Staff and students at the University of California at Berkeley and other UC campuses statewide are being advised to take immediate steps to protect their personal information, including credit and identity theft monitoring, in the wake of a national cyberattack announced last Wednesday.  

The entire University of California system was included in those victimized in the breach, and emails soon started arriving at university-related accounts threatening to release information. 

"This was part of a national cyberattack involving several hundred institutions across the United States," the university's Office of Emergency Management said in an advisory Tuesday, noting that Social Security numbers and bank account information "may be at risk."  

The data breach involves the technology company Accellion, contracted by UC and others to transfer information.  

"Accellion was the target of an international cyberattack where the perpetrators exploited a vulnerability in Accellion's program and attacked roughly 100 organizations," the university said. "The attackers are now attempting to get money from organizations and individuals" by threatening to publish the information on the dark web.  

"We are working with local and federal law enforcement and third-party vendors to investigate this incident, to assess the information that has been compromised, to enforce the law, and to limit the release of stolen information," the university said.  

"To help you protect your identity, we are offering the entire UC community complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection for one year through Experian IdentityWorksSM," officials said. 

Anyone in the university community receiving suspicious emails is asked to report them to campus IT staff and not to click on any links or reply to the sender.

It’s easy to become numb to warnings about the future, these days. Every minute of every day the mainstream media bombards us with shrieks about some new “crisis” or another “war on…” whatever, to the point of exhaustion. However, every once in a while, the fire drill is for real.

This week, I watched an extraordinary analysis of two new California housing laws coming up for a vote in Sacramento: SB-9 and SB-10. The presentation was the work of Maria and Jeff Kalban, the founders of United Neighbors in Sherman Oaks, California. It would be an understatement to say that, if passed, this legislation will bring about the biggest changes to zoning law and city planning in California, in the past 100 years… and none of it for the better. 

For the rest, click here.

Please help save People's Park! Please sign the open letter below! (And if you'd like to read a short history of People's Park in the 1960s, please see: Unforgettable Change: 1960s: People’s Park Fights UC Land Use Policy; One Dead, Thousands Tear Gassed | Picture This (museumca.org) ).

So, if you're okay with signing, please let the People's Park Committee know by emailing them ASAP, at: peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.comPlease include your "affiliation" -- and if you're a Berkeley resident, UC alumnus, or hold an advanced degree, please include that too. Also, if you can forward this message to others who might consider signing, that will also be a great help! (Especially Berkeley residents, those who hold advanced degrees, and UC alumni or faculty). 

Thank you so very much!, 

No northern city was more affected by the great social and cultural movements of the ‘60s than Berkeley and no event in Berkeley history brought together more of the diverse forces of that era than the conflict over People’s Park in 1969. That is why the park is designated as a landmark by the City of Berkeley and the State of California and is deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

And that is why the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group and the undersigned call upon the University of California to work with the Berkeley community to protect and enhance People’s Park. Just as the nation preserves the great battlefields of the Civil War of the 1860s, so should it preserve places like People’s Park that commemorate the great social and cultural conflicts of the 1960s. 

Instead, the university proposes to destroy the park in order to build a 17-story student housing structure. UC argues the destruction of the park is necessary to respond to its housing shortage, yet the university has identified several other possible sites for student residences. Of all the jurisdictions dealing with the Bay Area’s regional housing crisis, only UC Berkeley proposes to destroy a public park of national historic importance. UC’s development plan would also destroy the view from the park and overshadow the surrounding other distinguished local, state and national landmarks, e.g., Maybeck’s Christian Science First Church. 

In destroying the park, the university is eliminating the only public open space in Berkeley’s most densely populated neighborhood. Over the past several years, UC has over-enrolled the number of students, violating its own plans and increasing the number of budget-padding out-of-state enrollees. This greatly increases the population density of the area. Doesn’t the university have a responsibility to maintain and enhance the one piece of restorative nature still open to the public in this over-crowded neighborhood? 

The university argues the park is a place of great crime and violence, a claim vehemently denied by park users and their supporters. The university’s unacceptable “solution” is to displace the poor, the unhoused and other park users by paving over the park. UC has clearly allowed the park to deteriorate; however, maintaining it as well as other city parks could ensure that People’s Park could be a safe, well-used public space frequented by all. 

Shouldn’t a great university, with a brilliant faculty and immensely talented students, use its resources to work with neighbors and park supporters to create an inclusive public open space welcome to all? Shouldn’t the university’s architecture faculty help design truly affordable low-income housing projects in other Berkeley locations? Such efforts would be consistent with UC’s mission of public education and service and consistent with the best values and ideals of the ‘60s. 

Please join with us not just to preserve People’s Park, but to make it a place that respects and commemorates its history and celebrates and serves its diverse surrounding community. 

For more background, go to www.peoplesparkhxdist.org. If you want to add your name to this statement, send name and affiliation to peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com . 

