Full Text

 

News

New: NO TRUMPCARE: What This Means to Those with Disabilities (Public Comment)

Jack Bragen
Thursday March 30, 2017 - 12:36:00 PM

That little bit of hope that many disabled people have, particularly those of us with a psychiatric diagnosis, is that at times we can supplement our income with a part-time job, or may even be able to return to work on a larger scale. This is not a huge ambition, nor is it usually unrealistic. However, it allows many persons with disabilities to have hope of someday having a better life.  

Obamacare is essential to that hope. Obamacare is a great equalizer, since it means that those of us with tiny incomes will still be able to obtain medical care. And, apparently, mental health treatment was one of the key issues that knocked down Trumcare.  

Furthermore, Trumpcare was a threat to all persons with mental illness, working or not, who rely partly or wholly on Medicaid for their mental health treatment. Trumpcare would have reversed Medicaid's mandate to pay for mental health treatment.  

This means that most persons with psychiatric disabilities would be essentially be denied our right to exist. If we do not have mental health care, we are stuck with "decompensating" (sorry to use that term!) and this is a threat to our lives.  

Apparently, the Trump people think it is fine not to treat mental illness and instead to lock us up in jails and prisons with no medication.  

So, it is with a big sigh of relief that I note that Congress has done its job and members are looking to their constituents--and have shown that the U.S. Constitution does work.  

However, this administration is so villainous that we'd better not enjoy that relief too long--Trump is looking for other ways to ruin the lives of all disadvantaged people, including people with psychiatric disabilities. We have three years and nine months to go before Trump (we hope) will be voted out of office, and it will be a long three years nine months.  

 


New: Behind the congressional stage, a legal drama unfolds

Carol Polsgrove
Sunday March 26, 2017 - 10:24:00 AM

While Republicans have failed in their efforts to weaken the Affordable Care Act through congressional action, Donald Trump could weaken it through administrative action—although his nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, might have second thoughts about that.

As UC Berkeley Law Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon wrote in the New York Times March 14, Gorsuch is one of the “most prominent critics” of a legal doctrine that has led courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of laws.

The keystone decision establishing agency deference was the 1984 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that where Congress has not spelled out implementation of the law, an executive agency can make its own rules and decide how to apply them. Solomon explains: “One rationale for this doctrine is that an agency, with its expertise, is better positioned than a judge to know a statute’s meaning.”

Subsequent rulings have fine-tuned agencies’ power to interpret and apply the laws they are administering. That places considerable clout in the hands of the executive branch, which employs about 1.4 million civilians.

“This big bureaucracy is not necessarily a bad thing,” Solomon observes. “The economy is much bigger and more complex than it was 200 years ago. A large and diverse economy needs regulation. And while the Trump administration has promised to reduce the bureaucracy as many presidents have before, it is hard to see the modern economy running without some degree of regulation, whether it concerns the security of banks or the safety of food and drugs.” 

But conservatives worry about the power of the administrative state. Thus, conservatives would like to rein in judicial deference doctrine that empowers it. 

Some of the rest of us have a more nuanced view: we know that executive power can sometimes protect us and sometimes not, as, for instance, when a judge, citing deference doctrine precedents, recently sided with the Department of Energy against environmentalists

Federal regulatory power does not automatically protect citizens or protect them equally. It all depends on how the agency in question uses that power. That, in turn, depends on who’s steering the ship. 

For instance, the Obama administration used Chevron deference to justify the rules putting the Affordable Care Act into effect. Now that Trump is sitting in Obama’s seat, Trump could head off in the opposite direction, using agency power to undermine the ACA. 

He would not necessarily get away with it: Despite the accumulated clout of deference precedents, courts do not always defer to agency judgment. 

There is, for example, an ACA case still in judicial limbo: the House of Representatives’ suit (House v. Burwell) to stop the Obama administration’s cost-sharing payments to insurance companies. After a U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the House, the Obama administration filed an appeal, but Obama left office before a judgment was rendered. 

House leaders and Trump’s Department of Justice then asked the Court for a delay in appeal proceedings pending legislative action—which we have seen bite the dust. 

The question now: will Trump abandon the appeal initiated by the Obama White House and let the earlier ruling against the Obama administration stand? If he does, the consequent disruption of the insurance marketplace could, according to US News & World Report, “jeopardize coverage for millions of people,” 

This is not quite a cliffhanger to match the drama over the failed house bill on health care, but it reminds us that the wheels of law keep the ship of state moving. 

The chief navigator of that ship is the Supreme Court—which brings us back to Neil Gorsuch, who, as it turns out, has an intimate connection with the Chevron decision establishing deference to agencies: It was rendered in a case involving his mother, Anne M. Gorsuch. 

Anne Gorsuch was Reagan’s EPA director when the EPA reversed a Carter administration rule governing power plant remissions under the Clean Air Act. The National Resources Defense Council sued to reinstate the stricter Carter-era rule and won in a lower court. Chevron, which had a dog in the fight, appealed, and the Supreme Court reinstated the Reagan-era rule, establishing what is now known as “Chevron deference.” 

In the words of Justice John Paul Stevens: 

“First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” 

Comes now Neil Gorsuch, son of Anne, stating, in a recent opinion: 

“Whatever the agency may be doing under Chevron, the problem remains that courts are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law and declare invalid agency actions inconsistent with those interpretations in the cases and controversies that come before them.” 

With Gorsuch’s thumb on the judicial scales, more than one commentator has predicted that the ground under agency deference doctrine may shift, undermining the power of the executive branch to work its will. And that, in the age of Trump, could to be a very good thing. 


New: THE PUBLIC EYE: Trump’s Huge Failure

Bob Burnett
Saturday March 25, 2017 - 10:57:00 AM

After promising to "repeal and replace Obamacare on day one [of his presidency]", Donald Trump suffered an ignominious rejection on day 64.

True to form, Trump took no responsibility for the defeat of the Republican plan (the American Health Care Act) but, instead, blamed Democrats. Trump had attempted a "full-court press" to secure passage of his plan but was not successful winning over Tea-Party Republicans and, at the end, moderate Republicans who objected to last minute changes to the bill.

What have we learned? 

1.The Resistance Works: 64 days ago, when Trump lumbered into the White House, it was unthinkable that he and his exuberant Republican allies would not succeed repealing the Affordable Care Act. 

Then Democrats built a grass-roots resistance. They put aside whatever differences lingered from the stinging November 8th defeat and began to work together in every congressional district. 

It's true that at the end, congressional Democrats stood united against the Trump-Ryan legislation, but the resistance pushed them to do this. Think of the millions of phone calls that were made to members of Congress -- supposedly 48:1 opposed to Trump's bill. Think of the all the citizens who showed up at congressional town hall meetings. 

On the March 24th, Rachel Maddow show, Rachel detailed how the resistance in Morris County, New Jersey, (NJ 11) convinced hard-line Republican congressman, Rodney Freylinghuysen to vote against Trump's plan.  

The resistance works and it is just getting started. 

2. Trump's entire legislative agenda went into the toilet. The Trump Administration had planned on a big healthcare win to facilitate a massive tax reform -- big cuts for the wealthy -- and to follow this with a jobs bill -- faux infrastructure construction. Now it's "back to the drawing board." 

Trump's problem is that he can't draw and has no "drawing board." ("There's no there, there.") What he has is a collection of tired campaign one-liners, such as "we're going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something terrific." The substance in the Republican plan came not from the Trump White House -- which has a tiny policy group -- but from the Republican Congressional leadership (and the network of conservative think tanks that support them). 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act was the linchpin of the Trump legislative "agenda." Trump's huge loss has jeopardized Republican chances in the 2018 midterm elections. 

The re-election cycle has gotten very long and, therefore, political observers says that any substantial Congressional legislation has to be accomplished in the first 200 days. We're a third of the way through these 200 days and it look like 115th Republican-controlled Congress is a bust. 

The 237 Republican representatives, who are up for re-election in 2018, have a huge problem. 

3. Trump's approval ratings will get worse. Failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act might mean nothing to the Trump Administration if "the Donald" had high approval ratings, but he doesn't. His latest favorability ratings show him "underwater" by 20 points and headed down; even his support among Republican stalwarts has slipped -- and will slip further after March 24. 

The longer Trump goes on with no significant legislative accomplishments, the more his ratings will decline. The more Trump's approval ratings decline, the less likely Republicans in Congress will be to defer to him. (And the less likely that Trump will get any significant legislation passed.) Before Labor Day, most Republican Congressmen will crank up their reelection campaign without Trump. 

What happens next? The next focus of the resistance should be opposition to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. As was the case with defense of the ACA, Americans should call, fax, and text their Senators. They should demand to see them to express their disapproval of this nomination. 

Meanwhile the investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia stumbles through the Washington jungle. If it bogs down, the resistance needs to demand a special prosecutor. 

Trump has failed. Hugely. But Trump is like a wounded predator thrashing around in pain; he's capable of inflicting enormous damage if he's not constrained. The resistance needs to keep the pressure on in order to prevent further damage to American Democracy. 


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


SQUEAKY WHEEL:The NIMBYS of middle-earth

Toni Mester
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:26:00 PM
opticosdesign.com

Are Berkeley flatlanders living in the missing middle? That’s the term used by local architect Daniel Parolek to describe a range of housing types that fit between detached single-family homes and mid-rise apartment buildings.

