Pizza Tasting II

•July 31, 2009 • 2 Comments

IMG_5322
Ellen and Jason Green prepare slices for the blind tasting

Ellen’s second annual pizza tasting took place on Wednesday, July 29, 2009. Eight guests were to rate eight pizzas, culled from the Bay Area’s plethora of pizza palaces. I was recruited to collect the entrants from San Francisco, which this year happened to be from Delfina Pizzeria on 18th and a newcomer on the scene, Tony’s Pizza in North Beach. Ellen’s friend Craig picked up an entry from Picco in Marin County and Ellen herself grabbed a half-baked pizza from the Cheeseboard in Berkeley, one from the defending champion, Dopo, in Oakland, and a final entry personally baked by Nel da Silva, pastry chef at Market Hall in Rockridge which just recently added pizzas to their offerings. The competition took place at Ellen’s home, where the pizzas were individually reheated and served in a blind tasting. Ellen had prepared scoring sheets for each participant–an endless source of controversy, it turned out, as each pizza had to be rated 1-5 (or in some cases 1-10) on various factors related to the crust, sauce, cheese, and toppings, with a possible total score of 100. One could argue endlessly. How do you score the cheese if there is no cheese? Under sauce, what about quantity? Do you score higher for more and less for less, even if it was too much in the first case and just right in the second? And what’s this “Thick/Thin” item under crust? What if you like thin but its thick, or vice versa? All of this led some to abandon the individual scoring items and just assign a total number of points up to 100. Even that caused controversy. How do you then determine the winner? If you just add the total points, then someone who scored conservatively would be given less weight in the scoring than someone who gave promiscuously high scores. But back to the pizza…Nel’s was an heirloom tomato creation with a surprisingly good crust; Tony’s two entries were a Sicilian style pie which someone compared to a school cafeteria creation and a somewhat boring classic New York style; Picco’s was a acceptable sausage and pepperoni combination; Dopo’s was, as usual, excellent; and Delfina’s two entries scored both highest and lowest by fairly universal acclaim. The winner was its quattro fromagio with house-cured pepperoni added, while the loser was its brocolli rabe pizza. I felt bad about that as I have had that particular pie many times and always liked it, but sadly it just didn’t travel and reheat well (I can report, however, that I reheated, for the second time, a slice of the quattro fromagio for lunch the next day and it still retained a good portion of its charm). So how was the winner determined? Instead of adding up the individual scores, each person stated their 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. Surprisingly, with only a couple exceptions everyone selected the same 3 pizzas as their favorites, just in different orders. Points were awarded for finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd and the winner determined accordingly. As stated, Delfina came in a convincing first. The big surprise was that Nel came in a strong second against his heavy hitting competition. Third place was nabbed by Dopo. Finally, it was suggested next year that we rent a limosine and drive from each pizzeria to the next so the pizzas could be sampled fresh. That is, if we can ever stand to look at pizza again after such a night of unbridled indulgence.

IMG_5320
Nel da Silva’s surprise second place finisher

For those who still want more, following is the account of the 2008 tasting:

For all those eagerly awaiting, it is time to announce the results of a special pizza tasting held by the renowned Ellen Tussman, longtime Bay Area caterer and restauranteur extraordinaire, at her home in the Oakland Hills. Friends were enlisted from far and wide to collect and bring to this extraordinary event pizzas from the following purveyors: Dopo and Pizzaiolo in Oakland, Gioia in Berkeley, and Mulberry Street and Picco in Marin County. Eight participants rated the pizzas in a blind tasting based on characteristics of the crust, cheese, toppings, presentation, and intangibles. All agreed that the single outstanding pizza of the night was the “For Love of Mushroom” pizza from Mulberry Street, self-described as a “Rich and Filling pizza on a Whole Wheat blended crust with a White Sauce, a Garlic/Herb/ Mushroom saut, Mozzarella & Provolone cheeses Garnished with a Flavorful Red Wine reduction.” However, all things being considered, the winner was the pizza from Dopo, which fell more into the category of a traditional Italian-style thin crust pizza that one could enjoy almost everyday, as opposed to the Mulberry sample which was rich and exotic but something to be reserved for a special occasion. We sampled two varieties from Dopo, a simple margarita and one with coppa, and both excelled in the quality of the ingredients, the perfection of the crust, and the overall taste and appearance. Bravo Dopo! Least favorite (not to my surprise, consistent with my experience at the restaurant) was the one from Pizzaiolo (although apparently it won last year’s competition) and the one from Picco (although I myself liked the Picco entry—but the crust was a weak point and perhaps it suffered because it was vegetarian). In the middle fell the pepperoni pie from Goioa, which had a deliciously good crust and was well balanced in the amount and quality of ingredients. Various complex calculations were made ranking the pizzas based on value–i.e., weighing the scores against price per slice, but we all agreed this was dubious as, for example, the Goioa slices were much larger than anyone else’s and so a true comparison would have to be made based on weight. So, by unanimous agreement, we extend well-earned kudos to Dopo in recognition of their efforts to serve the Bay Area pizza-loving community and hope they will enjoy continued success and pizza accolades for years to come.

Dreamland

•July 3, 2009 • Leave a Comment

My Dinner with Nancy

•November 17, 2008 • 5 Comments

So it was Nancy’s birthday again, and I had promised to take her out to dinner. It was two weeks delayed, but she had tickets for a Joan Baez concert, so we decided to combine the two events. I had recently had a delightful lunch at a new restaurant, Restaurant Eloise, in Sebastopol, which was on the way to the concert venue in Santa Rosa. By the time I picked up Nancy at her condo in Tiburon, my anticipation was peaking as I looked forward to a divine meal followed by an equally spectacular concert.

Arriving at Eloise I bounded in ahead of Nancy and greeted the staff with great enthusiasm. There was a charming young lady with a lip piercing, and Brian the manager remembered me from my lunch. We were ushered to our table and the waiter asked if we wanted tap or bottled water. “Both!” Nancy exclaimed, ordering a sparkling lime Calistoga in addition to her water without ice.

I first sensed trouble when the waiter arrived with a bottle of Calistoga but sadly announced they were out of lime and had only plain or orange. “Forget it then!” Nancy snapped, her words too late to stop the hissing sound caused by the waiter who had already started to open the plain Calistoga, thinking she had meant to forget about the lime. “No, I meant forget about the soda!” she clarified, sending the chastened waiter slinking off with his half-opened bottle.

Things quickly deteriorated. “Hmm, nothing on this menu looks any good to me,” Nancy noted with obvious concern. The waiter returned to ask if we had any questions about the menu. “Yes,” Nancy inquired. “Tell me what kind of food this is.” “What kind of food…umm,” the poor waiter fumbled, then recovered his footing. “Well, its French country farmhouse cooking with an emphasis on local ingredients, many of which are grown in our own garden…” etc etc. Nancy seemed unimpressed. “Well,” she said, fixing upon the paparadelle with rabbit sugo, “I’ve never had rabbit before. What’s that like.” “Its kind of…well…a little gamey,” the waiter stammered. Nancy cut him off. “Ewww…forget it then!” “Well, we do have a couple of additions to the menu,” the waiter continued hopefully, describing one item which I forget, other than that it possibly included some kind of organ meat. “Yuck…stop right there! I would never eat that!” Nancy wailed. The waiter left us alone to ponder our choices.

I was starting to get desperate. “I can’t bear to read this menu, there are so many awful things on here that its ruining my appetite,” she said, referring to the sweetbreads and launching into a tirade about what an awful thing they were and how she was served them once on a cruise to Australia with her parents in the 1950’s. Must have made quite an impression. Somehow our conversation drifted onto the subject of her recent appendectomy and how I had taken her to the doctor to have her stitches out. “And when he pulled them out my insides started oozing and stuff was dripping all over” she remembered, obviously not too concerned about the effect on my appetite. The waiter returned just as she was wrapping up her graphic reminiscence.

I had tried to suggest a couple of things but each one had backfired. Thinking she could be looking for something simple I pointed out the black cod poached in milk. “That’s just going to be boring and bland,” was the retort. Remembering that she had mentioned that she might want to have fish when we were planning the dinner, I proposed the salmon. “No, I don’t like salmon.” Well, the skate wing then. “No, I’ve never heard of that.” “But you like fish,” I protested meekly. “I only like fish that I know,” she said firmly. So we decided on the lentil soup and the veal chop for her, the chicory salad and the skate wing for me. A brave choice for her, as she couldn’t remember what veal was or whether she had ever had it before. “How would you like that?” the waiter asked, solicitously. “I don’t know, I’ve never had it before,” she said, looking at the menu, which read “Pan roasted veal chop…” “Pan roasted?” she mused. “Yes, its pan roasted,” the waiter repeated, a bit of panic showing in his voice. “But I mean how would you like it cooked…medium, rare…?” “Yes, medium rare!” Nancy interjected, much to the relief of all.

The tension abated a bit, but still I felt apprehension over what would happen when the food actually arrived. Soon enough the soup and salad made their appearance. Nancy took one sip of her soup and immediately pushed it aside. “That’s terrible” was her instant verdict. “Lentil soup is my favorite but that’s just awful.” Now the misery was really descending upon me. Here I was treating Nancy to what I thought was going to be a wonderful meal and she was sparing nothing in sharing her contempt for the entire experience. “Just do me a favor,” I begged, “and try not being quite so scornful.” “Its nothing personal,” she snapped. “I’m just very particular about my food and this is French food which I’ve always hated.” “But you liked that other place I took you last year and that was very similar,” I pleaded. “No, that place had lots of good things on the menu.”

Through the windows we could see new diners arriving for their meal. “I wonder how those cowboys are going to deal with this food,” she said condescendingly. Later she would add “I’m glad I moved out of Sebastopol. I really prefer living in a more educated and refined environment.” “Which is why you like being around me,” I couldn’t resist quipping. “No, I’m just used to you,” was the caustic retort.

Contemplating the rejected bowl of soup, I grasped for the only solution—I would eat the soup and give her my salad. “Oh, now this is good,” she said with barely concealed surprise after taking her first bite. It was a colorful mélange of chopped chicories, candied bacon, with a sieved egg vinaigrette. I watched wistfully. I too had had a bite of the salad and it was delicious, but not for me. We finished in short order, and the main courses arrived. She tried my skate wing, which she liked, and gave me some of her veal chop, which was delicious. Even she approved.

When the waiter returned for our dessert order, Nancy decided she wanted a latte, served to her outside so she could smoke. The logistics of this became quite involved but I finally managed to arrange for my dessert and her latte to be delivered to our table so as to avoid too much fuss. The latte arrived, Nancy took one look at it and declared “I’m going to need more cream.” “But I made it with half and half like you said,” the waiter noted. “Yes but I need more.” She then proceeded to retrieve five packets of artificial sweetener from her purse. “Are you really going to add all that?” I asked in disbelief. “Oh yes, this is really good for you,” she affirmed. She got up from the table and walked over to a cabinet that was against the wall, opened it up, and retrieved a wine glass. I looked around furtively to see if the staff was looking. Apparently nobody noticed. She opened the packets of sweetener and poured them into the glass, then added some of the latte, spilling a goodly portion on the table. The waiter returned with the cream, and she added some of that, then got up and went outside, wineglass in hand, to enjoy a cigarette. Surveying the mess in front of me, I sat alone at the table waiting for the check.

