The Washington Post is reporting that FISA judge James Robertson, appointed by Rehnquist to the 11-member panel to issue warrants for eavesdropping under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), resigned in protest over Bush’s 30 authorizations to conduct thousands of illegal wiretaps. Robertson had privately voiced concerns over what Bush did, and apparently felt that Bush made his panel into a Potemkin Court, a sham.

Okay, how many outright lies can you find in this statement by Bush today?

In order to protect America, the United States Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act. The terrorists still want to hit us again. There is an enemy that lurks, a dangerous group of people that want to do harm to the American people — and we must have the tools necessary to protect the American people. The Patriot Act passed overwhelmingly shortly after the September the 11th attack. It has been an effective tool; it has worked.

And the same as we protected the American people using the Patriot Act, we’ve also protected their civil liberties. There is extensive oversight on this very important program. The Patriot Act tore down the wall between law enforcement and intelligence communities, which makes it easier to connect the dots before an attack. The Patriot Act also gave law enforcement tools to investigate terrorism that they have already got to investigate other types of crimes.

The Patriot Act is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The terrorist threat is not going to expire at the end of this year. The House has voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and they left town, because they thought their — because their business is finished. The Senate is still debating this issue. A majority of the United States Senate supports reauthorization; a minority of senators is filibustering and preventing the Senate from voting to renew the Patriot Act. The Senate Democratic Leader recently boasted about killing the Patriot Act. This obstruction is inexcusable. The senators obstructing the Patriot Act need to understand that the expiration of this vital law will endanger America and will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers. It’s important that the Senate act quickly on these two bills.

Here is the most overwhelming lie: that the Patriot Act is being killed. It is not. The GOP tried to push through a version of the Patriot Act which makes permanent some provisions which threaten civil liberties. Democrats and some Republicans were against that, and simply want sunset provisions; the GOP and Bush utterly refused.

Here’s where the lie is thickest: the Democratic and Republican coalition offered to extend the Patriot Act for three months so the details could be worked out. The GOP and Bush again utterly refused. But there was no reason for them to do so. It is completely within their power to extend the Patriot Act. They chose not to, so they could make political hay out of it. So the majority of what Bush is saying above is knowingly false.

What other lies are there? “We’ve also protected their civil liberties.” Do I even need to explain? “A minority of senators is filibustering and preventing the Senate from voting to renew the Patriot Act.” First, Cheney came back to D.C. specifically so he could cast a tie-breaking vote on this issue, unnecessary if it was just a “minority.” In fact, now it is being reported that there is a majority who will vote for the 3-month extension, should the GOP leadership allow such a vote to occur. 52 Senators, including 8 Republicans, signed a letter urging the extension. So it is hardly a “minority” and absolutely no one is “preventing” the Senate from extending the act. They are preventing the passage of an extreme version of the act.

Most of the lies Bush spoke this morning, both specific and general, stem from these issues.

Well, Judge Jones himself predicted that the ID’ers would try to brand him as an activist. And here they go–from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization bent on pushing ID:

“The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work.”

“Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case. Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.”

Of course, if you read the decision, you’ll see that it is taught, going no further than is necessary. Every step is mandated and covers the legal arguments made before the court. There is no question but that if Judge Jones had failed to cover any of his points, these same fundamentalists would then be using those gaps to claim victory.

Not to mention that Jones is not “stopping the spread of debate” in any way, shape or form.

“Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world. Americans don’t like to be told there is some idea that they aren’t permitted to learn about. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory.”

Which, of course, is an inane statement. Jones did not ban anyone from learning about ID. The same students can spend every waking moment studying ID if they so please. Judge Jones simply ruled that it was not part of a science curriculum. Neither, I believe, does it purely ban ID, rather, it bans school boards from requiring it.

And again, he is not attempting to kill off interest or stop ID from developing; in fact, he states clearly that “[we do not] controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed.”

“Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools. But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis.”

This is a rather blatant lie. If they opposed efforts to mandate ID, why are they not in favor of this opinion? Further, they suggest here that ID cannot be discussed in the science classroom. I am fairly sure it does not do that–the ruling stated clearly that “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” (italics mine). A teacher should be able to bring up the ID argument without problem.