Just a glance at the logo of his website produces a flash of recognition because the flatlands are indeed caught between R-1 low- density neighborhoods and new construction along the commercial corridors, between one and two story houses and five story mixed-use developments, just like the diagram shows.

But the difference between the logo’s concept and reality is that roofs do not rise in a tidy procession like a line of school children arranged by class but constitute a jumble of types and heights. Some streets are more regular than others.  

The mix is due to the peculiar history of Berkeley neighborhoods, a blessing or a curse depending on whether the building next door blends in or shadows your garden, whether or not the inhabitants and their vehicles interrupt the peace of your street.  

Promoters of growth call the discontents NIMBYs as a pejorative to put neighbors on the defensive. It’s best to grow a thick skin against this name-calling because in truth most people including developers object to sudden alteration of their habitation, unless they do it themselves.  

More NIMBYs live in the flatlands because that’s where most of the development is happening. But any perusal of past zoning appeals shows that hills dwellers are just as likely to protest any change in their landscape, from residential additions to new homes, and their disapproval can be equally virulent, as revealed by the recent appeal hearings about 1441 Grizzly Peak and 2706 Shasta Road.  

The difference is that the hills have enjoyed the privilege of zoning stability for fifty years, whereas changes in flatlands zoning occurred without widespread awareness. Both situations have stimulated negativity. As Councilmember Susan Wengraf observed, the empty parcel on Grizzly Peak had created “the luxury of an undeveloped lot.” The neighbors got used to the open space. 

Negative surprise has fostered reaction to development in the flatlands as residents learn about the density bonus and now the Housing Accountability Act. At the same time, two and three story houses have been cropping up in unexpected places like formerly open back yards. How did that happen? 

Residential Additions and Uniform Heights 

Researching the history of R-1A zoning in tandem with Planning Commission discussions, I uncovered the origins of the allowance for these backyard houses in a controversy over residential additions and accessory units that began in 1985 and resulted in the first “subsidiary” dwelling unit ordinance (5695) that December. The following is an excerpt from my history. 

In 1986 district elections were instituted, changing the composition and priorities of the City Council. The new Council minority, Mary Wainwright (D2), Shirley Dean (D5), Alan Goldfarb (D6) and Fred Weeks (D8) were drawn from the moderate Berkeley Democratic Club while Mayor Loni Hancock, Nancy Skinner (D1), Ann Chandler (D4), Don Jelinek (D7) and Maudell Shirek (D3) from the progressive Berkeley Citizens Action slate retained a slim majority. 

The Council returned to the subject of residential additions in April 1990 because people were adding height and bulk to existing buildings in increments without use permits. Council referred the matter, and in February and March 1991, the Planning Commission held public hearings on residential additions that addressed façade removal, the definition and size of a major addition, use permit requirements, and a definition of demolition. 

“Mansionization” was a hot topic. Some people wanted an administrative use permit for any residential addition over 300 feet while others decried excessive regulation, expense, and delays for families who had purchased a small cottage and wanted to add a bedroom and a bath. This hill-centered controversy dominated the zoning dialogue for years so that the vocabulary of the R-1 dispute became the template for the rest of the residential districts, specifically the use of the term “main building.” 

On May 28, the Council held a public hearing on zoning amendments for residential additions and revised notice requirements. A subcommittee of Chandler, Dean, and Wainwright were to consider “general revisions of the zoning ordinance” for the Planning Commission to consider. 

When the text of an ordinance was brought to the Council on July 16, 1991, the content of the bill (ordinance 6086) went beyond the recommendations of the Planning Commission.  

In addition to defining a major residential addition as 500 square feet, establishing notices to neighbors, and requiring a use permit, the Council included uniform building heights of 28 feet by right for all new construction in the residential districts R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A and requiring an AUP above that to 35 feet. They also passed a new finding that “in order to deny a permit for an addition or a structure that otherwise meets all ordinance standards, the Zoning Officer or Zoning Adjustments Board must find that it would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air, and views.” Both of these changes to the zoning codes had not been discussed and recommended by the Planning Commission and would have deep and lasting effect on the flatlands. Nancy Skinner and Maudelle Shirek, representing D1 and D3, respectively, voted no. 

The Planning Commission and the Zoning Adjustments Board were supposed to develop “written guidelines as to what constitutes ‘unreasonable obstruction’ of sunlight, air, or views,” according to the Council minutes of July 16, 1991. In a recent public records search, I requested such guidelines as well as a definition of detriment and was informed that no such written standards exist. Without objective specifications, staff have resorted to arbitrary and subjective interpretation of unreasonable detriment. 

Reporting back to the Planning Commission on this vote, Director Gil Kelley maintained his equanimity. The Council, he wrote, “voted to approve text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These differed from the Planning Commission’s initiated March 27, 1991 action in several ways.” 

The problem is obvious. By jacking up the height limits of all new residential buildings except for accessory dwelling units, the Council left the other standards such as setbacks and separations intact, if they existed at all, creating problems of scale, proportion, and harmony. It was one of the most irresponsible zoning decisions of any Council in the last fifty years. 

The Council failed to consider the problems of allowing three story houses in the back of relatively small lots and failed to follow-up on the guidelines about unreasonable obstruction. The fact that these changes were passed without public hearings at the Planning Commission meant that few people in the flatlands knew about these changes. So much for citizen participation! 

No other major changes to the R-1A were made during the rest of the 1990’s. But when it came time in 1999 to retire the old zoning ordinance and codify 50 years of amendments, the writers of the new ordinance didn’t know how to describe these newly allowed two and three-story houses because the definitions hadn’t been debated, and so they fell back on the language of the single family districts (the R-1) and called them “main buildings.” They also kept the 1991 finding that demands approval unless the application “would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air, or views” without specifying the meaning of such terms, which had never been decided by a joint committee as recommended. 

In 2006, the Council revisited the height limits of main buildings and once again amended the size of residential additions upward. 15% of the lot area or 600 square feet became the new definition of a major addition requiring an AUP. Council members Anderson and Moore voted no. The reopening of this subject could have included the problem of “main buildings” in flatland back yards, but we just weren’t aware of the opportunity. 

The poor zoning of the R-1A is a result of piecemeal amendments, lack of focus and attention, the imposition of uniform height limits on new construction, and the politics of race, class, and geography implied in district elections; a triumph of inequity and resistance to land-use innovation. These problems impact all the zones in the flatlands. The proliferation of many building types and sizes is evidence of zoning instability and should not be used as an excuse for “anything goes.” 

Reforming the Zoning Code 

I wrote the history to provide background for the discussion of a revision of the R-1A. Over the years, more and more impacted residents of this West Berkeley area complained to the Council about the unfair and unclear zoning that allowed for the proliferation of two large houses on skinny lots. There were two Council referrals in 2010 and 2015 to the Planning Commission and one from the Zoning Adjustments Board in 2016. The Commission’s public hearing on the subject is scheduled for April 19th

It’s difficult to know what the Commission will do, as the current R-1A is no longer an intermediary zone between R-1 and R-2 but a bastard brother of R-2 due to the imposition of uniform height limits. In fact, many of the two house projects that are coming to the ZAB in the R-1A and the R-2 are similar. 

Many residents perceive height as the dominant zoning standard and forget that unit size is crucial to the shape of a building, especially in low and medium density zones. That’s why accessory dwelling units are height and area specific: 14 feet and 750 square feet or less to protect the spacious quality of the R-1 zones, which have been privileged since 1949. 

Up-zoning refers to increasing the number of units, which could be a studio apartment or a three-bedroom house. In a sense, the ADU has up-zoned the R-1 to two units but with size limitations. The R-1A and the R-2 are not so lucky. It’s an equity issue. 

In these neighborhoods, developers are squeezing in two houses that are 1,000-2,000 square feet with three bedrooms each to provide “family” housing but leaving precious little usable open space outside for gardens, trees, places for children to play, or for family outdoor activities like a Bar-B-Q. It’s not healthy for people to live indoors all the time. 

Parolek’s missing- middle schema proposes a variety of building forms that are not supported by our current codes, especially since the imposition of the uniform heights. The least dense of these types is the duplex, stacked or side-by-side. A duplex can provide two family-sized units that share a foundation and a roof, making the construction less costly than a stand-alone house. Clever floor plans can place kitchens and bathrooms in a configuration that also saves on installation of plumbing and other services. More compact buildings allow greater open space, some private and some shared. 

We’re all living cheek by jowl anyway, so we should stop building houses that belong in the suburbs, squeezing out precious open space, and start providing standards for duplexes, courtyard apartments, bungalow courts, and other compact cluster forms that integrate with single family homes. 

Missing middle housing makes it possible to create greater density AND save our back yards. That’s as good as it gets: guilt-free NIMBYs, like no- sugar chocolate and meat free hamburgers. 


Toni Mester is a resident of West Berkeley. 


The Cultural Significance of People's Park - Now More Than Ever

Carol Denney, SLAPP-suit defendant
Friday March 24, 2017 - 05:13:00 PM
Carol Denney and Bob Nichols planted cardboard salmon in the sand volleyball court in 1991 to illustrate the path of the underground creek.
Carol Denney and Bob Nichols planted cardboard salmon in the sand volleyball court in 1991 to illustrate the path of the underground creek.

"If government is compelled to guarantee the truth of its factual assertions on matters of public interest, its speech would be substantially inhibited, and the citizenry would be less informed."