Signed: 

David Axelrod, attorney 

James Chanin, civil rights attorney 

Carol Denney, writer, musician 

Annie Esposito, retired Community News Director at KZYX 

Emil de Guzman 

Kristin Hanson, Berkeley resident and professor of English at UC 

Berkeley 

Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Emerita, 

Youth and Justice Advocate 

Paul Kealoha Blake, activist 

Joe Liesner, activist 

Doug Minkler, printmaker 

Martin Nicolaus, Berkeley Law alumnus, Berkeley parks advocate 

Marty Schiffenbauer, Berkeley resident 54 years 

Bob Schildgen, writer 

Harvey Smith, public historian, educator 

Zach Stewart, landscape architect for Berkeley Shorebird Park and 

Willard Park 

Lisa Teague - People's Park Committee and Berkeley Outreach Coalition 

Maxina Ventura, mother, activist, musician 

Richard Walker, former department chair UCB Geography, professor 

Emeritus 

Pat Welch, graphic designer 

Charles Wollenberg, California historian, writer 

Lope Yap, Jr., filmmaker 

Becky O'Malley '61, editor and writer 

As of March 26, 2021, 5:00 p.m. 

The calla lilies are in bloom again. It's hard to believe that a whole year has drifted past us since last they bloomed, and that it might soon be possible to get on with our lives. Young people will soon be eligible for vaccinations, and then we can all finally breathe a sigh of relief. The Spring holidays in many religions which celebrate renewal, rebirth, rescue and resurrection are upon us, and many families are gingerly rejoining one another (with proper precautions of course). In light of all this, we taking Easter mostly off, though I will try to find time to post the submissions which have come in from our esteemed contributors. Happy Spring Days to everyone, religious, spiritual and cynical alike!

No northern city was more affected by the great social and cultural movements of the ‘60s than Berkeley and no event in Berkeley history brought together more of the diverse forces of that era than the conflict over People’s Park in 1969. That is why the park is designated as a landmark by the City of Berkeley and the State of California and is deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

And that is why the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group and the undersigned call upon the University of California to work with the Berkeley community to protect and enhance People’s Park. Just as the nation preserves the great battlefields of the Civil War of the 1860s, so should it preserve places like People’s Park that commemorate the great social and cultural conflicts of the 1960s.

Instead, the university proposes to destroy the park in order to build a 17-story student housing structure. UC argues the destruction of the park is necessary to respond to its housing shortage, yet the university has identified several other possible sites for student residences. Of all the jurisdictions dealing with the Bay Area’s regional housing crisis, only UC Berkeley proposes to destroy a public park of national historic importance. UC’s development plan would also destroy the view from the park and overshadow the surrounding other distinguished local, state and national landmarks, e.g., Maybeck’s Christian Science First Church. 

In destroying the park, the university is eliminating the only public open space in Berkeley’s most densely populated neighborhood. Over the past several years, UC has over-enrolled the number of students, violating its own plans and increasing the number of budget-padding out-of-state enrollees. This greatly increases the population density of the area. Doesn’t the university have a responsibility to maintain and enhance the one piece of restorative nature still open to the public in this over-crowded neighborhood? 

The university argues the park is a place of great crime and violence, a claim vehemently denied by park users and their supporters. The university’s unacceptable “solution” is to displace the poor, the unhoused and other park users by paving over the park. UC has clearly allowed the park to deteriorate; however, maintaining it as well as other city parks could ensure that People’s Park could be a safe, well-used public space frequented by all. 

Shouldn’t a great university, with a brilliant faculty and immensely talented students, use its resources to work with neighbors and park supporters to create an inclusive public open space welcome to all? Shouldn’t the university’s architecture faculty help design truly affordable low-income housing projects in other Berkeley locations? Such efforts would be consistent with UC’s mission of public education and service and consistent with the best values and ideals of the ‘60s. 

Please join with us not just to preserve People’s Park, but to make it a place that respects and commemorates its history and celebrates and serves its diverse surrounding community. 

For more background, go to: http://www.peoplesparkhxdist.org If you want to add your name to this statement, send name and affiliation to peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com 

Signed: 

David Axelrod, attorney 

James Chanin, civil rights attorney 

Carol Denney, writer, musician 

Annie Esposito, retired Community News Director at KZYX 

Emil de Guzman 

Kristin Hanson, Berkeley resident and professor of English at UC 

Berkeley 

Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Emerita, Youth and Justice Advocate 

Paul Kealoha Blake, activist 

Joe Liesner, activist 

Doug Minkler, printmaker 

Martin Nicolaus, Berkeley Law alumnus, Berkeley parks advocate 

Marty Schiffenbauer, Berkeley resident 54 years 

Bob Schildgen, writer 

Harvey Smith, public historian, educator 

Zach Stewart, landscape architect for Berkeley Shorebird Park and Willard Park 

Lisa Teague - People's Park Committee and Berkeley Outreach Coalition 

Maxina Ventura, mother, activist, musician 

Richard Walker, former department chair UCB Geography, Professor Emeritus 

Pat Welch, graphic designer 

Charles Wollenberg, California historian, writer 

Lope Yap, Jr., filmmaker 

Becky O'Malley, journalist and editor, 11years City of Berkeley Landmark Preservation Commissioner 

As of March 26, 2021, 5:00 p.m. 

University of California Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) increases the number of employees and students dramatically but does nothing new to shift them out of their automobiles. The result will obviously be gridlock, but UC’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) takes advantage of a technical change in California environmental law that lets it ignore the congestion that the plan will create.

