Steps

An interested reader asked recently if I still had thoughts Beneath the Palm, or if indeed I even sat there anymore. How time flies. I thought I had turned away but briefly, yet a year has gone by. I debated continuing this column, it seemed unfair to publish on such an erratic and infrequent basis. Still, the matters to discuss grow more important by the day, I find my concerns mounting with every newscast.

After much hemming and hawing, I made my decision. I will continue to write it, so long as I have at least one interested reader. I will promise quarterly articles, four per year. I will try to do more, but no promises here.

The above question put me in mind of the coming new year, and caused me to look back at the old. 2014 was a blur. Yet a descriptive term comes immediately to my mind: enurement––as in acceptance, as in tolerating, as in giving up, as in thickening our skins and our consciences.

This past year, we as a globe, we as people have decided to accept more horrifying circumstances than in any other year, to my mind. We have become inured (or enured) to violence––whether from weather, or murder, or war.

This past year it seems we chose to accept our fate: to accept a useless and self-centered Congress, to accept random shootings on a weekly basis, to accept intolerance within and between religions, to accept being governed by the power of money and self-interest. We declined to make the hard choices, to make the necessary sacrifices.

It has been said from antiquity that every journey begins with the first step. That step may be a faltering,unsure step, but a step is a step, and the next one is too. President Obama’s step toward medicines and doctors and care for every ailing person may be akin to the first step of a bull in a china shop, but it is a step. The first step toward an effective immigration policy may have been slightly backward, but it was a step. The first step toward improving relationships with a country we have kept hostile on our borders for way too many years may be uneven, but it is a step.

Rather than holler when steps lack ballet-like grace, shouldn’t we instead complain if a first step is never taken? Shouldn’t we be upset with those who prevent others from taking a first step?

And so I ask: Where was that first step toward preventing angry and disturbed people from shooting crowds of innocents, or policemen, or each other? Where was that first step toward movement away from oil and gas to a more beneficial energy?  Where was that first step toward education to meet the specific needs of people in their own communities rather than the one-size-fits-all dictates of central government? And where was that first step toward understanding that ISIS is not the crisis, but rather our unwillingness to understand and tolerate intricate political situations and the multi-layered cultures of others before wading in?

Here is the challenge: to take my word for 2014, enurement, or inurement, and turn it into a different word for 2015, ensurement. Let’s ensure that first steps get taken, that those who shout down first steppers are shouted down themselves, that we can all find the courage to take first steps ourselves.

Well, interested reader, there it is. You asked for it. Yes, there will be more of these columns, because the fodder upon which they feed will not disappear. But if by some miracle it does, I will gladly relinquish the pen.

Bits About Bitcoin

I love this idea. I actually had a similar idea myself years ago, in concept only of course. When we think about all of our clumsy processes from internal combustion engines to flush toilets you wonder why something like Bitcoin hasn’t come along much sooner. But of course, we humans must be emotionally as well as physically ready for such change.

But about Bitcoin. Why allow a commercial institution like a bank to charge processing fees and exchange rates to use one’s own money? Why shouldn’t money be individualized like any other property we own? Why shouldn’t a currency gain value like a commodity from its desirability rather than from individual investment efforts?

But I’m getting ahead of myself.  A bit about Bitcoin. Bitcoin came along in 2009 from encryption written in code that allowed a virtual coin to be traced back to its origins. Everyone on the network has the means to account for every coin in an open ledger and each individual’s right to the coin in his/her wallet is recognized. Every participant in the network has a virtual wallet which is their key to access the Bitcoin.

In one sense this concept has been going on for years in the form of credit cards where no actual money changes hands but we assign the right to that money to another party by signing the card, and the bank verifies our claim that we have sufficient funds for the transaction (fees to the bank and credit card company). But with Bitcoin, a central bank is not needed because everyone on the network can see what’s in your wallet. And a Bitcoin does not depend upon account numbers and other data that can be stolen. The Bitcoin is an entity unto itself and once exchanged, that’s that.

With a growing dependence upon on-line marketing, Bitcoin, and similar currencies such as Litecoin and Peercoin, offer a simple solution for making purchases anywhere in the country and all around the world. I have long felt that currency is too clumsy and complex. Now, thanks to a bit of computer code, a simpler solution is at hand.

But will people buy into Bitcoin? Certainly not the financial institutions that make a living from fees for exchange and investment. Conceptually Bitcoin doesn’t offer such opportunities to these institutions. The currency will have to grow from grassroots efforts; of the people and for the people.

     

"Water, Water Everywhere, Yet..."

I spent an evening recently with a neighbor who works for one of the local oil companies, one that works the oil platforms off the Goleta coast. As one who tends to vilify the oil companies for their use and potential abuse of enormous quantities of water in a drought stricken area, I was a bit nervous when our conversation began. But it took an interesting turn.

My neighbor’s truck glistens in his driveway. He washes his truck almost daily at the plant where he guides the inflow of oil through enormous pipes from the offshore wells. To wash his truck, he uses a special mineral free water that leaves absolutely no residue on the paint surfaces when it dries. Where does he get this water? They make it at the plant where he works. From what? From sea water.

Whoa, there. Aren’t we talking about desalination? The means for obtaining fresh water from sea water that the Central Coast of California so desperately needs? In fact, yes.

The city of Santa Barbara built a desalination plant. It was completed in the early 1990’s in a knee-jerk reaction to drought conditions at that time. But once nature replenished the water supply, the plant was left to go idle. To restore it would require $20 million and then the cost per acre-foot to filter the water would be $1500. When - if - it rains, water from Lake Cachuma Reservoir will be much cheaper. If.

A desalination plant requires a large amount of energy to run it. That is costly. But just down the road in Goleta, the oil company where my neighbor works has lot’s of energy. So much gas rolls in along with the oil through those pipes that they have to burn it off. That’s a lot of energy.