Happy Birthday Nancy!

Animal Fries

•December 23, 2007 • 2 Comments

On Friday I drove to Lake Tahoe and back. I had delayed my trip from Thursday due to a snowstorm, but on Friday it abated and I headed up I-80 from Berkeley with great expectations of seeing the Sierras covered with a fresh carpet of the first winter snow.  I had not been to the mountains in almost ten years (that seemed hard to believe) and the sight of them on this beautiful sunny day with their fresh dusting of snow, the branches of the trees still sagging under the weight, was truly inspiring.  Driving down 89 from Truckee the temperature outside plunged to 2 degrees, and then I caught my first glimpse of the lake looming ahead through the trees.  This, I felt, was certainly one of the things that made life worth living.

I found my way to my destination in Incline Village, a law office which had become my latest customer, one that specializes in intellectual property law—patents, trademarks and copyrights—not something for which I imagined there would be much demand in Lake Tahoe.  I didn’t get to meet the lawyer herself—Lara Pearson—but the impression I got from being in the office was one of competence and caring, so if you ever happen to create something which requires intellectual property protection while you are in Lake Tahoe, I highly recommend them.  They also like to ski—and if you are in a skiing accident I imagine they could handle that also. 

My tasks completed, I decided to try my luck at a little blackjack. I didn’t expect to win anything, but part of me thinks its possible.  Back in the early 1970’s I had a college friend, Gary Blasdel, who read the famous book Beat the Dealer, which described a technique involving card counting which supposedly tips the odds slightly in favor of the player, under certain circumstances.  Gary actually wrote a computer program which told you whether to hit or stand depending on which cards you and the dealer held, and had rented a computer terminal which he installed in his apartment. The terminal was connected to a mainframe somewhere via his phone line (this was long before personal computers, of course). The idea was that someone at the blackjack table would keep track of each card as it came up and relay that to someone in a phone booth who would relay it to a person in the apartment who would type it into the computer which would transmit it to the mainframe which would calculate the next move and send the appropriate strategy back via the same chain of command. Does this sound workable? Somehow he thought it did.  I don’t remember how the person at the table was going to signal the person in the phone booth—I think it was a hidden microphone in the hair, or something like that.  Of course the plan never got off the ground. Gary probably should have had his head examined, but instead he went on to examine other people’s heads, becoming a noted brain researcher at Harvard.  In the meantime, we had an excuse to make many trips to Tahoe.

This particular blackjack endeavor was more an exercise in nostalgia than a serious money-making operation.  I visited the three main casinos at Northshore—the Hyatt, Cal Neva, and the Biltmore—resolving to lose no more than $40.00 at each. That task was accomplished rather quickly at the first two; the Biltmore required a bit more time, perhaps 45 minutes or so.  All three places, midday Friday, were completely dead.  I was the only player at Cal Neva, and the other two had only a handful of players and a skeleton crew of dealers.  A depressing scene. 

Not having eaten yet, I thought maybe one of the casinos would have a lavish all-you-can-eat buffet of the type I remember from my earlier days, such as at the Sahara Tahoe at Stateline.  No such thing.  So, after a short walk on the shore of the lake, I headed off to Truckee where I had heard there were some decent restaurants. The little downtown was lively and cute enough, but it was only 4 pm and everything was either closed or unappealing.  Plus, on this the shortest day of the year I didn’t want to drive down the mountains in the dark, so I decided to head back down 80.  Besides, I knew that when I reached Auburn I would be greeted by the bright red and yellow colors of an In-N-Out Burger. Long my favorite (and virtually only) fast food indulgence, In-N-Out is a cultural phenomena which to illuminate fully would require talents greater than my own.  Suffice it to say that to mention it in the same breath as MacDonalds would be to commit a sin of incalculable gravity.

Exiting the freeway, the In-N-Out was up a slight hill, and there was a line of cars backed up waiting to get into the parking lot. Obviously, this was the main attraction in Auburn. Once inside, there was another line at the cash registers.  It was interesting to observe the mass of humanity. MacDonalds has always seemed to me the dining choice of last resort; there is no joy waiting in line there. But here there was a different esprit. These were regular people of all ages, sizes, shapes and origins–united in their appreciation, desire and anticipation for getting what is simply the best burger available from people whose mission was to supply just that, and nothing more. Spare the frills, the marketing gimmicks, the fake happy faces.  The only happy faces were those of the customers biting into their burger. 

I ordered my taste of heaven and then, as everything is cooked to order, stood around waiting and watching.  I noticed several people getting orders of fries that looked different—they were slathered with some kind of sauce and what looked like fried onions. Mine were just the regular ones, but they were perfect.  The potatoes are sliced fresh daily and have been cooked transfat-free since the first In-N-Out opened in 1948.   And the employees all looked busy and contented—according to Wikipedia, pay starts at $10.50 an hour, well over minimum wage.

Back on the freeway, I continued following the stream of lights back to the Bay Area. I needed more gas, so decided to fill up in Vacaville.  Once just an insignificant stop between Sacramento and Vallejo, known for its penal colony, it now seems like a vast expanse of shopping malls and fast food restaurants.  Where do the people live?  A mystery.  There was another In-N-Out Burger, and I was still a little hungry, so I stopped for a second round—this time just a burger, no fries.  Next door I noticed an Applebys—a place I have never been, but I’ll have to admit, it looked kind of cute…no, stop!  That would be going too far!  One should stick to one’s principles and never eat in a restaurant whose stock is publicly traded!   (Fortunately, In-N-Out has always been privately owned).

The next day I checked the In-N-Out website to find out about those mystery fries.  Finding nothing, I sent them an email.  Later that day (on a Saturday no less) I received a nice reply:

Dear Mr. Shimosky:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.  We sincerely appreciate your interest.

In response to your question, we have a couple of requested variations for our fries, such as “Animal Fries” and “Cheese Fries,” which do not appear on our menu.  For an additional charge, our Animal Fries are topped with 2 slices of melted American cheese, spread, and grilled onions.  Our “Cheese Fries” are topped with only 2 slices of American cheese.     

For questions or price information, please feel free to contact our toll-free Customer Service line at (800) 786-1000.

Sincerely,

Krista Curtis
Customer Service Representative

Animal fries?   Unfortunately we don’t have an In-N-Out Burger in Berkeley, so I can’t run out and order some right away, but soon…

By the way, there is an In-N-Out Burger in Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco—surely the only reason to visit that depraved region of the city.   Or, for a slightly more upscale burger (Niman Ranch beef, of course) made in the same spirit as In-N-Out, try Burger Joint on Valencia near 20th—but the fries aren’t as good.

P.S. Almost a year later I finally ordered the animal fries. They were the most disgusting thing imaginable.

The Art of Being Rich

•December 4, 2007 • Leave a Comment

In today’s issue of the San Francisco Chronicle appeared an interesting article about a new art gallery that hardly anyone will ever visit.  Wealthy San Francisco couple Norah and Norman Stone have carved  a 5,700 square foot cave into the hillside of their Napa Valley estate to house their large collection of oversize art works purchased over the years.  Included in the pieces on display is “Adjustable Wall Bra,” by Vito Acconci, an 8-by-22-by-6-foot sculpture that is a giant white bra with benches inside the cups for viewers to sit on, while listening to a recording of a woman breathing.   Visitors will be limited to friends, groups of serious collectors and high-level museum donors from around the globe making museum-led trips to the Bay Area. According to the article, collectors tend not to allow visitors outside elite ranks to view their collections – even if they happen to belong to a museum’s general membership base – because such guests are often not well-versed enough in art to understand or appreciate what they are seeing.

Needless to say, this story received a less than favorable reception from the Chronicle’s readership, who posted appropriate comments on the paper’s website, SF Gate, bemoaning the elitism inherent in such a lavish expenditure and the exclusion of the not-well-enough-versed public.  “How wonderful to know that such ‘nice and well-deserving’ filthy rich people are building ‘art caves’ with million dollar bras and making ‘cabernet’ while the majority of people in the country have a limited access to education and healthcare,” one person remarked.  Others took note of Norah’s apparent plastic surgery with displeasure and were repelled by this “leather-pant and coogi-sweater-clad couple,”  ”a snobbish pair who horde art for their own delight.”   Beyond mere personal criticism of the Stones, others were “left with…the thought that a redistribution of wealth really is a great idea whose time has come.”  This was “…another incentive for class war,”  ”certainly the kind of excess that makes us peasants start sharpening our guillotines!”   “Where’s the Manson family when you need them!” 

If I were the Stones, I’d first beef up my security detail, then I’d figure out a way to put my collection on display so it could be seen by everyone, unwashed masses and coogi-sweater clad elite alike. Perhaps I’d follow the example of another noted local collector…

Coincidentally, in today’s same edition of the Chronicle plans were unveiled for a new museum to house the extensive collection of modern art belonging to Donald Fisher, founder of Gap stores,  to be built, at his expense, in the SF Presidio, on the site of an old bowling alley. Here we have someone, in stark contrast to the Stones, whose magnificent gesture must surely be the toast of San Francisco! 

Well, not exactly.  When this project was first announced in the Chronicle on August 9 it unleased a torrent of criticism. Apparently this rich collector, instead of hiding his collection from the public, was committing the sin of making it too visible.  I had never heard of Mr. Fisher before, but from the numerous comments the article generated I learned that he is a filthy rich modern day robber baron, vain, selfish, scheming, and pompous, a right-wing anti-union Republican clear-cutting sweatshop owner who doesn’t even live in San Francisco. He treats his employees like dirt while wanting to erect a wasteful homage to himself which will prove deleterious to our fine city. He has never taken a walk or a bike ride and goes to bed at night dreaming of concrete and how to pave over the rest of San Francisco. In an act of supreme hubris he has hidden his art work from the public for decades and now claims that he wants to “share” it with the humble folk while denying them the right to fair wages and decent benefits. He is using billions made through slave labor in developing countries to meddle in “our” politics and promote his anti-SF values. In sum, he is downright evil. His art should be put in a suburban shopping mall or in a building shaped like a pair of jeans.  His proposal is either a tax dodge “looking to bumfuzzle the IRS,” or an excuse to take over our parks so Gap can sell more clothes.  And besides, SF needs another museum like it needs another Chinese restaurant!

Whew!  Maybe its better to keep your art (and your money) hidden!

Hadar

•November 29, 2007 • 1 Comment

 

When I attended Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco in the early 1970’s, the course offerings were rather scanty, even though the school was one of the largest and most prestigious in the country and had an interesting faculty, known as the 65 Club, consisting of accomplished legal scholars who were past the traditional retirement age and could no longer teach at other institutions.  But they stuck to the classical subjects-torts, contracts, estates and trusts, constitutional law, civil procedure and the like.  

Over 30 years later I am still on the mailing list and receive the usual fund-raising requests directed to alums, but yesterday I finally received something really interesting-a colorful brochure entitled “New Faculty-Legal Leaders” featuring short bios of the newest additions to the Hastings faculty–”Bringing Life to Law” as the brochure proclaims.  So who are these “Legal Leaders-destined to make a difference” and what distinguishes them from the stodgy old 65 Club of my generation?  According to the brochure, “the distinguished new faculty members at Hastings bring astonishing experiences that strengthen the law school’s well-deserved reputation.  Our legal leaders have clerked for Appeals Court judges, worked in the legal trenches, and advanced knowledge through scholarly works.  They have studied and worked both inside the United Stated and internationally.  They bring the breadth and depth of these experiences to their work at Hastings.”