According to the EIR, the number of UC students and employees will increase by a bit more than 20% (Table 15-7), and the amount of automobile traffic generated will also increase by about 20% (Tables 15-4 and 15-9). All the added cars would obviously make Berkeley’s streets more dangerous for everyone, would worsen traffic congestion throughout the city, and would create gridlock at a number of intersections in downtown,

Until recently, the EIR would have had to analyze the effect of all these extra trips on congestion, which planners call the Level of Service (LOS) of intersections. But a recent law, SB743 passed in 2013, says that EIRs must now analyze the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) that projects generate rather than the Level of Service at nearby intersections.  

Environmentalists supported this change, because developers used to analyze Level of Service and then mitigate traffic congestion by widening streets. It would be much better for them to analyze Vehicle Miles Traveled and mitigate traffic with policies that reduce automobile travel.  

Unfortunately, the law that was finally passed includes a huge loophole. If a project has per capita VMT that is 15% less than the regional average, VMT is not considered a significant impact and does not have to be mitigated. The regional average includes remote suburbs with very high levels of per capita VMT, so virtually all projects in denser parts of the Bay Area, such as Berkeley and San Francisco, are bound to be more than 15% below the regional average. Even though UC’s Long Range Development Plan will generate a huge amount of added traffic, that traffic is not a significant impact as defined by law, so UC is doing nothing about it.  

Though UC is not analyzing it, it is clear to those of us who have looked at past EIRs that this added traffic will cause gridlock at peak hours at a number of intersections in downtown Berkeley. Traffic engineers call it “F level of service,” with frequent stops, with vehicles waiting for the vehicle in front of them to move before they can move, with traffic backing up to the point where it blocks cross-streets, and with unpredictable travel times, since people do not know how long they will be stuck in traffic jams.  

There are ways to mitigate this problem, called Transportation Demand Management (TDM). For example, commute allowances are very effective: charge more for parking, give commuters an extra cash allowance to pay for the higher parking cost, and let them keep the cash if they do not drive, to give them a financial incentive to carpool or shift to other modes. That is just one among many possible TDM measures. Yet UC is planning to keep its current TDM measures but not to add any new ones.  

UC is no longer required by law to mitigate congestion, but it could if it chose to. Environmental law has also changed so developers do not have to consider a project’s impact on parking; but even though they are not required to by law, UC has analyzed the impact of their plan on parking and will provide enough parking for all the projected new commuter automobiles. Yet they are oblivious to the fact that their commuters will have a miserable time crawling through gridlocked traffic to get to the parking they are providing, and will miss appointments and classes because of unpredictable travel times.  

Even if UC does not care about their plan’s impact on the state’s efforts to control global warming, even if they do not care about its impact on the safety of Berkeley’s pedestrians and bicyclists (including their own students), even if they do not care about clean air, even if they care only about the automobile commuters they are diligently providing parking for, they should have enough sense to realize that those automobile commuters will be miserable unless they do something to reduce traffic congestion.  

They are not required by law to reduce traffic. But they must reduce traffic if they want the transportation system to work.  

The greatest irony is that UC is calling this plan “green” because it will improve the campus environment by moving parking from campus to the city streets at the edge of campus. If they want to be green, they have to do something to reduce the amount of traffic they create, rather than protecting their own campus while they dump more traffic than ever on the rest of Berkeley.  

(UC is accepting comments until April 21. Send comments to planning@berkeley.edu and include “Draft EIR Comments: 2021 LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2” in the subject line.)  

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, is a tragic tale. Sadly, our politicians are not students of history and their actions invariably play to their domestic audience. Following the attack on 9/11, the U.S. military and the C.I.A followed the playbook of previous wars and used overwhelming force to catch and kill their illusive enemy, Osama Bin Laden and his followers. America even pressured our NATO allies to join the fight. Twenty years later the new Biden administration understands there is no easy path forward. The Taliban are convinced they have the upper hand. If America withdraws its forces it will be yet another humiliating defeat for the “great Satan” and red meat for the Republicans. If U.S. forces stay, more Americans and Afghans will surely die. 

One unfortunate detainee who got caught up during the initial US military dragnet, was a young Muslim, called Slahi. He and other detainees were sold to the U.S. for bounties by other Muslims wishing to settle scores or augment their salaries. Slahi was kidnapped from Karachi in 2002 and sold to the C.I.A with a false story that he was a terrorist called Hassan Ghul. Earlier, he travelled to Germany on an Engineering scholarship from his native Mauritania but like many other young Muslims he responded to the call for Jihad to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.Shortly before his arrest he was ecstatic to learn his wife had given birth to a baby boy. 

The first eight years of Slahi’s imprisonment included multiple forms of brutal torture in four different countries. He had been locked up for the entire duration of his son’s childhood without charges or a trial. Throughout his long ordeal he was told his wife was in the next room and would be raped if he did not talk. In 2009,Barack Obama promised on his second day in office to close “Gitmo” for good. He failed. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture was completed in 2014. It’s a report that Slahi features in. It confirms he was tortured for 540 days in the ‘Dark Prison’ in Afghanistan “without authorization”. Slahi recalls the days and nights blended into one while he was hung from a bar in a black pit, in agony as his shoulders dislocated. The U.S. military and the C.I.A never apologized and were well aware they had captured an innocent man. 