And they have their own desalination plant. Oil companies need large sources of water just a badly as farmers do. They need it for water flooding into reservoir formations to maintain pressure and to force oil out of the production wells. Some use sea water. But they have found that the high sulfate in sea water can combine over time with barium and strontium in original reservoirs to diminish output of the wells. Brine bacteria that feeds on sulfate can produce hydrogen sulfite and sour a well. Consequently, the oil companies have need of sulfur filtration systems.

But the oil and gas sector also have substantial wastewater treatment needs for the water issuing from the wells along with the oil and gas. As a well ages, the volume of this water increases and the need for water treatment increases as well. Finally, the oil companies have found that low salinity water actually increases oil recovery. The industry has begun to invest in low salinity membrane technology. But the costs are high.

You see where I’m going with this. There is enormous potential for partnering with oil companies in the production of desalinated potable water. Investing in the oil companies to invest in treating wastewater and desalinate sea water makes sense. The oil companies get to work closely with the communities that regulate them, gain financial support for their water treatment efforts, and build a potentially lucrative avenue for diversification. The cities gain the costly energy to power the desalination plants, a new water source for less, and assume a position more conducive toward encouraging the oil companies to transition to cleaner energy sources and means. It is a partnership in the best interests of everyone - and the planet.

Sources: Camillia Lanham; “Searching for Water”, The Sun 3/6/14.
“Changing Needs in Off Shore Oil Production”; Waterworld.com

English Grammar and the Second Amendment

While browsing through an article discussing the collective versus the individual translations of the Second Amendment, I was struck by the curious capitalization used in the example provided: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I wondered if this was how it was actually written. I did some research.

I found that the amendment had been proposed in two forms to two different bodies. The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The version passed by Congress is the form that I had seen:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Next I rechecked my understanding of the rules of capitalization. Here are two of the (many) rules:

"Capitalize federal or state when used as part of an official agency name or in government documents where these terms represent an official name. If they are being used as general terms, you may use lowercase letters."

"Proper nouns (the names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things), eg: Golden Gate Bridge, Tony Blair."

It is clear that the meaning of each form of the Second Amendment is changed by the comma and the capitalization. In the first, capitalized “State” specifies one state, the United States and capitalized ‘Arms’ specifies one particular set of arms, those utilized by the United States. The comma in the first edition maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States.

The second, non-capitalized no comma version has an entirely different meaning and refers to the individual people and states when speaking of the right to bear arms.

Which form, then, is the "official" form? The constitution provides rules for passing an amendment. In effect, it must be ratified by both of the above mentioned official bodies, by Congress and by three quarters of the states. Therefore, as the same amendment was not ratified by both official bodies, the Second Amendment should be considered null.

But for those who do not accept this position, and choose to regard the Second Amendment as valid, note that the official hand written copy in the National Archives is the version passed by Congress, complete with capitalizations and comma after Militia. For those who choose to translate the Amendment literally, it must be read to specify one State (the United States), one Militia, and the Arms of that body.

(also see Arthur Leiber; New York Times: Constitution Confusion)

Don't Ignore The Elephant

I’m writing to talk about the enormous elephant in the room - but I must speak softly for fear someone will shoot it.

The elephant, of course, is gun control. No one sees the elephant - or at least most pretend they don’t see the elephant - despite the growing episodes of mass shootings.

In 2013 there were 365 mass shootings, one per day. Don’t believe it? Look it up.  But no one is talking about it.

Political fear has hushed mouths in Congress and in the White House, despite President Obama’s rhetoric in his 2013 State of the Union Speech. His 2014 speech contained just two sentences on the subject. Admittedly, those sentences were strong ones, stating an intention to bypass Congress to enact legislation. But will it happen? Or will fear for the electoral future of the Democratic party prevent it?

But we can’t sit and point fingers at the President about this issue. Nor is it us against the NRA. Despite its leadership, the NRA is made up of good people; our neighbors and friends. They own guns, respect the guns, and are horrified at these shootings, just like the rest of us. But their leadership has convinced them that ANY restriction to firearms, any limit to those who should own them or when they may use them, any common sense approach will ultimately lead to the government taking away their guns. As long as fear reigns, nothing will be done.

The NRA leadership responses - increased training in gun handling,  more armed guards in schools, the creation of a national database of the mentally ill, and eliminating violent games, movies and other media - will not prevent these tragedies. If a person is intent upon causing grievous harm with a gun in a public place, there is no way to stop this person, so long as that person is armed. Like computer viruses, clever defenses only lead to even more clever attacks.

My point is this. The American people need to stop pretending we don’t see the elephant. We need to talk about it, to toss out ideas, to suggest solutions, to keep the dialogue going. This is real. Our children are threatened in their schools, families are threatened at the mall, people are threatened anywhere they congregate.

The elephant will not wander away on its own. 

CONGRESS

It has been too long since I have prepared a post for this page. When I decided to remedy that and began to search for a topic I found the number of possibilities staggering; there have been far too many issues raised and far too few reasonable responses to those issues since I last wrote here. I could not address them all.

But then I realized that my distress over these issues had a common denominator: Congress.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the essential philosophy of this particular Congress, which seems to be "All is fair in Political Warfare, no matter who gets hurt." To hold the American people hostage in order to make a partisan point? To refuse to govern, to pout and posture if they don't get their way? What have we become? I find it particularly insulting that members of this Congress continually represent themselves as acting at the will of the American people. Which people, exactly, are they talking about?

I'll say a quick word about guns and then move quickly to another topic. I've written much on this topic; its all been said. But in deference to those American people who have been devastated by guns that we put in the hands of criminals, I'll say another word. The arrogance of Congress to defeat a reasonable Arms bill in the shadow of the execution of schoolchildren, in order not to incur the wrath of the NRA, astounds and saddens me. Nor does the increase in similar shootings since that time seem to concern these lawmakers. The message from Congress is clear: feel free to go ahead and shoot people when you are in distress; we'll never take your guns away.