Back in my day, those esteemed elderly professors may have been renowned experts in their narrow fields, but did their intellectual curiosity lead them in other directions as well?  Were they interested in art, politics, gender, religion, the burning issues of the day?  One never knew, because these things were never revealed.  I certainly never had a woman professor during my three years at Hastings, and the younger ones, selected to fill out the roster for the 65 club, were generally the most dull and boring of the lot, unless you were a big fan of real estate syndication or the intricacies of criminal procedure. 

But today is a new era.  To peruse the list of new professors is to be astonished by how the field of legal scholarship has exploded in a burst of creative energy taking it in directions never before imagined.  A few of them might still fit the traditional mold-Geoffrey Hazard, perhaps, who is “the nation’s foremost expert in legal ethics and a prolific writer of more than 16 books and 175 articles.”  God knows there must be a lot to write about in that area.  Other than being a woman, Heather Field, a tax law specialist, doesn’t break the mold either. From her photo she could just as easily be at home as a CNBC analyst on corporate M&A activity, another of her specialties.  True to his name, Clark Freshman has the fresh look of an earnest young lawyer.  He is a mediator and negotiation trainer-innocuous enough-who focuses on law and psychology, lie detection, and the effect of emotions on dispute resolution.  Wow!  We never discussed emotions back in my days in law school!

Evan Lee is about to publish a book on the impact of social and cultural influences on the development of the standing doctrine. This sounds somewhat subversive, but then it is revealed that before joining Hastings he split his time between general commercial litigation and international regulatory compliance work-hardly a field known to be rife with cultural relativists.

Then we have Joan Williams, a leader in studying the effects of conflict between work and family; Chimene Keitner, whose interests include employment discrimination and human rights litigation; Nancy Stuart, committed to civil rights law; Dorit Rubinstein Reis, with a background in security matters, freedom of speech, welfare services, deregulation, and consumer participation in policy making; and Willie Nguyen, whose Civil Justice Clinic students serve the nearby community by representing workers, tenants, disabled clients and, one can assume, undocumented workers.  Whew.   A long list, but nothing out of the ordinary. These are the things we would expect most law students these days to be interested in.  At least, the idealistic ones.  Certainly no student at Hastings would sign up for a course teaching effective representation of powerful corporate interests-or would they?

But then we diverge into new and exciting territory.  Ethan Leib, for example, who has discovered an area which until now was totally neglected by the law:  friendship!  This sets the mind reeling.  Are we contemplating creating a whole new field of litigation?  Can we sue a friend if they forget our birthday or fail to behave in a friendly way?   Professor Leib explains:  “The law takes a special interest in our families, households, and professional relationships, but our friendships are also regulated by the law in often unnoticed ways.”  Professor Lieb has authored several articles on the subject, including “Friendship and the Law,” “Friends as Fiduciaries,” and “Toward a Public Policy of Friendship-Promotion.”   OK, that sounds friendly enough.  Perhaps we need a new cabinet level Friendship Czar, someone who can take the lead in the War on Unfriendliness.

But the one who especially grabbed my attention was a young Israeli by the name of Hadar Aviram.   Her bio reads as follows: 

“Hadar Aviram recently earned her Ph.D. at University of California, Berkeley, where she studied as the Regents Intern and Fulbright Doctoral Fellow.  Her dissertation, winner of the Chancellor Dissertation Award, examined how the Israeli military judicial system perceives and addresses deserters and conscientious objectors.  Professor Aviram has taught at Tel Aviv University Law School, Haifa University Law School, and UC Berkeley, and she is a Global Research Fellow at Goldsmiths College, London. Her recent publications include articles about conscientious objectors and an ethnographic project examining political activism and legal consciousness in the poly-amorous community.  She is the co-author of a new book on the history of female criminality.”

Did I read that correctly:  “An ethnographic project examining political activism and legal consciousness in the poly-amorous community”?  I’d like to read that article, not being aware that poly-amorists had a political and legal agenda—but wait! it turns out that they don’t, and the purpose of her study was to determine why not.  Perhaps, one might venture, its because they are too busy in the bedroom, as implied by the title of one of her articles, “Make Love, Not Law.”

Somehow I couldn’t get Hadar Aviram out of my mind. I found her strikingly beautiful, in a wholesome sort of way. Through obsessive Googling I discovered that she fills her copious free time by playing and singing all genres of music, enjoying dance and theater, practicing and teaching Pilates, learning Traditional Chinese Medicine, practicing acupressure, cooking, making jewelry and devouring books.  I even ordered one of those books-An Instance of the Fingerpost, by Iain Pears—one of the best she’s ever read, she professed, from which I would learn the multifaceted nature of truth.  She’s also passionate about feminine spirituality and environmentalism, grows her own plants to make tea, and once made an abortive attempt to start a compost pile on her balcony in Tel Aviv. An Israeli by nationality, she served in the IDF and also lived in South America and the Caribbean. She speaks fluent Hebrew, English and Spanish and conversational Arabic.  Oh yes, and she hates ironing.  In a revealing journal entry she describes her adventure with a flat tire:

“An interesting bit of insight today. Perhaps more than a bit. I spent my morning bitching about an acquaintance who gets by in the world by being clueless, needy and childish, and about a colleague who gets by in the world by being a quiet, cute, darling cake-baker. I whined about how these strategies of falling into stereotypes of helpless women and children make men help you, be chivalrous toward you, not hinder you on your path, while “People Like Me”, raised to be lions and wolves and large birds of prey, have to struggle, and prove, and do things ourselves. I was complaining about how hard life is when one seeks camaraderie and respect with men, not dependence and chivalry and assistance. And all the while I was thinking: this is my ugly, envious shadow self speaking. In any case, I couldn’t be childlike or helpless if I wanted; it’s not in my nature.

Then, I left the house. Whoa! Surprise. A flat tire in my golden rental car. Car manual, jack, key thing, ridiculously tiny spare tire come out of the trunk. I will do this by myself.

I work and work on jacking. I haven’t done it right — the car is not lifting at all. Giving up the futile effort, I go back to look at the manual to realize I’ve positioned it in a wrong spot. I restart the positioning, figure out an efficient way to use the key to lift the car. Loosening the screws works like magic when I use my foot and body weight for leverage. In less than an hour, my first flat tire has been changed, and I did it all by myself.

My hands are black and greasy. A sense of personal pride and satisfaction rushes through my body, feeds me with self esteem, autonomy, self sufficiency, trust in myself. The path of the lion and the wolf has its benefits. I would not give this feeling up for nothing.”

Who knows how the path of the lion and the wolf led Hadar to the study of the law, but she has pursued it with ferocity.  Her extensive research interests lie in the crossroads of law, sociology and criminology.  They include theoretical and critical criminology, courts, legal actors and the criminal justice system, inequality, particularly in the context of class, gender and sexual orientation,  queer theory,  social movements and legal consciousness, Foucaultian governmentality, and Luhmann’s systems theory.

Governmentality, Luhmann’s systems theory!  These are things I had never even heard of before.  I scurried to Wikipedia to read up on these obscure topics. Luhmann and his systems theory introduced me to the subject of autopoiesis, the means by which a system (or society) perpetuates itself by reproducing elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment.  According to Wikipedia, Luhmann wrote prolifically, with more than three dozen books published on a variety of subjects, including law, economy, politics, art, religion, ecology, mass media, and love.  He is an advocate of the “grand theory,” aiming to address any aspect of  social life within a universal theoretical framework.  Luhmann himself described his theory as “labyrinth-like” or “non-linear,” and claimed he was deliberately keeping his prose enigmatic to prevent it from being understood “too quickly,” which would only produce simplistic misunderstand.  His relatively low profile outside of his native Germany is partly due to the fact that translating his work is a so difficult, as his writing presents a challenge even to readers of German, including many sociologists.  But not to Hadar!

Governmentality?  Not to be confused with governance.  According to Wikipedia, its a concept first developed by French philosopher Michael Foucault and can be understood as being:

  • the way governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill those governments’ policies,
  • the organized practices (mentalities, rationalities, and techniques) through which subjects are governed.

Foucault proved to be a fascinating character.  Unknown to me he had even taught at Berkeley when I was a student in the early 70’s, and took LSD in Death Valley, proclaiming it the best experience of his life, before he died of AIDS at the age of 57.  He was either a structuralist, post-structuralist, deconstructionist,  post-modernist, or something like that.   On reflection, however, it seems a bit odd that a lawyer would be interested in Foucault.  Foucault certainly had no interest in lawyers, or in the law, or in the concept of justice.  For him it was all about power.  He dismissed justice as simply “a claim made by the oppressed class and as a justification for it.”  Perhaps in this age of Foucault lawyers are indeed taught that justice lies simply in seeking more power for those elements of society which claim to be oppressed.  But I’m sure Hadar could explain it all!  

This brief journey led to realize the differences between legal education in my era (a mere three decades ago) and today.  In those simpler times we did not concern ourselves so much with the moral, ethical, or sociological bases of law.  There was the English common law which evolved into our own common law and of course that magnificent creation of our wise forefathers, the Constitution.  Behind all that lay our inherited Judeo-Christian white male European moral values, but it was not necessary to delve into all that.  Things pretty much started with the Constitution, the interpretation of which of course evolved over time to one degree or another, depending on whether you considered yourself a strict constructionist or a judicial activist.    But the new paradigm is to view law as just another construct or system which, as Evan Lee could point out, is a product of various social and cultural influences.   Deconstructed in this way, the law becomes just another tool in the toolbox to be used in the quest for social justice.  Is this terrifying, as today’s rightwingers would have us believe?  Hard to say, but with someone like Hadar blazing the path of the lion and the wolf the outcome is sure to be interesting!

Greenpeace

•November 27, 2007 • 2 Comments

I started law school in 1972. I wasn’t sure I wanted to be a lawyer, but couldn’t think of anything better (my father, who would like to have been a Supreme Court justice, encouraged me, but that was hardly my destiny). While I counted the weeks until graduation, still three years away, my classmates gradually transformed themselves into baby lawyers, showing up in three-piece suits indicating they had gotten jobs working as clerks in firms with long impressive names. A world of plodding conventionality, punctuality and dependability that I certainly was not made for. As to what I would do when I graduated I hadn’t a clue, but probably my mind was on other things. I would deal with the future when it arrived.

During my first year I left my first wife, Christine. During my second year I married my second wife, Carole.  My grades were passable, but I decided that for my third and final year I would make amends.  The secret to success was simple:  attend every lecture and take copious notes.  I took very good notes, got the highest grade in two of my classes, and finished the year in the top five percent.  But it turned out that was not the secret to success in finding a job. I discovered too late that if you did not already have multiple offers well before graduation you were considered a failure and unemployable.  And those offers were based on your record in the first two years and on the contacts you made clerking and interviewing during that time, none of which I did.  