Slahi documented his days in captivity in what would later be called the “Guantanamo Diaries” which was widely published throughout the world. His experience and eventual release are featured in the film “the Mauritian”. The U.S. is currently paying $13.8 million a year just to keep detainees at Guantanamo, an obscene amount of money to hide the horrors of America’s war crimes. The C.I.A. even captured the real Hassan Ghul, but after interrogating him they let him go rather than admit Slahi’s arrest was a victim of mistaken identity. None of the torturers have been punished or fired for their brutal Gestapo tactics. American ever apologizes for its appalling mistakes. Former President GW Bush and VP Cheney, who gave the order for “enhanced interrogation” are guilty of war crimes.  

Nancy Hollander, was Slahi’s lawyer who worked for years, without pay to secure his eventual release. He is now reunited with his family in his native Mauritania. Incredibly, Slahi harbors no resentment towards his torturers. One of his guards who bonded with Slahi flew to Mauritania to see him.

While our politicians continue their routine diatribe against the Chinese military threat, a recent report revealed the United States has nearly 20 times the number of nuclear warheads than China. It dwarfs China’s tonnage of warships at sea including 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers compared to China’s less sophisticated, two. It has 2,000 modern jet fighters than China’s 600. The US deploys its vast military power across some 800 overseas bases compared to China’s three. The US triples China’s military budget of $250 billion.

The former British colonial power adopted a two-tier standard at the height of its power when it ruled a quarter of the world’s population. The government mandated that its Royal Navy had to be twice as large as its next two competitors to ensure dominance at sea.

U.S. military spending remains larger than the next 10 countries combined, six of which are close American allies. Makes sense? America's intelligence budget alone around $85 billion, is much larger than Russia's total defense spending and has a long history of insidious, destabilizing covert operations.

So what does America show for its outsize military spending? It suffered a humiliating defeat in Vietnam poisoned Vietnam, and neighboring Laos and Cambodia with millions of gallons of the dioxin, Agent Orange and littered the landscape with landmines. Unexploded ordinances are the major cause of devastating injuries to children. Multi-general birth defects have occurred in all three countries. The US offered no apologizes or reparations. Many US vets complained of serious illnesses returning home from Vietnam.
Vice-President Cheney and his “junior partner”, President GW Bush “the decider” invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks and are still hunkered down in the mother of all quagmires facing another humiliating defeat in spite of spending at least 10,00 percent more than the Taliban. If they quit they will invariably face the wrath of Republicans, if they stay more Afghans and Americans will surely die. Meanwhile prisoners languish at GITMO without trial, brutally tortured in black sites, victims of Bush-Cheney’s war of terror. Each prisoner costs the US taxpayer $13million each year. Why? Because America never admits it’s appalling mistakes.

Buoyed by his “success” invading Afghanistan the Cheney-Bush duo invaded Iraq accusing Saddam Hussein of hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Saddam’s elite guard were dismissed without pay and seething with anger coalesced and formed ISIS. Well done George and Dick! In a perfect world you would be charged with war cries. Meanwhile the US military and the CIA continue to be rewarded with obscene budget increases. They now swallow 64.5 percent of discretionary spending! A new cold war is rapidly emerging with China and Russia which will be used to justify $trillions more $’s being squandered. Meanwhile, cyber-attacks have caught America totally unprepared and will take months and $billions to recover.

Defense contractors will continue to manufacture their killing machines and through their armies of lobbyists in Congress will ensure sales to despotic regimes like the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will continue. The spiritual law of karma is rapidly descending on America. Democracy is under great threat and mass killing continues to be hostage to the archaic Second Amendment.

Christians have long abandoned their savior and replaced him with the new messiah, Donald Trump who still continues to snarl and growl, even in defeat. Good Samaritan Acts of kindness such as handing water and food to voters standing in line are outlawed in states like Georgia. America has long lost its moral compass and is rapidly descending into darkness.

The trial of Derek Chauvin is getting started. The press writes articles searching for ways to say something unimportant about it. On Sunday, 3/28, an article in the SF Chronicle wonders if a “snap decision” defense would work, or would the defense be better off with a “trying to do his job well” approach. Six paragraphs go by that way, without ever mentioning that Floyd had already been arrested and was in handcuffs when killed. He was killed in custody. After a decade of massive demonstrations against police brutality, they continue to kill people in custody in the open. How blind does one have to be to suggest one should trust the police? Wouldn’t that be the height of irrationality? 

Yet that is actually only a distant tip of a huge iceberg. When we study the incidents of police operations (in which killing is too often a result) over the past few decades, we find several levels of irrationality, for which law enforcement remains extraneous. From a civil society perspective, they go so far beyond what could be considered training that, as behavioral traits, they could only be considered cultural. Here’s a brief window into what that means. 