In short, these people are full of it. But there is some base, visceral enjoyment in seeing these people get hopping mad and braying this contrived pap as uselessly as a dog barking at the moon. Reason won out this time–sorry, Charlie.

Boldface mine:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

—George W. Bush, April 20, 2004

Clearly, they do not value the Constitution.

It’s official: U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has handed down his decision in the Dover School Board case on ID, and he says it has no place in science classes. Jones ruled that ID was not science, and could not uncouple itself from its creationist underpinnings. I have yet to get my hands on a copy of the ruling, but from what initial reports say, the judge was almost contemptuous of those trying to get ID in the science class:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

This case is significant because it will act as precedent nationwide and will influence other courts, should ID’ers elsewhere try the same tactic in getting creationism into the public science classroom. Even better, since the people of Dover chucked out the entire 8-member school board that brought the case and replaced the entire board with Democrats, it’s clear that the new school board will accept this ruling and of course not appeal, meaning that the ID’ers will have to work that much more to impose religious doctrine into public schools.

More on this as I get more information.

Update: the decision is now available online. It makes for excellent reading, and acts as an exhaustively researched and well-written analysis of ID, a seminal view of all the arguments for and against. Excerpts include:

…we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. …

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. …

After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow, we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion. Application of the objective student standard pursuant to the endorsement test reveals that an objective Dover High School ninth grade student will unquestionably perceive the text of the disclaimer, “enlightened by its context and contemporary legislative history,” as conferring a religious concept on “her school’s seal of approval.” …

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. …

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. …

As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.

And one of my own pet arguments:

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980’s to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago. … we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

The judge concludes:

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Excellent. Just excellent.

While ID proponents may well try to frame this as judicial “activism,” a quick read-through dispels any doubt whatsoever about that being the case. This is obviously well-grounded in law and reason. Even if it were challenged by appeal, It’s pretty clear there would be zero chance of it being overturned.

This story on MSNBC lays it out simply but well: Bush broke the law when he repeatedly authorized warrantless eavesdropping by the NSA within the United States. It is in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, not to mention the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

His excuses are all as false as he is. He stated that revealing his violation of law only helps terrorists by alerting them that they’re being listened in on–but this is something the terrorists are already well aware of. He made the argument that getting a warrant can be “too slow,” and in cases like these (all several thousand?) we have to move fast–but that’s an outright lie, as FISA not only provides warrants quickly and almost without exception, but they even allow investigators to apply for retroactive warrants, meaning they can act immediately and get a FISA warrant later. He claimed that such acts are within his Constitutionally mandated powers, but that is pure bull; he is granted no such powers. He said that Congress gave him the power–but the power they granted him was clearly military, and was not carte blanche for violating any law he pleased. Bush’s spray of excuses mirrors his attitude before the Iraq War, when he made the claim that the Constitution gave him the power to go to war without congressional approval. He was wrong then, and he’s wrong now.

Even John Dean of Watergate fame concurs: Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.”

So will Bush be impeached? God knows he deserves it. But Republicans control the Congress, and it is highly unlikely that they would allow for or vote for an impeachment of Bush, no matter how clearly he violated the law. So the only thing that could remain would be to press the issue and shame both Bush and the GOP. In what I read as a good sign, the Republicans have not issued their usually inevitable press releases and talking points, meaning that in an election year, they may not be too eager to cover up for him–though they will just as likely not trash him, either. Only should the Democrats win back the Senate next year, then impeachment could be a real possibility. But not too likely before then.

I’ve known Paul Cox (in the cyberspace sense) for quite some time, since late 2003 at the ornery.org discussion forums, and since mid-2004 as a frequent reader and commenter on this blog. He’s always been more reasonable than I, looking upon the world with cynical yet fair-minded eyes. We don’t always agree, but I always respect his opinions.

Recently Paul has started a personal blog, A Blue-Eyed Buddhist. It took me about five months before I committed to a full-bore entry-a-day blogging routine, but Paul is going daily right out of the gate. And his intel & analysis is very good; he provides highly detailed explanations and well-sourced and well-reasoned deliberation on matters political, social and personal. There’s quite a bit of politics so far, but it is peppered with a variety of others topics, a style I enjoy (though his are probably a lot more substantial than hamster videos and eyelid twitching). And I’m not just saying all this because of what he wrote in his first entry.