Not totally discouraged, I spent the summer of ‘75 studying for the bar exam, which I passed easily, and sending out a few resumes, none of which generated much excitement.  I did get one interview with a small firm in San Diego.  We drove all the way down from Berkeley with great optimism.  “You won’t be on the market much longer!” Carole exclaimed.  I put on the same suit I had worn to our wedding and set out from our Travelodge motel for the interview, feeling a bit of panic as if  I was going to get married again.  The lawyer who interviewed me was nice enough. His hobby was flying airplanes, and I pretended to be interested.  I also pretended to like San Diego, and to want a career with a good firm where I could someday become a partner.  Then he sprang the question:  “Do people take you seriously?” he asked, “or do they sometimes look at you and think you might just be kidding?”  A little nonplussed, I had to admit that I sometimes had that problem.

Eventually I landed a job working for a lawyer in downtown San Francisco.  He hired me because I could type, and the job required a lot of typing. My first project was to prepare over a hundred complaints.  This was before the days of computers so instead he had stacks of forms for the various situations that arose: car hits car, car hits pedestrian, car hits house. I had to review the file, select the right form and fill in the blanks. His clients were insurance companies who hoped he could recover for them a portion of what they paid out in claims. This was called “subrogation,” an obscure specialty that had never even been mentioned in law school. 

When I first showed up for work I was impressed with the appearance of efficiency and prosperity.  There was an office manager, a receptionist/secretary, a bookkeeper, and a part time “default clerk” who spent all her time taking defaults of defendants who didn’t bother to file a response when sued (most of them didn’t).  But a few weeks after starting I came in one day to find he had fired everyone but me.

My employer was not a terribly brilliant lawyer, but had learned to bluster his way through and win by persistence—the American way. After I finished filing the hundred complaints I started drafting pleadings and making court appearances.  I enjoyed the challenge of untangling the intricacies of civil procedure, but was well-aware that subrogation was the lowest rung on the litigation ladder.  I was making $5 an hour with no prospect for advancement. Fantasizing that if I had my own clients I could charge much more, I had cards and letterhead printed, but of course I had no clients.  Then one day, alone in the office with the radio on, I heard an interview with Byrd Baker, an anti-whaling activist, talking about the upcoming Greenpeace campaign to save the whales. Moved by the thought of these people who, rather then spending their time filling in the blanks in subrogation complaints, were venturing onto the high seas in rubber rafts to confront the whaler’s harpoon, I called and left a message volunteering my services.

Up to that point the decade of the 70’s had seemed a bit depressing after the excitement of the 1960’s, which I had spent pursuing the glittering temptations of the Berkeley counterculture. There were wars, scandals, gas lines, recession, inflation, high interest rates, hostage crises, spiritual malaise and boring presidents, but no great causes or movements to capture my fancy.  Besides, I was married and supposedly trying, half-heartedly, to construct a middle class existence.

But there was one bright spot: a colorful mixture of traditional peace activists and idealistic counterculture characters from Vancouver who had gotten together to start an environmental movement called Greenpeace. Sparked by opposition to U.S. nuclear testing in Alaska—the spectre that haunted the baby boom generation—their first endeavor was to sail a small boat into the test zone near Amchitka Island as a form of protest in the nonviolent Quaker tradition. The boat never made it and the tests were cancelled, so they turned their attention to the South Pacific where the French were conducting tests at Moruroa.  David McTaggart, a building contractor from Vancouver who had retired after a fire destroyed a ski resort he was building, was sailing in the South Pacific and responded to an ad placed by Greenpeace looking for volunteers to stage a protest.  The French were none too pleased and during his second voyage into the test zone in 1973 commandos boarded his boat and beat him severely.  McTaggart then moved to France to pursue a lawsuit against the French government and began sowing the seeds of a Greenpeace organization in Europe.

After the French tests were cancelled new causes emerged:  the killing of whales by the Soviet fleet in the Pacific and the annual slaughter of harp seals on the ice floes off Newfoundland.  In the summer of 1975 Greenpeace attracted worldwide attention when a Soviet ship fired a harpoon over the heads of its protestors who were in a small rubber Zodiac trying vainly to protect a sperm whale from its pursuers. Bob Hunter, Greenpeace’s spiritual leader and media strategist, believed this would be the searing image—the media “mind bomb,” he called it—that planted in the world’s consciousness would lead to a fundamental change of attitude towards the environment. His ideas of social change were borrowed from Isaac Asimov’s science fiction classic, The Foundation Trilogy, and in honor thereof Greenpeace became the Greenpeace Foundation. When groups of supporters began to organize in far-flung places, they couldn’t have been more pleased. The tribe would expand, and the newcomers would channel their enthusiasm into raising money that would funnel up to the tribal elders in Vancouver to support the ever-expanding Greenpeace agenda.

To encourage their growth in the fertile United States, Hunter and his wife Bobbi visited the newly opened San Francisco office in the spring of 1976.  One item on their agenda was to incorporate Greenpeace in this country and apply for tax-exempt status, and for that a lawyer was needed.  Going through the messages left at the San Francisco office on Second Street in the trendy but still inexpensive south-of-Market area, Bobbi spotted one from a lawyer.  The name—Tussman—sounded vaguely familiar.  One of the elders from Vancouver, Rod Marining, had spent his senior year at Simon Fraser University studying the writings of an obscure American political philosopher from Berkeley named Joseph Tussman, who happened to be my father. His first book, Obligation and the Body Politic, discussed the role of the citizen in a democracy. Tussman argued that our political system had been corrupted by the competitive model of the marketplace.  Citizens in a democracy, being in fact the ultimate authority, had a higher obligation than to use the political process to pursue their own selfish ends, or the ends of some group or constituency of which they happened to be a member. One should base political decisions not on what is best for one’s private interests, but what is best for the community as a whole.  Such ideas were not terribly popular with students at Berkeley—they were cynical about the political process and were only interested in how it could be manipulated to achieve revolutionary change.  But my father’s idealism did appeal to a tribal consciousness where wise elders would get together, deliberate, and arrive at solutions. Rod had described these ideas to the elders, who agreed they suggested the correct governing principle for a voluntary organization such as Greenpeace.

With all this in mind—or perhaps not—Bobbi picked up the phone and gave me a call inviting me over to the San Francisco office to discuss how I could help.  I was thrilled.  Bobbi turned out to be a simple, shy, quiet girl who spoke in the endearing Canadian accent, soon to become so familiar, in which most sentences end in “eh?”  She introduced me to the others in the office, local Greenpeace supporters who I would work with in her absence.  Bobbi went back to Vancouver and I enthusiastically set about incorporating the group with the ambitious name Greenpeace Foundation of America. Three of the local members served as the incorporators:  Marion Yasinitsky, the motherly office csar, Al “Jet” Johnson, an American Airlines pilot originally from Vancouver, and Gary Zimmerman.

Bobbi Hunter
Bobbi Hunter, the first real Greenpeacer I met

Gary was president of the local group.  He couldn’t have cared less about tribal rituals, honoring elders, or the obligations of a tribal member.  He was an engineer who just wanted to use his expertise to go out and save whales. Along the way he would organize Greenpeace in America and raise money to support the effort. He was an American and this was a democracy, not a tribe.  So what if the Vancouver group could articulate with such eloquence the apocalyptic neo-Luddite vision, then common among environmentalists, that technology-dependent western civilization was about to collapse, leaving it to the Greenpeace navy to sail the seas protecting the planet from greed and destruction?  It seemed like the Vancouver bunch was busier talking than saving whales.  Results—the body count of whales saved—were what mattered, and while Vancouver talked whales were busy being killed! There were plenty who sympathized with those views, including a renegade faction in Vancouver led by Paul Watson.  Paul had developed a more radical activist philosophy that he called—without a trace of irony—”aggressive nonviolence.”  Soon to be expelled from Greenpeace for his provocative actions during a protest of the harp seal hunt, he started his own organization and would travel the world sinking whaling ships, getting things done, and speaking out against the do-nothing Greenpeacers who he seemed to loathe as viscerally as the whale killers themselves.

Shortly after we became acquainted Gary began paying regular visits to my office on Montgomery Street. He thought he had a mandate from the Vancouver founders to make the San Francisco office into an autonomous umbrella organization for Greenpeace in the United States (by this time, independent groups were springing up in places such as Seattle, Portland, Eugene, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, San Diego, Boston and Hawaii).  But now, he complained, Vancouver was trying to sabotage and undermine his efforts. I was not aware of the substantiation for his grandiose claim of authority, and certainly the other U.S. groups were none too thrilled about it.  Innocently, it had been my suggestion that it would be easier if the U.S. legal entity were structured as an independent group so that in applying for tax-exempt status it would not appear that it was controlled by a foreign organization.  I had not foreseen the need to draft documents recognizing in Vancouver some form of ultimate control over the use of the Greenpeace name—it was all just one big family, or so I thought. That oversight would have fateful consequences for the future of Greenpeace. 

I listened patiently to Gary, musing that all this was just normal internal politics for a group filled with people with abnormal egos.

On one occasion Gary wondered out loud, “What side are you on?”  I wasn’t on any side, since I liked everybody. When the Greenpeace ship James Bay docked in San Francisco in July 1976 on its way out for the second annual anti-whaling mission, I was awestruck.  This was the most inspiring group of people I had ever met.  They were on a life or death mission to save the whales and ultimately the planet, and they radiated camaraderie, humor, and love. There was Bob Hunter, gaunt and intense with an electric intelligence and wit, ready to lose his sanity on a moments notice; Pat Moore, the PhD ecologist, pudgy and professorial, much the opposite of Hunter; Paul Spong, the passionate whale researcher whose love for his subjects seemed almost physical. There were only occasional signs of dissension.  At a meeting on the boat Paul Watson, wearing a Palestinian headdress in protest of the Israeli raid on Entebbe, refused to sign a release for the making of a movie based on the Greenpeace story.  Bob Hunter had earlier sold the rights to an outfit from New York called AEC after meeting with its agent, Amy Ephron, in a bar.  Amy had flown out from New York to meet the ship to get everyone to sign releases, driving up in a limousine wearing a short black dress with a gaping round hole in the back, an apparition from another world.  For the next couple of years Greenpeace would be a colossal pain in her neck, and the movie would never be made.

There were also people I liked in the San Francisco office.  One of them was Cindy Baker.  During the spring of ‘77, when Greenpeace was between campaigns, we became friends, going out for frozen yogurt (or Jack Daniels, her favorite drink) to discuss Greenpeace politics and her frustrations with this and that.  Cindy didn’t take kindly to frustration.  She was on a mission, made more urgent by the fact that, only in her mid 20’s, she was dying of cancer.  She had just completed chemotherapy treatments and now she dedicated every ounce of her considerable energy to Greenpeace.  I had a crush on Cindy, but Cindy wasn’t interested in me because she was interested in Gary Zimmerman.  That, however, inspired a way for me to demonstrate my devotion.

A group of Greenpeace supporters, helped by Vancouver, had organized in Hawaii and purchased a former U.S. Navy sub chaser renamed the Ohana Kai that they were outfitting for their own voyage to save the whales.  Gary was in Hawaii to help them and hadn’t seen Cindy in some time.  I dreamt up the idea of treating Cindy to a trip to Hawaii.  She would get to experience the beauty of the islands, check up on the progress of the Ohana Kai, and not incidentally have a brief reunion with Gary.  I also invited Carole Sears, a volunteer in the S.F. office, to tag along. 

