Wow, I had never seen that video before. Now I’m 100% sure I chillaxed with Saint Dumpster Muffin those two times. I also don’t see how they had a wrecking ball up there, but why am I expecting her to make any sense or be logical/reasonable? Thanks for the find there!

Also, the Daily Planet put up a host of new articles yesterday. Some appear to be upgrades on old articles from earlier in the week.

This is one on the Monday City Council meeting that we’ve seen before. It has the seminal quote:

"It’s pathetic that the university is trying to starve out these young people," said Martha Nicoloff. "I think Max [Councilmember Max Anderson] made it clear-these young people are saints."

This story is about some of the legal shenanigans that the tree-sitters have done in Court. It kinda cuts off at the end there. It has a photo of Simpich and Co:

Here is an odd quote from Simpich:

"There were a lot of developments today," said Simpich. "The purpose today was to get a court order that the university not act to extract anyone from the trees, and we did get an understanding at the highest level from the university that will not extract anyone. However the attorney from the university said he has no knowledge of the agreement."

The other understanding, Simpich said, was that the university will provide food and water.

"The tide’s already turned," he said, "and we are finally getting somewhere we can protect the tree-sitters, and all parties, including the university and the community, can step back and build trust."

This article gives sort of a one-sided overview of the Judge Miller portion of the Court case (which is the epically more important aspect). Heres more Volkerisms:

Volker contends that construction would pose the risk of serious injuries or loss of life not only to construction workers but also to stadium occupants in the event of a partial collapse.

What I dont understand is how he cares so deeply about the safety of the construction workers doing the work, but not apparently about the thousands and thousands of people in the stadium during games who could conceivably be injured. It’s almost as if he’s merely co-opting the safety aspect to serve his own goals.

Letters To The Editors:

CONFUSED ABOUT THE TREE-SITTERS

Editors, Daily Planet:

I have become confused about the aim of these tree-sitter characters. They want to save the oak trees, but someone else owns the land where they are growing. The persons that own the land want to use the space for something else.

Now these people who love the trees are inhabiting this portion of the grounds to prevent landscape alteration. I am reasonably sure the intended developments do not require destruction of said trees, just removal. If the tree-sitting peoples want the trees, why not ask for them? Maybe there has been a similar situation where the tree-lovers adopted the trees and had them transferred to a nearby sanctuary. What about that kind of approach?

This may be unprecedented, but I doubt it. Conflict resolution is a guiding force in Berkeley. If someone cares about something, they take care of it. If you want the trees to live, you need to have a place to take care of them using your own resources. If not, maybe you could hustle something together?

Duncan Cook

BERKELEY, UC AND THE TREE-SITTERS

Editors, Daily Planet:

I am appalled at the civic negligence and dereliction of duty by the City Council at the recent City Council meeting, evidenced by their refusal to support the reasonable human rights needs of the tree-sitters and valid community concerns. It seems apparent that the city has abdicated its voter-based duty to defend the best interests of the community in favor of allowing the agenda focused UC Berkeley administration to dictate public policy. Clearly, the mayor and most members of the City Council don’t grasp that the needs of the community are not alwayscompatible with the UC agenda. Perhaps, the towel should be thrown in, taxpayer money saved and all matters of the City of Berkeley be turned over to a university-appointed committee. This would be more expedient and avoid undesirable contention. (Tongue in cheek, folks!) But, it does appear that city officials are more than willing to capitulate to university objectives over the well being, safety for all and the needs and desires of the community. Even though UC is a valuable asset and resource to the community, it is often a bad neighbor. It is indeed shortsighted of the mayor and City Council not to realize that the tree sitters are much like the anecdotal canary in a coalmine, vulnerable to UC ulterior motives and lack of human/civic responsibility and concerns.

The tree-sitters, in addition to defending and promoting the value of mature oak trees, are courageously holding the line against tyrannical UC plans to increase traffic demands and density in a part of the community that has aging, narrow, inadequate roads, limited parking and inadequate infrastructure to handle the added demands of their unfettered building plans. And this is on top of geographically vulnerable earthquake fault proximity. It is rational of the tree-sitters to be very skeptical of having their reasonable needs determined or met by their UC adversary, especially without their supporters’ involvement and oversight and without medical professionals frequent assessments.

UC clearly wants the tree sit to end and are willing to use whatever means necessary, regardless of safety and health concerns. Yet, UC history classes teach that civil disobedience is a hallmark of social change and beneficial defense of societal needs in America. Without civic-minded people standing up against imperialism we would still be saluting the British flag. Some of these irreplaceable trees were planted in memory of World War I heroes. Also, in keeping with the dominant attitude of business as usual, the concerns of Native Americans, who feel that the inspiring and contemplative oak grove is sacred burial grounds and should be left respectively intact, are missing from the City Council agenda. It is factual history, that when the football stadium was built, Indian burial remains were uncovered and desecrated. UC history seems determined to repeat in this regard with the UC pro development agenda. This oak grove location is not the only available campus site for placement of the proposed athletic facility. Still, UC dictation prevails, not community concerns and needed dialogue, which are sorely missing from this hotly contested situation.

Carol Gesbeck DeWitt

That last letter is an epic doozy and I reread it like 3 times. It’s like a fine wine, try to enjoy it all. I particularly enjoyed the part about the canary in the coal mine. Way to be, Carol Gesbeck DeWitt. Way to be.

LADY OF THE GROVE

Editors, Daily Planet:

My name is Linda, I’m a former Berkeley resident, and I support the tree-sitters.

I support Code Pink and Breasts Not Bombs. I would rather see bare breasts than more coffins.

I’m so glad that they sent water to the tree-sitters. America truly needs more irrational, harmless behavior for a good cause. Sure, it annoys those who are addicted to logic and the Same Old Stuff, but it does get attention.

I pray to God we see a lot more goofy behavior to support good causes. Obviously, the authorities are paying attention.

I am the Lady of the Grove. I am the Guardian Angel of Berkeley, and of the State of California. And of the U.S.A. and of the World.

I send my love and my prayers to all of the tree-people. Whoever it was in UC that authorized sending the water deserves a big, huge full-body orgasm.

Linda Smith

Mt. Shasta

Full body orgasm, eh?

COMPROMISE?

Editors, Daily Planet:

Contrary to the headline on Carolyn Jones’s June 28 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, the university has made no concessions or compromises. Webster’s defines compromise as: "a: A settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things, 2: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial."

The university has refused to meet with neighbors, community and environmental groups to discuss compromises.

A reasonable concession would be to locate the athletic training center on a different site. You cannot replace a 100-year-old oak with three tiny saplings. The Kleeberger field adjacent to stadium and Edwards Field on the main campus are available, as well as many other alternative sites. How about old trees and new gym?

Catherine Orozco

Damn, these letters are all great shit:

SEEKING CLARIFICATION

Editors, Daily Planet:

What do Ayr, Dumpster Muffin and Doug Buckwald actually do for a living? Are they on unemployment? Or are they city employees? Are they honorary members of the Panoramic Hill Association? I’m pondering these questions as I watch the city of Berkeley go down the toilet. World-class institution being held hostage by a Dumpster Muffin and a City Council who panders to its base of maybe 1,000 people. What actually is a Dumpster Muffin? A muffin who dumps? Or a dumpster who muffs? Please clarify.

Matthew Shoemaker

BREAK THE SIEGE

AT GAZA GROVE

Editors, Daily Planet:

Before the first fence went up around the oak grove at UC Berkeley’s Memorial Stadium, the UC police have been trying to make life hard for the tree sitters. Their goal is to drive the people who live in this beautiful grove out, so they can spend a billion dollars on a new gym and then gutting and retrofitting the old stadium. Spending a million dollars to remove the tree sitters seems a small price to the rich men who profit from such projects.