§ On March 12, 2017, in an Atlanta suburb, Demetrius Hollins was stopped by two Gwinette County cops while driving. Hollins is black, a 21 year old university student. He questioned being stopped, and one cop started yelling. Hollins reached for his phone, and the cop yelled that there will be no phone calls. “Nobody is going to know about this.” He ordered Hollins out of the car. When Hollins stepped out with his hands up, the cop threw him to the ground, and began beating him. After being handcuffed, and while still lying on the ground, the second cop came over and kicked him in the face. [https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/04/18/gwinnett-county-police-beating-demetrius-hollins-speaks-looklive-victor-blackwell.cnn] 

§ Rebecca Musarra was stopped by a cop for speeding on October 16, 2015 near Trenton, NJ. She refused to answer any of his questions, so he pulled open her door and dragged her from her car, throwing her against the car and handcuffing her – for having said nothing. As this cop arrested her, he read her her Miranda rights, among which are “you have the right to remain silent.” (SFC, 8/25/17, pA5) 

§ On June 15, 2015, in Austin TX, Breaion King, a black school teacher, was arrested after a traffic stop. There had been an exchange of words. She was dragged from her car and thrown to the ground. She was then handcuffed, arrested, and charged with “resisting arrest.” [https://heavy.com/news/2016/07/breaion-king-arrest-video-teacher-texas-austin-police-you-tube-officer-bryan-richter-patrick-spradlin-watch-art-acevedo/] 

§ On July 10, 2015, Sandra Bland was stopped for an alleged traffic violation in Waller County, TX (she had changed lanes to get out of the way of a police car that had come up behind her). The cop ordered her out of her car, and threatened to arrest her. She objected, and he got violent with her, throwing her to the ground. She was recorded as saying, “you just threw me to the ground for no reason; why did you do that?” After handcuffing her, he arrested her and charged her with “resisting arrest.” Sandra Bland later died in custody, in her prison cell. The police claimed she committed suicide. How does suicide match up with someone who asks sensible questions? And her family won a $1.9 million wrongful death judgment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sandra_Bland] 

To suggest that these incidents represent “an irrationality” in policing is to take a perspective on them. We watch from the side. A motorist is stopped by the police. There is an exchange of words, and the motorist is manhandled violently. Yet arrest is not for a criminal act, but for resisting arrest. Hence, there is a noticeable purposelessness to the violence committed. It appears to be violence for its own sake. What is striking is its consistency. For no evident reason, a traffic stop shifts to a deprivation of the driver’s liberty. Each reveals an irreality, a disconnect from an extant situation. 

These incidents happen in different parts of the country, yet tend to look alike. Their character diverges markedly from peace-keeping, and from civility, let alone from law. And their commonality suggests a common source. In effect, they present a form of institutional irrationality, something no longer located in either the individual cop nor his training manuals. What inhabits the individual cop, however, in each case, is a desire to fulfill something other than law enforcement. 

Indeed, in each case, there is an irrational use of the law itself. A motorist is arrested for “resisting arrest.” To charge a person with "resisting arrest" implies that there had been a prior cause and warrant for arrest in the first place, the execution of which warrant had been resisted. The underlying assumption is that such prior cause must have been a criminal act, and not a mere traffic violation. If there had been no antecedent crime, what warrant for arrest was the motorist resisting? To say they were arrested for “resisting arrest” (the only crime extant) means "resisting arrest" was the crime they committed for which they were then subsequently arrested. But that is judicially absurd and illogical. 

Without any previous cause for arrest, it could not have been "arrest" that the motorist was resisting, and for which they were charged. The only other factor present to these situations was the cop himself. Thus, it could only have been the cop himself they were resisting, not his enforcement of any law. That implies that when the cop threw each motorist to the ground, and then arrested them, it was not for violating the law. It was only for resisting the cop’s actions toward the motorist. They were assaulted for objecting to his actions, and then arrested for having resisted his assault on them. 

What glares out at us from these incidents is first, they are cases of violence imposed for its own sake. Second, in charging for “resisting arrest,” the cop had substituted himself for the law. Third, it was the cop as law that the motorist violated and not the law itself. (And that may explain why some cops, like Chauvin, find death in custody to be legitimate.) And fourth, all motorists in these examples were black. These commonalities all raise serious questions about policing in the US. 

According to a report in the SF Chronicle of April 29, 2015 (page A1), black people are 8 times more likely to be charged with resisting arrest in SF than white people. Black people account for 6% of the city’s population, but 45% of arrests for resisting arrest, even when suspected of non-felonies. 

That is serious enough, given the ethical requirement that the police be neutral and even-handed in enforcing the law. But we have seen that, in these minor cases of traffic stops, none of that holds. It is the presence of the police to the motorist that is responsible for an interaction leading to violence (brutality) committed against the motorist, not anything the motorist did besides speak (or not). No necessity for violence existed in the traffic stop. That means that the cause for the cop’s assault was the presence of the cop to the driver. Furthermore, given that only words were exchanged, it had nothing to do with standard law enforcement. Indeed, it is only the cop’s assault on the person that signifies that the person had violated some law. In short, it was the cop’s actions, and not any criminal act on the part of the motorist, that rendered the motorist subject to arrest. The cop’s action, and nothing else, was translated into a criminalization of the motorist. 

If this appears to be arbitrary on the part of these cops, its consistency throughout the country makes its arbitrarity institutional. Can an institution train its agents to be arbitrary? Or do these police officers obtain permission to act arbitrarily from a source other than their training? If so, and something beyond training procedure now legitimizes arbitrary acts of police assault on people (acts that normally would be considered criminal acts), then we have a serious problem. It is precisely these attributes of police operations that were illustrated in Berkeley Copwatch’s presentation (Feb. 3, 2021) about five acts of police brutality in that small town during 2020. [youtube.com/watch?v=ZDcHot1-DH4] 

From a lay person’s perspective, it goes without saying that beating or manhandling a person for whatever the person might have said (or not said) is unconstitutional. For that reason, a person might conclude that the cop’s actions (with respect to those motorists) amounted to criminal assault. In that sense, these drivers, to the extent they resisted, were arrested for defending themselves against a criminal assault on their person. And that implies that, in constitutional terms, a double violation of the law occurred. Not only was speech suppressed by being the cause for assault on the speaker’s person, but there was a withholding of due process, making the deprivation of liberty wrongful. Constitutionality, as well as law enforcement, have been thrown to the winds by the police. 

