North Korea is always described in the US media as insane, but I think their government is acting rationally to preserve themselves in the face of constant US threats. We are told they are evil because they are building nuclear weapons. I think they aren't evil, but rational, to defend themselves against the US.

We know so little, and much of what we know is wrong, about the history of North Korea. Japan ruled Korea as a colony from 1910 until their defeat in 1945. Then the Soviet Union controlled the northern half of the country, while the US controlled the southern half. Koreans who had fought in the resistance to Japan formed the government in North Korea. Korean military officers who had served Japan formed the government in South Korea. A civil war started between these existing enemies in 1950. The US saw it as part of the Cold War against international Communism. The US completely destroyed North Korea for 3 years. We firebombed every North Korean city to the ground worse than German cities in WWII. North Korea still fought the US to a stalemate, and we quit in 1953. Ever since then, the US military has threatened North Korea, constantly flying nuclear bombers near them and sending nuclear submarines to their coast.

The North Korean government has developed nuclear weapons and missiles for decades. In 1994 the US and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework" wherein North Korea committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid and a step-by-step normalization of relations between the U.S. and the DPRK. Implementation of the agreement was troubled from the start, but its key elements were being implemented.
It is hard to figure out who to blame. The US seems to have cheated first. Part of the problem was the partisan split, with President Clinton and the Democrats supporting, with Congressional Republicans opposing. When Republicans got a Congressional majority in 1995, they blocked the deal's funding. When Republican Bush won the Presidency in 2000, they announced their hostility to the Agreed Framework but partly maintained it. In 2003 the North Koreans were found to have a secret nuclear enrichment program, finally killing the deal. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

Now the newly-elected South Korean President Moon Jae-in favors a peaceful reunification between the two Koreas. The American President has chosen advisors who want war, but he is unpredictable. Nuclear war would be devastating, not only to the millions of people killed in the Koreas, but the entire world in a “nuclear winter” causing crop failure for years. I believe peace is possible, not guaranteed at all, but possible. Meanwhile, let’s try to get news free of traditional American bias and propaganda.

Check out the middle story in this podcast: "The amazing news from Korea about the prospects for peace and de-nuclearization: historian Bruce Cumings of the University of Chicago comments, warning that the Washington consensus opposes a treaty. His books include The Korean War: A History and North Korea: Another Country." https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-financial-crimes-are-more-likely-to-bring-him-down-than-russiagate/

A short history lesson is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/09/history-lesson-why-did-bill-clintons-north-korea-deal-fail/?utm_term=.305676c522c3

Flint MI Water Chemistry Jan 2016

Flint, Michigan water chemistry

The drinking water in Flint Michigan suffers from three problems: lead, bacteria, and color and turbidity issues.

Lead: The lead got into the water because the City switched its source from Lake Huron to the nearby Flint River. This water is more corrosive to calcium carbonate. When water is non-corrosive, it deposits a calcium carbonate film or lime scale; this covering can insulate pipes, boilers and other components of a system from contact with water. When no protective scale is formed, water is considered to be aggressive and corrosion can occur. The Flint River water stripped off the protective layer that had built up inside all the water pipes and proceeded to dissolve the lead pipes (installed 70+ years ago). This oxidation-reduction chemistry is well known; water is routinely treated to eliminate the corrosive properties. In Flint this treatment was not done, in order to save the State $100 a day.

The lead is invisible. The EPA action level for lead is 15 parts per billion (pbb). There were some measurements of Flint drinking water at over 50 times that concentration. Still, you can't see that.

The medical impact of lead is catastrophic nerve damage to children. There is no safe level of lead exposure; it causes damage at the lowest measurable concentrations. Lead is strongly correlated with reduced IQ, increased ADD, and even violence. The potential damage done to the 9,000 children of Flint, Michigan is incredibly severe and irreversible.

Color: The dramatic and revolting colors of the Flint drinking water are likely due to iron, from the river water, or algae or other plant matter as well as suspended sediments (mud) from the river water that is inadequately treated. Green or blue water may also have been caused by corroding copper pipes.

Bacteria: When water carries lots of suspended sediments, it can carry lots of bacteria and be resistant to disinfection by chlorination. Turbid water is generally not safe, although if it only has high iron or manganese it may be colored (but not turbid) and still be safe.

Widespread reports of sickness, such as flu-like diseases, were probably caused by bacteria such as e. coli in the drinking water that was from the polluted source and inadequately treated. Legionaries’ disease, which killed 10 people, was transmitted via the drinking water.

