them considerable clout over opposition Congress Party members who traditionally use crores of black money when fighting elections. 

Although the currency crisis is the daily topic in much of the country it barely got discussed in India’s parliament. Narendra Modi seems to have been given a free pass from opposition members in the 545-member Lok Sabha and in the 245-seat upper house, the Rajya Sabha. Instead both party leaders and their surrogates took to the streets leaking stories of massive corruption. 

Meanwhile, India’s parliament has come into withering criticism for its poor performance. It only meets 60 days to conduct the people’s business compared to 140 days which is more typical in countries like Britain or Canada. India’s state legislatures have an even worse meeting record - fewer than 30 days. Conversely, Haryana lead the productivity pack passing as many as 14 bills in 90 minutes. 

M.R. Madhavan, the president of PRS Legislative Research, a privately funded watchdog in Delhi, exposed some of the more troubling aspects of India’s democracy. He revealed that India’s anachronistic Constitution permits a far more dangerous concentration of power in the executive and judicial branches than other democracies. Inheriting some of the worst aspects of the Raj where the viceroy was king, the government can pass laws which can sideline the legislative branch. These powers have been grossly abused. For example, Modi has renewed laws that confiscate property belonging to opposition party members. As a further threat to democracy, the government can sign foreign treaties without parliamentary approval. These parliamentary rules and perhaps India’s Constitution scream for much needed reform. 

" And for a cool $2,247/month, you can live at 77 Bluxome inside this 240-square-foot residence."

Spend your entire paycheck on this 240-foot SoMa apartment: The micro apartment trend shows no signs of shrinking—especially in South of Market.

--Micro Week article by Brock Keeling ,Sep 21, 2016


So much for the fallacy that micro-units create affordability or end homelessness.

The Berkeley City Council should refuse to be party to developer Patrick Kennedy's effort to paint his "stacked coffins" micro-units housing, rejected by San Francisco, as a solution to homelessness. This is a cynical effort to continue to capitalize on, rather than honestly addressing, the decades-old need for low-income, affordable housing much of which was destroyed by Patrick Kennedy and a handful of other developers over the thirty years of the Bates majority. 

It is unfair to repeatedly raid tent groups while letting others reap the lucrative benefits of unpermitted Airb&b rooms and backyard rentals which contribute to the housing shortage and are a much more immediate resource for emergency housing. Dipping into public funds to create sweet deals for the developers who set this table, the table that starves the poor of housing but feeds the rich who substitute micro-housing without embarrassment is an outrage and a recipe for further eroding vulnerable tenant protections. 

There is no dignity, no community, in Kennedy's self-serving proposal, which should at least be sent through the relevant commissions before being rushed toward the council agenda, especially considering the obvious conflicts of interest in Councilmember Linda Maio's case. Linda Maio's ceramics business sits in the commercial space which was once advertised as an "arts" amenity. 

Please stand up for human rights, tenant rights, and against this further desecration of sensible approaches to affordable housing. For real solutions, work with the nonprofits who have rehabilitated dilapidated housing and helped nurture low-income equity co-ops, such as Resources for Community Development. Our city's only communication with Patrick Kennedy should be to ask him to give us a tour of the "art spaces" he touted would be community amenities in his buildings, most of which are gone, so that our representatives remember what his promises are worth.

FBI's director James Comey's scam on Hillary Clinton, with no evidence, and only 11 days left in the presidential campaign is inexcusable. You didn't see long time Republican Comey pulling the same stunt on Donald Trump. The FBI's participation in politics seems like an oxymoron.  

Why aren't the rabid Republican constitutionalists doing something about Trump's business conflicts that flout the constitution? 

And doesn't the Republican's theft the presidential election come under the jurisdiction of the ethics office that the GOP tried to gut? I'm so glad we have the checks and balances that the Constitution provides. Since when! They're disappearing quickly under Republican total control of government.

The recent phenomenon of fake news, along with people (namely Trump) falsely claiming that certain items are fake news, is the scariest thing I have so far seen. I've been in the habit of automatically assuming factual accuracy in news reports, and up until now, it had never occurred to me that some news stories could just be made up. Now, I can no longer count on that. 

When the news says anything unflattering or damaging about Trump, (which is likely to be truth) Trump can just say it is fake news. Now, anyone who doesn't like something reported in the news can just say that it is fake. 

This disrupts the fabric of society on an international level, and it is serious. People can not function if they can't get information they can count on. And this moves us into the danger zone with respect to us becoming an increasingly Orwellian society.  

The U.S. is in a death struggle with forces that would like to wipe out basic liberty, freedom of thought, and freedom from fear of the government. We are on the verge of becoming no different from China, Russia and North Korea, in regards to human rights being absent, and in regards to the common person being trampled on by the soldiers, tanks, and guns of another dictatorship. This fake news thing has to be solved, however I have no idea how people would do that.