I’m signing up to be a daily reader. As you may note, I have added Paul’s blog to my linkboard on the right-hand sidebar on the main page, and I hope that if you come to visit here, you will visit Paul as well. It’s hard to get a blog started and begin a readership, so help out, and whenever possible, please provide links to the blog elsewhere to help the site get established.

You’ve probably heard by now that Bush signed authorizations for 45-day warrantless NSA wiretap sprees 30 times, and that as many as “thousands” of people have been listened in on. Bush has not only defended his unconstitutional invasion of privacy and assault on U.S. civil rights, but is assailing the media for being treasonous enough to actually report it.

“As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.”

That’s their stock response, that anyone who challenges them is putting the nation at risk. In the name of national security, they believe that we will easily allow the Bill of Rights to be torn to shreds. This is the reason why the “Patriot” Act needs to be trimmed where the freedoms of U.S. citizens are infringed–unless you prefer a nation where the government’s claims of security always trump the rights and civil liberties of all Americans.

But Bush claims the wiretaps were “legitimate”–why? Because, they tell us, the powers will only be used against people with terrorist ties. Yeah. Right. That’s what they said about the Homeland Security department, that it would only be used to fight terrorism. But when 51 Texas Democratic legislators fled Texas to Oklahoma in an attempt to stop an illegal GOP redistricting scheme, the GOP did not hesitate to use the Homeland Security Department to track the Democrats via an airplane some of them used. If a power exists, it will be abused. That’s why such things are forbidden in the Constitution. Sure, we could stop a lot of crime if we just gave up certain civil liberties. But only those whose fear outstrips their desire for freedom and liberty would give up those rights for that cause.

Bush overstepped his bounds, clearly. The New York Times would be the hero–except that it actually withheld the information about Bush’s illegal actions for a year–meaning that they had this info possibly just before the 2004 elections, but agreed to withhold it at Bush’ request, handing him a huge political victory against the interests of the people of the U.S., and the media at large.

But I suppose that none of this is really new–either Bush’s casually destructive disregard for American civil liberties, or the media’s lap-dog cooperation with the administration’s political goals. Or Bush’s attempt to smear any bad news about him as treasonous to the country. Still, it is painful to know how far down we’ve sunk, not to mention the fact that despite the clear illegality of warrantless searches (Paul Cox details the law very well in his new blog), you know no one will push this beyond a minor PR setback for the administration–though one can always hope this will prove to be the exception.

Although my broken foot nixed most of my plans for birdwatching on my trip home, that doesn’t mean that birding is out altogether. My father took me to Redwood Shores yesterday, to a spot recommended by a serious birder friend. We used “the rig,” my folks’ mini-camper, which had the advantage of height and amenities, and parked by the side of a pond aside a sewage treatment plant (didn’t smell) where there were a large number of birds.

The most impressive was the Hooded Merganser, which really makes you look twice:

Quite the headgear, eh? The following two include blowups upon clicking:

That last one expands to include a female merganser, though only viewed from behind.

There was also a variant of a bird I’ve seen before in Tokyo, the Black-necked Stilt (the Japanese variant is the Black-winged Stilt).

There was a similar bird present, the American Avocet, in winter plumage (click for larger image):

And similar to the Merganser, there was a Common Goldeneye, also a large-headed duck. In this shot, it’s close to what appears to be a Ruddy Duck (also expandable):

We also spied what we later learned to be a Ruddy Duck (winter plumage), though it was diving so much and for so long, we thought it might be some kind of Grebe.

Not a bad catch for a quick trip. Today we’re going to close to the Dumbarton to see if there are any good spots around there.

As predicted, Republicans are now wailing about how Democrats have destroyed the “Patriot” Act, and the country will be wide open to attack. Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said that “senators who oppose the extension will change their minds when they realize their stance could endanger lives.”

Of course, the Democrats, along with some Republicans who voted with them, are offering a three-month extension of the act, as is, to cover the time necessary for debate and deliberations.

So if the act dies, it’s the GOP that killed it. Don’t forget that.

John Spencer died of a heart attack today. If you know The West Wing, you know Spencer. He played the White House Chief of Staff Leo McGarry, and he played it to perfection. You might also remember him from the later seasons of L.A. Law, and from his roles in the movies The Rock and Presumed Innocent.