Conclusion: The drinking water problems in Flint, Michigan were caused by prioritizing short-term cost savings, overriding standard water management practices. The imposed huge costs to the population, whose complaints were ignored due to politics.

Reverend Galen Guengerich wrote “God Revised – How Religion Must Evolve in a Scientific Age.” I will quote a section inspired by a workshop led by Gessner Geyser on “The Neurobiology of Religion” explained and interpreted by Reverend Galen Guengerich.

"Our brains are pattern-seeking mechanisms. Whenever possible, our brains revert to established patterns of thought, feeling, and action. To a brain, old ways are the best. It’s fiendishly difficult to change entrenched habits and behaviors because we literally have to change our brains to do so – rewire the synapses, create new neural nodes, and establish different pathways. And our brains resist such change, even though we know that continuing use of ingrained neural patterns allows our brains to atrophy and eventually causes them to shrink. What causes our brains to thrive? It turns out that change and challenge are the main catalysts for neurological development. Ironically, our brains cannot be changed merely by adding new information or knowledge. What is required is new behavior: a different way of living.

This is where religious disciplines enter the picture. Over the past decade, researchers have been studying people who practice mindfulness, the deep form of awareness developed through disciplines such as meditation and prayer. The researchers have found that mindfulness literally changes the human brain. It is especially effective in developing the brain’s capacity for experiencing happiness and fulfillment. In other words, the ancient sages who counseled us to practice the disciplines of attentiveness and gratitude knew what they were talking about after all. Enlightenment isn’t the process of learning new ideas; it’s the discipline of following a daily spiritual practice.

In order to be effective, however, the discipline must have an objective. Simply put, faith directs our attention toward that purpose, and religion keeps us focused on it. Faith is a bridge between what is past and what is possible. Religion, in turn, is a way of life that enables our faith to become real. It also carries our faith along from day to day and generation to generation.

Once our moral imagination gives us a glimpse of a different future, we need the endurance to persist until transformation actually happens. Our faith needs an external means of support: stories to restore our courage, symbols to remind us of commitments we have made, and daily rituals to renew our resolve. We need a place to go when we are feeling discouraged and songs to sing when we are full of spirit. We need companions to help bear the load. These supports not only help sustain our faith, but they also help re-create it at other times and places, and for other people.

In my view, the theological term for the supports that sustain and renew our faith is religion. It is the collection of external forms we use – songs, symbols, stories, rituals, obligations, sacred spaces – to carry our faith along from day to day and generation to generation. We call it the practice of religion."

Climate Change is real

Global climate change is real. The climate is changing and it is caused primarily by what people are doing (anthropogenic climate change). In the words of the experts: “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” I am not a Ph.D. specializing in this field so I cannot explain in detail all facets of the climate change theory. But know the basic scientific principles underlying the theory:

1.      Carbon dioxide absorbs heat (the greenhouse effect).

2.      Burning coal and oil and massive clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 40%.

3.      The increased heat absorption from the increased carbon dioxide concentration is raising the average temperature of the land and seas and thus changing the global climate.

Climate is a complex phenomenon. One basic feature is essential to understand: the temperature does not increase uniformly at all times and in all places. Climate is not linear: some small changes in some ways can cause large changes in other ways. While the average annual planet temperature has increased just over 1 degree Fahrenheit, that has already lead to droughts, more extreme heat and cold and more intense versions of storms such as hurricanes. The forecast is for much more severe effects. Given this understanding, the name “global warming” should be replaced by "climate change."

In summary, the model of climate change first developed in the 1980’s in NASA is pretty accurate. As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the average temperature increases, causing climatic shifts. Much of the Midwestern Plains in North America and much of Africa are drier, with prolonged droughts. Hurricanes are stronger. Glaciers around the world are melting, causing the sea level to rise. The US Defense Department, not known as a liberal, tree-hugging group, has determined that global climate change is real, and is one of the top threats to US security in coming decades.

To believe in a scientific theory is a product of fact and reason. It means that you think a generalized principle does a good job of explaining a lot of empirical facts. I believe in the theory of global climate change, just as I believe in the germ theory. Germ theory is insufficient to explain why one person gets sick, while another doesn’t. But that limited explanatory power does not mean we should reject germ theory altogether.

Scientific understanding is always subject to revision, from new information or new interpretation of existing data. For instance, the theory of plate tectonics only became the consensus view among geologists a century after it was first proposed. But such understanding can still be useful and should guide public policy. The alternative to science is emotionalism, or allowing the interests of the wealthy and powerful to dominate public policy. So the best policy is to determine facts and use reason to the best of our abilities, accepting that we cannot know the future with complete certainty.