And ObamaCare? (The President did a great disservice to his own initiative when he allowed the Affordable Care Act to be so named during the debates).
We fail to remember that prior to the introduction of this bill universal health care did not exist for all Americans, and that the health and welfare of the American people was not assured during economic downturns accompanied by job loss and home loss. The state of health care in America was a disgrace and compared poorly to even some third world countries. Those that could afford it, had it, and those that couldn't didn't. It needed fixing.

And so doing is an enormous task, a great political sacrifice for any politician or governing official who undertakes it. But the first step has to be taken, however imperfect it might be. When the President presented this windmill to tilt against during his campaign and the American people voted him in for a second term, that was their affirmation. And once the bill was passed, it was time for Congress to support it. There would be ample time in the future to remedy the predictable problems with such a huge undertaking.

But this Congress has no interest in being constructive; this Congress is about tearing down, regardless of the fallout. This Congress purports to support American rights. And so they do: the right to die in a fusillade of bullets, and the right to be poor and sick without the benefit of a doctor's care.

Shall I even begin to speak of the environment and global warming and Big Oil? Congress fiddles while Rome burns. There is so much that could be done, that must be done to foster clean energy and minimize the release of greenhouse gases and preserve our natural resources, and here again Congress would rather in-fight and play partisan politics rather than act.

America needs strong leaders; we need Congressmen and Congresswomen who will not only represent their constituencies, but will also govern. The people we elect to represent us in Congress have been given a trust and have been provided a unique, global perspective with which to help guide the ship of state, the entire ship, not just the upper class berths, toward safe waters.

We currently lack these leaders.

Of Paint And Pastures

What do Art and Ranching have in common? Apparently a lot. Creative people seem drawn to the land. This is particularly true of the Santa Ynez Valley, home to ranches of actors, writers, musicians and artists.

In celebration of that fact, my wife and I were privileged to participate in a joint outing of the Wildling Museum and the Santa Ynez Valley Historical Museum to explore this partnership of art and ranching as embodied in the life work of Channing Peake, painter and Buellton rancher.

A privilege indeed, for our destination was the UCSB Art, Design & Architecture Museum and the Peake/Picasso Exhibit. Few are immune to the romantic perception of the American Cowboy, and apparently Pablo Picasso was no exception. "There was an instant attraction" between the men, AD&A Curator of Exhibitions Elyse Gonzales explained, standing before a wall sized photo in which the two men stand side by side, Peake wearing a mischievous grin and Picasso wearing Peake's cowboy hat.

And so began a unique tour of the exhibit led by Ms. Gonzales, a transplanted Philadelphian in her fifth year as Curator at AD&A, and Channing Peake's widow, Cheri Peak who offered insights possible only from one who has lived intimately with the artist. The exhibit occupies two rooms and is designed to compare and contrast the work of both men and their influence upon one another. In many instances it is difficult to distinguish between the work of the two artists. The second room is devoted entirely to Channing Peake with photos, paintings, news clippings, letters and film exploring his work and life while in Oaxaca, Mexico, at Jabali Rancho in Buellton, in Paris and in Los Angeles. In this exhibit Curator Gonzales has fully captured the dichotomy presented by Peake's love for painting and for ranching, most fully epitomized by Channing's paintings of farm implements on his ranch rendered in modern style. No faux cowboy he, Peake rode and bred top quarter horses and Jabali Rancho was a plain, working cattle ranch like any other along Santa Rosa Road.

Our tour of the exhibit was accompanied by an intimidating array of curators and directors representing the three museums whose comments, questions and reminders sparked dialogue that few museum visitors encounter. No question went unanswered.

The net result? A thoroughly enjoyable afternoon.

It's Time To Choose

Today, right now, California is facing a decision, possibly the most consequential decision in the history of the state. It is simply, oil or water? Now is the time; this decision cannot be postponed. Once the leash restraining the oil companies has been released there is no going back.

California has outpaced other states regulating fracking. Santa Barbara County, and now Sacramento are taking the issue seriously. The oil companies recognize that Frack is a four letter word and are avoiding it, if not in practice, very definitely in vocabulary.

But some California agencies, as if driven by feelings of guilt for a regulatory hard line on fracking, are now quite willing to accept cyclic steam injection and other methods oil drillers propose. And California legislators and administrators are being successfully wooed by the economic promise oil companies like to make. Let us in, they say, and there will be jobs, jobs, jobs. Maybe. But for whom?

The Monterey and Sisquoc shale oil play is located in a region roughly from Monterey County south into Ventura County, and in some locations west almost to the Sierras. These counties are on the front lines in the war between oil and water. And more specifically, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission is currently under the gun. They have postponed a proposal by Santa Maria Energy to drill 110 wells using cyclic steam injection in the Careaga Oil Field in Orcutt. Their concern is emissions. But should it also be water?

That four letter word, Frack, has not been mentioned. The proposal is for cyclic steam injection. We know that fracking requires a tremendous amount of water. But what is known about the amounts of water used in cyclic steam injection?

In his article 'Water Use Concerns Flood Frac Meetings and DOGGR Workshops Statewide' (Apr 6th, 2013) Tomas DiFiore* suggests that the cyclic steam injection method might actually use more water than fracking. The problem is, the former method has drawn far less attention than fracking, and has, after all, been in use in California since the 1950's. Numbers of wells and data regarding water use have not been tracked.

But we do know this: one small company, in one oil field converts 60 Million Gallons of water per day into steam and injects it into wells to make heavy oil flow.

Viewed another way, says DiFiore, "In one week, in one oil field, the yearly water usage of between 3,500 – 7,000 California families is pumped down into the ground, as steam. It comes back out with the oil, as product water, to evaporate in unlined pits, and toxic ponds." That's a lot of water. But agricultural use of water is generally 36 times that of oil drilling! How can our aquifers sustain all of that?

The increased emissions hazard potential from heating water into steam is a concern, no doubt. But in a world where the effects of global warming have already begun, and with increased dryness and diminishing water resources in the West, my most immediate concern is to have enough water to drink and to grow my food.