We flew to Honolulu sipping free champagne on Western Airlines and checked into a suite high on the 24th floor of the Sheraton Waikiki.  Gary came over and we stood on the balcony marveling at the spectacular view of Diamond Head.  He had been working nonstop on the Ohana Kai for days without bathing, and it showed.  “Gary Zimmerman, I’m going to have to report you to the sanitation department!” Cindy exclaimed, as they departed to attend a Greenpeace Hawaii meeting.  Carole and I stayed behind and strolled around the beach watching the glorious sunset. 

The next day we paid a visit to the Ohana Kai, then in the final stages of preparation for its voyage to confront the Russian whaling fleet. Hard at work on the deck I spotted a young blonde girl in overalls who looked up and smiled at me; at least, so I imagined.  Her name was Debbie Jayne, I would later learn.

Then the four of us flew over to Maui, rented a car, and drove down the long winding road to Hana.   We rented a suite at the Hana Kai Hotel where Cindy enjoyed a night alone with Gary. I could hear them laughing in the bedroom next door as I lay listening to the crashing surf from Hana Bay outside the window. 

On our return to San Francisco Cindy decided it was time to add me to the Board of Directors, probably because she thought I would go along with her wishes and vote to get rid of her nemesis, Bob Taunt, also known by his full name of Robert O. Taunt, III.  Taunt was a newcomer to Greenpeace who offered to organize a benefit concert but rapidly got involved in substantive campaigns.  He was smart, confident, eloquent, outgoing, and ambitious—but perceived by many as pompous, elitist and harboring suspect motives.  Beneath that eboullient exterior lurked a hint of tragedy. He professed to be from a wealthy family and that he had spent a good part of his personal fortune opposing the Vietnam War. When he joined the voyage of the James Bay he showed up with several trunks filled with clothes and expensive camera gear. 

Bob Taunt and Cindy Baker
Bob Taunt and Cindy Baker.  Gary Zimmerman is in the background.

At my first board meeting Marion Yasinitsky presented a motion thanking Bob for his media work on the spring seal campaign but ejecting him from the board.  Bob was flabbergasted.  Everyone seemed in favor of the motion but no one could articulate a good reason.  One couldn’t just say that he was a little too elitist or that people didn’t like his arrogance and ambition, or that he just didn’t fit the Greenpeace image with his trunks filled with Nikons and Hasselblads.  Or that he had made the mistake after a few too many Jack Daniels of confiding to Cindy that he was soon going to be president of Greenpeace Foundation of America.  Cindy, of course, was perfectly happy with the current president.  I failed to speak up in his defense.  Perhaps I hadn’t found my voice yet, or perhaps I didn’t want to betray Cindy. The motion carried.

Taunt with a Hasselblad
Bob Taunt with a Hasselblad

Besides being someone Cindy could depend on, my main project was to apply for tax-exempt status so Greenpeace could qualify to receive tax-deductible contributions.  At first the application was denied because the local IRS office did not believe that Greenpeace’s confrontational tactics were a legitimate charitable activity.  I drafted an appeal outlining the evolution of the concept of charity, arguing that Greenpeace’s activities were fully consistent with the classical definition. The application was to drag on for two years, requiring a trip by me to Washington to argue the case at the national office of the IRS.  Eventually it was granted quietly, possibly so as not to set any kind of precedent. Those Greenpeacers seem okay, they probably reasoned, but the next group might not be so harmless.

Meanwhile, a plan I had nursed for some time was becoming a reality.  To jump-start my legal career I had applied to the graduate program in tax law at New York University.   Although the fall semester was still several months away, I resigned my subrogation job, stating that I was leaving “to pursue other interests”—I had heard that expression somewhere before and always hoped I would have a chance to use it myself.  My “other interest” was to spend the summer volunteering full-time for Greenpeace. 

Soon the Ohana Kai would venture out on the first anti-whaling voyage not organized and run by Vancouver.  They found the Soviet fleet, but there were no whales around. A small party of Greenpeacers decided to board the huge factory ship, driving their Zodiac up the slipway where the whales were hauled to be butchered.  They distributed buttons and leaflets in Russian to the surprised crew.  ABC Sports had paid to place a film crew and helicopter aboard the ship and produced a special that was shown as an episode of their “American Sportsman” series. Cindy Baker then decided that the Ohana Kai should sail to San Francisco where it became the derelict waterfront home of assorted Greenpeacers, destined never to sail again. 

That summer the James Bay also saw action, so for a time Greenpeace had two vessels patrolling the Pacific, the beginnings of its global navy.  When the James Bay stopped for refueling in San Francisco a benefit concert was hastily arranged at Pier 33 where the ship was docked.  Jerry Garcia with some of the Grateful Dead and the singer Maria Muldaur performed.  It was a beautiful day and the James Bay, flags waving in the breeze, rocked dramatically back and forth behind the stage while the music poured forth in the bright sunlight.  It was a magical moment, highlighted by the fact that it marked the beginning of my brief fling with Judy Johnson, the new office manager who had just been hired by Cindy.  Judy invited me over to her apartment where I wound up spending the night.

The next morning I dragged myself home to Berkeley where Carole awaited.  I explained that I had drunk too much at the concert and fallen asleep on the James Bay where there were no telephones to call her.  She probably didn’t believe it but was unable to shake my story.  It was but another reason for her to resent my involvement with Greenpeace.  But she could understand the attraction.  One evening I took her over to Bob Taunt’s where we passed the time drinking and playing darts with Bob and a couple of friends.  We were having a splendid time.  Carole turned to me and exclaimed, “No wonder you hang out here all the time, its so much more fun than being at home!”  Then, having had a bit too much to drink, she ran to the bathroom and threw up.

When September came Carole and I rented out our house in Berkeley, packed up some things, and flew off to New York for my year at NYU.  But when I got in line to register every cell in my body cried out in revulsion—how could I have forgotten how much I hated school!  I stuck it out for a week or so. We looked around half-heartedly for an apartment, finding that New York was a crumbling city in decay.  There was no construction going on, everything was grubby and dirty, and the subways weren’t even air conditioned yet.  New Yorkers couldn’t have cared less about the environment or about saving whales.  It was all they could do to survive another day. Eventually I got up the courage to go into the registrar’s office and withdraw.  I said I had been offered a job back home, and after consulting with my family had decided to take it. The dean was incensed—I had wasted one of the most coveted spots in any American graduate school.  We rented a car, checked out of the Americana Hotel, drove up through Harlem and out of New York. After a brief tour of New England to see the autumn leaves we flew back home.

My story about the job had not been too far from the truth.  Upon my return, Cindy put me on the Greenpeace payroll at the standard rate of $80 per week. Since our house was rented out for the year, Carole and I had to find another place to live.  I wanted to be in San Francisco, preferably in Pacific Heights where I could be close to the new Greenpeace office in Fort Mason.  Carole, who until now had gone along with everything I did, almost put her foot down when she saw the awful green shag carpeting in the flat I located in an old Victorian on Octavia street.  Even on that she soon relented, but things were not auspicious for the future of our relationship.  I had almost left several times but hadn’t gotten up the courage.  I liked Carole and there was no real reason we couldn’t stay together, except for the fact that married life felt like a death sentence and I needed to experience something new and exciting.

The end came on Halloween night, 1977. Upon returning from New York I had reconnected with Judy Johnson. She had been invited to a Halloween party in Berkeley and invited me to tag along.  That seemed new and exciting enough, so that day I told Carole I didn’t want to be married anymore. Judy and I went to the party, but they were all young college kids who were about as uninterested in me as I was in them. I didn’t talk to a soul.  

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson poses with Picasso

After that Judy and I never really got serious.  We went to bars after work at Greenpeace and drank Irish coffees, but that was about it.  Carole soon moved out.   After the breakup she commented wistfully, “Didn’t you want to have a life like my parents?”  I thought in horror of her father, wasting his entire life running the hardware store he had inherited, and her mother, a pampered suburban housewife who ran everything else.   For now, I wanted to have fun, and Greepeace, among other things, was a lot of fun.

One person who seemed to know how to have fun was Bob Taunt.  Although fired by the San Francisco office, the Vancouver group wasn’t about to let him go. It was his connections, despite a number of cover stories, that provided Greenpeace with the coordinates of the Russian whaling fleets in the Pacific. He had Walter Cronkite’s home phone number, was friends with California Governor Jerry Brown and Congressman Leo Ryan, and was about the only U.S. Greenpeacer that Vancouver felt was a real asset to the cause. Although officially he had little connection with the San Francisco office, his Liberty Street flat in the Noe Valley neighborhood became something of an alternative Greenpeace nerve center. Here, as wherever Greenpeacers gathered, there was much drinking, flirting, and mostly innocent good times, and whatever else might be said, everyone involved was sincere, honest and well-intentioned. There were no nasty skeletons hidden in the Greenpeace closets.

Hunter and Taunt
Bob Hunter and Bob Taunt enjoying good times at Taunt’s flat on Liberty Street

Bob Hunter
Bob Hunter

Bob Hunter
Bob Hunter

As fall of 1977 turned to winter, things began to change at the San Francisco Greenpeace office.  Gary Zimmerman had had enough and went off to Switzerland to marry a woman he had met on the Ohana Kai. Cindy Baker’s body had had enough and she returned home to Oregon where she died a few weeks later.  There was no longer a president of Greenpeace Foundation of America, nor was there anyone eager to fill the position.  I moved into Cindy Baker’s old office and became what I called, tentatively, the “Acting Executive Director.”  But in reality I didn’t dare exert too much authority.  There were too many people watching me suspiciously.

Feeling the need to clean up the organizational mess resulting from Greenpeace’s undisciplined growth, Vancouver called a meeting and invited representatives from all the Greenpeace offices, large and small, to attend.    A committee was formed to draft proposals for an international structure to be presented to a second meeting to be held in January 1978.  Bob Taunt was named chair. Other members included Margaret Tilbury from Oregon, Carlie Truman and Bill Gannon from Vancouver, and myself.  Though we met half a dozen times, we had little idea of what a complex task we faced.  Greenpeace was attempting to institutionalize what had been the spontaneous inspiration of a small group of people:  applying nonviolent direct action tactics to stop environmental outrages.  It had been relatively easy to sail into a nuclear test zone or get in front of a whaler’s harpoon—these were convenient and easy targets—but stopping the more devastating and pervasive environmental degradation going on in every corner of the planet was not so simple and didn’t lend itself well to Greenpeace’s roughshod tactics. Greenpeace would need new targets and new strategies to feed its ever-growing momentum, and it needed an organization and leadership to direct its energies.

Those who gathered in Vancouver in January were a wildly diverse group, consisting of factions within factions. San Francisco alone had three distinct groups.  There were the elitist “executives” from the headquarters office at Building 240 Fort Mason, of which I was obviously a member. They counted the money and controlled access to the telex machine. The “grass roots” element—called “the yahoos” by some—occupied a second building at Fort Mason.  They were the foot soldiers who went out everyday to raise money by selling merchandise or soliciting door-to-door donations. The star was Neil Tauss, a bare-chested ball of energy who set up a table everyday at Fisherman’s Wharf, sold t-shirts, and raked in a fortune.  The third group consisted of those who lived and hung out on the Ohana Kai.  They were the dreamers, an assortment of free-spirited Greenpeacers from all over. The boat had become a minor tourist attraction and offered tours during the day and communal meals at night.  Even San Francisco’s poet laureate, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, showed up regularly.