But law enforcement has already been abandoned in “racial profiling,” which is clearly in progress, according to the SF Chronicle article cited above, and thus including these incidents. The main thing to understand about racial profiling is that it is the inverse of law enforcement. In law enforcement, when a crime is committed, the police look for a suspect to charge with that crime. In racial profiling, there is first an act of suspicion, the production of a suspect, and then an attempt to discover (or invent) a crime with which to charge that suspect. 

Clearly, the raciality of the act of suspicion by the "profiling" cop reflects a deep-seated racism. But is the racism in the cop, or in the police profession, or in the department? Is there a difference? 

When Floyd was thrown to the ground by a team of cops after he was in custody, and Chauvin knelt on his neck, with others of the team holding him down, Chauvin knew that none of the other cops on his team would stop him. It is clear, from Chauvin’s face in the video, that he intends to kill Floyd. People can be heard yelling to let him go, to stop torturing him. An officer stands between the act of crushing Floyd’s life out of him and those on the sidewalk, to keep the people at bay. Was Chauvin acting out his individual racism, or the institutional racism of his police department as represented by his team’s cooperation? Is there a difference? Doesn’t this cop become the personification of the inseparability of individual and systemic racism? Indeed, acts of individual racism occur because an institutional racism exists that ensures a person can get away with it. 

Nandi Cain, a young black man in Sacramento, was jaywalking on April 10, 2017. A cop stopped him on the street. He questioned the cop’s motive for stopping him, and he was thrown to the ground, and beaten by the cop – “for some unknown reason,” says a department spokesperson. Cain was then charged with resisting arrest. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/12/video-shows-an-officer-slamming-then-pummeling-a-black-man-accused-of-jaywalking/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b2caef7068fd] 

The full spectrum of elements of police violence and irrationality are present here, the profiling, the arbitrarity of the assault, the intention to cause pain. For what? To elicit abjection, compliance to the point of obeisance? The cop must know what he is doing. And he knows he can get away with it because Cain can’t defend himself without being charged with assault. What does this cop become if such brutality and irrationality (defense as assault) is ethical and permissible for him, not as a person but as a cop? Does the irrationality of his actions provide the rationale? 

This cop had simply used his fists. But the police of the US have been given highly technological instruments, such as tasers (stun guns), tear gas, and pepper spray to use against people who are non-compliant. If the only purpose for these instruments is to cause pain, not only do they becomes instruments of torture, but they provide the rationale for an ethic of torture. The police explain these instruments as “non-lethal” possibilities for controlling people. That is patently absurd. There are no lethal means that can be used to control people. Once a person is killed, or wounded, the entire issue of control is thrown out. The purpose of lethal means (the act of killing), which is implied by the use of “non-lethal,” lies somewhere else, somewhere deeper in the psyche of this country.

The sudden, untimely death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi left a legacy of memories, achievements, and unfinished projects—including a half-finished documentary film. While Adachi was best known for his legal efforts he was also respected for his work as a filmmaker.

Adachi's film documentaries include: The Slanted Screen: Asian Men in Film and Television (2006); You Don't Know Jack: The Jack Soo Story (2009); Racial Facial (2016); and Defender (2017).

Defender documented Adachi's real-life struggle to defend a young African-American man charged with assaulting the police after he was falsely accused of a crime. The film also details the public defender's struggle to represent hundreds of poor immigrants caught up in deportation proceedings.

When Adachi died, he was wrapping up Ricochet, his latest film. Ricochet tells the story of a tragic killing that rocked San Francisco and became a national sensation. 

You know the story. A young woman named Kate Steinle was walking on Pier 14 with her father when she was struck by a bullet accidentally fired from a pistol found by an undocumented immigrant named Jose Garcia Zarate 

Now Adachi's co-director, Chihiro WImbush has teamed with Associate Producer Zachary Stickney in an effort to finish Adachi's last film. 

Wimbush and Stickney and no strangers to the local filmmaking scene. They both worked on Dogtown Redemption, Amir Soltani's transformative—and transcendent—immersion in the lives of several homeless Oaklanders whose only source of income is found in the trash they are able to collect and exchange at a community recycling station. 

Soltani is also part of the team that has committed to bringing Adachi's last film to the screen. As Soltani explains, Adachi's goal was to create films that would tell “the story of so many people who struggle and fight against injustice, and the public defenders that represent them.” So Adachi set out to create a series of films focused on the work of the San Francisco Office of the Public Defender. These included Defender and an award-winning short film called The Ride. 

According to Soltani, Adachi understood that "with Black Lives Matter, and the criminal justice reform movement in this country, the time is now to show the important work that public defenders do every day in fighting for the constitutional rights of everyday Americans.” 

RIcochet documents the divisive power of hate when it's employed by a master manipulator like Donald Trump. As Soltani recalls: Steinle's death "sparked a political and media firestorm—spearheaded by the anti-immigrant rhetoric of presidential candidate Donald J. Trump—that rattled the nation, exploited the tragedy of a family, and demonized an innocent man in the process. 