California, like most of the Southwest, is currently experiencing drought. The Los Alamos aquifers are in overdraft. In the Cuyama Valley water has become a serious concern. That region will not be alone in this danger for very long. In the face of general global warming, it is unlikely that this drought is a one and done situation. Something's got to give - and you can't drink oil.

Another Glance at Global Warming

The recent publishing of Barbara Kingsolver's latest novel, Flight Behavior (a drama created around the topic of climate change) inspired me to check in on what's going on, or up, with the climate.

On November 16, 2011 I published a post reviewing the increment of change in global warming based upon the predictions of Mark Lynas' 2008 book, Six Degrees. My post, titled At .188 Degrees Centigrade Warmer: All Is Well? is available for review in the archives of this blog.

I think it's time to take another look, but perhaps in a less detailed way, at Mr. Lynas' projections. To catch us up, Tuvalu (that group of islands in the Pacific) is still with us, although island overlapping is projected to occur mid to late this century. The rate of sea rise in that part of the Pacific Ocean is measured at 5.1 mm per year. That may seem slow - unless you live there.

Since 2011 the sea and & air surface temperature anomaly average was approximately .05 Degrees C of increase (over 2 years), slightly more comforting than the 2011 measurement of .188 degrees C of warming at that time (over four years). But before we grow ecstatic, remember that there have been flat periods before, yet the steady rise continued after them. In fact, every NOAA or NCDC or NESDIS graph related to global warming tends to look like a series of North Korean rocket launches: severe ups and immediate downs. But the average of the anomalies is steadily upward. With climate change, it is important to look at the big picture.

Lynas' prediction of increasingly arid conditions in the southwest United States is bang on. The drought we are currently experiencing began in 2012, the hottest year on record in the U.S., with several weeks in a row of 100-plus degree days in various regions. The result was drought conditions for a full two-thirds of the country.

His prediction of monsoonal rainfall in the eastern United States continues to be accurate. December 2012 ranked among the top 20 wettest in ten states. Again extremes, as predicted: the wet get wetter, the hot get hotter. There have been larger and more intense storms (the Oklahoma tornadoes, as just one example). Drier windy conditions are causing greater fire danger. Elsewhere there have been deep, debilitating snows, even in places unaccustomed to them…all as predicted.

In regard to Polar ice melt predictions, a clear trend has emerged over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade. While sea ice extent recovered slightly during the Arctic winters of 2008-09, the full extent of annual ice reduction or gain is seen in September of each year, at the end of the Arctic summer. That measure suggests the volume of multi-year ice has not recovered at all, and is in fact showing a steeply negative trend. (Polar Science Center, U of Washington)

It might be relevant to take a peek at the extinctions of species since 2008. In that year the Liverpool Pigeon was thought to be extinct. In 2010 we lost the Alaotra Grebe. In 2011 the Eastern Cougar and the Western Black Rhinoceros were declared extinct. The Japanese River Otter became extinct in 2012. That same year we lost "Lonesome George", the only remaining Pinta Island Tortoise. This year the Formosan Clouded Leopard disappeared from the earth. I do not claim that the sole cause of these extinctions was global warming. Yet we know that animal habitats are changing extremely rapidly, and some species simply lack the flexibility to adapt.

It appears that the warming of our globe is marching inexorably on. This march seems ponderous and slow. But we must reckon with momentum. Like a snowball rolling down hill, climate change gathers speed as it occurs, accelerated by more exposed seas, more gases released by melting perms-frost, and a host of other small but cumulatively important factors that will cause every symptom to grow in size and intensity. Yes, the march of global warming seems slow - unless you live there.

You may have noticed a hiatus from this column for several months, that due to publishing and re-publishing my new novel, final edits on my second (due September 1), and the development of a new website for my fiction and music. From this point onward I will post a column every fourth Wednesday of the month.   

It's Time To Bite The Bullets

It came right from the mouth of a fictional character, in an episode of West Wing when Josh responded to a question about his candidate's position.

"How will you control arms?" was the question. "We won't," was his response. "We won't control arms at all," he said. "The guns are already out there. There's no way to get them all back. But - we can control the bullets."

And instantly I saw that he was right.

It would be virtually impossible to reclaim all of the countless guns already distributed among the population. And all the large bullet magazines as well. Trying to limit guns is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has left the barn.

But control bullets? How absurdly simply. An assassin can't do much with his AK-47 without bullets other than use it as a clumsy club. Bullets run out and must be replenished. Bullets can be monitored. They can be distributed under the auspices of rifle ranges, hunting clubs, farmers organizations, even survival groups, if need be. Each organization would bear responsibility for its members. The officials of each organization would need to explain the distribution of bullets within it. And although ballistic fingerprinting isn't as infallible as human fingerprinting, it is sufficient enough that most bullets can be traced.

A fallacy with many gun control proposals is the assumption that the people we are today are the people we will be tomorrow. But people change throughout their lives. We experience emotional and physical trauma, bitter disappointments, self-esteem and social issues, and body chemistry changes. Any of these can alter our personalities, sometimes to a serious degree. Good gun legislation must be elastic; it must have the capability to tighten when necessary and ease up when not. This can be done with the flow of bullets.

If an individual should enter into a concerning state, whether it be mental health, drug use, or legal difficulties, the supply of bullets to that individual could be interrupted for a period of time. This will require good communication, of course (not a small issue, I know). The responsibility for this communication should be given to doctors and other care takers who are immediately concerned with the individual in question, as well as to members and leaders of the communities where alarming changes might be noticed soonest, and even to families. Loyalty considered, it's still better to stop the flow of bullets than to lose a loved one.

But those who are not dealing with such issues can carry on as if nothing has changed, purchasing and using bullets for their guns and their legitimate purposes uninterrupted.  Those who wish to have and to hold a collection of weapons may do so. But a stockpile of bullets and bullet cartridges for those weapons would be prevented.