All these groups had representatives, some accredited and some not, at the meeting.  Glaringly absent was anyone from Greenpeace groups outside of North America.  David McTaggart, leader of Greenpeace Europe, which was really only beginning to organize itself, appeared for the first day but in an unofficial capacity.  He made it clear that Europe was not ready or willing to participate in our process.  “I don’t want to step on anyone’s little knackers,” he apologized in his typically polite but dismissive manner.  But we should organize North America first, he insisted, before we presumed to organize the world. 

David McTaggart
David McTaggart, left, at the Vancouver meeting with Bill Gannon, Greenpeace Vancouver’s financial guru

David McTaggart
McTaggart with Carlie Truman, a lawyer and member of the Greenpeace Vancouver board

Nonetheless, good feelings abounded as the meeting got under way. Space had been rented at a conference center on the grounds of the University of British Columbia.  Two tall totem poles stood guard outside.  A camera crew from the local media showed up the first day for interviews.  Bob Taunt took his place at the head of the gathering, seated in folding chairs arranged in a rectangle.  “My name is Bob Taunt, and I’m from San Francisco,” he began, with his usual sense of drama.  Over the next four days he gently prodded the group towards accepting the creation of an international Greenpeace entity to coordinate activities and impose a minimum of accountability. It was finally agreed to elect a governing board consisting of seven representatives, no more than two of which could be from any one office.  To be elected one had to receive the vote of two thirds of the delegates. No one qualified on the first ballot, but on the second vote I became the first person to receive the required majority. 

Bob Taunt
Bob Taunt presiding over the Vancouver meeting, January 1978

Then things began to get difficult. Two members from Vancouver were elected, but one of them was John Frizell, considered the leader of the rebel faction. With his hunched back, scraggly beard, nasal voice and disheveled appearance he was the antithesis of charisma. John wasn’t a bad person.  He just wanted to save the planet, but the other Vancouverites wouldn’t let him; he wasn’t from their tribe.  They loathfully referred to him as Gollom after the subterranean villain from Lord of the Rings, a traitor that had grown like a cancer in the tribal body. His election meant that out of seven board members the tribe would really have only one representative, Patrick Moore. It didn’t occur to the others, or even to me, that this would be a problem. Everyone was just voting for people they liked.  Wasn’t this a democracy?  Wasn’t Greenpeace a dream, and wasn’t it impossible to own a dream?  Shouldn’t anyone who had the same dream have just as much a right to participate in it as anyone else?  As the meeting got bogged down in trying the fill the last slot on the board various motions were floated to create an exception allowing Bob Hunter to have the final spot.  They were all voted down   Frustrated by the stalemate and worn out after taking fifteen ballots, Taunt called a break late in the afternoon. 

Break in the proceedings
A break in the proceedings.  From left to right, John Frizell, Michael Bailey, Liz Tilbury, Gary Young, Paul Spong, John Sargent, Bob Hunter (head bowed)

John Cormack
John Cormack, Greenpeace’s father figure, captain of the first Greenpeace voyage to Amchitka

Jack and Jayne
Nancy Jack (left) poses with Debbie Jayne

Eileen Chivers
A glum Eileen Chivers (Mrs. Patrick Moore) consults Robert’s Rules of Order.

Taunt mugging
Mugging for the camera. Taunt with Eileen Chivers and Dick Dillman. John Cormack appears in the background

Paul Spong
Paul Spong (left) and Dexter Cate (right)

Hunter makes a point
Hunter tries to make a point to San Francisco’s Dick Dillman.  Tusi Spong looks on.

Patrick Moore
Patrick Moore has a word with Carlie Truman as Nancy Jack listens in

Patrick Moore
Patrick Moore, listening

John Frizell
John Frizell, leader of Vancouver’s rebel faction

When everyone returned, Hunter walked into the room dressed in black and looking angry.  “I hope there are no alcoholic beverages in the room,” Taunt warned. That was the least of his worries. Hunter stood up to deliver what he described as a point of information. 

“Eight years ago we started off trying to do this trip,” he began. “A lot of us have worked very, very hard. I know everybody says that—four months, five months, four years, whatever!  But we were strongly in favor of calling this gathering because we’ve been operating on the principle that this Greenpeace thing should be international. We hoped that the family would expand. We’re opposed to the whole corporate power structure that’s responsible for killing this earth! They’re the ones who organize themselves according to power blocks instead of in any kind of organic tribal fashion.  We were hoping we could transcend that level with this group. We acted on the advice of a poet named Allen Ginsburg who when we asked, ‘how do you deal with power?’ said, ‘you let it go before it freezes in your hand.’  Following that advice, Paul Spong went around, I went around, Bobbi went around, Pat Moore went around.  A whole bunch of us went around and we kept saying ‘far out, start a Greenpeace group, lets go, lets move forward together.’  And we gave away and we gave away and we bent over backwards to the point where now we are lying on our backs with our legs spread and all we see is people who have been here for one month, four months, whatever, rejecting us as being more experienced or in any position as elders!  John Frizell got voted in because he appeals to the disaffected.  Well that’s fine! The point of information comes down to this:  that’s it!  We can’t take it any longer.  As far as we are concerned, the way this international meeting is going we will have lost any serious input into Greenpeace whatsoever.  We have no choice but to withdraw.  We are pulling out.  Pat Moore, our president, wants to stay and talk to people, but the rest of us, we’re fed up!”

Taunt listened with a dazed and bewildered look.  “Mr. Hunter, you’re out of order!” he interjected, prompting someone to call for a motion to overrule the chair, while others simply cried, “Let him speak!” 

 ”Now, I have as much respect for Bob Hunter as I have for myself,” Taunt resumed, “and that’s a lot of respect!  But this process has been democratic.  I’m sorry if some people’s sensibilities have been hurt, but we all feel that something has to be done to move Greenpeace towards an international emphasis. I don’t want to see this organization run into the gutter any more than anyone else.”

Hunter continued.   “Look we are trying to be responsible to a very heavy responsibility.  I’m not going to accept, none of us are going to accept anything that lessens the seriousness with which we take that responsibility.  The reality of the matter is, by the law of prior usage we own the name Greenpeace. We’ve been trying to give it away in a graceful fashion and instead we are finding people grabbing for too much of that power too soon on the basis of unilateral individual actions and parochial concerns. That is unacceptable to us; our decision is irrevocable.  We are leaving.  You can talk to Pat, but the way this situation is going down, we just can’t hack it!”  Hunter and the rest of the Vancouver group got up and walked out, leaving Patrick Moore to reason with the infidels.

There were cries and sobs and sad speeches from those who remained. “What do you really want, Patrick?” Debbie Jayne demanded.  Like most there, she saw the walkout as a bit of street theater designed to pressure the others into acceding to some petulant demand—more power politics.  Patrick sat thoughtfully, then admitted he wasn’t really sure what they wanted.  If he didn’t know, then certainly no one else did. 

One by one, the remaining delegates spoke. Throughout the four days I had remained quiet, speaking only when called upon by Taunt to give my thoughts on some point under debate. But when it came my turn the room fell unusually silent.  Partly it was curiosity, because I had spoken so little, but I believed, not entirely presumptuously, that most there liked and respected me and would have valued my opinion.  I didn’t know what to say, but I had to say something.  “I’ve been involved in Greenpeace for over a year and a half,” I began, unaware of the irony in that statement in light of Hunter’s sarcastic remarks.  “I became part of this committee because I hoped we could organize an international structure that would help Greenpeace be more effective.  Vancouver has walked out because they didn’t like the way things were going, but it is not appropriate for us to give in to pressure tactics.  It is sad that it has come to this, but all we can do at this point is go back to our respective offices and continue our work for Greenpeace.” Perhaps there could have been a way to salvage things, but it was late Sunday, everyone was tired and had plane reservations home, and as McTaggart had warned, Greenpeace was just not ready. 

The meeting broke up and most of us returned to the Hotel Silvia, home to the out-of-town delegates, where chaos reigned.  Hunter showed up and met with Taunt and I in a closet in our room.  There was no talk of any solution.

“I remember,” Hunter mused, “when I once took a workshop in Gestalt Therapy from Fritz Perls when he was living on Vancouver Island.  He came up to me during a break and asked, ‘How many of the people in this room are really going to get what this is all about?’  ‘Not very many,’ I replied.” 

Taunt nodded in agreement.  The rabble was swirling about outside, and in their ignorance the fragile dream of Greenpeace was being ripped apart. This was fate. Let something beautiful into the world and it would be defiled, not as much by its opponents as by those who believed but understood not.  The yahoos would win out.  No more would Greenpeace be guided by a tribal clan gathered in a circle consulting the I Ching.  The center could no longer hold the energy that had been unleashed.  The tribe had been replaced by the mob.

When I returned to San Francisco with the rest of the delegation we were greeted as heroes for standing firm against the Vancouver scoundrels—those “snakes in the grass,” as some called them.  But I did come back with something positive from all the turmoil. I had become enchanted with Debbie Jayne, one of the three delegates from the Hawaii office known collectively as Charlie’s Angels, all being female, young and beautiful.  It became my obsession to reconnect with Debbie at all costs, and the opportunity soon presented itself.  Debbie was organizing a fundraising walkathon in Hawaii scheduled for the end of February, and I arranged to go as an informal representative from the San Francisco office.

I flew in to Honolulu, rented a car and drove to the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, the Pink Palace of the Pacific.   I left the car in front and went up to my room in the tower building where everything was soft and pink.  The trade winds blew gently through the curtains of the balcony looking out to Diamond Head.  If there was ever a perfect moment of anticipation this was it.  The Angels had left a note at the front desk welcoming me.  I called the Greenpeace office and they came over for a walk on the beach and a chi chi at the bar. Then Debbie and I went up alone to the room.  She was soft and pink with long blond hair and shy playful eyes.  We made love on the pink sheets strewn with petals from my fragrant leis of tuberose and plumeria.  

The Angels
The “Angels”—Charlotte Funston, Nancy Jack, and Debbie Jayne—on the beach at Waikiki

img_86761
Debbie and I on the beach at Waikiki

Debbie left to complete her preparations for the walkathon, and I spent the evening alone savoring my bliss and having sushi across the street from the hotel.  The next morning, feeling light as air, I ran the entire ten-kilometer walkathon route around Diamond Head, anticipating even greater delights to come:  the Angels had arranged for Debbie to have a few well-deserved days of vacation, and she was going to accompany me on a sojourn to Maui.  Clearly the gods were on my side.

One minor obstacle had to be brushed aside.  Shortly after my arrival at the Pink Palace I began to be peppered with phone calls from Bob Hunter.  Vancouver had decided to make another effort to resolve the international situation and Hunter was going to San Francisco in a day or two to meet with people there.  Not knowing what he was up against, he urged me to fly back immediately for the meeting. I resisted heroically, and as arranged Debbie and I flew off to Maui in a Royal Hawaiian Cessna.