His current role as Leo McGarry has become more central and significant since he was named the running mate of Jimmy Smits’ character, Matt Santos. It is hard to find reports on this, but it seems that the filming for the current season is not over–perhaps another eight episodes unfilmed. Without doubt, Spencer’s passing will have to be written in–and could significantly affect the series’ storyline and direction. Additionally, it is reported that in the next episode to be aired in January, titled “Running Mates,” Spencer’s character gives this eerily premonitory statement:

“By an overwhelming percentage, the first warning symptom of a heart attack is death. I’m fortunate to be here. But it wasn’t all luck. I was the beneficiary of the finest medical care in the world. Medical care available to me, to Governor Sullivan, but not to the millions of Americans with no or inadequate health insurance. They have their noses pressed against the windows of the world’s greatest hospitals, best-trained doctors and nursing professionals, and when they most desperately need their services, they can’t get in. Matt Santos and I don’t want to leave anyone out in the cold if they get sick like I did. We want every man, woman, and child in this country to have full and equal access to the first-class treatment, that, I firmly believe, saved my life.”

Spencer is also noted as having many similarities to his West Wing character, including his recovery from alcoholism, and his devotion to work over his personal life–not to mention, of course, his health.

Spencer was an only child and was not married, but did live with long-time girlfriend, actress-choreographer Patricia Mariano.

Right now the political contest in D.C. is about the misnamed “Patriot Act” and the attempt by Republicans to make certain provisions permanent. Democrats and a critical number of Republicans in the Senate want revisions in the law, including sunset provisions instead of permanence for certain element of the law which are a potential threat to civil liberties. This, of course, from the very conservative and limited context from which politicians work; a great many people would likely see serious threats where congressmen both timid and corrupt would compromise and accept.

But even the weak exceptions that Democrats and a few Republicans are fighting for are too much for the GOP. They want everything, and will throw the tantrum from hell if they don’t get it. The Patriot Act is timed to run out by the end of the year, which comes along in a few weeks. The Coalition of the Compromise is being eminently reasonable, asking for a three-month extension for the act so the matter can be discussed and worked out after the break. But Frist and the GOP are throwing the tantrum, saying that if their version doesn’t get passed, then nothing will, and the whole act will expire December 31st.

Now, that would be eminently cool with me. The “Patriot” Act, like everything else in Bush’s “War on Terror™” is designed not for our security but rather for their control, and for forwarding their political agenda. Were are probably better off, even possibly more secure, without it at all. It certainly has not led to more secure borders, better cargo checking, beefed up police and fire, or any of the other elements necessary for better protection against terrorism at home. The Bush administration has made such things their last priority, giving greater

At the very least, a call for an extension of debate is about as reasonable as reasonable gets.

But the GOP is not just going to let a political opportunity go to waste; they’ve laid out their battle plan. Either they get everything that they want, or the act disappears–and the GOP will start a full-court press blaming Democrats for sabotaging our national security so as to gain an advantage in the 2006 elections.

It’s nice to know that our civil liberties and national security are in the hands of people who go to such great lengths to make them their first priority.

This story from the LA Times is out today:

A federal appeals court panel appeared sharply critical Thursday of a ruling this year that ordered the removal of stickers in science textbooks stating, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”

Judge Ed Carnes of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the lower court judge had misstated facts in his ruling, overstating the influence religious protests had on the school board’s actions. He also said the words on the sticker are “technically accurate,” and that the Cobb County school board was justified in singling out the theory of evolution for comment.

“From nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific theory,” Carnes said. “There is less evidence supporting it than there is for other theories. It sounds to me like evolution is more vulnerable and deserves more critical thinking” than other subjects.

Well, it seems Carnes either has a personal bias in favor of Creationism, or he’s just not too bright. He doesn’t even seem to realize what the “theory” of evolution is. That’s a rookie mistake, like believing that the “theory of gravity” is about whether or not gravity exists. The “theory of evolution” is not a theory about whether evolution exists, it’s a theory as to how evolution works. Evolution itself is clearly real, as proven by all the evidence–fossils dating back a few billion years, life forming more complex organisms as time progresses, with clearly defined branches of forms developing, one creature into two or more, one creature into another in a chain, leading up to present-day life. The core idea of evolution–that life changed from less complex forms into more complex ones–is about as solid as it gets.