Is bullet control an absolute answer? Of course not. Any comprehensive gun control plan must have many facets, ranging from education to re-registering (as you do for your drivers license.) But bullet control is a strong response to the huge number of guns already in (and out of) private hands.

It's sad, but our world today is just too crowded and too vulnerable not to put some limitations upon the use of arms, just as we put regulatory limitations upon other potentially dangerous items.

Note: My focus has been elsewhere lately, a result of writing deadlines in other areas. My intention is to return to this blog with more consistency. My plan is to post at least once month and, if issues prompt me to do so, I will post more often.

Fear of Fracking

The news is crude. The oil industry eye is on California and the gas rich Monterey Shale. Advertisements on local TV channels here on the Central Coast extol the benefits of embracing oil exploration in the state. Stay independent of foreign oil, they say. Bring jobs to the area.
And with no clear alternative energy plan at any administrative level there is little to say in opposition. Yes, we all want to continue to drive our cars without restriction. Yes, we all want to enjoy the many products that oil makes possible. And no, we don't want to be slave to prices set by foreign nations that don't particularly like us.
We are uneasy with the oil industry. We are concerned about the environment. We are worried about climate change. We are keeping a skeptical eye on things.
But the Monterrey Shale draws derricks like a magnet. Not more than five years ago the Cat Canyon Oil Field to the east of Los Alamos was for all intents and purposes dormant. A few pumping wells, an oil rig leasing company, that was about it. No longer. The area at the intersection of Palmer Road and Cat Canyon road has the appearance of a small industrial city. Pumping wells are everywhere, drilling rigs poke their heads up over the hills, trucks roll in and out constantly.  Are they fracking?
Oil drilling is an expensive proposition. And a huge gamble. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in the hope that a well will meet production expectations. If it doesn't, that money is often lost. And so it comes down to efficiency. And that is where fracking shines.
A study led by Dr. Brian Lutz, an assistant professor of biogeochemistry at Kent State university, concluded that one horizontal shale well produces the same amount of gas as 30 conventional wells. Now that's efficiency. If you owned an oil exploration company, would you be content to drill conventionally, knowing this?
I'm certain that the greatest concern about fracking in the Los Alamos Valley, particularly among the growers, is water. Without water, specifically non-contaminated water with which to irrigate crops, there would be no agriculture. End of story.
And fracking is not as efficient with water. A shale well produces 10 times as much waste water as a conventional well. That's bad news for the growers. But not the concern of oilmen. Their concern is the gas to waste water ratio. And here again, fracking shines.
In the Marcellus Shale area that Dr. Lutz studied, the overall increase of waste water from conventional drilling to fracking was phenomenal - a whopping 570%. The overdrawn aquifers of Los Alamos Valley would be hard pressed to sustain such an increase for very long.
And so the line in the shale has been drawn. Some eight bills are moving toward the floor for California legislators concerning regulating fracking. There is awareness; there is concern. But is there transparency?
To the south of Los Alamos in Drum canyon a solitary well is being vigorously resuscitated. They've been drilling there for more than three weeks now. Truckload after truckload of equipment and materials have rumbled past me on my runs up the canyon. Large tanker trucks have squeezed past me going to and fro. Baker Hughes, the fracking giant, is involved. (Baker Hughes produces the fracking fluid used by Venoco in earlier fracking in the valley.)
But Doug Anthony, the county deputy director who handles energy issues in Santa Barbara county "did confirm that since the [December 2011] regulations were adopted not a single application for fracking has come across his desk"*. Does this mean all of the companies currently drilling in Cat Canyon and Drum Canyon are content to drill old fashion inefficient wells?
There are new break-throughs in fracking technology almost daily, with Halliburton and Baker Hughes leading the way. Using fiber to keep frack cracks open longer, disintegrating "frack balls" to drop down the well, "super cracks" to frack deeper into dense rock formations.
But on the horizon, something new. Might water actually be eliminated from future fracking? Halliburton's new "fastfrac" idea would use half the water.  A new, if controversial technique using LPG with a bit of butane mixed in has been used successfully.
That's not to say these new techniques will protect against earthquake or spillage or any of the other environmental problems. They only reduce water use. But that may well end up becoming the compromise of the future.

*Wine Spectator; January 7, 2013.

The Importance of Re-Inventing Ourselves

It was with curiosity and a certain amount of anticipatory excitement that my companions and I headed for Bell Street, Los Alamos, last Saturday evening to experience Los Alamos Third Saturday. Who doesn't enjoy participating in a "first", particularly a first of "thirds"? The event was scheduled from 4 to 8 PM and we arrived California Stylishly late by a bit over an hour. But already, the main drag in Los Alamos was thronged and parked in with cars.

Los Alamos is a quiet town by anyone's standard, even on weekends. To us, this is one of its charms. But for the local retailers quiet can be too quiet, uncrowded can be unprofitable, unsung can mean unvisited. Certainly no one has reason to think of Los Alamos as a night-spot destination.

And so Los Alamos set out to do what it needed to do: re-invent itself.

How do you get folks to come out and hang around town for a few hours on a weekend evening? The answer; a little bit at a time. Start small, with enticements offered on a consistent but infrequent basis; say, one weekend each month. Then stand back and watch it grow.

And so on the third Saturday of every month merchants in Los Alamos will remain open for business until 8 pm. The businesses will join in a central theme which will change each month. Each business will decide how to go about incorporating that theme.

St. Valentines Day had just passed and so the first Third Saturday theme was, naturally enough, "Lovefest". We saw the theme applied in many inventive ways. We stopped at the C Gallery where we could view a special "I Love Los Alamos" display of photographs of local people and places. At Casa Dumetz we were plied with wine and then encouraged to tell stories of our first or lost loves. At the Station we enjoyed a hearty beef stew from Charlie's and a beer.

And then we ran out of time. We were sorry to miss the Bee Happy Honey Tasting at Bedford Winery and the other compelling offerings at other stores.

