Join the Fight to Amend Chula Vista's Urban Core Speciific Plan, Thursday, April 26

Maybe you're interested in preserving the small-town look and feel of northwest Chula Vista, California. Maybe you couldn't care less. If you ever while away a frustrated hour on the congested freeways of San Diego's South County, you'll realize its development has already outgrown its infrastructure. But those elected to public office in the locality don't seem to want the party to end.

The City of Chula Vista’s proposed Urban Core Specific Plan allows 7,100 new condos and apartments, 1 million additional square feet of retail space, 1.3 million square feet of new office space, and 1.3 million new square feet of hotels and motels, all to be built in northwest Chula Vista.

Whether or not that happens depends on the outcome of a meeting at Chula Vista City Council Chambers on Fourth and F streets, Chula Vista, on Thursday, April 26, 2007, 6 p.m. At this meeting the City Council will make a decision on the Urban Core Specific Plan.

The UCSP rezones large parts of northwest Chula Vista (including historic downtown Third Avenue) to much higher densities than anything in Chula Vista now.

If you can attend the meeting at Chula Vista City Council Chambers on Fourth and F streets, Chula Vista, California, tell the Council to adopt the ten changes to the UCSP recommended by the activists of the local grassroots organization Crossroads II.

Crossroads II’s Requested Modifications to Urban Core Specific Plan (Sept. 2006 Draft)

Land Use and Development Regulations

1. Redraw boundaries of subdistrict V-2 so as to encompass the entire frontage of Third Avenue from E St. to G St.

2. Do not incorporate Development Exception Provisions newly recommended by staff for inclusion in UCSP.

3. Eliminate ability to increase building height by 5 feet.

4. In order to be consistent with the Cummings Initiative, remove all R-1 and R-2 zoned areas from the UCSP.

5. Lower maximum allowable height in subdistrict C-1 from 60 ft. (5 stories) to 45 feet (3 stories), in order to be compatible with adjacent 1- and 2-story single family homes.

6. Revise parking requirements to make them the same as required by the CV Muni Code, which is one and one-half space for each studio or one-bedroom unit; 2 spaces for each two- or three-bedroom unit.

Public Realm

7. Revise streetscape Fig. 8-22 and all text in the UCSP for H St. between Third Ave. and Broadway to require a 15 ft. front yard setback.

Administration

8. Require all new projects and exterior renovations fronting on Third Avenue between E and G Streets, regardless of size, to go to the RAC and CVRC for discretionary design review approval, with the right to appeal to the Redevelopment Agency.

9. Require the Executive Director of the CVRC when he/she makes an administrative decision to approve a project or to amend the Specific Plan without a public hearing, to notify property owners within 1000 feet and all persons who have requested such notices. The required notice shall explain where the recipient can obtain information about the project and shall explain the appeal procedures. No fees shall be charged to appeal an Administrative decision made without a public hearing.

10. Require that RAC members be notified in a timely fashion of all applications for an Urban Core Development Permit, regardless of size.

As always, if you have any questions contact Crossroads II at www.crossroads2.org

Everything is on the Line for Chula Vista's General Plan Protection Initiative

More than 20,000 residents of Chula Vista, California, have signed the GPPI initiative that would require any developer who wants to build higher than 84 feet (in an area outside of those areas permitted or exempted by the General Plan) to seek and obtain voter approval.

The initiative would also limit the building height of 10 additional parcels in the Third Avenue Village area to 45 feet.

The County Registrar has validated the initiative for the ballot. But city officials continue to ignore the will of the people by pushing through their Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) forward on April 26 while delaying a vote on the initiative until June, 2008.

Your help is needed to convince the City Council to either adopt the GPPI or call a prompt election to resolve this issue prior to approval of the UCSP. Here is how you can weigh in:

Attend the Chula Vista Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 17, at 6 p.m.

Sign a speaker’s slip and urge the council :

• to either immediately adopt the changes called for by the GPPI or
• to call a prompt election.

If you can’t attend, please express your views

• by calling City Hall at (619) 691-5044 or
• by sending an email to cityclerk@ci.chula-vista.ca.us

Ask your senator to vote for stem cell research

The United States Senate is set to vote to reauthorize funding for stem cell research for essential, new stem cell lines not included in the President’s original moratorium on funding. Please take the time to encourage your senator to vote for this important bill [S. 5 and S. 997 Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research]. Without it, little progress can be made with the few authorized stem cell lines.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds great promise. Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research could transform the lives of millions of Americans, restoring them to health.