Nancy Jack, one of the Angels, had loaned us the use of her tiny little cottage in Lahaina.  No bigger than a large closet, she called it the shoebox.  We went to dinner at nearby Kimo’s on the water.  Lahaina still had the feeling of a lazy south sea island port town, before it was to be totally ruined and overrun with tourists beginning in the 80’s.  When I had first visited Maui in 1970 one felt part of a special elite for having discovered this secret paradise.  Soon the secret would be out and middle-Americans would traipse over in droves from the mainland to “do Maui.”  We sat looking over the water down the coast towards Kihei and Makena.  It was a dark night and the stars twinkled above. I remembered sitting there several years earlier watching the flashes from navy test bombing of the island of Kahoolawe.  But for me the real fireworks were yet to come—that night in the shoebox alone with Debbie.

The Shoebox
Nancy Jack and friend at the “shoebox” in Lahaina

The next day we flew off to the Big Island of Hawaii, driving down the coast to Kilauea. We rented a cottage at Volcano House, a small hotel perched on the rim of the crater where you could sit and watch steam rising from below. I bought a couple of bottles of Liebfraumilch, the only wine selection available, and we retired for a final night of frolic.  The next day we flew back to Honolulu, where I boarded a jet for San Francisco. I hugged Debbie frantically as we said goodbye, got on the plane, and sat there in tears. The tourists seated around me looked tan and rested and ready to go home.  They had had nice vacations, but I had been to paradise.

Shortly after my return Bob Hunter made his promised visit to San Francisco.  It was all for naught. He made a brave appearance before the assembled staff and volunteers to give a speech of reconciliation, but he seemed pained and ill at ease.  He had poured his heart, soul, and genius into the Greenpeace cause, yet all he could generate that day were blank stares from people who, like ungrateful children, couldn’t have cared less.  After that he would slowly fade from involvement in Greenpeace, handing the baton to Patrick Moore.  While Hunter, for all his faults, had been generally liked and admired—and worshipped by many—one could not say the same for Patrick.  Patrick wanted to be liked, and I wanted to like him, but his overbearing manner sometimes made that difficult. Certainly he was not a very astute politician.   Like Hunter, he must have been genuinely befuddled by the bloated entity calling itself Greenpeace that had taken root in San Francisco.  While those who had given birth to the organization struggled to make ends meet in Vancouver, San Francisco seemed awash in money, but no one appeared to be in charge and it had no agenda or environmental campaigns it could call its own.

Attention shifted to the spring campaign against the Newfoundland harp seal hunt.  Bob Taunt was arranging the details but was working without pay.  He asked if I could arrange a salary from the San Francisco office. Wanting to make amends for not standing up for him when he was purged the year before, I took the matter to the board. Bob had requested $1,000 a month, a princely sum to most Greenpeacers.  To avoid making it an issue about Bob Taunt I proposed that my salary also be raised to $1,000 and that Gary Young, Bob’s friend who worked as financial director, be increased to $800.  This caused an outcry and polarized the office like nothing before. I argued that we needed to pay more realistic salaries to attract the kind of people who would be needed as Greenpeace grew. The proposal was approved in a raucous meeting, after which Dexter Cate, one of the leaders of the yahoos, confronted me.  “Do you want my take on all this?” he demanded.  “The least dedicated people in this office are now being paid the most money!” 

Dexter had a point.  Of course he was more dedicated.  He would work day and night for nothing if need be. And who was I anyway?   Nobody had any idea what I was doing, or scheming, in my little office up in Building 240.  I had demonstrated little interest in sailing out into the Pacific to risk life and limb to save whales, or trudging out onto the Newfoundland ice floes to confront angry seal hunters wielding hakapiks. I hated boats.  They made me seasick, and the idea of being in such cramped quarters with twenty or thirty other people was suffocating.  As for the hakapiks, I was not really cut out for confrontation and probably would have wound up apologizing to the hunters for bothering them.  Why should I get $1,000 a month in precious Greenpeace donations?  

Besides, I had an aversion to the extremely dedicated. They were a little too earnest in their self-righteousness.  The Vancouverites were different. Certainly they were dedicated, but they also believed that saving the planet should be fun. They smoked, drank, and didn’t worry about their own purity or judge others by whether they were environmentally correct in every detail. The “dedicated” ones, by contrast, were generally humorless and if they had any human foibles they tried their best to deny it. By way of illustration, once when Pat Moore was in San Francisco he was giving a seminar on ecological history when Neal Tauss jumped in with an unrelated question: “Man, how can you profess to be an environmentalist when you eat meat?”  Neal’s main form of sustenance seemed to be from the endless boxes of carrots he juiced in the meeting room at Fort Mason. Patrick responded by arguing that from the standpoint of its environmental impact as a protein source meat had been given a bad rap, but the gulf between them remained.  I tried to avoid getting in the middle of such arguments so as not to expose my own ambivalence. I liked whales and seals but the scientific arguments that Greenpeace tried to mount, especially against the seal hunt, were often bogus and tended to stretch the truth.  The appeal of Greenpeace’s position was emotional, not logical.  I was not by any means an environmental extremist and had the unfortunate trait of feeling compassion for both sides of an argument—not the right attitude for someone who purported to be a lawyer. 

Once Bob had his salary he put together a delegation consisting of US Congressmen Jim Jeffords and Leo Ryan, Pamela Sue Martin (from television’s Dynasty series) and assorted others to go to the ice to witness and protest the hunt.  The eccentric head of Oakland-based World Airways, Ed Daly, had volunteered to transport the entire group to Newfoundland in his private plane, which sat conspicuously parked at the entrance to the Oakland airport.  At the last minute Daly backed out, allegedly due to pressure from the Canadian government, and I wound up charging commercial airline tickets for everyone on my American Express card.  

Flight to Save the Seals
Ready to board their flight to Newfoundland to protest the seal hunt.  From left to right, Steve Bowerman, Patrick Moore, Pamela Sue Martin, Bob Taunt, Monique van de Ven (a Dutch actress), Gary Young, Rex Weyler. 

Taunt with Ballem
Bob Taunt checks in for his flight. Greenpeace Vancouver lawyer Peter Ballem appears at the left

The campaign was a mild success.  A photograph of Patrick Moore squatting on the ice with a seal between his legs to protect it from hunters was flashed around the world. Not exactly media mind bomb material.

It was real, seal

It was real, seal

“It was real, seal.” My autographed photo of Patrick Moore sitting on a seal, as Bob Taunt looks on in the background. Photo by Rex Weyler

After the campaign Taunt invited a small group on a vacation excursion to San Blas, Mexico, in a friend’s private plane. Debbie Jayne came over from Hawaii to join us. We flew down the Pacific coast in the small plane, watching for cows on the landing strip at San Blas as we arrived just moments before dusk, when it would have been too late for a landing.  In San Blas we were taken under wing by an eccentric building contractor from New York named Norm Goldie who walked around with his pet parrots, caught fish for the hotel where we stayed, and was on the local boxing commission.  But Debbie and I were not destined to recapture the magic of those nights at the Pink Palace, the shoebox and Volcano House. From totally different backgrounds, we seemed to have very little in common.   That was the end of my great romance. Debbie and I would reconnect for brief visits several times over the next few years, with varying degrees of success, until we finally lost track of each other.

img_8670
Greeted by the federales upon arriving in San Blas

img_8674
Being serenaded on the beach in Puerto Vallarta

1978 continued as a year in limbo for Greenpeace, which also seemed in a somber funk.  An anti-whaling voyage was set in motion by a fly-by-night Greenpeace franchise in Los Angeles run by a group of Hollywood hanger-ons turned environmentalists. Bob Taunt, Nancy Jack and Patrick Moore were brought in as a troika to run the campaign, but it felt like a television sitcom that had run its course, and this was to be the last Greenpeace anti-whaling voyage in the Pacific. 

That fall San Francisco Mayor and Greenpeace supporter George Moscone was murdered along with gay supervisor Harvey Milk.  I got the news as I was sitting in my office being interviewed by FBI agents trying to track down a scheme to bomb whaling ships using a miniature yellow submarine that had been seized in Florida. 

Then, as seemed wont to happen, just like with the Kennedys, tragedy struck Bob Taunt. He had hinted to me with a touch of his usual grandiosity that he was on the verge of a major announcement that would result in his relocation to Washington, DC.  His friend, Congressman Leo Ryan, was on the House committee dealing with the environment and was going to appoint Bob as his advisor.  I was driving to San Francisco for a gathering at Bob’s flat to celebrate the happy news when I heard the announcement on KCBS:  Ryan had been reported shot by members of the People’s Temple in Jonestown, Guyana.  What was to be a happy occasion turned into an all night vigil as we waited for news to trickle in.  Before leaving for Jonestown, Ryan had given Bob a phone number to the Situation Room in the White House, just in case anything happened.  Bob called and spent much of the night getting reports from Zbigniew Brzezinksi, national security advisor to President Carter.  Ryan was soon confirmed dead and his aide, Jackie Speier, who Bob had been dating, spent the night lying seriously wounded on the airport runway. 

Bob Taunt was not destined to go to Washington.  Instead, tired of the endless conflict in Greenpeace and shattered by the death of his friend, he gave up the public arena, got married and retired to homes in Montana and Carmel.  The last time I saw him was at his wedding.  He was no longer Sebastian Flyte, I was no longer Charles Ryder and the world had lost its charm. 

The final blow came with the arrival in San Francisco of Peter Ballem, a lawyer from Vancouver, on May 11, 1979.  A rugby player with a dominating physical presence, he was calm and deliberate but intensely serious as he sat at the conference table in the meeting room at Fort Mason stating the terms of his ultimatum to the San Francisco board.  They must acknowledge that Vancouver was the legal owner of the Greenpeace name and sign an agreement, grandly called the Declaration and Charter, giving them limited autonomy under Vancouver’s control.  San Francisco lawyer Bart Lee, an informal advisor to the yahoo faction, responded.  He was the opposite of Ballem, something of a poet and intellectual.  Hugely overweight, he drove an MG Midget that tilted precariously under the strain of his bulk. Bart was there to defend the accidental entity known as Greenpeace Foundation of America.  When advised that the San Francisco board refused to accede to his demands, Peter shook his head sadly. “It’s a sorry day,” he lamented. 

The world had collapsed and I was at its center.  Within a few days Vancouver filed a trademark infringement suit—Greenpeace Foundation v. Tussman—seeking to prevent the San Francisco office from continuing to use the Greenpeace name.  Their lawyers had advised that it would create an unfavorable impression if it appeared that Greenpeace was suing itself, so I was named as the primary defendant.  Newspapers all over the country dutifully reported that Greenpeace was suing me,  alleging that I had been hired to set up their branch office in the U.S. but had betrayed them, instead setting up a rival group that now pretended that it was Greenpeace.  Pat Moore held a press conference at the San Francisco Press Club to announce that the local Greenpeace office was a renegade imposter that was soon to be brought to task; the renegades organized a counter press conference immediately following.  I sat uncomfortably with the renegades in my dark suit trying not to look like a shifty lawyer, but feeling like one nonetheless. 