You could argue that “evolution” has come to mean the theory of how, instead of meaning evolution as a whole. But not in this context. The people who put the stickers on those books clearly believe that evolution did not take place at all, and want students to get the official word from the government that God created all life in its present form. The phrase “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” is “technically correct” only if you completely ignore the context.

Further evidence that Carnes is bending things comes from his statement about “nonlife to life” being the “greatest gap in scientific theory.” This only covers one part of the theory of evolution–the beginning–and completely ignores the remaining fossil record. One could still believe that God created the most primary life forms and let things snowball from there, and evolution is still real and present. But even that is still a “God of the gaps,” using God to fill in for segments of scientific understanding not yet achieved.

Science can, without any contradiction or complication, be described as understanding “how God did it,” not “whether God did it.” Understanding that, evolution as described by science can be seem as an attempt to understand how life formed, whether as directed by God or not. The same can be said of how life began. If God did it, He must have used some method, one that could be described by science. Why is it so all-fired important for some people to believe that it was somehow magical? That it was not God directing the laws of molecular interaction so as to lead to the grandeur of life we see today, but rather some instant, mystical, clap-some-clay-together-and-poof-there’s-life miracle that would be beyond science’s ability to explain?

The outlines here are clear: people who believe that an old-looking guy with a beard and maybe a belly button slapped clay on clay and made life, and that’s that; they believe that evolution is wholly untrue. This is a religious belief, and they’re pissed that the evidence of the world contradicts that, and worse, that the government allows this contradictory evidence to be taught in schools. These are people who believe that all of evolution is untrue, and want this religious doctrine to be reflected in universal education. That’s what the stickers are about; anything else is a snow job.

Note to Judge Carnes: get a grip on the issue.

The college where I work has become the first foreign institution of higher education to be granted official status by the Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), which means our students will finally be universally recognized in Japan, allowing them benefits from financial (they can now get significant savings on their train passes, the lack of which was a big drawback) to academic (their credits earned at our college will now transfer within the Japanese college system). We’ll also be able to sponsor student visas. Recognition is very good (though long in coming), and it means we’ll likely get an increase in the number of students at our college, which took a hit after the 9/11 attacks and the buildup to the Iraq War.

However, it also means that other foreign universities might start getting interested in the market again, now that we and others have stabilized it and brought it respect. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, a few score of U.S. institutions opened up branch campuses in Japan, seeing it as a way to capitalize off of the then-rich Japanese market. They usually partnered with Japanese businesses which provided administrative and financial support, many of whom were prep or other types of private schools. However, a few major problems caused the industry to implode. For one, some institutions, desperate to get applicants, significantly lowered standards and suffered from grade inflation, which devalued the currency of their degrees. But much more significantly, Japan’s economic collapse caused many of the partner institutions to go bankrupt (many had invested heavily in the bubble real estate market), which closed down schools without warning. Students who had invested a great deal of money and time suddenly found themselves with severed college careers, and in a poor position to do anything about it. The reputation of the industry sank quickly as new students wanted to avoid this fate, and as attendance plummeted, even more schools closed down, until in the late 90’s, only four American-based colleges in Japan with independent accreditation remained (not counting institutions on American military bases).

That’s when I came in, and was hired to run my college. We were one of the least-famous institutions to set up in Japan, but we did so for serious reasons based upon internationalization and the enrichment of diversity, not necessarily for profit. We had found a solid Japanese partner with serious academic credentials, and focused more on the foundation of an academic program than a money-making business (our home campus is a not-for-profit institution). So we stayed on, even through the toughest of times, taking a beating from the reputation cast on us from others–but we persevered. We steadfastly refused to lower standards or award higher grades to appeal to students in a business way (to the point where some students who graduated and later returned from American colleges they’d transferred to reported that our college was academically tougher than the U.S. institutions they’d studied at).

Still, I arrived at a turning point, where the student population had ebbed. For the subsequent several years, our student population exploded, tripling in size. I’d like to claim that as cause-and-effect, but it was more due to the recruitment teams, the rebuilding of our pre-academic program, and the fading of the poor reputation other institutions had left behind a decade before. So we prospered, even as two of the remaining four U.S.-accredited colleges in Japan shut down (they were countryside holdovers, having received substantial support from rural governments, and closed in a responsible fashion), leaving only us and Temple University as the survivors. Understanding that history, you can perhaps appreciate better the significance and reward of now being officially recognized by MEXT. It’s been a long road, and naturally I feel a well-deserved outcome.