- San Francisco Appellate Court Judge Donald King, rejecting the appeal of the summary dismissal of the SLAPP-suit defendants' suit for defamation against the University of California, now immortalized on a t-shirt.

On January 10th, twenty-five years ago, my phone rang early in the morning and a voice at the other end said I was being sued for twenty-five million dollars by the university of California. I was expected in Oakland Superior Court. They were just letting me know.  

I think I said thank you. I hung up the phone and then the phone rang again. This time it was David Nadel, the owner of Ashkenaz saying, did you just get a weird phone call? I said yes. 

He said he'd pick me up and we went down to Superior Court in his green pickup truck. We had no idea what was going on. I'm not sure how, but we had three lawyers of our own there, people we'd been working with to assist jailed People's Park demonstrators. They were standing in the corridor flipping hurriedly through the complaint against us, mainly for speaking at commission meetings and writing letters about the park's history. We were characterized as key leaders of a violent conspiracy. 

David ran a dance club. He really took time, if a band's demo proved completely ignorant of how to play a two-step for a Cajun dance, to make sure that band knew which band to listen to and not to pitch themselves as a dance band until they'd learned how to play a two-step. I was a folk-singing church secretary. We were pretty organized, but both completely non-violent; the people who like to break windows and set things on fire never listened to a word we said. David was shot to death in 1996 by an angry club attendee, an irony for a non-violent man who dedicated his life to music and dance, so people can only listen to his legacy now. They still don't listen to me. 

When they sue you in civil court you don't get an attorney, the way you do, or the way you used to, in criminal court. So when a big corporation like Monsanto sues a spindly little group of environmentalists for what they put on a flier, it's to cost them money, soak up their time, plant confusion, and it's called a SLAPP-suit - a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. 

It's usually a big, wealthy, private corporation that launches a SLAPP-suit against its critics. It isn't usually a university, a public university, funded by taxpayers who constantly hear how strapped it is for state funds. According to SLAPP-suit experts, who became like family over the next few years, this was something different. 

We had to raise over $100,000 just to pay court fees and attorneys along the way or be forever branded key leaders of a violent conspiracy. We educated thousands of people about UC's publicly funded SLAPP-suit against us, just a continuation of its shameful history of suppressing free speech. Most people were outraged at the waste of public money; UC spent over three million dollars suing a dance club owner and a folk singer, our co-defendants Bob Sparks and Mike Lee, and 50 Jane and John Does, which are typically a legal way to reserve a lawsuit's place for even more defendants. 

It scared people. Although it took UC, my alma mater, months to legally serve us our papers. On that first day in Superior Court the attorneys we'd been working with figured out that we had not technically been served and told us at some point to back slowly out of the courtroom and get the hell out of there just to stall for time. David and I moved quietly out the back of the courtroom and then belted through the crowded corridors and ran all the way up the circular parking structure to where we'd parked the green pickup dodging three-piece suited attorneys all the way up. When process servers came up to People's Park and asked people "is Carol Denney here?" or "is David Nadel or Bob Sparks or Mike Lee here?" everybody would claim to be us, whether they were the wrong gender or not. We had killer solidarity in those days. 

But that's not why I'm talking now. In 1967 when UC used eminent domain to bulldoze all the housing on the block between Haste, Bowditch, Dwight, and Telegraph in the middle of finals for the students who lived there they claimed they really needed it for - and this is where it got ambiguous - office space, for sports courts, or some project to be named later. Their plans were so ambiguous, and there was so much plentiful office space and land they'd already acquired, that the systemwide UC regents blew them off and wouldn't vote them any money to develop anything. 

The Berkeley administrators who bulldozed the housing in 1967 weren't afraid of the housing. They were afraid of the culture on southside and across the bay. The minutes of their meetings at the time are comic proof that they considered the culture itself a threat. People from all over the world were coming to the Bay Area for the poetry, for the music, for the recognition of Howl as free speech and handing out fliers as a civil right, and for the chance to experience and participate in the embrace of a cultural change that has never stopped any more than has the university's ham-handed effort to repress it. 

UC Berkeley administrators bulldozed the housing in 1967 but even the UC Regents recognized they had no real need for it, given the high vacancy rates for office space, and didn't vote them any money to build anything there. So the land sat empty. So the people built a park. And that's how it all began. A very offended UC Berkeley felt the need to squash a garden. A garden which, to them, represented an anti-authoritarian culture, but a garden nonetheless which is a city landmark now not because of any particular bush or flower or tree, but because of its cultural significance not just to our own community but to people all over the world. 

They bulldozed the housing in 1967 and now guess what they want to build? Anybody? That's right, housing. Because the landmarked park they still try to cripple and thwart any way they can - just try to get a permit for a concert - still is respected as the place where people came together as volunteers to remove the broken glass and rebar and build something together. 

People's Park's cultural significance is at its beginning. We're in a position now, if we remember our history, to renew our commitment to working together to affirm our community's values, protect the rights of our most vulnerable, and equally important, dance to the music. 

People always ask how did the SLAPP-suit end. It isn't really over. We forced them to remove the sand volleyball courts they forced on the park, mostly because protecting the volleyball courts from comedic adulteration with funny slogans and signs cost the taxpayers over two million dollars within six months, a cost which doesn't even include the people they actually paid to play volleyball. It's thanks to the depositions in the SLAPP-suit that we learned detail like this. UC created an office of public information because we made it look so bad - I'm not sure that's a good thing because we're all paying for that, too. 

And I got this t-shirt. I mean, David Nadel and I had these t-shirts printed up after the court drop-kicked our suit for defamation - the thing about us being leaders of a violent conspiracy. (see Judge Donald King quotation above) 

But the comedy of being called a violent conspirator wears off after awhile. It was harder to get a job, people think you're ill-tempered, you can imagine. But as much as we were maligned, hog-tied (in my case), forced to raise over $100,000 to defend not just ourselves and our co-defendants but People's Park itself on behalf of not just this community but a world of people who, unlike the University of California even today, recognize its significance in history, we were up to the task

People's Park is still the city landmark it became in 1984. Is it still culturally significant? We're about to find out from you, the people who may not even realize how much they have benefited from People's Park's place in history over the years. The university's own proposal admits they have seven other sites on which to build housing. I would gently suggest they use one of the other sites. And I hope my new mayor, my new city council, and all my fellow citizens join me in this respectful suggestion so that we can continue to honor our history, our culture, our fallen, our gardens, and still dance to the music.


Better Bathrooms for Berkeley’s Biggest Park

Martin Nicolaus
Friday March 24, 2017 - 05:34:00 PM
This unit was installed by the National Park Service in Pacifica in June, 2016. It features flush toilet, waterless urinal and sink for handwashing. ADA compliant and solar powered, it cost $50,000 installed.
This unit was installed by the National Park Service in Pacifica in June, 2016. It features flush toilet, waterless urinal and sink for handwashing. ADA compliant and solar powered, it cost $50,000 installed.
The City of Lathrop (near Manteca) installed this unit to serve users of its new dog park in October, 2015. It includes flush toilet, waterless urinal, sink for handwashing, solar power, ADA, and security features. Total cost installed $52,000.
The City of Lathrop (near Manteca) installed this unit to serve users of its new dog park in October, 2015. It includes flush toilet, waterless urinal, sink for handwashing, solar power, ADA, and security features. Total cost installed $52,000.

Cesar Chavez Park is Berkeley’s biggest. It draws tens of thousands of visitors each year. Other cities offer their waterfront visitors clean, decent restrooms with flush toilets and sinks for handwashing. Berkeley offers only porta-potties. 

Nearly a thousand park visitors have signed a petition for better bathrooms at Cesar Chavez Park. Here’s what people say: 

 

  • “The porta-potties are nasty. They stink, they’re disgusting, they’re unsanitary. I don’t want my children in there.
  • “As a woman, I’m offended. Men might get by, standing up. But it’s revolting and humiliating to have to sit down there. For practical purposes, the park has no bathrooms that women can use.
  • “They make Berkeley look bad. People come here from all over the world. What kind of impression of our town do they take back home, with these primitive facilities?
  • “They show no respect for Cesar Chavez. The City named this park in his honor, but the facilities are shameful. Is this the best we can do?
Modern sanitary park bathrooms are not expensive. Vendors today offer attractive prefab park bathrooms with flush toilets and sinks for around $50,000 installed. See the examples on the back of this sheet. That’s about one tenth the cost of park bathrooms custom-built a decade ago. 

 

These modern flush-vault units look and operate just like residential bathrooms with flush toilets and sinks. These are not primitive campground units – there’s no big dark hole and no smell. They don’t require sewer hookups. They use solar power. Vault service costs a fraction of what the city now spends to pump out porta-potties. Installation is a matter of a few days. 

Berkeley could have beautiful sanitary park bathrooms welcoming to all genders and ages for what amounts to spare change in a $100 million budget. 

March 31 this year is the 90th anniversary of Cesar Chavez’ birth. Now would be an excellent time to honor the great leader of the farmworkers and of all the Latino people by removing the shameful blots on the face of the park and installing beautiful modern park bathrooms.


Opinion

Editorials

State Senator Skinner targets Berkeley's zoning laws

Becky O'Malley
Friday March 24, 2017 - 03:41:00 PM

Let’s see what San Francisco BARF is up to these days, always a fun find.

