Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
I thought this movie was a bit of a failure. After seeing Hockney's stunning recent work at the Deyoung last year, I kept hoping, through this VERY long documentary full of a lot of repetition and meaningless trivia (IMO), to hear something of Hockney's current thinking. But nope, the end of the film barely hints at Hockney's latest works. Many of the pieces at the recent DeYoung show were monumental, some of the most stunning art I have seen in years and the most stunning stuff was video paintings. The film shows, only in passing, that Hockney began to use iPads but never addresses the deep scope of what Hockney was doing to create the stuff I saw at the DeYoung.
But we heard ad nauseum about his best friend. And we saw voyeuristic hints of his sexual partners, which only should be included in terms of how he integrated his sexuality into his art.
A lot of this film was a snore. And Hockney is still alive. Why not have some contemporary footage of him talking about what he is doing NOW?
Being a taxpayer or not being a taxpayer has nothing to do with Next Door, a privately owned entity that is positioning itself to make huge sums of money. Private websites have nothing to do with rights. And since when do rights only accrue to taxpayers? All humans have rights and human rights are never dependent on whether or not someone pays taxes.
If the U.S. Post Office, through their agent a postal carrier/worker, recognized Mr Zint's address, it was not up to Mr. Friedman to unilaterally declare he had no legal address. And it was not up to ND either.
Boundaries, rules, respect: ND is not overflowing with it.
I got kicked off Next Door, and yes, I have a real address that Next Door verified, because I complained about bias by lead Eric Friedman. I admit I am only guessing. I only know that Next Door won't let me use Next Door anymore and I did complain explicitly about Mr. Friedman's, to me, shockingly overt bias. He would declare conversations over if he disagreed with comments being posted and he would allow nasty, and always anti-homeless, dialogues to go on and on as long as he agreed with the nasty put-downs of the homeless.
Since my city has its own account, denying me access is outrageous.
I complained about another lead, a woman lead for Downtown Berkeley. I forget her name.
I think ND should be more transparent about how they select leads. The power of censorship is great and ND leads have it and, imho, have, in some instances, used it recklessly and abusively.
And I'd still like to get back on. I am an active community member. I wrote to ND to ask why I was banned and got no answer. They just ignored me.
As far as Mr. Friedman receiving threats, on a snarky subreddit called BerkeleySNide, he claimed that someone had tried to get him kicked off subreddit and blamed me. I had demanded that subreddit force him to remove his disclosure of my real name and other private details about me, which is against reddit rules. If there was any discussion of booting him for disclosing real names, it did not come from me. I complained about his behavior, asked to have my private details removed (which they were) but it never occurred to me to ask to have him removed.
Additionally, Mr. Friedman disclosed the real life identities of other people besides me, on the subreddit BerkeleySNide but he zealously guards his privacy. He would identify writing tics on Next Door and go over to BerkeleySNide on reddit and out people which, as I have already indicated, violates subreddits rules. Reddit is all about privacy and, if people choose, fleeting identities. IF someone cheats and outs people while guarding their own privacy, well, it's just wrong.
I'd like to read about the details of Mr. Friedman's alleged threats. It was my experience with Mr. Friedman that he could dish out really nasty stuff but if someone merely disagreed with him, he perceived disagreement as a threat. What kind of threats? Did he report these threats to the police?
In order for failed state assembly candidate, who was soundly defeated by the current incumbent Tony Thurmond, Elizabeth Echols to run for Wengraf's council seat in Berkeley, as this article hints Echols might do, Echols would have to have moved from her home in Oakland into Berkeley. When Echols ran a lackluster campaign against Tony, she lived in Oakland. She seemed to think being rich was the only qualification she needed to win elected office, never mind her complete lack of any elected experience. She still has no elected experience and no history of political activism here in Berkeley. On what basis could she think herself qualified to rep a district in Berkeley when she has been living in Oakland?!! If she is thinking of moving to Berkeley and running for Wengraf's seat, she's the same misguided, entitled, rich princess that ran against Tony. It would be a cake walk to defeat her.
Echols seemed to think all she had to do to campaign was fund her own endless mailers but even her ugly use of smear mailers couldn't win her the majority in her hometown. Tony won by 12 to 13% up in Contra Costa County but he also beat her handily in her former home town, Berkeley. She lived in Oakland when she ran for state assembly. She's rich enough to be able to move to Berkeley. Has she? or will she in time to file to run?
So, has Echols moved to Berkeley? And what does she offer voters? She did not offer voters any substance when she ran for state assembly. After her abysmal run for state assembly, most political activists figured Echols was toast. But she is rich and I guess she might still be fantasizing money can buy her an elected job.
I hope she has moved into Wengraf's district and runs. That would make it much easier to get a progressive elected to replace Wenfrag and shift the voting imbalance on our city council. I would personally canvass every house in Wengraf's district if Echols were running. She was easy for Tony to defeat and she would be easy for just about anyone to defeat . .. but she does have to live in Berkeley! The script for my door-knocking talking points writes itself . . . . .
William H. Thompson asked why can't Berkeley find a way to solve this problem? Because the council majority is engaged in illegal de facto and unconstitutional discrimination. The U.S.S.Ct has said, in a case within this past year, that when a city's housing practices create a pattern of segregation, the city has engaged in unconstitutional discrimination. When a city is found to have engaged in de facto segregation, whether by deliberate intent or by the result of its poor policy, that city cannot expect to receive any federal funding to solve its problems.
Berkeley's corrupt council majority seems hellbent on purging out the poor, disabled, elderly and nonwhites who are disproportionate poor -- i.e. de facto discrimination.
No money from HUD for homeless assistance, no money from HUD for affordable housing, no money from the federal government and even with austerity from Republicans there is still federal money to be had. Berkeley's conservative, corrupt council majority seems hell bent to flaunt the constitution and practice de factor discrimination . . . against the homeless, the poor, the disabled and the fixed-income seniors. The Berkeley council majority is making decisions that cause the homeless population to rise and then they villify the homeless.
Berkeley is ugly these days. . . . additionally the downtown businses association, run by Jon Caner, punishes businesses that show kindness to homeless people. A homeless friend told me yesterday evening that a Peets he used to be welcome in has been ordered by Caner to not let him in anymore. And another homeless friend has reported similar pressure from Caner on a business that offered sleeping space, outside, to that homeless friend. Caner denis such stories when they come up but I have seen his thug ambaddasors rousting sleeping homeless and talking to the business owners who were being humane. And don't forget the DBA thug who beat up a sleeping homeless man, after waking him up, and then the thug reported a false crime report, getting his victim arrested. When a video surfaced, the thug got fired but never got arrested for beating up the homeless guy. But before the video surfaced, Alemeda County had arrested, prosecuted and made plea deals with the two hapless homeless guys the DBA thug had rousted. I believe their pleas, which gave them criminal records, were rescinded but they spend a couple days in jail for a false police report. Where I come from, it is a crime to knowingly file a false report to cops claiming the guy you just beat up attacked you first -- until the video came ut, the thug almost got away completely. He never got arrested, which is likely due to Caner's clout.
Why is Oakland planning so many market rate projects on publicly owned land? I thought laws required the city to first offer public land to affordable housing development projects? How the heck does Uber score scarce public resources? Uber can buy its land.
All Comments »
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation