NY TIMES– In 2008, church leaders from Oakland were on the front lines of the campaign to ban same-sex marriage. Two years later, some of those same leaders are surprisingly backing Rebecca Kaplan, a City Council member who would become the first openly gay mayor of a major Bay Area city.

A former rabbinical student, Ms. Kaplan makes campaign stops with her well-thumbed, gold-trimmed bible, as she did Wednesday at the mayoral debate at Allen Temple Baptist Church, one of the largest black churches in the city.

Dressed in a dark suit and an open-collared shirt, Ms. Kaplan, who enunciates with the clarity and precision of a preacher, used part of Psalm 118 to make a campaign point: “The rock that the builder rejected shall become the topmost cornerstone, and Oakland will become the most desirable place to live.” The audience applauded. “You have got a Jewish lesbian white woman who comes to black churches and sings with the choir and quotes Scripture better than the members — I just love her,” said Pastor Ray Williams of First Morning Star Baptist Church, who spoke at rallies in favor of Proposition 8, the bar to same-sex marriage.

He is now endorsing Ms. Kaplan. Ms. Kaplan, 40, was elected to the Council in 2008 after serving on the AC Transit board, and political consultants said her broad challenge will be to woo older voters who are familiar with the two front-runners in the race —Don Perata, 65, a former state senator, and Jean Quan, 60, a longtime councilwoman. Ms. Kaplan appeals to the younger, hipper demographic in the city.

Continue reading about Lesbian Candidate for Oakland Mayor Gains Surprise Allies.

© NY Times, 2010

Pam Moore interviews Rebecca Kaplan about public safety, economic development, and being a relative political newcomer with substantial support.

Oakland Mayoral candidate Rebecca Kaplan lists her top three priorities for Oakland at the Mayoral Forum sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.

Learn more at KaplanForMayor.org

MEDIA ROOTS- Taxpayers in Sonoma County will pay $2 billion for war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the National Priorities Project. Combine those figures with the loss of more than 5,500 American soldiers and countless others abroad, and a line of questioning is likely to arise. For one SRJC political science professor, two questions are necessary and quite simple: Why did the United States invade Afghanistan, and why is the U.S. likely to remain mired there?

“The answer to the second question, in my view… is because some U.S interests cannot be served without a long-term commitment, and Afghanistan is a place where the circumstances, history and culture may render U.S. goals unachievable in the near term, if ever,” Geri Gorski said during a Sept. 16th War and Peace Forum.

The forum was titled “Iraq & Afghanistan: War Without End or Possibilities for an Enduring Peace,” and was held at the Doyle Library and sponsored by SRJC’s Arts and Lectures Committee. In an effort to educate, inform and develop a critical dialogue about foreign conflicts, faculty members from the the Social Science, Behavioral Sciences and Philosophy departments came together for an event reminiscent of the 1960s era teach-ins.

“This event today draws upon a tradition in American society that goes back to the Vietnam War, and that is so-called teach-ins; where faculty, students and staff came together to educate themselves about the Vietnam War,” Professor Martin Bennett told a standing room only crowd. “Why did this occur? It occurred because of the so-called ‘credibility gap’: the difference between what the government said our reason for being involved, what the government said we were accomplishing and the reality which was, over time, very different. And these teach-ins played a vital role in educating students and faculty, and over time moving them to action.”

Moving away from Iraq, both speakers spent most of their time discussing Afghanistan and the implications of U.S. involvement in the region. “I focus essentially on Afghanistan for a couple of reasons. One is I think that it’s the area that holds the most promise in terms of political discussion at this point. Frankly, I think the Obama Administration has been rather successful in diffusing some of the political response to Iraq by putting a timetable of withdrawal in place,” Gorski said. Speaking firmly and adamantly, he hurriedly covered the complex history of the war-torn nation and expressed his frustration with being short on time.