It sounded serious, but I was not worried about my own fate.  I knew they weren’t after me personally. It was intriguing that I was the central figure in this drama and that my testimony was critical in determining the outcome.  But I had no idea what I should do.    Pat Moore had been badgering me for a long time to take charge of the San Francisco office and deliver it back to its rightful owners.  He thought I secretly controlled everything since there appeared to be no one else of substance there. Those in San Francisco, who I had to deal with everyday, expected me to be on their side. After all, I was their lawyer, and they assumed I must loathe the snakes from Vancouver as much as they did.  I didn’t have the heart to reject either side outright, and I felt guilty for getting everyone into this mess—even if it was really that fool Allen Ginsburg’s fault.

The honorable thing, in view of my conflicting loyalties and ambiguous role, would have been to step aside and allow others to determine the outcome, but that seemed too boring.  Greenpeace needed to be delivered from the evil Gollom and the unwashed masses who threatened to usurp the organization in the name of democracy.  The Vancouver elders had their faults but their dream had been stolen and I would return it.   Acting in secret I would negotiate a  settlement with Vancouver, giving them a majority on a joint governing board, and present it to San Francisco for approval.  I knew I could deliver three votes out of seven on the San Francisco board, so all I needed would be one additional vote.  Surely one poor soul out of the remaining four, oblivious to my machinations, would crumble in the face of the overwhelming pressure I would bring to bear.

First I would hit them where it really hurt by cutting off the funds flowing in from the national direct mail campaign run by Parker, Dodd and Associates.  Richard Parker, its founder, was a pioneer of direct mail fundraising in the service of progressive causes. He had recruited Greenpeace as one of his first clients and the income stream he had developed was the lifeblood of the San Francisco office, which was now raising over $1,000,000 annually.  This was all happening without the approval of Vancouver, but it wasn’t Richard’s fault.  No one had told him about the Northern Problem.  Once he learned about it he took the lead in pressuring me to do something.  He and his lawyer came up to the Greenpeace office after Ballem’s visit urging me to take action, find lawyers, organize a defense.  I felt trapped and resentful. Defend the San Francisco office?  I wasn’t so sure it merited a defense.   But after a bit of procrastination I found some excellent lawyers to handle the defense and, freed of my obligations, set off down the self-destructive path of my own creation.

I walked unannounced into the Parker/Dodd offices in the Cannery Building where Richard Parker, Bill Dodd, and their lawyer happened to be meeting.  I outlined my plan. “The three of us are deadly serious about this,” I concluded, “but there is one critical element that needs to be in place.  You guys are raising thousands of dollars in the U.S. using the Greenpeace name, and this could be in violation of Vancouver’s trademark rights.  I would think that it would be prudent for you to consider discontinuing your activities until this is all worked out.  That would give San Francisco additional incentive to settle and would significantly aid our efforts.”  I felt proud of myself for stating my argument so forcefully.  I was operating outside the rules, and it felt intoxicating.  Secretly I wished the tribe could crush the opposition with one swift blow, but they couldn’t and this was the next best thing. 

It was their lawyer who responded.  “Well, actually this is the reason I am here right now.  I’m advising them that this is exactly what they should do given the legal situation.”  

Richard agreed.  “We have a new business here with a dozen employees who are depending on us.  We can’t risk it all for this, so we’ll certainly stop everything until things are settled.”

Well, I thought, as I left their office.  I got what I wanted.  Even if it really wasn’t the result of my doing, nobody will know the difference.  I called Patrick Moore in Vancouver and told him of my plan to come up and negotiate a settlement. I said I had the support of two other board members and that a fourth would certainly cave in under the pressure. To demonstrate our seriousness, I said, I had gone to Parker/Dodd and gotten them to cut off the fundraising so as to squeeze the renegades into submission.  That should prove I wasn’t just the traitorous lawyer that some in Vancouver suspected!

It seemed to impress Patrick, and the wheels were set in motion.  I secretly flew up to Vancouver with Donna Scheff, one of my allies on the board, and met with Peter Ballem. We drafted an agreement that called for San Francisco to acknowledge Vancouver’s ownership of the trademark and set up a joint governing body, giving Vancouver a majority by one vote, and shipped it down to San Francisco as a last ditch offer of settlement.

“Where did this come from?” the San Francisco lawyers puzzled when the proposal arrived.  I couldn’t exactly reveal the mystery of its origin, but a board meeting was called nonetheless to consider it.

The evening before, I stopped by my parents’ house and excitedly described the events that were unfolding.  I rarely told them anything about my life so they must have found it unusual that I was so animated.  But as I began describing my little scheme with Parker/Dodd, my mother ran into her room and threw herself on her bed.  She lay there sobbing as I sheepishly finished the story for my father.  She must have been crying for the whales that were being killed while we humans argued over the ownership of the name of the organization that was trying to save them.  She was a big Greenpeace supporter.  “How is it,” she once asked me, a bit in awe, “that someone like Bob Hunter would grow up to want to risk his life to save whales?”  

The Ohana Kai

My mother visiting the Ohana Kai in San Francisco


The meeting was an anticlimax.  I argued for accepting the settlement, along with Dick Dillman and Donna Scheff. Then it was Tom Falvey’s turn. His was the swing vote. We knew the others would be against:  Carole Sears, Eddie Chavies and Gollom himself, John Frizell, who had recently migrated to San Francisco.  I hadn’t attempted to talk to Tom personally.  There was no way we could have a serious conversation—we might as well have been from different planets.  Stroking his long beard he pronounced, “No, I can’t go along with this—its not in the best interests of Greenpeace.” 

Tom FalveyI
Tom Falvey, whose “No” vote sealed my doom

That was it.  My grand scheme was in ruins. I had failed.  Trying to be dramatic, I got up and announced I was therefore resigning my position as General Counsel of Greenpeace Foundation of America.

I wish I could say that was the end, but it wasn’t.  As I was the key figure in the circumstances that led to the establishment of the San Francisco office, the taking of my deposition was a major event. Seven lawyers from all sides attended. I answered their questions as honestly as I could, believing the facts favored Vancouver’s side, but of course that didn’t resolve anything.  San Francisco’s lawyers took the same set of facts and wove a magnificent argument supporting their side. 

Although I had resigned my paid position I was still on the board of directors and launched a subversive battle against the San Francisco office, becoming known as “the leak” because I would attend strategy sessions, then phone Patrick Moore and give him the details.  Being terrible at keeping secrets, this eventually got out and a meeting was called in an attempt to remove me from the board—but they couldn’t get a quorum.   It didn’t much matter because, in the end, none of my machinations made the slightest bit of difference.  

Meanwhile, San Francisco’s lawyers made their own attempt to reach a settlement with Vancouver, coming up with an agreement very similar to the one I had negotiated.  It would have been approved if not for the last minute intervention of the only person capable of changing the course of events.

David McTaggart, leader of Greenpeace Europe, didn’t like what he was hearing from his friends in North America.  He had no love for the Vancouver tribe, feeling they had given him little support during his voyage to Moruroa and had then tried to appropriate all the credit for themselves.  A common Vancouver pattern, it seemed.  Someone had to put up a fight, and since the U.S. Greenpeacers lacked leadership, that job fell to him.  He flew to the United States with two of his associates, toured the offices mobilizing them against Vancouver, and then settled in San Francisco to finish the battle.  His arrival at the last minute caused San Francisco to scuttle the settlement agreement the lawyers had negotiated and instead place their faith in him. 

I had mixed feelings about McTaggart.  Not at all the crazy-hippie-environmentalist type, he was a can-do sort of person with boundless energy and powers of persuasion.  I saw him as ruthless and manipulative but when he focused his intense blue eyes on you it was impossible not to want to yield to his charm and the force of his personality.  Part of you knew you were being taken for a ride, but you also knew it would be a fabulous ride.   A born leader, he made people follow without feeling they were being led.  He had built a tight-knit organization in Europe focused on running environmental campaigns, avoiding the problems Vancouver faced.  He was not an intellectual giant or a great thinker, simply a practical genius who could make things happen—exactly the kind of leader Greenpeace craved.

The end came quickly.  Having unified and mobilized the opposition, McTaggart headed triumphantly to Vancouver. Despite his real antipathy toward the elders, he was originally from Vancouver himself so he could easily slip back into the role of their old drinking buddy. The principals gathered at a local pub and, without the benefit of lawyers, negotiated an end to the entire affair.  There would be a Greenpeace International based on McTaggart’s model of one country, one vote—convenient for McTaggart since he had Greenpeace offices in several European countries and the United States on his side.

Thus ended the era of Vancouver’s hegemony, or claimed hegemony, over Greenpeace. One could argue that in a way they had achieved their objective.  At last an international structure had been created that would put an end to the years of chaos and strife, even if it meant turning it over to McTaggart. Not insignificantly, Vancouver would also get assistance in paying off the large debt it had run up organizing the early campaigns that put Greenpeace on the map.  For San Francisco, the cost in legal fees had been over $100,000, but it too felt vindicated.  Perhaps they had been right all along.  The Vancouver group was in no position to take over Greenpeace.  The lawsuit had been the last gasp of the original tribe that had been slowly withering away through attrition and fatigue. In reality only Pat Moore had stuck around to carry the torch to the final battle.

Vancouver had had its moment of glory, its night in the shoebox, when all of creation was fresh and new and possibilities seemed limitless. It had opened its hands, let the power go, and it would never return. It had not been graceful, and lives would never be the same, but perhaps that was how it had to be. 

Led by McTaggart, Greenpeace would experience its greatest period of growth, especially after the publicity generated when French commandos sank its ship Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand in 1985.  He would serve for over a decade, then go into semi-retirement on doctor’s orders and produce olive oil on a farm in Italy. He died in an automobile accident near his home on March 23, 2001, lionized as the Shadow Warrior, one of the giants of the environmental movement but largely unknown to the general public—one who, like Greenpeace, was never free from controversy and criticism. 

Bob Hunter had already left Greenpeace, wound up working as an environmental reporter for a Toronto television station, and continued to dabble in environmental causes.  He died of cancer in 2005. Patrick Moore served as the Canadian delegate to Greenpeace International for several years.  Then, in what he said was reaction to some of the excesses of the environmental movement, he switched sides to become spokesman for the British Columbia timber industry and an advocate for nuclear power, reviled by many as an eco-traitor. Both the Vancouver and San Francisco Greenpeace offices became relatively insignificant as the center of Greenpeace activity shifted to Europe. Those who had so eagerly thrown in their lot with McTaggart soon found that Greenpeace in North America would no longer be a potent force in the public arena.

Had I been smart, ambitious, or both, I might have had a lifelong career with Greenpeace alongside McTaggart, who had tried, but failed, to recruit my support.  I had scornfully burned all my bridges.  There was no place for me in the new Greenpeace order and I knew it. I didn’t even want it. Greenpeace was not my universe, and McTaggart was not my god.  I had been an interloper in a landscape populated by extraordinary characters and dramatic events. From now on I would have to make my own way in life, like many others who had been touched by the Greenpeace magic and would forever remember those precious but fleeting moments when life overflowed with excitement, purpose and adventure.

David McTaggart Obituary

Bob Hunter Obituary

Bob Hunter Foundation website

Greenpeace International Website

Patrick Moore’s website

Anti-Patrick Moore website

Paul Watson’s Sea Shepherd Society

McTaggart Before Greenpeace

Greenpeace: Voyages to Save the Whales. An excellent documentary of Greenpeace’s 1975-1976 campaign against the Soviet whaling fleet, narrated by Bob Hunter, in six parts on YouTube

copyright 2007 David Tussman