For those of you who are new to this discussion, BARF (what an apt acronym!) is the San Francisco Bay Area Renters’ Federation, a developer-funded lobbying front whose motto seems to be “Build anything you want for anyone anywhere, as long as it makes money for someone, preferably our donors.”

What started as BARF has lately become a hydra-headed monster, now with an umbrella ID (or at least a web page) as the YIMBY Party. For you newbies, that’s a none-too-clever play on NIMBY, Not In My Backyard, the acronym coined by the families fighting toxic waste from Love Canal.

Evidently YIMBYs are those who welcome any toxics which happen to be on offer. Seems odd, but some people will swallow anything if the money’s right. Even if it make them BARF.

The YIMBY Party site lists a total of five “member orgs”, including one called “East Bay Forward”, but no names of members or officers that I could find in 2 minutes. My count of BARFish commenters both online and at civic meetings comes to no more than 15 actual individuals frantically running from meeting to meeting and website to website purporting to represent all five groups.

The news item here is that Berkeley’s own State Senator, Nancy Skinner, is now carrying water for YIMBY/BARF, if we’re to believe what’s tweeted by one Brian Hanlon, an ill-mannered oaf who once sat in front of me at a Berkeley ZAB hearing. I know what he’s up to because Brian’s a Twitthead who rivals The Trump himself. 

 

Some tweets from Brian Hanlon‏ @hanlonbt : 

Mar 17: Thank you @NancySkinnerCA and @AsmBocanegra for being housing heroes!  

And why should our state senator be a hero to a BARFer? More of Brian’s tweets: 

“YIMBYs - Read our bill to make the HAA enforceable & penalize scofflaw cities that maintain the housing shortage!”  

Also, SB 167 stops cities from imposing unreasonable fees that would kill housing development & ups the evidentiary standard for denying housing.” 

And there’s a lot more in the same vein. What’s he talking about, anyway? 

SB 167 contains Senator Nancy Skinner’s proposed amendments to the Housing Accountability Act (which was originally supposed to facilitate affordable housing construction). If you read the whole bill, and I have, the short answer is that if the legislature passes it, anything goes, if you just remember to call it “housing”. 

Instead of promoting housing for low-income families, Skinner’s bill would give developers what amounts to a blank check to override local planning and zoning laws, even for high-priced projects. 

Here’s a quick off-the-record comment from an experienced progressive environmental attorney on the effect of Skinner’s proposed changes: 


“Suffice it to say that, with the addition of the “above moderate income” housing - this bill becomes a tool for market rate housing developers to demand whatever they want and force a city to give it to them…The difference between “substantial evidence” and “clear and convincing evidence” is the difference between “defendant city wins nine time out of ten” and “plaintiff housing developer wins nine times out of ten.” 

Is this what Berkeleyans want from their state senator? Somehow I doubt it. We just elected a whole new city council comprised of proponents of low-income housing who are also opponents of unbridled luxury development. 

Senator Skinner is the trailing edge of the developer-funded Bates “build, build, build” machine which has held sway here for years. Now, Berkeley voters are catching on to what’s happening.  

We hope to publish a more detailed analysis of exactly how the Skinner bill would affect local governments like Berkeley’s in the near future. Does Skinner really want to penalize Berkeley? 

Meanwhile, the Chicken Little sky-is-falling narrative of the developers’ shills is being reversed. It turns out that population growth is slowing down in the Bay Area. Making it even easier to cram in more “above moderate income” projects into already dense cities is not the solution to our very real housing problems. 

What’s needed in cities like Berkeley is more homes for people at the low end of the pay scale, coupled with better pay, so that workers like teachers, firefighters and UC Berkeley service employees don’t need to commute such long distances to find housing. What’s not needed is more luxury condos in hyper-urban areas like those under construction in downtown Berkeley. 

Evidently Nancy Skinner missed that memo. If you’d like to tell her that you don’t want Berkeley’s planning pre-empted by state law, here’s her contact information: 

Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 2059
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997 

District Office
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 286-1333
Fax: (510) 286-3885 

Oddly, she doesn’t publish her email address, though there’s a form you can fill out on her website: http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/contact 

 

 


The Editor's Back Fence

Alternative Facts come to Berkeley land use case

Wednesday March 29, 2017 - 03:59:00 PM

The "alternative facts" narrative surfaces in Berkeley. See this hilarious satire about 2902 Adeline that someone's posted on YouTube:  

 


Many letters oppose Trumpcare, but not posted!

Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:20:00 PM

I'm happy to report that we got 11 letters opposing Trumpcare which I'm not going to bother posting, because at least this week the good guys seem to have won. Thanks, guys, for writing, but I'm going to save myself a couple of hours on a Friday by not posting your letters, but keep them coming.


Public Comment

New: The Defeat of Trumpcare

Sheila Goldmacher
Saturday March 25, 2017 - 11:00:00 AM

As I watched and gloated at the defeat of the monstrosity concocted by the likes of the orange man and his St Paul guy, I noted that little if any of the news coverage of the defeat dared to mention how the pushback from the people across America in the end led to the disarray and defeat we just witnessed and helped pull off. THAT INCLUDED THE PBS NEWS HOUR which might I say deserves less and less of our support if any. I vote to retain Sesame Street and the great mysteries I get to watch. That's about it.


Cost-free Demands for Berkeley's New Mayor and Council

Carol Denney
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:25:00 PM

The "Pathways Project", Berkeley's proposal to address homelessness, has some obvious faults. It isn't, for instance, the campground Berkeley so obviously needs for anybody passing through who just wants to tent for a few days and check the place out. A homeless-only tent city, ironic after a thirty-year war on tents, courts a stigma it often can't outrun. 

But one thing is clear. If we snapped out fingers and manifested this system of temporary shelters overnight, we would only address approximately 15% of the people on our street by the city's own numbers. The other 85% are still at risk of being repeatedly moved, ticketed, and jailed for simply being poor. 

There are things Berkeley can do immediately that won't cost a dime. We need to demand the "Pathways Project" headed for the Berkeley City Council April 4th includes them: 

1. Stop the raids on tent groups. The wording in the Pathways Project proposal insists that "camping" laws will still be used to clear groups of tents from unpermitted places after "robust" outreach. This needs to end. Criminalizing people with nowhere to go is unethical, a ridiculous assault on the dignity of everybody involved including the police, a civil rights violation according to many legal decisions, and (a politician's most persuasive factor) expensive. Berkeley's public was tired of paying for the public destruction of poor people's tents decades ago, let alone picking up the tab for circling them through courts and jails. Maybe you can persuade the ten percent of Berkeley's unhoused poor people to utilize the new Pathways Project opportunities when they manifest. But until then, it is unfair to ticket the ninety percent left over for simple existing. Cost? Zero. 

2. Legalize sleeping in one's own vehicle. It is absurd, not the mention dangerous, that homeless and poor people who at least have a personal vehicle to sleep in can be ticketed for simply sleeping inside it on a public street. We may not have made sleep itself a crime, as has neighboring Santa Cruz, but we've come close by insisting that people can't legally sleep in their own property if it happens to have wheels. Cost? Zero. 

3. Facilitate port-a-potties and garbage services for tent groups that want them. The majority of objections to even out-of-the-way collections of tents have to do with unsanitary conditions made almost inevitable by the lack of bathrooms and garbage pickup services. It is true that portable amenities cost money, but (a.) not as much as having to send hazmat teams and police in after conditions become filthy and (b.) generous citizens have in some cases paid privately for port-a-potties for groups of tents and been threatened by city staff for their trouble. Cost? Not zero, but less than what we're spending now. 

4. Vacate all laws that target the poor and homeless. The new council booted the two square foot law, if I'm tracking correctly. But Berkeley is among California's top cities for anti-homeless laws. The council needs to commit to eliminating them all. Cost? Zero. 

5. Commit to realistic mental health options. The $300,000 just spent on Robust Outreach Teams (admit you love the acronym) still leads straight to the police, the worst- equipped group on earth to address mental health issues, which currently take up a huge percentage of police resources. We have the policy clarity throughout the commission system and at the Public Health Department. We need the political commitment to offer more realistic options to situate people who will only suffer more in jail. Cost? Again, not cost free, but a cost saving in the long run compared to what we're spending repeatedly sending people with mental health issues through courts and jails, where their health inevitably deteriorates even more. 

6. Require the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) to step up to the plate. More than a million dollars in property-based fees goes to the DBA's budget for downtown promotion, which has worked for decades not to take practical steps to end homelessness - that would be housing - but rather to criminalize homeless and poor people's visible existence on our streets. The DBA's current director, John Caner, ran the expensive campaign to criminalize sitting in Berkeley, violating campaign finance laws along the way, and has sat with both city staff and council representatives in back rooms helping craft anti-homeless laws according to their own records.. The bulk of their budget comes from publicly owned property either owned by the city, the university, or other public entities within their business improvement district map's footprint. That means that when the DBA lobbies the city for civil rights violations tailored to dog the lives of our most vulnerable, the public is paying for it on the front and the back end. 

The Mayor Jess Arreguin and the City Council are in a position to ensure that the DBA's next campaign be more practical, more consonant with the recognition that circling people through the courts is not working, and is the costliest approach to homelessness, substance abuse, and mental illness. The DBA is in a position to create a team within the business community to create housing and job options open to people in need. 