This is not mere speculation. In animal studies, cells derived from ESC lines have produced dramatic results. For example, neurons derived from animal ESC lines have restored motor function in paralyzed rats. Human ESC has been used to produce insulin-secreting cells and cardiovascular precursor cells, which could result in treatments for diabetes and heart disease.

There are many spare embryos available from IVF procedures. In vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures produce thousands of unused and unwanted embryos each year. Best estimates are that there are about 400,000 spare embryos. Although not all of these spare embryos are suitable for research and many may not be donated, even if only one tenth of them are used for research, this would vastly increase the number of available stem cell lines.

The spare embryos available from IVF procedures cannot develop into adult humans. Opponents of ESC research claim that it results in the destruction of a potential human being. However, by definition, spare embryos will never be implanted in a uterus and, therefore, cannot possibly develop into adult humans. If they are not used for ESC research, they will simply be discarded.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3) expressly provides that embryos may be used for research only if it is "determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded."

It is misleading to characterize an embryo as a potential human when the possibility of its developing into a human is zero. The possibility of alternative sources for stem cells does not imply we should not utilize a proven source.

The argument that we do not need ESC because of so-called alternative sources of stem cells not only assumes that there are practical alt ernatives — which, as indicated, has not been demonstrated — but also rests on the false premise that having another possible source for stem cells means we should not use the proven source for stem cells, namely ESC. To the contrary, we should use all available means to advance research in this area, including ESC.

Significantly, virtually all scientists support this conclusion, including the scientist who has helped generate stem cells from amniotic fluid, Dr. Anthony Atala. In addition, the Director of NIH, Elias Zerhouni, recently testified before the Senate that the Senate should remove President Bush’s restrictions on funding of ESC research. ESC research enjoys wide public support.

The overwhelming majority of Americans supports federal funding of ESC research. Surveys indicate that 60 to 70 per cent of the public support federal funding, whereas only 20 per cent of Americans support the current policy.

Policy Recommendation
The Center for Inquiry and its sustainers strongly recommends Senate passage of the Stem cell Enhancement Act of 2007 and it urges President Bush to sign this act into law when it reaches his desk. Life-saving research has been delayed long enough. Using cells for research to potentially save lives is better than allowing them to fall into disuse and eventually being discarded.

What’s At Stake?
— Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise: In animal studies, cells derived from embryonic stem cell lines have produced dramatic results. For example, neurons derived from embryonic stem cell lines have restored motor function in paralyzed rats.
— All research to date indicates that adult stem cells are less therapeutically useful than embryonic stem cells: For example, they cannot multiply as well as embryonic stem cells and do not possess the same capacity to differentiate into all types of tissue. In short, if we want effective therapies, adult stem cells are not sufficient – we need to use embryonic stem cells.
— The only impediment to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is the position of some that the embryo is the equivalent of a human person. This position is based largely on religious belief: There is no scientific basis for treating the embryo as the equivalent of a human person. The embryo does not have the capacities and properties associated with humans, such as rationality, consciousness and the ability to have sensations. Although religious beliefs must be respected, they cannot be allowed to dictate public policy.

Center for Inquiry, Washington DC, 621 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003 T: (202) 546-2331 F: (202) 546-2334 Web: www.cfidc.org

International food regulators to meet in Delhi

Statesman News Service

NEW DELHI — A global perspective on food regulation with the specific objective of building a common ground for Indian food companies and service providers will be sought at an international summit on food regulatory, here next week as experts from leading international food regulatory bodies, such as the FAO, the CODEX Alimentarius Commission and the European Commission, discuss several key issues that are globally emerging and relevant for the food sector.

The April 10-11 summit, being organized by the FAO in association with the Confederation of the Indian Industry (CII) is expected to be unique platform that would provide an excellent opportunity to all policymakers and stakeholders involved in the food sector to assess globally emerging regulations and their likely impact on the Indian food sector and India’s participation in global food trade. It will also help such participants to understand and appraise sector specific issues related to food safety regulations and quality.