Skepticism is an inherent part of the scientific process. However, the people who call themselves climate change skeptics are not, for the most part, genuine skeptics. Many of them are deniers because they are paid to deny it. The fossil fuel industry is following the same playbook as the tobacco industry followed when confronted by rising proof of the dangers of their product: spread uncertainty and doubt, and attack the messengers. As a result of this well-funded public relations campaign, along with the Republican Party’s longstanding ties to the coal and oil industry, the acceptance of global climate change has become a partisan issue: Republicans deny it. For instance, the economy of Oklahoma depends on oil. Their Senator James Imhofe has called climate change a hoax. Democrats mostly accept climate change; the industrial sectors that back their Party aren’t so threatened by the proposed actions.

Responding to the threats of climate change is difficult for humans. We are good at responding to visible, immediate threats. For example, if you see a snake or a lion, you get away from it. But climate change is not visible or immediate. An individual can’t tell if the earth has warmed by 1 degree Fahrenheit. Weather always changes, and some years and some centuries are hotter, colder, drier, or wetter than others. But the science behind understanding climate change is strong. People all over the world need to figure out how to burn less coal and oil. If we don't, the next few generations will suffer tremendously. I hope that averting this suffering for our grandchildren will be enough to make us act for the long term good.

I’d like to end with a bit of satire by Chip Giller, founder of Grist.org: "So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!"

WHO ARE YOU? – Orval’s Sermon on July 15, 2012 at UUCSP

Who Are You??? I’m not asking for your name, like a police officer, or what you put on a business card. No, I’m asking like the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland. Who? – are? - you??? Yogananda, in his “Autobiography of a Yogi,” says “Who Are You?” is THE best question upon which to meditate.

What is the nature of Consciousness? How do you make decisions? Do you have free will? THE most discussed topic in philosophy throughout history and now is free will. Today I will add my own perspective on the ancient questions of consciousness and free will and relate some of the latest answers from science.

Our intuitive ideas of who we are may be wrong, just as our idea that the sun revolved around the earth was proven wrong. Most people believe in dualism; they think the mind and the body exist separately. People say “I HAVE a brain” and “I HAVE a body.” And, my personal favorite: “I changed my mind.” Who is the “I” that has a mind, that it can change? As if this “I” is something other than our mind. Who are you? “We are spirits in a material world” says the song by Sting. However, science has discredited the theory of dualism. We now know that if you damage parts of the brain, there are specific effects: there is no memory, self-control or decision-making. In other words, no brain, no you. If you stick a fork in it, you are done. Think of mind & brain like layers of computer hardware and software. Hardware is useless without software and software is useless without hardware. The mind is what the brain does.

To answer the questions of free will and consciousness, I turn to biological research: 1) Consciousness, a sense of self, arises from an organism’s interactions with its surroundings. And 2) Free will arises from an organism’s attempts to survive in a prey-predator environment. What I like about this approach is that it provides a unified theory to explain humans and animals. And it grounds free will and responsibility in physical survival, not in some abstract moral plane.

Organisms, including human beings, have to know which portion of the incoming sensory stream results from its’ own actions and which does not. When you move your head, the world appears to stay still. You can’t tickle yourself because you know you are touching your stomach and therefore you are in control. We are not robots responding predictably to external stimuli. All organisms that survive must be unpredictable for competitors, prey or predators, as well as able to explore hidden resources. Recent evidence indicates that one common ability of brains is to choose among different behavioral options even in the absence of differences in the environment and to perform genuinely novel acts. For instance, isolated leech neurons subjected to identical electrical stimuli generates either a swimming motor program or a crawling motor program. What these variable results tell us is that the animal behaves as it damned well pleases, sometimes swimming and sometimes crawling, in an unpredictable way.

Animals and humans constantly ask: What happens if I do this? The experience of willing yourself to do something and then successfully doing it is how you develop a sense of self and that you are in control. The concept of self necessarily follows from the insight that animals and humans initiate behavior by themselves. Agency is assigned to entities who initiate actions themselves. Thus, agency is crucial for moral responsibility. Behavior can have good or bad consequences. The law of the jungle is “eat or be eaten;” an animal is responsible for its own survival. It is the agent for whom the consequences matter the most and who can be held responsible for them. This is one scientific model of consciousness and free will.

Who - are - you? The Buddhists figured this out a long time ago, in what is now called “the bundle theory of the self.” This theory holds that you are a collection of traits and characteristics held together by the bundle of your body.