We need housing options for people with mental illness which aren't just a pathway back to the streets. We need housing for people making the minimum wage. We need, as a community, to leverage the suffering the DBA's and the city's short-sightedness has caused for decades into a real partnership to help meet community needs as a simply practical matter as well as a requirement for continuing any DBA contract. If our new mayor and city council are more than just "Bates lite", they will ensure that April 4th's "Pathways Project" is passed with additional, practical, cost-free elements, to make sure chasing homeless people from lawn to lawn and park to park becomes a thing of the past. 

 

 


Stability First

Mike Zint and JP Massar
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:11:00 PM

The body of a homeless woman was found on a Saturday near Berkeley High School. She appears to have died of exposure. (Jan 15th, 2017, Berkeleyside)

What does it take to get off the streets? Money? Affordable housing? Employment? Of course the answer is yes, but none of those things is the first step. The first step is stability. Stability that the housed take for granted.

A lack of stability means the homeless barely survive. Figuring out how to exist with no sense of safety and security and nowhere to go, worrying about the police having committed no crime, takes all that someone has. Sometimes it’s too much and a short note appears in a local paper.

In October, 2016, First They Came for the Homeless (FTCftH), a political movement of the dispossessed in Berkeley, CA, tried to bring stability to their lives while at the same time calling attention to the plight of the homeless. Defying the status quo that forced them to sleep unsheltered and alone, they set up a community: tents and tables; chairs, coffee and camaraderie. A community of the homeless, with support from housed friends. Needless to say all hell broke loose. 

For months the City and its police chased them around Berkeley, and every raid First They Came for the Homeless endured – all fifteen of them - resulted in chaos. Not only by having gear taken, but by losing a sense of place. Every raid resulted in decreased stability and further unknowns: Where do I go next? How do I replace what I need? When will I get settled again? 

Still, the community endured. Despite those fifteen raids, theft of critical gear and medicine, and constantly being relocated, our core held. We helped two of us with work. We sheltered and fed several dozen others. With a budget of $0. 

On January 10th, 2017, the raids stopped. First They Came for the Homeless denizens have been stable for more than two months now, and that stability has translated into even greater good. Three examples (names changed): 

Andre. Andre had been on the streets of Berkeley for months before joining FTCftH in October. Finding people that accepted him and a community to support him, his lot improved, but he still needed stability – he needed a place his friends could find him, he needed a reliable mail drop. Once the raids ended, Andre was able to settle down, calm him mind, pull together the pieces of his life, get his documentation in order, contact his family, and arrange for them to accept him and his new pup. In a few weeks Andre and his dog will have a new life on the other side of the Atlantic. Without that stability, without a respite from the constant anxiety of nowhere to be, he might have wandered Berkeley’s streets for years. 

Rita. Rita had been the victim of domestic violence. For one reason or another, she was unable to be placed in a shelter. Unable to go home, with little money saved of her own, despite having a full-time job she was out on the Berkeley streets. Fortunately someone from FTCftH knew Rita, and invited her to be safe in their now-stable community. Rita’s been with FTCftH for a month, protected from what might have happened to her on the streets. She’s stable. She’s saving money and looks forward to soon going to Oregon to see her family and perhaps begin life anew there. 

Mother and Son. A mother and her son, a drug user, had been on the streets of Berkeley for a long time, constantly harassed by police, their possessions continually at risk, unable to have more than a few days of peace at a time. When FTCftH took them in in February on condition of no drug use, it changed their lives. They were given clothes, amenities and a secure place to sleep. The man was able to get and hold down a job. The woman is now contributing to the community. Will their condition continue to improve? We don’t know, but without the promise of a stable community they never would have “come in from the cold” in the first place. With the anchor the community provides, they now have a chance. 

That’s the kind of need that’s out there. That’s the challenge. And while no one solution, no one path out of homelessness, works for everyone, these examples illustrate a way for some from the nadir of the streets upward. We have demonstrated the importance of stability. We have had our pilot – our proof of concept. 

Governments needs to take a serious look at how we have succeeded – and how they could help us succeed better. They need to take stability seriously. They need to allow an environment where stability can exist. And that means cities need to change how they are doing things when housing simply does not exist or is unaffordable: 

Step 1 is to allow the homeless tents in a sanctioned campground. A tent solves almost every issue immediately. Shelter, storage, safety, privacy, personal space, community and stability. Cost is minimal. 

Step 2 is to allow tiny homes, container homes, cabins, or other housing ideas that are outside the box, inexpensive and mass-producible. 

Step 3 is true affordable housing. 

Why is it so hard to understand that? 

People say housing is a right. We strongly disagree with that. Housing is a necessity! Without housing, you die from exposure. Just like food and water is necessary to live, so is shelter. Denial of shelter is as serious as denial of food and water. That is as true as it gets! 

Berkeley and other California cities pride themselves on being sanctuary cities. But they neglect the economic refugees that sleep outside every night. They are everywhere, suffering. At the very least mitigate that suffering by allowing us the stability to shelter ourselves. 


Mike Zint is a member of First They Came for the Homeless. 

JP Massar is a housed Berkeley activist, fighting against the senselessness of homelessness


Trumpgate

Tejinder Uberoi
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:55:00 PM

FBI Director Comey, consumed with guilt over his mishandling of Clinton’s emails, has stiffened his spine and declared the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election will continue. 

It is critically important that the FBI is shielded from political interference from the Trump administration which has displayed brazen attempts to lie and obfuscate. Unfortunately the Justice Department is stacked with Trump loyalists who may decide to softball the investigation. A visibly shaken Trump has already attempted to intimidate Comey with a barrage of negative tweets calling collusion charges, “fake news” and vowed to find those responsible for the leaks. Trump seems to have conveniently forgotten that it was a leaker who unmasked the devious General Flynn. 

Leaking the Pentagon Papers saved tens of thousands of lives. If someone leaked the bogus claims of WMD’s, the invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS could have been halted. 

These warning tweets from the president do enormous damage to public confidence in the F.B.I.’s investigation. Tweeting will not erase the dark clouds engulfing the White House. Rex Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting and depart to Russia is also deeply troubling. 

To remove such concerns demands the appointment of a special prosecutor who is independent of political pressure. Failure to hold all those who may have colluded with Russia would be a monumental betrayal of our democracy and the American people. The Republicans have a stark choice - country or party? Let’s hope they choose the former.


Gender inequality: a male perspective

Harry Brill
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:18:00 PM

This month, which has been designated as women's history month, has given us an opportunity to appreciate the tremendous contributions that women have made to our well being. Unfortunately, some of the harsh inequality that women have endured is still with us. Women make up over half of those who live in poverty.. It is not surprising because women continue to experience considerable discrimination. At work, women earn on the average only 80% of male wages. In some occupations, the wage gap is even larger. This is not only because women congregate disproportionately in low wage occupations. Most women earn lower wages even when they occupy the same jobs. 

Gender inequality is an issue that men need to think about. Among the reasons so many male workers are struggling is related to the availability to employers a lower wage workforce. Since the opportunity of men to improve their wages is often extremely difficult at best, they too experience a high rate of poverty. 

For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, male nursing and health care workers, earn on the average annually almost $2,000 more than women do. But they still make a poverty wage of under $28,000 a year. For cooks it is even worse. Although men make about $2,000 more than women, they still average only $24,000 a year. The same pattern of inequality and poverty wages applies to laundry and dry cleaning workers as well as many other occupations. 

The only way out of this dilemma is for both men and women workers to work together to not only improve their earnings. They must organize to abolish wage inequality. In fact, it is impossible for men to improve their stand of living without achieving wage equality for women workers and of course other workers who are subject to super-exploitation.  

Among the weapons that women have won is the 1963 Equal Pay Act. The law prohibits sex-base wage discrimination between men and women who perform the same jobs under similar conditions. The problem is that the law is not seriously enforced. We must make a vigorous and even militant effort to insist that all employers obey this immensely important law. Generally speaking, we must persuade the government and the private sector that a humane society is obligated to do whatever they can to achieve fair and just economic principles.


"Service Trips" Are Obsolete!

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:36:00 PM

I used to think that I didn't need to monitor our parks, because they would automatically be well managed. Was I ever wrong!

Today I worked eight hours in Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve removing French broom and other exotic plants. Then I sat down on the bench at the top of the hill to empty the dirt out of my shoes. Next to me a U.C. Berkeley student was doing stretching exercises. I said "I don't understand why this bench was placed facing the wrong direction. Behind the bench is a nice view of pristine habitat; in front of it are freeways and smog." She said "The sunset is nice. Sometimes I even hike backwards, so I can see the view." I said "Look, even the people are facing the wrong way!" (A man in front of us was also looking toward the freeway.) 


As I walked home, I suddenly realized that what just happened was, in microcosm, the central problem of our time: we are all looking the wrong way! We are always looking at our fellow humans and our man-made environment, and ignoring the natural world. The result is the "Anthropocene" and its Sixth Great Mass Extinction. Lately our wildlife are "out of sight" and "out of mind". I go to many conferences. I always remind the conferees that a conference is a bunch of humans getting together to decide how to divide up the world. I remind them that the wildlife would love to be there to speak for themselves, but they were unable to come.