In this day when there are numerous free photo hosting services, I’m still getting besieged by hotlinkers. First, let me explain what “hotlinking” is.

When you own a web site, you pay a monthly fee to a “web host,” who has banks of computers with high-speed, 24/7 Internet connections and technicians to take care of them. They give you disk space, and you use it to host your web site. That means you put all your web pages (“html” files) and images, and whatever else, in that disk space. You are also allotted a certain amount of “bandwidth” or “traffic,” meaning that you have limits on how much data you send and receive. As a result, data coming and going from your web site has a price tag–it costs you money.

Now someone else comes along, usually someone who has a blog or other kind of personal page on a free service, like MySpace or Blogspot. They don’t know much about how web pages work, probably. But the free web site they use gives them the option to put images on their web site. Most give them the option to host the images in their own space, but they also give the option to hotlink, which is easier.

Hotlinking is when you have a web site, and instead of using images in your disk space, you decide to use images on my disk space. It’s actually pretty easy to do: in the web page code, just paste the address of the image from another site. When anyone looks at your page, their browser will see the address for the image, go there, get it, and incorporate it into your web page.

In short, even though the image appears on your web page, the actual photo resides on my web site. And every time someone views your web page, my web site gets hit with the traffic charge. This all happens seamlessly in the background; the person viewing your site has no idea that the image they see on your page came from somewhere else. They don’t get alerted that their browser is actually accessing multiple sites to patch together the page they’re looking at.

For me, it’s a bad deal all around. Someone is using an image I own without my permission. But worse, they’re making me pay for it. I pay to host the image and for the traffic charges. And 99 times out of 100, the hotlinker gives no credit to me at all. I wish I could come up with a layman’s analogy, but there’s nothing exactly like this in the physical world. It would be as if someone arranged it so that when they used their car, gasoline from your car’s gas tank gets used up.

To even be aware of this, I have to carefully study my statistics, which tell me things like a certain web site accessed a certain photo image on my site 1,330 times in the last few days. That happened to me–somebody on MySpace used a large wallpaper image of fireworks from my site as their wallpaper, hotlinking the image. The image is 350 KB. 1,330 accesses of that image costs me half a gigabyte in bandwidth.

There is an option in my web site control panel that blocks hotlinking. The problem is, if I turn it on, half of my visitors can’t see any images on my site. Clearly not all the browsers work right in this regard.

There is one rather vengeful solution: whenever somebody hotlinks to an image on your site, you control the image. If you change the image, the change instantly appears on their site. In the gas-stealing analogy, that means if you spike your gas with sugar, their gas tank gets trashed. I do that sometimes, if the hotlinker is obnoxious. I first have to change my own blog post using the image so it instead uses an alternate copy of the image with a different name. Then I alter the original image which someone is hotlinking so that it says or shows whatever I please, shrinking it so it only takes up a tiny amount of space. Presto! The hotlinker’s web site now proudly sports whatever image I chose to show.

I wish people (mostly teenagers making “kewl” free pages or referencing my images on private forums) would get a clue and use better netiquette. Free image hosting is rampant on the web, and while it may take a few more mouse clicks to do it, it’s honest and you don’t have to worry about the images disappearing off or changing on your web site, out of your control.

OK, so I’m getting ready to go home for the holidays. I’ve got everything taken care of, especially in light of my broken foot. I’m going to takkyubin my luggage to the airport (“takkyubin” is kind of like Fed-Ex, but a broader service in Japan; one service they provide is hauling your luggage for you from point A to point B). I’ve got Green Car reservations on the Narita Express, wheelchair reservations for the airport, a bulkhead seat (first row of Economy class, where there are no seats in front of you) on the airplane… everything taken care of.

So last night, at about 2 a.m., I look at my luggage. And I realize that I haven’t made arrangements to takkyubin the suitcase. Well, I shouldn’t worry, I think–they’ll pick it up tomorrow and have it at the airport in time, right? Except when I go to Yamato Takkyubin’s web site to check, they say that you should have it picked up two to three days before your flight. Oh, great! Come the morning, my flight would be the next day. Have you ever tried to carry a big suitcase while on crutches? I haven’t, and I don’t want to try.