"Ricochet weaves Trump’s rise through the main narrative of the trial, led by a defense team featuring Chief Attorney Matt Gonzalez and Francisco Ugarte, Managing Attorney of their Immigration Defense Unit." They not only had to contest with the prosecution in this case, but also had to overcome a "court of public opinion warped by political agendas and false media narratives." 

Adachi began filming Ricochet in late 2017. The People of the State of California v. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was the biggest case his office had ever undertaken. Filming continued through the spring of 2018, and the first edits were created that year as well. Sadly, with Adachi's accidental drug-induced death in February 2019, the film was placed on hold. Recently, with the blessing of Jeff's widow Mutusko, Wimbush, assumed the directing and editing challenges. 

"Now the long winding journey of this production is entering its final phase," Soltani wrote in a recent email. "We are now very close to a final cut, and we need to raise $50,000 in the next three weeks to get there." The remaining work sound mixing, color correction, music licensing, legal and insurance costs, and other post-production elements. "Additional funds beyond this goal will allow us to publicize the film in the way it deserves so we can share this story as widely as possible with impact." 

Here's a trailer for the nearly finished film: 

Team Adachi has set up a GoFundMe page to cover the final, wrap-up costs. The goal is to raise $50,000 over the next few weeks. According to Soltani, donors will have their names added to the film’s on-screen closing credits. "We deeply appreciate your help," Sotani says, "and we can’t wait to bring Jeff’s final film to the world." 

And, speaking of recommended viewing: Here's a glimpse at the raw and wrenching record of human-striving-against-all-odds that these filmmakers managed to capture in the award-winning documentary, Dogtown Redemption. 

When Joe Biden called Putin a killer, it brought back memories of the Vietnam War. On arriving to the US in 1967 I was swept up in the drama of the mandatory draft and rioting on college campuses opposing the war. I must confess I was puzzled why America declared war on Vietnam which was just recovering from the yoke of French colonialism. In the communist hysteria at the time this struggle was interpreted by the American political elite as Vietnam’s embrace of communism and therefore presented an existential threat to the US and its allies. This was an easy sell to most Americans except many college students and the Rev. King who spoke eloquently against the war.

In attempting to bring a speedy conclusion to the war the US military, and the CIA used everything in its arsenal with no concern of the enormous collateral damage that would occur to the Vietnamese peasants, American soldiers and later to the people of Laos and Cambodia. B52 bombers continued their saturation bombing around the clock. Cluster munitions and chemical weapons, such as the dioxin Agent Orange, and napalm were used in large quantities on a predominately civilian population raising the spectre of war crimes and genocide. 

President Nixon secretly widened the war to neighboring Laos and Cambodia and prolonged the war for half a decade to frustrate President Johnson’s reelection prospects. Many historians have leveled charges of war criminals on President Nixon and his faithful National Security adviser, Henry Kissinger. 

Between 1961 and 1971, the U.S. sprayed 21 million gallons of Agent Orange over southern Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia, to defoliate dense forests and improve visibility for US military pilots. 

Susan Hammond, a US researcher visited Laos in 1991 fell in love with the country and decided to stay. She soon heard disturbing stories of the devastating impact of Agent Orange and decided to document its impact on the local population. She co-founded the War Legacies Project (WLP) with her husband Jacquelyn Chagnon and an associate, Niphaphone Sengthong. They meticulously documented the severe health impacts of Agent Orange. Under orders from General Westmorland the US military and the CIA included Laos and Cambodia with Vietnam in its in saturating bombing campaign of Agent Orange. 

What followed was a textbook definition of genocide. 

Every family they encountered shared horror stories of severe birth defects, children unable to sit, stand or talk, others suffered chronic debilitating pain. 

A conservative estimate, of at least 600,000 gallons of herbicides rained down on Laos. The Laotians find themselves trapped in a hostile toxic environment for generations to come. US officials were under strict orders to remain silent lest they be liable for $billions in cleanup operations and reparations. 

Chagnon’s daughter, Miranda, was born with multiple birth defects, a stark reminder of the long term health effects of dioxin. 

One small 10 year old suffered intellectual disabilities and suspected arthrogryposis multiplex congenita, a condition that causes joints to permanently contract. 

Club feet are commonplace. So are cleft lips, sometimes accompanied by cleft palates. 

So, Mr. President when you accused Putin of being a killer I wonder how you would describe the “shining city on the ill” of poisoning innocent people in multiple countries for generations to come with devastating pain and misery. Does the US ever apologize for its horrific war crimes?

For millions of disabled Americans who do not file tax returns because we live on disability benefits, the third stimulus payment hasn't yet arrived in our bank accounts.

The federal government under the Biden-Harris Administration is in its early stages of being put together. They've probably had to rebuild many, many things from the ground up--this is because the Trump was too busy golfing and trying to stage a coup to attend to running the U.S. Government.

However, it was a relatively simple task for the Social Security Administration to hand over records to the IRS, so that the payments for disabled and seniors, which happen to be those in the most fragile positions, so that we could be paid. The one-month delay, when we were essentially promised otherwise, could have devastating effects on many, who may have banked on getting this much needed money.