The Indian food industry ~ both primary and processed ~ is poised for a rapid growth. With India having the potential to become a reliable outsourcing partner in the food sector, the sector is estimated to be worth more than $200 billion and is expected to grow to $310 billion by 2015. The food sector also contributes to a major part of the retail basket, which is growing at a hefty nine per cent.

Based on the deliberations of the summit, CII intends to develop an action plan for defining the guiding principles and the road map for standard setting and implementation thereof for the Food sector. CII is hopeful that the deliberations of the summit will go a long way in assisting various agencies towards harmonization.

Participants at the summit include the chief, Food Quality and Standards Service, Food and Nutrition Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN.

Sat__'s 13-point program for weight loss

1. Do not go on a diet. Diets always fail.

2. Discover the foods that make you want to eat more and stop eating them.

(a) Foods with added sugar will make you hungry. Avoid them.
(b) White bread, white potatoes should be avoided. Eat carrots, yams, and sweet potatoes instead.
(c) Complete the rest of this list by discovering what makes you want to eat and eat.

3. When you eat, chew your foods until the solids are liquids before you swallow them. If you are not used to doing this, it can take some forming of new eating habits, but this is easy.

4. Never eat after 6 p.m.

5. Pink grapefruits accelerate the weight loss process.

6. Walk briskly at least 30 minutes per day: the more uphill slopes, the better. Adding some light workout with weights will speed things up and make you feel good.

7. Never have food or drink with high fructose corn syrup in it. In fact, best avoid as many corn-based additives as you can.

8. If you want something sweet, have fruit. If you want to sweeten something, use stevia.

9. Don¹t worry about the amount of fat you eat but make most of the good fats, such as cold-pressed virgin olive oil, grape seed oil, cold-pressed canola oil.

10. Eat when you are hungry. If you are not hungry, don¹t eat.

11. Don¹t eat while watching TV.

12. Green tea helps burn off fat.

13. Find the rest of the rules that work for you.

“Ability is what you are capable of doing.

Motivation determines what you do.

Attitude determines how well you do it.”

─ Lou Holtz

Humanists split with New Atheists over religious differences
By Jay Lindsay, Associated Press

BOSTON — Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who’s leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Among the millions of Americans who don’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.”

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament “a psychotic delinquent,” and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them “atheist fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.

Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy — part of the school’s chaplaincy corps — Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.

“Humanism is not about erasing religion,” he said. “It’s an embracing philosophy.”

In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there’s no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.

The celebration of a “New Humanism” will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement, and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.

Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is “an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in.”

The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world’s problems, Wilson said.

“I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they’ve overdone it,” he said.

Harris, author of “Letter to a Christian Nation,” sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there’s room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism. “I don’t think everyone needs to take as uncompromising a stance as I have against faith,” he said.

But, he added, an intellectual intolerance of people who strongly believe things on bad evidence is just “basic human sanity.”

“We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while,” he said in e-mailed comments.

Harris also rejected the term “atheist fundamentalist,” calling it “a silly play upon words.” He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.

“Likewise with the God of Abraham,” he said. “There is nothing ‘fundamentalist’ about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible.”

Some of the participants in Harvard’s celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists’ tone.

Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and “far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews.”

“It’s only the sense that religion deserves special respect — the exact taboo that Dawkins and Harris are arguing against — that people feel that those guys are being meanies when applying ordinary standards of evaluation to religion,” Pinker said in e-mailed comments.

Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment. He has questioned whether teaching children they could go to hell is worse in the long term than sexually abusing them, and compares the evidence of God to evidence for unicorns, fairies and a “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” His attempt to win converts is clear in “The God Delusion,” when he writes of his hope that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.

Not all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large, powerful minority that can’t be ignored or disdained by mainstream political and social thinkers.

Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition of America, sees a growing public acceptance of people who don’t believe in God, pointing to California U.S. Rep. Pete Stark’s statement this month that he doesn’t believe in a supreme being. Stark is the first congressman to acknowledge being an atheist.

As more prominent people such as Stark publicly acknowledge they don’t believe in God, “I think it will make it more palatable,” Brown said.

But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away.

“The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies,” he said. “The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them.”

A discussion of church and state

Come discuss the history of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross, the controversy surrounding it, and religion's place in the US government.

Mt. Soledad Natural Park, at sunrise on Easter Sunday, April 8, 2007

TheRevolution.US