While working in the park, I noticed that it is almost entirely empty of native animals. One of my criteria for a successful hike is to see an animal. (Birds and insects don't count, unless there is nothing else – they are too common.) One day I saw two caterpillars lying side-by-side on a leaf. Nothing else. No, our regional parks are not well-managed. They are chock full of exotic species: besides us and our dogs, Eucalyptus, French broom, Italian thistle, poison hemlock, oxalis, wild radish, acacia, etc. No wonder the native animals are nowhere to be seen: the native plants that they have evolved with for millions of years are to be found only in the areas where there are no humans (in this case, in the trail-less chaparral)!

I like to work near the trail, because many people thank me for doing this work. Well, they thank me, but none of them offer to help. (I understand: when I was a student, most of my free time was spent studying; when I was working, most of my free time was spent on various environmental projects such as stopping freeway expansion or studying conservation biology. Now that I'm retired, I have an almost endless supply of free time.) But the result is that our parks are being neglected. The Park District gives top priority to purchasing new land. I understand and agree with this attitude. But volunteers, who should be making up for the park management's lack of resources, are scarce, and the park managers aren't making much of an effort to recruit them.

So we are operating on an obsolete model of a park: clearly, people think that a park is a place to go to have fun, and not have to lift a finger to maintain it. It isn't working! Our park managers either aren't willing, or aren't able, to maintain our parks as they should be managed. It's up to us to fill the gap. It should be understood that anyone who visits a park should help to fix whatever is wrong: pick up trash, remove invasive exotic plants, report damaged trails and illegal activities (such as illegal mountain biking or trail-building), etc.

Next I started thinking about the Sierra Club's trips. Most are just for fun (or possibly environmental or biological education). A few are advertised as "Service Trips", whose purpose is some kind of park maintenance. I've only been on two Sierra Club trips, both service trips. But it seems to me that "service trips" are obsolete: all trips should be service trips! We can't assume that our parks are perfectly maintained and not in need of our help.

I bought myself a "Park Patrol" trash picker, which I now bring on every camping trip. With this wonderful invention, I can pick up just about any trash, and I never have to bend over and I never have to touch anything. It's great for our annual beach cleanups. As for removing invasive exotics, I highly recommend volunteering with members of the California Native Plant Society (or the equivalent in your area). Their members are walking encyclopedias of plant knowledge, and they can tell you which plants are native, which are exotic, and how to identify them (often including the species names).

One group I have been working with along the Bay Area Ridge Trail has discovered the most biodiverse region in all of the Bay Area: Siesta Valley - 237 species of native plants, and counting. As noted in the last Yodeler, you can volunteer by emailing skylinegardens@ebcnps.org.


Columns

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDGE: Europe’s Elections

Conn Hallinan
Friday March 17, 2017 - 04:22:00 PM

Going in to the recent elections in the Netherlands, the mainstream story seemed lifted from William Butler Yeats poem, The Second Coming: ”Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold---The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The Right was on the march, the Left at war with itself, the traditional parties adrift, and the barbarians were hammering at the gates of the European Union. 

It’s a grand image, a sort of a politics as the “Game of Thrones,” but the reality is considerably more complex. There is, of course, some truth in the apocalyptic imagery: rightwing parties in the Netherlands, France, and Germany have grown. There are indeed some sharp divisions among left parties. And many Europeans are pretty unhappy with those that have inflicted them with austerity policies that have tanked living standards for all but a sliver of the elite. 

But there are other narratives at work in Europe these days besides an HBO mega series about blood, war, and treachery. 

The recent election in the Netherlands is a case in point. After holding a lead over all the other parties, Geert Wilders rightwing, racist Party for Freedom (PVV) faltered. In the end, his Islamophobes did not break the gates (but they did pick up five seats). Overall it was a victory for the center, but it was also a warning for those who advocate “staying the course” politics and, most pointedly the consequences of abandoning principles for power.  

The Left Greens did quite well by taking on Wilders’ anti-Islam agenda and challenging Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s center-right Popular Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) on the economic front. In one national debate, Jesse Klaver, the Left Green’s dynamic leader, argued that janitors should be paid more and bankers less. The election, he said, is not about “Islam and Muslims,” but about “housing, income and health care.” The voters clearly bought it. 

Rutte’s coalition partner, the left Labour Party, was crushed, losing 29 seats. For the past four years Labour has gone along with Rutte’s program of raising the retirement age and cutting back social spending, and voters punished them for shelving their progressive politics for a seat at the table.  

The VVD also lost eight seats, which probably went to centrist parties like Democrats66, suggesting that Rutte’s “business as usual” is not what voters want either . VVD is still the number one party in the 150-seat parliament. 

There were some lessons from the Dutch elections, though not the simplistic one that the “populist” barbarians lost to the “reasonable” center. What it mainly demonstrated is that voters are unhappy with the current situation, they are looking for answers, and parties on the left and center left should think carefully about joining governments that think it “reasonable” to impoverish their own people.  

Next up in the election docket is France, where polls show Marine Le Pen’s neo-Nazi National Front leading the pack in a five-way race with traditional rightwing candidate Francois Fillon, centrist and former Socialist Party member Emmanuel Macron, Socialist Party candidate Benoit Hamon, and leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon. The first round, scheduled for April 23, will eliminate all but the two top vote getters. A final round will be held May 7. 

With Melenchon and Hamon running at 11.5 percent and 13.5 percent respectively, thus splitting the left vote, the race appears to be between Fillon, Macron and Le Pen, with the latter polling slightly ahead of Macron and considerably better than Fillon. 

If you are is attracted to the apocalypse analogy, France is probably your ticket. 

Le Pen is running a campaign aimed against anyone who doesn’t look like Charlemagne or Joan of Arc, but her strong anti-EU positions play well with young people, in small towns, and among rural inhabitants. All three groups have been left behind by the EU’s globalism policies that have resulted in de-industrialization and growing economic inequality. Polls indicate she commands 39 percent of 18 to 24 year olds, compared with 21 percent for Macron and 21 percent for Fillon. 

Fillon has been wounded by the revelation that he has been using public funds to pay family members some $850,000 for work they never did. But even before the scandal, his social conservatism played poorly to the young and workers are alienated by his economic strategy that harkens back to those of British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher, whom he greatly admires. His programs sound much like Donald Trump’s: cut jobless benefits and social services, lay off public workers, and give tax cuts to the wealthy. 

Macron, an ex-Rothschild banker and former minister of economics under Hollande, is running neck and neck with Le Pen under the slogan “En Marche” (“On Our Way”), compelling critics on the left to ask “to what?” His platform is a mix of fiscal discipline and mild economic stimulation, and he is young, 39, telegenic, and a good speaker. But his policies are vague, and it is not clear there is a there, there. 

Most polls indicate a Le Pen vs. Macron runoff, with Macon coming out on top, but that may be dangerous thinking. Macron’s support is soft. Only about 50 percent of those who say they intend to vote for him are “certain” of their vote. In comparison, 80 percent of Le Pen’s voters are “certain” they will vote for her. 

There are, as well, some disturbing polling indications for the second round. According to the IFOP poll, some 38 percent of Fillon’s supporters say they will jump to Le Pen—two million voters—and 7 percent of Hamon voters and 11 percent of Melenchon backers would shift to Le Pen as well. What may be the most disturbing number, however, is that 45 percent of Melenchon voters say they will not vote if Macron is the candidate. Some 26 percent of Fillon’s voters and 21 percent of Hamon’s votes would similarly abstain. 

Le Pen will need at least 15 million votes to win—the Front has never won more than six million nationally—but if turnout is low, Le Pen’s strongly motivated voters could put her into the Elysee Palace. In this way, France most resembles Britain prior to the Brixit vote. 

If that comes to pass, Le Pen will push for a national referendum on the EU. There is no guarantee the French will vote to stay in the Union, and if they leave, that will be the huge trade organization’s death knell. The EU can get along without Britain, but it could not survive a Frexit. 

Germany will hold national elections, Sept. 24, but the story there is very different than the one being played out in France. The government is currently a grand coalition between Chancellor Andrea Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union (CSU), and the Social Democrats(SD). The alliance has been a disaster for the SD, which at one point saw its poll numbers slip below 20 percent. 

But German politics has suddenly shifted. On Merkel’s left, the Social Democrats changed leaders and have broken with industrial policies that have driven down the wages of German workers in order to make the country an export juggernaut. On the Chancellor’s right, the racist, neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfG) has drained CDU and CSU voters to support a ban on immigration and a withdrawal from the EU, although the Alternative is dropping in the polls. 

The game changer has been the sudden popularity of former EU President, Martin Schultz, the new leader of the Social Democrats. The SD is now neck and neck with the CDU/CSU front, and some polls show Schultz actually defeating Merkel. In terms of personal popularity, Schultz is now running 16 points ahead of Merkel. While the Chancellor’s CDU/CSU alliance tops the polls at 34 percent, the Social Democrats are polling at 32 percent and climbing. 

Schultz has made considerable headway critiquing declining living standards. Germany has large numbers of poorly paid workers, and almost 20 percent of workers age 25 to 34 are on insecure, short-term contracts. Unemployment benefits have also been cut back, even though Germany’s economy is the most robust in Europe and the country has a $310 billion surplus. 

In any case, the days when Merkel could pull down 40 percent of the vote are gone. Even if her coalition comes in number one, it may not have enough seats to govern, even if its traditional allies, the Free Democrats, make it back into the Bundestag. 