Everyone knows about right brains and left brains. Well, science now speaks of many modules within the brain that are specialized functions or capacities which all run simultaneously, mostly subconsciously. You hear me, see me, feel the seat under yourself, pump your heart, and digest your food, all at the same time. Our brains, then, are like a tool box, with many tools available, many ``small minds'' that simultaneously process feelings, fantasies, ideas, fixed routines, interpersonal responses and bodily skills.

Around 1960, researchers found that some people suffering from severe epileptic seizures could be cured by surgically severing the connections between the right half and the left half of the brain. Science has discovered that the optic nerve from the right eye goes to the left brain, and the optic nerve from the left eye goes to the right brain. In a normal, undivided brain, this information is subsequently shared between halves of the brain. A patient who had the divided brain surgery was shown a picture just to his right eye, which is connected to the left brain, where the speech module is located. The patient said he saw a picture of a chicken, and picked a chicken claw to match it. Then the patient was shown a picture of a snowy winter scene just to his left eye. He said he saw nothing, but he could correctly point to other related pictures, and picked a snow shovel. He was asked why he picked pictures of a chicken claw and a shovel. The patient answered: “Oh, the chicken coop is messy and I need the shovel to clean it out.” Instead of saying “I don’t know,” we just make up a plausible story.

This was the first experiment to demonstrate the existence of an Interpreter module or function in our brains. Whatever we do, the interpreter makes sense of it. The Self is a sort of public relations agent, a spokesperson but not a boss.

I used to object when people said “part of me wants to go out, and part of me wants to stay home.” I thought that was ridiculous because there was only one person. Now I’ve learned we are composed of parts, and part of us really does want to go out while another part of us wants to stay home.

Here is a fun fact: We don’t know where thoughts come from! Seriously, researchers don’t have a clue. Thoughts just seem to bubble up from the subconscious and appear to consciousness. Much of our behavior is not governed by our conscious mind – which is prone to claim credit – but by a cauldron of motives, drives and unconscious propensities of which we are largely oblivious. Indeed, most of our actions are carried out by the unconscious minds.

Scientific experiments using brain scans have proven that we unconsciously make choices before we are consciously aware that we have decided. Most neuroscientists today argue free will is an illusion. Sam Harris, neuroscientist and author, says: “How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? We can’t.”

Malcolm Gladwell, author of Blink!, says: “[Research] suggests that what we think of as free will is largely an illusion: much of the time, we are simply operating on automatic pilot, and the way we think and act is a lot more susceptible to outside influences than we realize.”

I think the neuroscientists have misread the experimental evidence. These experiments do make us question how we make decisions. We must admit that our decisions are mostly made intuitively, not through a conscious, rational process. The decider here is not the conscious “You” that you think is yourself. But I argue that the decider is all of you, including your mostly subconscious processes. Making those decisions depends upon all of yourself, not just your biological reflexes, but also your culture and your upbringing. You are not out of the loop; you are the loop.

Furthermore, there are destructive implications if people believe they are not responsible for their actions. Experiments show rates of cheating are much lower when subjects read prompts about being free and responsible. Ideas have consequences. Society is bound by a glue of trust. Cheating corrodes healthy society. Taking responsibility for our actions is vital to a healthy society.

Unitarian Universalists promote the principle of “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” So our shared faith declares that we have free will and are responsible agents.

As for me, I believe that I should take responsibility for my life, and avoid the victim role, however tempting that appears. But what if take too much responsibility? I worry about my kids; was I a bad parent? I cannot go back in time and redo my past choices. But boy, do I want to! I kick myself a lot for things I’ve done. I should have closed my business when it started losing money, instead of taking out that home mortgage and losing my business and my house. Woulda, coulda, shoulda; what a pathetic litany. What I’ve learned is you have to adopt a new story, such as “you were under stress then and you did what you thought was best at the time.”

In free will, the will is the hard part. Millions of people are trying to lose weight. According to experts, the starting point is to make a commitment to a specific goal and a plan. This way, when part of you wants to eat too much, you can summon another part to overrule, and remind yourself of your commitment.

Positive reinforcement is the most effective way to change behaviors. That is the basis for the success of Weight Watchers and Alcoholics Anonymous; the group regularly gives you rewards for good behavior. It is hard to change your habits, but after time the new habits get easier, and your new story takes over.

As I see it, a satisfying moral universe is one in which I am responsible for my actions and their consequences, while knowing and accepting the limits of my power. The “Serenity Prayer” asks for:

·      the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

·      courage to change the things I can, and

·      The wisdom to know the difference.