I borrowed eighty dollars from my brother, and that's the limit of it. This is because I had my doubts of whether things would transpire as promised. Yet, there could be thousands of people living on Social Security and/or SSI who believed the government would deliver what was promised, when it was promised, and who may have banked on this. This could lead to falling out the bottom trapdoor built into society, a door that leads to homelessness and/or incarceration, and/or death. Is there an ulterior motive? It would be paranoid to believe that. But is there?

Our system seems to be designed with some built in boobytraps. For example, overdraft on bank accounts. If you do not keep a hawk's eye on banking, and if you are poor, it becomes a real possibility that your account could become overdrawn, leaving you without enough money to pay rent. This is because any overdraft invokes massive fees.

A generalized example: not knowing and following the various laws that can get you in trouble. As soon as you have an arrest record, you are unable to do a number of things. This is partial exclusion, and it may prevent being able to secure adequate employment.

There are many ways that society has for ejecting people. The one-month delay in the stimulus money qualifies as one of those ways.

It may be hard to imagine but, a couple of decades ago, Republicans described themselves as "the Party of personal responsibility." The Grand Old Party imagined itself as the Party of rugged individualists, folks who clawed their way to the top with an unstoppable combination of ambition, perseverance, and moral rectitude. Republicans claimed the moral high ground. No more.

In the last year, we've seen Donald Trump, and his Republican cohorts, dodge responsibility for the Coronavirus pandemic and for the January 6th insurrection. Each of these actions was shameful and should be sufficient to tarnish the GOP for decades.

In every regard, Donald Trump mismanaged the pandemic. When he left office, at noon on January 20th, he was responsible for 25 million U.S. Covid-19 cases and 400,000 related deaths. It's an understatement to say that Trump did a terrible job; it's more accurate to say that he made a bad situation much, much worse. The prestigious medical journal Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext) recently observed: "Trump's mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic—compounded by his efforts to dismantle the USA's already weakened public health infrastructure and the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) coverage expansions—has caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. His elimination of the National Security Council's global health security team, and a 2017 hiring freeze that left almost 700 positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) unfilled, compromised preparedness... The number of people without health insurance had increased by 2·3 million during Trump's presidency, even before pandemic-driven losses of employment-based coverage increased the number of uninsured people by millions." 

It wasn't entirely incompetence. Trump politicized the pandemic. He had a chance to act responsibly and, instead, chose "the dark side." In a recent CNN documentary (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/29/politics/coronavirus-deborah-birx-donald-trump-joe-biden/index.html), Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator for the Trump White House, said, "I look at it this way. The first time we have an excuse. There were about a hundred thousand deaths that came from that original surge. All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially." (In other words, Trump is responsible for 300,000 of the 400,000 deaths that occurred on his watch.) In the same CNN documentary, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government's top infectious diseases specialist, said: "Trump's demands for a reopening of the country in contravention of the advice of government health experts came as 'a punch to the chest.'" 

(On March 29th, Trump responded to the CNN documentary (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/trump-fauci-birx-cnn-documentary-478422) calling Birx and Fauci "self-promoters." "They had bad policy decisions that would have left our country open to China and others, closed to reopening our economy, and years away from an approved vaccine — putting millions of lives at risk.”) 

The truth is Trump made a political calculation that it was in his best interests to discount the pandemic. In the 2020 presidential election exit polls (https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results ), Trump voters were much more likely to report that "the recent rise in coronavirus cases" was NOT a factor in their vote. Only 15 percent said the pandemic was "the most important issue" in their vote - most Trump voters said the most important issue was "the economy," because they trusted Trump to reopen the economy. Most Trump voters saw US efforts to contain the coronavirus as going "very well" or "somewhat well." Most Trump voters saw wearing a face mask as a matter of "personal choice" rather than a "public health responsibility." 

Trump set an example for his base: minimize COVID-19, refuse to wear a mask, and disavow social distancing. After being hospitalized with Coronavirus, Trump tweeted: "Don’t be afraid of Covid, Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!” 

This reckless attitude has greatly influenced his base: A recent PBS/NPR/Marist Poll (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-results-the-biden-administration-covid-19/#sthash.z0TLROd9.dpbs) found that 30 percent of respondents have no intention of being vaccinated for the Coronavirus: 49 percent of Republican men. (And of course, Red states are now rushing to reopen.) 

Trump has never taken responsibility for the pandemic. In an August interview (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/510393-trump-on-coronavirus-death-toll-it-is-what-it-is) he claimed the Coronavirus was "under control as much as you can control it." When asked about the rising Coronavirus death toll, Trump responded: "It is what it is." 

My point is not to belabor Trump's incompetence or his lying. I want to emphasize Trump's absolute failure to take responsibility for the mistakes of his Administration. Thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses are his fault. 

Since the beginning of the 21st century, we've seen remarkable evidence of Republican incompetence: the 9/11 attacks, the unnecessary war in Iraq, and the 2008 financial crisis -- to mention only a few. Trump's failure to handle the Coronavirus pandemic stands alone as a testimony to GOP self-serving greed. 

Trump may be gone. (I hope.) But, the appalling failure of the Republican Party must not be forgotten. They can no longer claim the moral high ground. The GOP is not the party of personal responsibility. At best they are incompetents; at worst, traitors. 

Bob Burnett is a Bay Area writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net