That creates the possibility of the first so-called “red-red-green” national government of the SD, the left Die Linke Party, and the Green Party. Die Linke and the Greens are both polling at around 8 percent. Such an alliance currently runs several major cities, including Berlin. It would not be an entirely comfortable united front: the SD and the Greens are pro-EU, while Die Linke is highly critical of the organization. 

But there is a model out there that gives hope. 

Portugal is currently run by a three-party center-left to left alliance. Those parties also disagree on things like the EU, the debt, and NATO membership, but for the time being they have decided that stimulating the economy and easing the burden of almost decade of austerity trumps the disagreements. 

 

And then there are the Italians. 

While Italy has not scheduled elections, the defeat of Democratic Party leader and then Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s constitutional referendum almost guarantees a vote sometime in the next six months. 

Italy has one of the more dysfunctional economies in the EU, with one of the Union’s highest debt ratios and several major banks in deep trouble. It is the EU’s third largest economy, but growth is anemic and unemployment stubbornly high, particularly among the young. 

Renzi’s center-left Democratic Party (PD) still tops the polls, but only just, and it has fallen nearly 15 points in two years. Nipping at its heels is the somewhat bizarre Five Star Party run by comedian Beppe Grillo, whose politics are, well, odd. Five Star is strongly opposed to the EU, and allies itself with several rightwing parties in the European Parliament. It applauded the election of Donald Trump. On the other hand, it has a platform with many progressive planks, including economic stimulation, increased social services, a guaranteed income for poor Italians, and government transparency. It is also critical of NATO. 

Five Star has recently taken a few poll hits, because the Party’s Mayor of Rome has done a poor job keeping the big, sprawling city running—in truth, the ancient Romans found it a daunting task—and is caught up in a financial scandal. Some Democratic Party leaders are also being investigated for corruption. 

The only other major parties in the mix are former Prime Minister Silvio Burlusconi’s center-right Forza Italia, which is polling around 13 percent, and the racist., xenophobic Northern League at 11.5 percent. The latter, which is based the northern Po Valley, made a recent effort to broaden its base by taking its campaign to Naples in southern Italy. The result was a riot with protestors tossing rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails at Northern League leader Matteo Salvini. 

There are informal talks going on about uniting the parties. Burlusconi has worked with the Northern League in the past. 

There are also a gaggle of smaller parties in the parliament, ranging from the Left Ecology/Greens to the Brothers of Italy, none registering over 5 percent. But since whoever comes out on top will need to form a coalition, even small parties will likely punch above their weight. 

If Five Star does come in first and patches together a government, it will press for a referendum on the EU, and there is no guarantee that Italians—battered by the austerity policies of the big trade group—won’t decide to bail like the British did. An Italexit would probably be a fatal blow to the EU. 

Predicting election outcomes are tricky these days, the Brexit and the election of Donald Trump being cases in point. The most volatile of upcoming ballots are in France and Italy. Germany’s will certainly be important, but, even if Merkel survives, the center-right will be much diminished and the left will be stronger. And that will have EU-wide implications. 

The European left is divided, but not all divisions are unhealthy, and a robust debate is not a bad thing. None of the problems Europe faces are simple. Is the EU salvageable? What are the alternatives to austerity? How do you tackle growing inequality and the marginalization of whole sections of society? How do you avoid the debt trap facing many countries, blocked by the EU’s economic strictures from pursuing any strategy other than more austerity? 

In a recent interview, Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek economic minister and one of the founders of the left organization DiEM25, proposed a “New Deal” for Europe, where in “All Europeans should enjoy in their home country the right to a job paying a living wage, decent housing, high-quality health care and education, and a clean environment.” 

The “Deal” has five goals that Varoufakis argues can be accomplished under the EU’s current rules and without centering more power in Brussels at the expense of democracy and sovereignty. These would include: 

  • “Large-scale” investment in green technology.
  • Guaranteed employment with a living wage
  • An EU-wide anti-poverty fund.
  • Universal basic income.
  • Anti-eviction protection.
None of those goals will be easy to achieve, but neither can Europe continue on its current path. The rightwing “populists” may lose an election, but they aren’t going away. 

Almost 40 years ago, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher launched her neo-conservative assault on trade union rights, health care, education and social services with the slogan, “There is no other choice.” The world is still harvesting the bitter fruits of those years and the tides of hatred and anger they unleashed. It is what put Trump into the Oval Office and Le Pen within smelling distance of the French presidency. 

But there is a choice, and it starts with the simple idea of the greatest good to the greatest number. 

---30--- 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ECLETIC RANT: Mammas, don't let your boys grow up to be football players

Ralph E. Stone
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:09:00 PM

Dwight Clark, hero of "The Catch" he made in the 1981 49ers-Cowboys NFC Championship game, recently announced that he has been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease. ALS is a motor neurone disease that causes the death of neurons which control voluntary muscles.  

Several medical experts recognize the possible connection between ALS and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the degenerative brain disease believed to be caused by repeated blows to the head. The symptoms of CTE. include memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, anxiety, suicidality, parkinsonism, and, eventually, progressive dementia. These symptoms often begin years or even decades after the last brain trauma or end of active athletic involvement.  

Bennet Omalu, a Nigeria-born neuropathologist, first discovered CTE in an NFL player. In his opinion, taking professional football players as a group, over 90% of American football players who play at the professional level suffer CTE to some degree. He claimed to have not examined any brain of a retired football player that came back negative. (Will Smith played Omalu in the film Concussion.) 

But football players wear helmets -- shouldn’t they protect players from the trauma of a head-on collision? As a Scientific American video shows, helmets are designed to protect the skull—not the brain. The brain can be hurt as it smashes against the skull, causing a range of symptoms including headaches and loss of consciousness.  

When Clark was asked if playing football caused this [ALS]," he said, "I don't know for sure. But I certainly suspect it did. And I encourage the NFLPA [NFL Players Association] and the NFL to continue working together in their efforts to make the game of football safe, especially as it relates to head trauma." But can football be made safe? It may be that the only way to prevent football-related CTE (and possibly ALS) is by not playing football. 

Despite the dangers, football may be too big to ban. Consider that the NFL made $13 billion in 2015. And colleges and universities – the NFL’s minor leagues – are valued in the hundreds of millions. For example, the Texas Longhorns generated $121 million in revenue ($92 million in profit), Alabama at $97 in revenue. In many colleges and universities, income from football pays for most, if not all, collegiate sports.  

Why does anyone become a football player at any level with this health risks? The major reason, I suspect is the prospect of making lots of money. An NFL football player averages $1.9 million in salary plus endorsements. At one time, football players knew the risks of injury but not the risks of head trauma that could follow them long after retirement.  

But even knowing the likely risks, the so-called Goldman Dilemma is instructive. "Researcher Bob Goldman surveyed elite athletes every other year from 1982 to 1995. He asked them a simple question. If you could take a drug that guaranteed you would win an Olympic gold medal, but it would kill you within five years, would you do it? In every survey, Goldman got the same results. About half of the athletes would accept that trade-off." 

Football is not a safe sport and it is unlikely it can be made a safe sport. NFL players are our gladiators taking the field to do battle for our entertainment. Unlike the gladiators of old, they do not fight to the death on game day, but will likely pay a dreadful price in the future. The gladiators did not have a choice; our young men do. In the meantime, the NFL, colleges and universities will continue to rake in the profits from today's gladiators.


ON MENTAL ILLNESS: Being Gentle with Ourselves and Brain Health

Jack Bragen
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:08:00 PM

The brain is arguably the most delicate organ of the human body. It is the only organ fully encased by your skull, and it does not react well to physical impacts. And there are numerous other ways that the brain is vulnerable.  

The brain doesn't react well to lack of stimulation or overstimulation. The brain needs to be exercised but not pushed too hard. The brain is subject to ruin by ingesting street drugs and some pharmaceuticals. There are street drugs that you could try one time, and you are permanently hooked. There are pharmaceuticals that have bad, irreversible effects on the brain. 

If the environment is hostile, overstimulating or under-stimulating, it will affect brain structure, since the brain is trying to adapt. Human evolution lags technological advancement and other changes, to where people are not adapted to numerous modern-day environments. 

Inpatient psychiatric wards, in modern times, are not great places to get well. There is a lot of overcrowding there is a great deal of noise and commotion, there are agitated patients (who may sometimes be violent), and the supervision by staff may be rough, unkind and forceful at times. 

For the brain to be well, environment matters.  

If we are in a position of choice concerning how we spend our time and how we do things, there are measures we can take that will help our brains be better than otherwise.  

We should not overexert the brain, yet we should not let it go unused. Learning the signs of overexertion of the brain, and getting to know more in general about your brain, will help.  

I used to get an inexplicable cough, one that I could not attribute to congestion, when I pushed it too hard. More recently, I've simply fallen asleep in my chair when my brain has had enough. Sometimes this would happen after the exertion on the brain of writing good copy.  

Writing good fiction is about the most brain-intensive activity I can do. In some instances, I'll know before I even start that my mental energy level isn't up for it. At other times, I have plenty of mental power, and I will go ahead with it for a while.  

"Pushing yourself" used to be recommended by someone I know. That person is not mentally ill and did not understand some people's difficulties. "Pushing it" is fine some of the time, but you should understand that in some instances you are doing yourself a disfavor. It doesn't always work to push yourself beyond, or far beyond, your comfort zone.  