I choose actions from my perceived options. What is fascinating is that some people perceive options that others do not. Statistics and common sense say if one is raised in poverty, he or she is much more likely to not finish high school and then remain in poverty. But how can we explain the exceptions? Some people overcome poverty, study hard and succeed. Why? Siblings, even twins, can make different choices and experience very different outcomes. This is proof that our lives are not determined, that we have free will.

So, given that you have free will and are responsible for your life, how then will you live?

Awesome: my journey from Science to Religion

The following is the text of the sermon I delivered at the Universalist Unitarian Church of Santa Paula, CA on July 10, 2011.

Title: "Awesome: My Journey from Science to Religion" 7/10/11

You know what’s really awesome? 5 Billion years! That is the age of the Earth, since it cooled into solid rock. For the first Billion years, the planet was lifeless. Then one cell came to life. Scientists agree that all life descends from this single common ancestor, a one-celled organism. Life began one time only, as far as we can tell, 4 Billion years ago. Isn’t that awesome!

When I stare up at the stars, I feel small. There are billions and billions of stars to the edge of the expanding universe, 14 Billion years after the Big Bang.

I feel awe when I study the principles of science. This sermon is inspired by those experiences. It is a sermon about science and religion, the two most powerful forces in human history, according to Alfred North Whitehead.

Science offers a lawful system of matter in motion that human reason can explain without recourse to supernatural agencies. The laws of Nature are beautiful to contemplate. Darwin’s theory of evolution is a great achievement in explaining the natural world. Natural selection has been called “design without a designer.” But how did these laws of nature come to be? Does this beautiful design imply the existence of a designer, that is to say, a God? Approximately half of all scientists in America profess a belief in God. Ben Franklin said: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

The UU’s 1^st Source is “Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and openness to the forces which create and uphold life.”

Sometimes I feel like a purring cat. I feel such gratitude for all the good things in my life. A beautiful sunset is awesome. Natural beauty overwhelms us and this experience of awe transcends ordinary experience. This is religious experience.

When I first started attending the Unitarian Universalist church, I had a conversation with a fellow who was a militant Humanist. I said, speaking of religion, that there are experiences that cannot be put into words. He said: like what?

Thandeka, a UU minister and professor, put it this way: first we have these feelings. Then we try to put the feelings into words. Then we try to organize these words into a coherent rational system of thought. But the original impulse is a feeling of awe.

What is outside the realm of science? Life’s meaning, purpose, value, ethics, the experience of music, dance, art, beauty, love, awe, wonder, joy. Those are religious issues. The science of love is different from the experience of love. The menu is not the meal. The map is not the territory. We know we will die, so how shall we live?

A friend of mine calls himself a Fallen Agnostic: he used to not know; now he doesn’t care! My kids say my religion is voting and recycling. I believe in the Mystery! I feel all life is one, that all 50 Trillion cells of my body, all the animals, even somehow the earth itself, is alive and therefore connected. I feel I am God and you are too. So is my cat.

I was raised in a fundamentalist church, the Church of Christ. Later I became infatuated with science and I became an atheist. I made science my religion, which is scientism. Scientism is the belief that only what can be demonstrated using the scientific method is true. But that is itself a faith statement; it is not demonstrable.

You know Jesus was a Californian because he wore long hair and sandals and started his own religion. I started a religion with a couple of friends back in the 70's. Gordon did most of the writing so we sometimes called it Gordonianism. It’s all spaghetti sauce, Gordon would say, as he cooked down ripe red tomatoes, green peppers, yellow onions, herbs and spices until it would be transformed into spaghetti sauce, the metaphor of unity. My Gordonian phase was an attempt to find meaning in a world devoid of a transcendent God.

I have had experiences where I felt life was one, that I was part of everything, of all life, of all creation. That is why I don’t believe in a God that is separate, a sky God like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. My experience is that I am part of it, not separate from it. It’s all spaghetti sauce.

One day Gordon and I went hiking at Nahoqui Falls. We got separated. I climbed to the top of a ridge, and climbed an oak tree where I had a commanding view. Then I saw this red-tailed hawk coming straight towards me. We made eye contact. Then I saw through the hawk’s eyes. I was the hawk. I flew over ridges and canyons far beyond. I saw the landscape of my life stretching out before me. I chose a direction, and that led me to certain places and not others. We choose from the options we perceive as available, and we are shaped by our choices.

Science and religion are not in conflict. Both use reason and faith. Science is premised on faith statements like there is an objective reality that corresponds to my sensory experiences. When I look in a telescope, I am seeing something out there.