For your convenience, here's a guide to the working relationships that will guide the Trump presidency:

1.Donald Trump, Supreme Leader. Although Trump gets the lion's share of press attention -- what else would you would expect from a flaming narcissist -- once he gets into office, Trump will likely retreat into the background and become a "figurehead" President following the model of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He'll be active on Twitter and make appearances on Fox News and political rallies. But don't expect Trump to be accessible to the press, in general; he hates the mainstream media. He'll rely upon his subordinates, particularly Kellyanne Conway, to deal with tough questions.

Trump will be a typical Republican President who likes the idea of being bloviator-in-chief but doesn't actually want to do the day-to-day heavy lifting Americans expect of their supreme leader. Trump will delegate most of daily grunt work to his subordinates and members of his family.

To get elected, Trump made a deal with ultra-right-wing power brokers Robert and Rebekah Mercer. (The deal that brought Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon onto the Trump team.) The terms of the Faustian bargain were that the Mercers, and other GOP oligarchs such as Sheldon Adelson and Charles and David Koch, would use their resources to get Trump into the oval office; in return, Trump would adopt their extreme right-wing agenda. For example, on the campaign trail, Trump never advocated privatizing Social Security; that's part of the Mercer agenda currently being pushed in Congress.

Trump will glory in the day-to-day pomp and circumstance of being president while, behind the scenes, his subordinates will push extreme changes to domestic and foreign policy. 

2. Mike Pence, Prime Minister. Day-to-day political power will rest with "the crazy Mikes," Mike Pence and Mike Flynn. Pence will handle domestic policy and it will be extremely conservative. (Welcome to "The Handmaid's Tale.") For example, the Trump-Pence team will call for the repeal of Obamacare and drastic revisions of Medicare and Social Security. In addition, they will push to abolish the IRS and adopt a radical tax system -- designed to benefit the ultra-rich -- such as a flat tax. Trump-Pence will push to eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development. They will take a hard-line on immigration. Pence is virulently anti-abortion and also opposes marriage equality -- and rights for LGBTQ individuals, in general. 

3. Mike Flynn, Foreign Minister. As if Mike Pence weren't bad enough, the other Mike is even crazier. Mike Flynn wants a war with Islam; he thinks all Muslims hate us. Flynn has supported the notion that it's not just undocumented Hispanic immigrants that sneak across the southern U.S. border but also Islamic terrorists -- Flynn claims there are road signs in Arabic at the border. 

Flynn has nurtured the idea of a U.S. partnership with Russia. Noting that America ‘beat Hitler because of our relationship with the Russians," Flynn suggested that we renew that partnership in the new world war against "radical Islamism." 

In the past, Trump has made cavalier statements about nuclear weapons, "Why do we have them if we're not going to use them?" It's not comforting to know that when the subject of nuclear weapons arises, Mike Flynn will be by Trump's side. (If Trump is Nero, Flynn is Voldemort.) 

4. Steve Bannon, Political Strategist. The GOP is now Trump's Party. And the person directing the overall Republican strategy is Steve Bannon, Trump's alt-right-hand man. After Trump's coronation, look for Bannon to push a two-prong strategy. 

With his tweets and bizarre public utterances, Trump will be featured most every news cycle. Much of this will be fluff, "Trump threatens [fill in the corporation]. Make it in America or face new taxes." But the constant news churn will enhance the perception that Trump is doing something about jobs or public safety or immigration or whatever. 

Meanwhile, under the direction of Bannon, the two Mikes will be doing the heavy lifting. Particularly on Capital Hill, Republicans will press forward with their radical conservative agenda. (Bannon is the equivalent of Martin Bormann in Hitler's inner circle.) 

5. Kellyanne Conway, Minister of Propaganda. Day-to-day responsibility for managing Trump's public image -- "putting lipstick on a pig" -- will fall to the indefatigable Kellyanne Conway. No matter how outrageous Trump's tweets or public statements are, Ms. Conway can be counted on to go on TV and say things like, "President Trump's statement today is a reflection of his disdain for political correctness. He has brought new vitality to the office of the President." 

Conway's job is to normalize crazy. No matter how bizarre a Trump action may be, Ms. Conway will try to make it appear part of a well-thought-out plan to "make America great again." (Conway is the equivalent of Joseph Goebbels in Hitler's inner circle.) 

6. Jeff Sessions, Minister of Enforcement. Of course, part of Trump's appeal to his base is his lack of political correctness; his capacity for mobilizing resentment. Trump's campaign succeeded because millions of white men believed that he would represent their (aggrieved) perspective. Jeff Sessions is the "enforcer" for the Trump team. He's responsible for punishing those that oppose Trump orthodoxy. 

When there is a national roundup of undocumented immigrants, Sessions will lead it. When there is a roll back of voting rights, Sessions will be in charge. (Sessions is the equivalent of Heinrich Himmler in Hitler's inner circle.) 

Meet Trump's Politburo determined to "blow up Washington." 

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