There are numerous reasons why we should be gentle with ourselves, and this is not limited to brain health. 

The operating system of the mind is vulnerable also. This "operating system" could be thought of as your "personality," only it is more than that. Part of the "operating system" of the mind is the internal dialog.  

When we share space with negative or combative people, some of that may rub off. When someone speaks to us, the words are absorbed by the brain, and we are affected.  

If we take care of ourselves, if we choose to be kind to ourselves, it will have a good effect on how we deal with others. If we push it too hard, we could become accident prone, or we could be otherwise self-sabotaging.  

Those whose work ethic is obsessive and who are determined to be materially "successful" no matter what, will tend to be rough with other people when they feel they can get away with it. This comes back to haunt them in the form of a continuous battle against various foes. If no one wants to fight, the obsessively successful person will formulate a fight against someone--whoever is the most convenient.  

It is necessary to make an effort at life. If we fail to make an effort to make our lives work, this default will allow other people to determine our destinies. However, excessive effort to the point where you are pushing yourself beyond reasonable limits can cause injury. Sometimes the injury isn't visible, such as when the brain is excessively strained due to overexertion. At other times, excessive effort brings up opposition.  

Effort can be uncomfortable, but we should make an effort. Too much effort may bring about warning signs that we can learn to recognize. Sometimes the answer isn't in trying harder--in some instances, it is time to back off.  

 


Arts & Events

Around & About--Oakland's Ubuntu Theater Project Stages West Coast Premiere of Lisa Ramirez's 'To the Bone'

Ken Bullock
Friday March 24, 2017 - 05:28:00 PM

After critical successes of their first two shows of the season, 'Waiting for Godot' (a collaboration with Inferno Theatre) and 'Death of a Salesman,' Ubuntu Theater Project is staging the West Coast premiere of Lisa Ramirez's 'To the Bone,' which follows five undocumented immigrant women working in an East Coast poultry factory. 

Directed by Ubuntu's co-artistic director Michael Socrates Moran, the production is inspired both by "the spirit of Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men' " and,the style of the late Pina Bausch's theatrical dance theater, Tanztheatre. 

In the cast will be the playwright, an Ubuntu company member. 

Since their first productions, which were East Bay site-specific, Ubuntu has chosen to concentrate staging this season at their headquarters, the remarkable Brooklyn Preserve, formerly Brooklyn Presbyterian Church, founded 1887. (The neighborhood, east of Lake Merritt, was originally known as Brooklyn.) 

'To the Bone' will play Fridays, Saturdays at 8; Sundays at (except Sunday April 16 at 2); and two Thursdays, , April 13 and 20 at 8, from Friday, March 31 through Sunday, April 23. Brooklyn Preserve, 1433-12th Avenue (between 14th Ave/International Blvd & 15th Ave, near Foothill Blvd.).Tickets: $15-$45 online and at the door as pay-what-you-can. www.ubuntutheaterproject.com


St. Petersburg Symphony Plays Shostakovich & Brahms

Reviewed by James Roy MacBean
Friday March 24, 2017 - 04:21:00 PM

In the second of two concerts given at Davies Hall March 19-20 by Russia’s oldest symphonic ensemble, the St. Petersburg Symphony, which dates from 1882, two works were offered: Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5 in D minor and Johannes Brahms’ Piano Concerto No. 1 in D minor. The latter featured pianist Garrick Ohlsson, a perennial favorite of local audiences. St. Petersburg Symphony’s Artistic Director and Principal Conductor Yuri Temirkanov led the orchestra. Conducting without a baton, Temirkanov employed a deceptively low-keyed approach, eschewing the grand gestures and physically demonstrative pyrotechnics of some conductors. However, Temirkanov has been at his post with St. Petersburg Symphony since 1988, and I’m sure he has conducted this orchestra innumerable times in both the Shostakovich 5th Symphony and the Brahms First Piano Concerto. Thus one gets the impression that his musicians know him and the music so well he simply doesn’t need to lead them in any overtly demonstrative way. With a simple wave of the hand or a brief jabbing gesture, Temirkanov magically elicits great playing from his orchestra. It’s almost a conjuring trick, so effortless does it seem. 

First on Monday evening’s program was the Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1 in D minor. This is a work the young Brahms labored over with great trepidations. It is the product of a stormy period when, in 1856, his friend and mentor, Robert Schumann, became deranged, tried to commit suicide, and suddenly died a premature death, leaving behind his young and beautiful wife, Clara Schumann, for whom the young Brahms, aged 23, harbored a deep and abiding love. The opening movement of Brahms’ 1st Piano Concerto is full of turbulence. It begins with an aggressive gesture of striding arpeggios and trills by the orchestra. Violins introduce brooding melodies. Then the opening phrases return, sounding even more aggressively dramatic, especially in the jabbing gestures of the brass. It is nearly three minutes until we settle unambiguously on the home key of D minor. When the piano finally enters, it is with a softly expressive theme. But the movement’s opening theme intrudes once again, this time offering big, bold virtuoso opportunities for the pianist. Garrick Ohlsson took splendid advantage of these fortissimo passages. Then lyrical and slightly mysterious melodies are explored until a long, beautiful piano solo in major ensues. When this solo, which starts out in rich sonority, turns delicate, the piano solo leads into a lovely, almost disembodied horn solo. (Unfortunately, alas, someone in the orchestra – a bassist I think -- dropped his bow, which resounded loudly on the stage floor just before this horn solo began, momentarily breaking the spell of the music.) As the horn solo fades away, the exposition section comes to a close.  

The development opened with virtuoso octave-bravura from the pianist, brilliantly performed by Garrick Ohlsson. The various brooding melodic themes were developed. The lyric theme was softly brought into focus by Garrick Ohlsson’s piano. The recapitulation reasserted the harmonic instability of the opening gesture, and, finally, the piano offered a thunderous D, and the coda presented brilliant yet forceful transformations. This opening movement is so large and so rich in dramatic material that it tends to make the whole work top-heavy. This seemed to me the case in this reading by the St. Petersburg Symphony.  

As fond as I am of Adagio slow movements – in Mozart or Beethoven, for example – I never find the Adagio of Brahms’ 1st Piano Concerto moving enough to be rewarding. No matter how sensitive the solo pianist may be – and Ohlsson is wonderfully sensitive – the writing simply seems plodding to me. Brahms does nothing but suggest that there might perhaps be something profound here. But it never convinces me. Nor did it here, in spite of Ohlsson’s delicate phrasing and Temirkanov’s graceful handling of the orchestra. After the intense drama of the opening movement, this Adagio seemed utterly pedestrian. But I repeat, this is no fault, in my opinion, of either Garrick Ohlsson or Yuri Temirkanov. It is all on Brahms’ plate. The third and final movement, a robust Rondo, was ingratiating, and it brought this concerto to a happy, albeit slightly awkward close. As an encore, Garrick Ohlsson gave a masterful rendition of Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in C-sharp minor, which he stated was Rachmaninoff’s most popular work – a characterization I would hesitate to accept. 

After intermission, St. Petersburg Symphony returned to play the Shostakovich Symphony No. 5 in D minor. This work was premiered back in 1937 by this same orchestra, then called the Leningrad Philharmonic, and led then by Evgeny Mravinsky. Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony is a broad, expansive work that was immediately embraced by the public, thus bringing about the composer’s (first) rehabilitation after the stinging criticism launched against him in 1936 by the Soviet government watchdogs.  

The first movement opens with a dramatic subject presented antiphonally between low and high strings. A serene melody ensues in the violins, building to a dissonant climax. Then we hear a second main theme in violas against an insistent rhythmic accompaniment in cellos and basses. This, too, like the first theme, is spacious and dramatic. Horns bring on the development section, backed by lower strings and piano. Both main themes receive powerful treatment and transformations, and the music grows excitable. This movement’s concluding section cools down the excitement and replaces it with sobriety and gravitas.  

The second movement offers a satiric waltz theme that opens in cellos and basses played fortissimo. A second waltz theme is presented in the woodwinds. This brief scherzo movement vaguely recalls Mahler’s scherzos. The third movement, marked Largo, offers wonderfully soulful music, beginning with an expressive melody for violins which is continued in divided strings. A fleeting flute melody accompanied by harp introduces a new idea. This is replaced by a more substantial subject in the oboe over tremolos in the violins. The clarinet and the flute take it over in turn, with help from the cello. The first theme suddenly returns, loudly, in the strings. A climax is reached, only to be followed by return of the quietly serene mood of this movement’s opening.  

After the serenity of the Largo, the finale opens with a bang. It offers a march theme introduced by the brass accompanied by the kettledrums. This march theme picks up steam, offering opportunities for all the dynamics and instrumental colors to be exploited to the fullest. A brief respite is then presented as the cellos and basses offer a lyrical quotation from a 1936 song by Shostakovich. Accompanied by violins and the harp, this song is a setting of Pushkin’s Rebirth. Now the march theme returns, growing ever more forceful. Coming after the lyrical Rebirth, the march now seems full of celebratory rejoicing, as it brings this symphony to a triumphant close. Shostakovich himself intended this rejoicing to be ironic. “The rejoicing is forced, created under threat,” he wrote. In any case, at Davies Hall his Fifth Symphony received tumultuous applause. After taking multiple bows, Conductor Yuri Temirkanov led the St. Petersburg Symphony in lovely music from Act III of Sergei Prokofiev’s ballet Cinderella.