All the early scientists were deeply religious. Science came out of research in Roman Catholic universities that were staffed by members of religious orders who had the education and means to conduct scientific investigation. Examples:

Copernicus in the 16^th Century was the first person to claim that the earth was not the center of the universe, actually the earth revolved around the sun.

Galileo, the first to use a telescope to observe the heavens, discovered the moons of Jupiter. Galileo was a pious Catholic who seriously considered the priesthood before he became a math teacher. Galileo’s case is supposed to prove the antagonism between religion and science. However, an honest look reveals Christians on all sides of this debate.

Isaac Newton in the 17^th Century wrote perhaps the most influential book on science ever. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Awesome!

For all of human history until the 16th Century, people thought of themselves as residing in a living world with a Fatherly God or gods tending to his creation. The scientific revolution led by Newton & company led to a transformation in people's world view. A living world was replaced with a mechanical world. It was all billiard balls bouncing off each other. The steam engine became the great metaphor for the world. Our bodies were seen as mechanical. The planet was mechanical. The spirit no longer inhabited and moved everything. Materialism became the new theology of this mechanical age. Nietzsche pronounced God was dead in the 19^th Century.

Well, the wheel of science has turned. Quantum physics has replaced classical physics. Quantum mechanics says that what we think of as the probability that a radioactive atom randomly decays is actually described by it being both decayed and not decayed until observed. The physicist Erwin Schrodinger wrote to Einstein this thought experiment: his cat was in a box with some Uranium. If an atom randomly underwent fission then the Geiger counter would break a flask containing poison and kill the cat. Quantum physics says Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously alive and dead. The characteristic trait of quantum mechanics is entanglement, where one object cannot be fully described without considering the others. Einstein derided this as spooky action at a distance, because it meant information travels instantaneously, faster than the speed of light.

Quantum mechanics is not just for scientists; it has transformed our economy: 30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is based on inventions made possible by quantum mechanics, from semiconductors in computer chips to lasers in compact-disc players and retail checkout counters, X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging in hospitals, and much more.

The very nature of physical reality has been transformed by science. Our world is built, not on matter, but on information. DNA is the map that uses information to harness dumb matter to its own ends. We don’t think of our bodies as steam engines, but as computers. Materialism is so 19th Century when matter is in a wave-particle duality. Nihilism, the view that nothing matters, is obsolete in a universe where every observer changes what is observed. Science teaches us everything is connected to everything. I therefore pronounce materialism and nihilism dead. The universe is alive again.

In worship we awaken our sense of the sacred, of what is most meaningful. Religion is our vision of the good, of our highest common aspirations. Religion is our answer the universal human quest for meaning and purpose. Let us covenant to affirm and promote the free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Let us lead lives of gratitude, integrity, compassion and love. Let us go now in peace.

Winona LaDuke

This morning I had the pleasure of seeing Winona LaDuke. Cal Poly invited her. She spoke to issues of sustainability, of culture and religion, and of land. Sacred places is a central aspect of Native American spirituality, and this collides with the modern American ethic of land use.

LaDuke described the dominant American cultural narrative as the frontier, of "the West," a limitless place to be conquered. This narrative is the opposite of sustainability. We must replace the frontier story if we are to survive.

She spoke of responsibility, how this is more important than rights. She acknowledged the complexities of these issues. At the same time, she argues intensely for her values and positions.

She spoke of examples, stories of struggles over sacred lands threatened with being turned into a golf course, or a coal mine. She spoke of naming places, and how "naming big mountains after little men" can frame our relationship with the land. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is called "the place where life begins" by the people who live there. Amherst, a town in Massachusetts, is named after the British military commander, Baron Jeffrey Amherst, the first advocate of biological warfare: he ordered the distribution of smallpox-contaminated blankets to the native peoples. (Winona LaDuke went to Harvard, which is near Amherst.)

I know her from her campaign as Green Party candidate for Vice President, with the Ralph Nader for President campaigns of 1996 and 2000. I asked her if she is active as a Green. She said she is still a Green, but is active in other arenas, specific land-use issues, and renewable energy in particular. She is optimistic about those kinds of actions, and named many success stories.

PS. After her talk, I bought her new book "Recovering the Sacred - The Power of Naming and Claiming." When I asked her to sign it, she asked what my name means. (As in Spanish, it is associated with gold. "Orval" is the French spelling of "Orville" and can mean "gold town." )

+Orval Osborne

Fix Proposition 13

Preface: My letter to the Editor of the local paper, the Tribune, followed a story about a redevelopment agency that is trying to prevent the payment of property tax revenue to the school district. I have found that letters commenting on a paper's story are much likelier to be printed. For those outside of CA, our infamous "Proposition 13" was a voter initiative passed in 1978 that limited property reassessments to a 1% annual increase, unless the property is sold.