Picking up where Gorski left off, Bennett explored the reasons behind the Obama Administration’s escalation of the war; noting U.S. interest in controlling the region’s oil and energy resources, as well as what he referred to as the “permanent government” or National Security State. He also pointed out both the similarities and differences between the Afghanistan War and Vietnam War. “I think you can also say that both presidents conducted a very vigorous internal debate prior to escalation. I tend to be of the mind that, in both instances, the outcomes were relatively pre-determined. I had talked about the permanent government and not only did they inherit the wars, but I think they inherited the permanent government and the options were relatively narrow.”

Ending on a positive note, Bennett expressed his enthusiasm for hosting a similar event each semester and encouraged other faculty to come forward to help achieve that goal. Additionally, both Gorski and Bennett encouraged audience members to become engaged and take action by any means possible, noting the success of the antiwar movement in the 1960s. They also took questions from a devoted but seemingly overwhelmed audience and urged anyone with concerns to voice their opinion. Among others, an Afghanistan veteran chose to do so and took the opportunity to relate the discussion to his personal experience as a soldier.

Written by Art Dickinson

The Kent State Truth Tribunal visited San Francisco to collect stories from those who witnessed the murder of student protesters on the Kent State campus in Ohio on May 4, 1970. Sabrina Jacobs filed this report on with KPFA – Pacifica Radio, in Berkeley, California.

http://www.truthtribunal.org/

KPFA- Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city leaders joined with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition this afternoon to celebrate the painting of the city’s first new bike lane since the Bike Plan Injunction 4 years ago. The Injunction, lifted by the Superior Court on Friday, was the result of a lawsuit contesting the environmental review of the city’s Bike Plan adopted in 2005. Now, given the green light, the Municipal Transportation Agency is ready to stripe a record 35 bike lanes, making San Francisco one of America’s most bicycle friendly cities. Alicia Roldán files this report:

(Sound of Mayor Gavin Newsom painting the first bike lane in four years)

Mayor Newsom removed his pinstripe jacket as he joined other city leaders in pushing a paint roller over Townsend Street, striping the first of many bike lanes to be laid over the next year.

The lane laid this afternoon creates a link from the Eighth Street Station to the Embarcadero, an important connection for commuters to the Caltrain station. The Mayor said there is a full time commitment and energetic effort to complete this project that is already planned and funded.

Other lanes will be laid on key streets such as North Point St., Laguna Honda, 17th Street, Portola Dr., and Ocean Avenue.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said that by doubling the number of bike lanes citywide San Francisco will keep vehicle counts down.

“Each year we are seeing an exponential increase of San Franciscans, of commuters, who want to use their bikes in this city. And that’s exactly why it is time that we design our roads to share for bikes, for pedestrians, and people who seek other modalities, other than just the private automobile.”

Bicycle ridership has increase more than 50% since 2006, despite a lack of bicycle network improvements. With the Bicycle Plan underway ridership is expected to surge. Official City counts show bicycling on average doubles after a bike lane is added.

Ian Williamson, a volunteer for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition said the most important thing bicycle lanes do enhance the safety of cyclists.

“Just making drivers aware that cyclists have a rightful place on the road is an extremely important first step both to decrease accidents and to encourage more cyclists to get on their bikes.”

Mayor Newsom said that with mass urbanization San Francisco is competing with world class cities and that people are looking for a high quality of life. He says that a bicycle networks along side parks create this.

“Quality of life comes from a sense of place, a sense of identity, a sense of community. And community comes from not by having 25% of your land mass, which is San Francisco, just being hard surface streets but by creating a sense of place that invites people to connect and cohabitate which means softening those edges.”

When asked about the Environmental Review, Andy Thornly, program director of the SF Bicycle Coalition, said that suspension of the Bicycle Plan had been a question of process.

“One citizen was able to take a loop hole, essentially, and stop the City, based on process. The question of whether or not bikes or bicycle transportation is good for the environment has never been questioned. I think everyone gets that and we’re very confident in that.”

Supervisor Mirkarimi joined the Mayor in San Francisco’s pledge to top Portland’s ranking as the most bicycle friendly city.

“San Francisco aims to be and is serious about being very bike friendly. This is a challenge to the rest of the United States. This is an urban pledge and one that we will see no retreat to.”

Report by alicia, for Pacifica Radio, KPFA, San Francisco

Published: August 9, 2010