This is not the first time I have watched a town re-invent itself. Ann and I lived in Newport, Rhode island in the early seventies right after the Navy had pulled out. The entire economy of that town had revolved around the Navy. There were dire predictions. But the citizens of Newport went to work to tap into the tourist trade. The rest, of course, is history and Newport is now one of the greatest tourist destinations in the world. We were lucky to be part of it in a small way.

In a changing world, we will need to know how to re-invent ourselves. It is increasingly likely that our environment could change abruptly and that all the old familiar paradigms could disappear almost overnight. Flexibility, autonomy and courage are the traits we need to move forward. The future of our families, our neighborhoods, and our communities may well depend upon our ability to creatively re-invent ourselves.

This blog article was republished in the Santa Ynez Valley News recently.

Taking My Stand On Gun Control

It seems as if everything that can be said has been said about gun control. Regardless, it is important for all Americans to weigh in on this issue. It requires careful consideration of every view, every need, all beliefs and every fact; all must be put on the table.
And so I write this not to uncover new ground but to express my position and take my stand.  I am opposed to the unobstructed proliferation of guns of all description in the United States. I am a proponent of a common sense approach to the problem unfettered by emotions such as anger or fear or greed.
In all that has been written on the subject I have found but one article with which I entirely agree. It is written with common sense, without emotion, and from a base of knowledge and experience.  It is written by a man who has used many of these weapons, including the AR-15 used frequently in mass shootings, knows them intimately and is trained in their use. The author has served in the U.S. Marine Corp, the Secret Service, as a State Trooper and on a SWAT team. He has been a firearms instructor for the New Jersey State Police. But he has also administrated teacher preparation programs in two universities and has spent substantial time in schools, both urban and suburban, privileged as well as  poor and unsafe. He has a Ph.D. in political science and he knows the constitution.  The man is Scott Fina.
His points have been heard before but seldom heard based in the experience and understanding of an individual so eminently qualified to comment on every important aspect of the issue.

He says the following:
The Second Amendment of the Constitution was written for conditions in 1791, not 2013.
Those advocating the arming of citizens such as teachers misunderstand the realities of gun shootings.
Those suggesting that effective screening of gun purchasers will make ownership of semi-automatic and other firearms safe in our country vastly overstate the administrative capabilities of government.
Those advocating such screening understate the potential actions of normally behaved citizens during conditions of prolonged stress or emotional duress.
That gun proliferation has required law enforcement to escalate its own training and weaponry.
That the presence of a gun always brings a certain degree of danger to every situation.

Every one of these points resonates with me. But I have never experienced any of it. He has.
Finally, he has this to say: "Numerous studies indicate an unquestionable, positive correlation between the prevalence of guns in a society and its death rate. Of course this would be the case; diseases spread when their causes (germs or guns) are present in greater numbers."

Scott Fina's article Say No To Guns appeared in the Santa Maria Sun and can be found here.

Frack is Back

I found Kathy Johnston's short article in the SUN, "State issues first fracking rules", compelling. And concerning. At first I was prepared to be pleased as I read in the opening sentence that "long awaited draft regulations on fracking were recently issued…". DOGGR calls the draft of these regulations a "starting place for discussion".
The first regulation I read required oil companies to "pressure test cement linings in oil wells before fracking".  Does that mean they don't currently? Considering that the well linings are critical for prevention of contamination, that comes as an unwelcome surprise.  Then I read that "producers would have to continue monitoring oil wells once fracking is complete". I had assumed that this too was already happening as a matter of course.
The next regulation I read called for oil companies to give 10 days notice to DOGGR before fracking. But not to adjacent property owners. But DOGGR will post that information on their website three days before fracking. I have two questions about that. First, why the delay? Second, is that the only action DOGGR proposes to take? No questions? No inspections? Nada? I read on.
The next item seemed a bit more constructive, at first. Oil producers will be compelled to disclose the chemicals they will use in the fracking operation. It will appear on the website FracFocus.* But only "within two months from the time the fracking ends." Isn't that a bit late if we are concerned about what chemicals are being injected into the earth? And then…"oil companies may claim that some chemicals are trade secrets" and not reveal them. What is DOGGR regulating, then?
Naturally, environmental groups in California are concerned. DOGGR appears to be toothless. Perhaps the group is powerless in the face of strong lobbyists and political opposition. My brief look into the background of a few members in Santa Barbara County reveals concerned scientists and environmentally aware citizens. True, some have oil company ties, if only from past employment. But how else does one gain enough experience with oil production to understand how to regulate it?
But the lingering question for me is why bother to spend time drafting regulations that have no real impact on the true concerns around fracking? Am I missing something?
I am reminded that the regulations are a draft, that DOGGR plans to hold "workshops" before formally processing them. Ms. Johnston has supplied the e-mail address for comment (comments@conservation.ca.gov) for those who wish to do so. I am grateful to Ms. Johnston for her report but I can't help wonder if others out there are concerned, or is the current focus on becoming oil independent as a nation too all encompassing?

*The site FracFocus does not have tools for aggregating, hence data sifting/comparisons/graphics  across the data reports is nearly impossible. Many states, now including California if these regulations are processed,  are allowing drillers to satisfy disclosure requirements through the site rather than through a state website or a multi-state website. FracFocus developer, Ground Water Protection Council, did not develop the site with that intention (the way states are using it) and has no intention of changing. A Bloomberg analysis found that two of every five wells drilled since the site's inception have not had data disclosed.  Congresswoman Diana DeGette stated: "FracFocus is just a fig leaf for the industry to be able to say they’re doing something in terms of disclosure.".

Stateimpact.npr.org
eenews.net
switchboard.nrdc.org

A Charm of Humans?

I set out to write a piece on optimism and hope for the New Year. In the piece I would propose that by universal effort we make 13 a lucky number. The critical word here is 'universal', defined as pertaining to all or the whole. By that definition, it would take us all to make 2013 a lucky year.