+Orval Osborne, delegate from sunny California

Fix Proposition 13

Pismo Beach should allow the school district to get its share of property tax revenue because that was the pact they made 20 years ago.

But this points out our huge sleeper issue: The tax system is dysfunctional. How should the schools, local, state and federal governments get their tax revenues? Let's begin with property tax.

Proposition 13 was a necessary step for people, individual homeowners, who were facing unaffordable property tax increases 30 years ago. But an unintended consequence of Proposition 13 has been to shift the tax burden from corporations onto the people. Properties are reassessed at the time of sale. Corporations hold onto their properties much longer than people do. People move every 5 years on average. Corporations can live forever and profit off property that has not been reappraised since 1978.

Proposition 13 was intended for homeowners, especially elderly people, and not for corporations. Therefore, Proposition 13 benefits should be restricted to homeowners. Updating business property assessments would generate more tax revenue from corporations, bring fairness to the property tax and raise much needed revenues for Pismo Beach and Lucia Mar. Let's fix this broken property tax deal.

Orval Osborne

San Luis Obispo

Step It Up 2007

I just learned about Step It Up 2007 last week when Bill McKibben was on Democracy Now. As a scientist, I am very concerned about global warming, and have been for many years. In recent years it has started to become a mainstream issue. So I was delighted to find that, not only was there a nationwide movement in Step It Up 2007, but someone else started one in my town!

Thank you, Dawn, for starting this event! The weather cooperated: 88 is unusually warm for November. The turnout of 20-30 people was better than I expected. (I brought many of them there through the Green Party network.) She got a good group of speakers, too. Christine Mulholland, SLO City Council Member (and a Green Party member) gave a wonderful talk. Rosemary Wilvert gave out Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs), a simple way to reduce your energy consumption. Lisa Quinn talked about Rideshare, our County's program matching people for carpools. Liz Apfelberg promoted both Green Party issues in general, and spoke against nuclear power, as it does generate a lot of greenhouse gases in mining and refining ore into fuel, plus decommissioning a nuke plant requires huge amounts of fossil fuel energy.

Council Member Mulholland noted the City has many good policies, but they don't implement themselves. It takes an advocate, sometimes a persistent advocate willing to push people out of their comfort zones of “this is how we always do things”(business as usual).

Her most important example, in my opinion, concerns the upcoming remodeling of City Hall. When I was on the Planning Commission, the staff's first draft update of the Conservation and Energy Element of the General Plan was totally inadequate, as if we hadn't just gone through an electricity crisis in this state. I used all my political capital to fight for much more ambitious policies. Thanks to the support of many on the Commission, in the community and on the City Council, I am proud of the resulting policies the City adopted. But, as Christine reminds, policies on the books aren't enough. So she is pushing for the building to incorporate as many energy-saving design elements as possible. (See the Architecture 2030 Challenge http://www.architecture2030.org/ below).

Christine ended her short speech with an observation that really rings true for me: she would be tempted to slump into despair over our many overwhelming problems, were it not for the contagious enthusiasm of other people touting solutions to those problems.

Later in the program, I grabbed the mike briefly to echo the importance of designing buildings for energy efficiency, which is what the Architecture 2030 Challenge is all about. * This is the most important thing we as a society can do to fight global warming. * Seventy-six percent (76%) of the energy produced by the new coal plants planned will go to operate buildings. We can now design buildings to consume HALF of the energy of the average building. Let's do it!

SLO City Council pleases

I love San Luis Obispo! While I don't expect to always agree with the City Council, or anyone, I agreed with them last night when they rejected a proposal to build a bunch of millionaire homes way up on the steep hillsides overlooking Johnson Avenue. So here's a big, sloppy kiss to all the City Council members, who voted 5-0 against the projects. Thank you!

The Council must have known there was going to be a big public turnout. They moved from the City Council chambers to the Vet's Hall. Good thing! 300 people turned out. Everyone was opposed to the project, except the landowners and the people they hired to promote it. Congratulations to Deborah Cleere, for a great job in organizing the opposition. Deborah, for you I got my butt out to the meeting.

Sure, those houses would have had killer views. But that would have come at the expense of everyone else who had to look at the roads gashing the hillsides. Plus the folks living downhill would suffer more mudslides. Fire danger was very much on the minds of the public. (As I write this, half a million people, an historic event, have been evacuated due to fires ravaging the entire coast south of here.) Neighbors recounted stories of fires they lived through, sometimes barely.