To most people, the tactics used by the extractors seems extreme. Cherry-pickers running into lines, and extractors cutting lines, on which sitters lives hang, stunned everyone who watched the events. It is hard to believe UC Berkeley would risk life to prevent so-called misdemeanors. But when we take into account UC Berkeley winning the account to build the new nuclear weapons for the USA, the British Petroleum Bio-Tech Fuels project, and the plans to pulverize the radioactive Bevatron, it does not seem out of line. For those who remember the free speech movement, People’s Park, and James Rector shot dead, the tactics are typical.

Now the final stage, to slowly malnourish the remaining tree-sitters. The UC will now try to ethnically cleanse the grove by making it harder and harder for the tree sitters to live, without actually having them literally drop dead from starvation. Of course, in a world where 20,000 children starve to death, and 10,000 die from dehydration every day on earth, why not starve out a bunch of dirty tree-huggers? Without hunger, capitalism would not survive. Hungry children work for pennies picking our cotton and sewing our clothes. We all eat food and drink tea grown in nations with starvation. We pay taxes used to send Marines to enforce the world order where a few have billions, while billions live in squalor. Where is the outrage?

The tree sitters are life savers. They are saving our lives. It is time for the people of Berkeley to save them.

Terry O’Brien

Oakland

Someone finally posted the 2007 Cal @ Washington game.

Link to torrent here

Myself and one other person are the only ones downloading so far so its slow. If we can get 3-5 of us downloading, we can really speed it up.

...there is at least one prisoner in the jail who you wouldn’t mind making personal visits to.

i feel sorry for whoever is gonna be Saint Muffins prison bitch.

I missed this Daily Planet article. It is kind of an odd twisting of what I can only assume what a throw away assertion in Cal’s filings.

The university acknowledged in its court filings that they want to end the tree-sit in part because it threatens "the university’s reputation among its donor community as an institution that can effectively and efficiently use donated funds."

But if the stadium gym complex is delayed any longer, he wrote, "many donors will begin to wonder whether the university is capable of successfully executing its high-profile and high-priority projects" and "lose confidence in the university’s ability to make good use of the money donated to it," resulting in increased difficulty in raising funds.

I get the feeling that Cal put that in just to ensure they had every reasonable argument they could and that it is not really a big problem. But maybe I am wrong and many Cal donors are about to bail for this. Thoughts?

Actually, now that I look there are many articles to read about this issue. Here’s an editorial on the matter that just sort of rehashes old, tired arguments.

At this juncture, with the lawsuit against the university pending, it is a good time to remind everyone as to exactly why such worldwide support exists for the preservation of the oak grove near Memorial Stadium, and why the city must continue the lawsuit against the university. This irreplaceable ecological treasure must be saved.

And stunningly, here an article that supports the anti-tree-sitter movement. HIGHLY suggested reading. A few excerpts:

The protesters occupying a grove of trees on the UC campus represent a total disgrace to the liberal and progressive movement. Biting people and dumping feces on them is not what Ghandi advocated. Martin Luther King, Jr. is rolling over in his grave.

Ms. Dumpster Muffin is a curious case. She placed herself at great risk in an unstable structure 100 feet above the ground. News accounts say that she began moving and swinging wildly when the rescuers approached. So, what if she had fallen and died, God forbid. She would have been a martyr to what? Stupidity. What if a rescuer/arborist had fallen and died? Who would have been charged with what? This occupation has been superfluous and destructive. The Berkeley police and UC Berkeley have expended great resources to protect the tree-sitters … from themselves.

So what would King and Ghandi have advised the tree-sitters? Having given considerable study to both, I might project that they would advise:

"Hold true to your goals; be forceful in stating your ideals, but do not ever lose your dignity. That means no biting rescuers or dumping shit on them. Resist for as long as it is safe and you are making a positive statement. When the authorities come to arrest you or ask you to leave, engage in passive resistance. Allow yourself to be taken with dignity, or vacate the occupation when you can see that losing a particular battle is inevitable. Remember that a lost battle can become a source of strength for the overall goal. Maintain your dignity."

if you ask a peruvian they’ll say the answer is “chileno”