Often we use the words 'we' or 'us' in a partisan sense, meaning those allied to us or congruous with our thoughts or objectives. But for the effort on the scale I propose to succeed, it must be truly universal.

There are relatively few words that describe the entirety of the human race. Our species seldom acts in a universal, all inclusive capacity toward a unified objective. Size and distance are factors, of course. But in a shrinking world, must that always be so? Perhaps not.

Humans are after all social animals. We like to gather. We have names for our social selves. When several of us are gathered together we are a group, or perhaps a crowd. Or we could be a throng or a bunch. On certain days we might be a congregation, or sometimes a rabble, on lesser days a posse. We even borrow terms from other species to refer to ourselves in the plural; a swarm, a herd, a pack. There are more names for humans in groups than when alone.

But we are not the only social animals. Other animals congregate too, within their species. We've heard that birds of a feather flock together. And so do sheep...flock, that is. But not goats, they are a tribe or a trip or a herd, as are cattle and buffalo, at least until they run away and become a stampede. Porpoises are also a herd, or they can be a school, or a pod. Whales can be a pod, and they can also be a school and a herd, and a gam and a float and a run and a troop and shoal and a mob. Kangaroos are a mob but have been known to be a court and a troop. And yes, a group of baboons is also called a troop. Some call a large group of baboons a congress; I'll leave that to you to decide. But chimpanzees are also a troupe, and they can be a barrel, a cartload, a community, or a tribe. Gorillas can be a troop too, or a band. Notice that with monkeys we have come full circle to humans, who can be troops, tribes, cartloads, communities and yes, a congress.

It seems all creatures band together by species, at least on occasion, and become an entity. Crows become a murder, a group of crocodiles a bask or a float, a group of doves a dule, eagles a convocation, falcons a cast, finches a charm, larks an exaltation, ferrets a business, goldfish a troubling, greyhounds a leash, lions a pride, leopards a leap, owls a parliament, peacocks an ostentation, rattlesnakes a rhumba, squirrels a dray, turtledoves a pitying…well, you get my drift.

I wondered if there is any creature so independent that it lacks a term for it as a group?  I remembered that when it is difficult to move things as a unit, we say it is like herding cats. Aha! Maybe that most independent of creatures is the exception. But no. It seems there is actually more than one name for a group of cats. They are called a clowder or a clutter or a glaring. Even cats in the wild when gathered together have a name, a dowt or a destruction. Apparently all creatures, the birds of the air, the denizens of the deep, the beasts of the field are social enough to have a name as a group.  Contrary to what we might like to think, humans are not the only social animal or even the most social of animals.

And so I suggest we consider some new names for humans when gathered together. We have named other groups of animals for the characteristics we have assigned them. Perhaps if we called a large gathering of humans by a truly fine name we might eventually grow into it. How wonderful for a mob of humans to be known as a Charm, like the finch, or an Exaltation, like the lark. What if we called gathered humans a Loving or a Fairness? Or maybe a Good? I think its worth a try.

Richard Gamble launches eBook

Richard Gamble launches eBook. Read all about it in the Santa Ynez Valley News.

Cliffs

We've been hearing a lot about cliffs lately. That's good. We need cliffs, otherwise life is too mundane. As a culture, we always manage to have a cliff or two down the road. We like to have precipitous cliffs that are just around the corner as well as distant cliffs that we can worry about from time to time.

Today two precipitous cliffs loom, the Mayan End-Of-Days Cliff and the Fiscal Cliff. It is interesting to note that if we fall off the former we won't need to worry about the latter. The Mayan Cliff has us scheduled for departure this Friday, December 21st. Some people are very worried about that. In fact, some are so worried they talk of committing suicide before that day to avoid it, a sort of a sub-cliff to the main cliff. I guess one cliff isn't enough for some people.

But if we survive the Mayan Cliff, we can all worry about the Fiscal Cliff which is due to arrive with the New Year. And every once in a while we can think about the Global Warming Cliff and worry about that.

Our last cliff of any size was the Y2K Cliff at the turn of the century. People worried that computer systems would malfunction when the year ratcheted around to 1/1/2000, that missile systems would go off, bank vaults would open, trains would crash into one another, and so on. None of that happened. But it wasn't long before the doomsayers adjusted the prophecies forward another five years. We needed to have a cliff.

Marq De Villiers wrote a book titled The End. In it he points out that our culture has adopted doomsday as a state of mind, that nowadays we don't turn a hair at the thought of an asteroid strike or a nuclear winter. Just another cliff. He writes of all the natural close calls our earth has survived already, the crashing and churning and smacking and burning of our globe from forces beyond and within. He speaks of the hazards to come. We are unlikely to run out of cliffs any time soon.
He writes of the need to come together politically as a global community to prevent approaching cliffs when we can and plan for those cliffs we cannot avoid.

But this is unlikely to happen, because we are fascinated by cliffs. We are mesmerized by them like a bird transfixed by the gaze of a cobra. We want to walk to the edge and look over it.

I believe we will survive the Mayan Cliff and the Fiscal Cliff. And many other cliffs to come. But we are a vulnerable species. As de Villiers points out, the planet will still be here after the ice melts and water rises and the violent storms wreak their havoc and life will survive as well, in some form. Just not our form.

I Saw A Bobcat Today

I saw a bobcat today. Not while jogging, when I tend to have such encounters, but while driving a stretch of road I take to buy groceries, a distance of about thirteen miles. The terrain here is long sweeps of grassland with occasional groves of live oak. I saw the bobcat from the window of my jeep as I drove along. At first I thought it was a house cat, for the distance deceived. I slowed and looked close and could then see the distinctive markings and ear shape of the lynx rufus. It was intent upon its quarry, crouched, tense, foreleg muscles bulging, ready to pounce. It never saw me, such was its focus.

Most of my enjoyment of California's Central Coast where I now live is from sharing the region with plentiful wildlife. I have encountered most of it on my runs; a gray fox, all kinds of deer from bucks to fawns, coyotes (including one I came face to face with at a distance of fifteen feet, startling us both), eagles and hawks, vultures, a ring-tailed cat, and near misses with bears and mountain lions.