Another aspect of the City Council meeting was the small-town, personal side. Council member Paul Brown reacted angrily to threats of taking development to the County with "This is a really bad time to threaten me." His back story includes an ongoing messy divorce, replete with ugly accusations from the ex, which have been splashed across the front pages of the local newspaper.

Council member Christine Mulholland predictably blasted the project. She provided fireworks as she really spoke her mind. She recalled her history fighting past "really stupid projects." The whole time people were split between embarrassment at her harsh criticism of the people wanting to build on their property, who were present in the audience, and lustily cheering her condemnation of the evildoers.

I waited towards the end before I took my turn to speak at the meeting. When I spoke, against the project on general planning principles, I accidentally said I was on the City Council, when I was on the Planning Commission. In my attempt at recovering my narrative, I said, well, I tried for the Council (in 2004, when I started this blog.)

Council member Andrew Carter picked up on that in his comments explaining his vote, saying if I kept trying I could have got on the Council. I am grateful to Council member Carter for the kind words he spoke of my accomplishments on the Planning Commission. I will say that the people who most wanted to get elected to the City Council, did. Congratulations to Andrew Carter for persevering, and ultimately winning. In his explanation of his vote, he started with naming people in the audience who he knew through PTA or some other adult support circle for kid things. He was in his element, and he was shining.

Professor Allen Settle was true to form, running through all his reasons for voting no. He reminded us of his history, certainly including his term as Mayor. Right you are, Allen.

Mayor Dave Romero surprised me with his no vote. As a politician he had to recognize the fact that 300 people turned out, and no one spoke in favor of the project. He did admit his inclination was as an engineer who wanted to rise to an engineering challenge: how to build a really difficult project. Yes, it could be done, but the cost would be high; even he had to admit that.

So we had a great conclusion: 5-0 against a "stupid" project. Too bad the public's energies once again had to be mobilized in a defensive action. How can we mobilize people FOR something? The challenges facing us are so great. Surely we will find those moments in our future.

SLO-town Chinatown

I salute the Copelands for downsizing their planned Chinatown development. They surely knew they could get a majority vote on the City Council, but they would alienate a large portion of the community with their original, very tall plans. By revising their plans to a substantially reduced height, they have satisfied one of the major objections to their plans. This demonstrates wisdom and political acumen.

The Copelands have done a lot of good for the City of San Luis Obispo. I remember when the City had a (literal) gaping hole in its center. The Copelands stepped forward and offered a plan to fill this hole. I wish they had a greater vision then, in particular they should have gone to two stories instead of a single floor. But this is quibbling. Their contribution was fantastic.

I was on the Planning Commission when they submitted plans for the Court Street project. I wished they added housing, but I voted in support anyway. In retrospect, I would say the City should have built the parking garage on Palm Street before they demolished the parking on Court Street.

Transit Funds

Gasoline prices are higher and only going higher still in the future. When gas costs $5 and then $8 a gallon, we'll have to change our practices. California has spent trillions on car-oriented, low density suburbs. We will have to spend much to rebuild cities that allow for people to get around without a car.

One thing we can do now is use available funds for mass transit: the TDA money is routinely raided for car expenses by every jurisdiction in this county except SLO and Morro Bay. The State Transit Assistance (STA) fund can be used for either capital or operating needs. The governor is proposing to raid 1.3 billion from the STA, funding for transit operations not subject to the rigorous findings of the "unmet needs process" in which the "reasonable to meet" criteria disqualify many crying needs based on speculation that required farebox ratios will not be met.

Regional Sunday service would cease to exist if support from the STA were gone. On Route 9 we would lose 3 daily weekday round trips currently STA funded. How would drivers feel if the Cuesta Grade were shut down all day Sunday and from 5:33 pm until the next morning every day?

Summer Solstice

peak of the circle in length of day that annual cycle that gives us seasons another pattern of time wrapped in a circular rhythm
I stopped in at my friend's house to return her binder she invites me to stay for dinner her husband is a wonderful cook especially with baking bread this family is a model of the good life intentionally lived educated methodically discussed what was important made a family moved to San Luis Obispo because it ranked high on all their parameters so when I drop off her binder and he says want to stay? I stayed.
I went to Men's Group a little late last night in the Fellowship homeless volunteers said they went somewhere else I found them at my first choice Cabo San Luis next Men's Group we'll meet somewhere else no more Fellowship at 232 Foothill Boulevard i am really feeling tghe sad boodbye I have all those memories of experiences in this building its a fetish to associate the experience of community in a physical structure but thats the way we think.