The creatures in this area of California do not seem accustomed to runners. They are unprepared when I suddenly come upon them, padding up on light feet. I've nearly stepped on snakes and tarantulas. The cattle that line the fences gape at me in astonishment as I pass, their mouths hanging open exposing mouthfuls of grass.

I am told that the population of mountain lions in California is actually increasing. The cats have been driven west from other habitats where their existence has been challenged. In California, it is against the law to kill one (it is not against the law for one of them to kill us). And I wouldn't have it any other way. I was greatly saddened when a cat with which I shared a particular trail, each of us knowing of the presence of the other but going about our own business, became roadkill on the El Camino Real. But I know that another will likely move into the region.

I fear intoxicated drivers and illegal marijuana growers and deer hunters much more than the animals. It is with the former that my closest calls have come while jogging.

This all suggests to me that there is a balance in nature, a balance experienced by the other animals but not by humans. We've lost interest in maintaining the balance. We believe that we do not need nature, we believe that the existence of flora and fauna depends upon us, and not we it. We are saddened when a species dies out, or the ice pack which has stood for hundreds of thousands of years melts away. But then we pick up our coffee and flip to the next page of our newspaper.

It will be interesting to see if we can manage to live without nature. We are well on the road toward finding out.

 

Learning & the Brain

Another Learning & The Brain Conference looms (the 34th) in San Francisco this February. It will convene at the Fairmont Hotel on Nob Hill and is totally worth the price. I first attended the Boston Conferences in the Fall of 2006. At that time, there was a disconnect between scientific research into how the brain learns and those trusted with actually educating it. Fairly recent advances in brain scan techniques had scientists collecting data at a rigorous clip.  All long standing educational concepts were under review. While some traditional teaching methodologies were validated many were turned on their collective ears.  The scientists doing the research suddenly found themselves with an abundance of data critical to education methodology and no means to apply it.  Yet those charged with educating our children often had very little knowledge of the human brain, its growth and capabilities.
     In 2006 the presenters at the conference were predominantly research scientists and college professors/researchers at the research end of the spectrum. The attendees at the conference were largely fellow scientists and researchers, or people from the medical profession, or special education teachers. But very few middle to high school educators were in attendance, those front line classroom teachers who need this data and its implications the most. Presenters expressed a common concern, the need for educators to work closely with scientists to understand how best to apply the new, critical data to education practices. There was a general call to teachers to partner up.
     At that conference in 2006, my first,  my interest in learning more about the brain was sparked. I soon realized that some basic assumptions in our current educational systems, particularly public education, were flawed and desperately needed to change. In fact, some truly basic assumptions, ranging from academic and athletic scheduling to classroom construction and numbers, homework assigning, school starting times, and so on.  Since that time I've written articles on the subject, presented posters, and generally tried to stimulate interest from those responsible for current education practices.
   When I received the promotion pamphlet for Learning & the Brain this year, I was happy to see that the balance of topics for scientists and educators is much more even. Such fascinating subjects as the role of maturation, parents and training on memory, the effects of parental nurturing on child brain structure, mood and learning, and why every brain is wired differently and implications for education.
   Wow. And that's just the beginning. As I read title after title I realized that few forums or places on earth can offer such a wealth of material on education and neuroscience.
   Yes, the $569 price is steep. I can't afford it. I must limit myself to attending every couple of years. But when I go, I fill entire notebooks. And the accompanying spiral bound book containing the research that backs the presentations is almost worth the price by itself. If you've got the dough, go.

A Clean Sweep

I propose a new political plan, one that will ensure that congress functions as it should. It's called Leave Every Congressperson Behind. It's very simple; when at the polls, always vote for the new candidate. Vote out the old.

In Washington today, there is an endemic problem caused by buddy systems, exclusive clubs, ingrown party affiliation, misguided oaths and loyalties, pork barrel politics, greed and yes, money, either too little or too much. These perpetual sores are not so likely to afflict a first time, single term congressperson.

How necessary is experience in congress today, really? Does the value of experience offset the harm done by block political voting, intimidation from power groups, leverage from lobbyists, or intimidation from political party leaders? I think not.

To those who would argue that the systems in Congress and in Washington, the codes and codicils, the processes and procedures are too complex for the initiate, I say, simplify them. After all, complexity breeds fraud. My congressperson should question the status quo, should test the old assumptions, and should ask the stupid questions.

I want a congressperson who is fired up to solve problems, ready to take a fresh look at issues, one who wants to safeguard democracy and to help the American people, an idealist. I want a representative who always has his/her constituents in mind, regardless of their rank or class.

I do not want to be represented by an individual who no longer remembers those inaugural ideals, who has learned the insider game, who treads water, who has succumbed to excuses and believes that some things are just not possible. I do not want a representative who has been bent and battered by the pounding surf of political pressures and corrupted and minimized by the erosion of short cuts and temptations over multiple terms. I do not want my congressperson to hide in a crowd.

I want a representative who is a Washington outsider, because I am a Washington outsider. I want my representative to be an American first, a citizen of my state second, and a resident of Washington D.C. last and least. I want a representative who views the work of a congressperson as a job, a mandate, a responsibility, and an obligation. I want a congressperson who does not adjourn for vacations or leave on holiday until the work is done. I expect the same of myself. I want a congressperson who will discuss issues with his/her colleagues on both sides of the aisle and continue to search for resolutions until they are found.

I do not want a congressperson who allows his/her political party loyalty to supersede the needs of the people. Ever.

I want a first time, single term representative, one who has not had the chance to learn 'who's who, 'how things work', or 'who to please'.

Where will I find this individual, this paragon of democratic idealism and virtue?
Not in the rolls of incumbency. Vote out the old, vote in the new. Leave every current congressperson behind and bring in a whole new crop. Let's restore to the American people a fully functional United States Congress.