So there I am in a panic, figuring that I’ve completely blown it. Yamato doesn’t open till 8:00 am, and they require 2-3 days anyway. But I find another express company, called Sagawa, who seem to take calls all night. So I call them up. No problem, the guy says. We can have your bag at the airport the next day. I make the reservation for the pickup guy to come between 12 and 2 in the afternoon the next day, and relax. It’s taken care of. Close one! So I go to sleep.

This morning, I get woken up by a phone call. Some guy at Sagawa, calling me about my arrangement. The problem is, he doesn’t speak English, and I can’t understand what he’s saying. Something about “uketori” (pickup?) at the airport, and somehow maybe I can’t get my bag “chokusetsu” (directly). I quiz him, explain that I can’t understand, please speak simply, the whole nine yards. I try to get him to explain bit by bit. But no luck–he remains maddeningly vague. He tells me to call the “skyporter” at Narita, and I do so. He also does not speak English, and he is even less helpful and clear than the Sagawa guy. He can’t explain, and says I should call Sagawa. I call the Sagawa guy back up, he’s no help either. I ask him directly if they can deliver my bag to Narita as promised, and he won’t give me a direct answer.

Here’s a big cultural tip about Japan: when someone refuses to give a direct answer, and instead switches to high-level language, the answer is “no.”

So I begin to panic again. My Japanese coworker at school kindly agrees to call Sagawa for me to cut through the language problem, and confirms my fears: Sagawa doesn’t deliver to Narita. (So why did the guy I called last night tell me “no problem”?) Sagawa has just wasted my time when I’m already way late. At least they told me (kind of) that they couldn’t deliver my bag before they actually picked it up. But that doesn’t help me much.

Hoping against hope that Yamato will do the job despite the late hour, I call them up. Again, no one speaks English. I’m able to communicate my request to the dispatcher, who assures me that they can do this for me, they can get the suitcase there in time for my flight. That would be a relief again, except for the fact that that is exactly what the Sagawa guy said eight hours earlier. But I take a leap of faith and go for it. Trying to make sure I’ve got things covered, I call the downtown number for Yamato and get an English speaker, who assures me that they can get my bag to Narita by the next day before my flight, no problem. Oh yeah, they also inform me that on the shipping invoice, in the “to” area, I have to put “Narita Airport,” my airline, flight number and departure time. Useful info, good thing I called the second time.

Anyway, just as I was writing this, the Yamato guy showed up at my door, again assured me that it would get there on time, and took it away with the $16 fee. I’m still nervous, but at least a bit more hopeful now. At worst, I’ll have to buy luggage and clothes when I get to the U.S. Could be worse.

Too late, a friend made a suggestion which would have worked much better: I should have taken a taxi to Seiseki Sakuragaoka, a 5-minute taxi ride, from where I could have taken the Limousine Bus (why is it called a “limousine” bus?) to the airport, no transfers or anything. But it’s a bit too late to switch, so I’ll stay with what I’ve got. But it’s good information to know for the future.

I know I shouldn’t watch CNN even in small, measured doses, but I passed through while switching around and saw a story about a Bush “comeback” because his poll numbers are up. Well, “up” is a relative term: what Bush has really done is gone from the 36-39% approval range of two or three weeks ago to the 40-42% approval range this week, while his negatives did not change as much. But what’s surprising here is that Bush has been bobbing between the upper 30’s and lower 40’s for months now, so the present numbers are completely insignificant in that context–and yet he’s being billed as making a “comeback”? Heck, CNN had him at 42% in October, and at 45% (along with Fox) back in September. So how is 40-42% now a comeback?

The press never gives him a break, do they?

Side note: At this point in his presidency, Clinton’s numbers were more or less the opposite of Bush’s now: five years in, Clinton enjoyed a 57% approval rating, with 31% disapproving, as he was being slammed by Congressional Republicans–and the press–for alleged scandals which were, in retrospect, completely trivial compared to what Bush has done over the past five years. At least the people saw things for what they were better than the media did. Still, one has to wonder what that 42% who approve of Bush today are thinking. I mean, what exactly has he done right? How can you consider all the things he’s done wrong and the few, if any, things he’s done right, and come out with an “I approve” rating? The answer, of course, is that people aren’t “considering.” Most of that 42% are die-hard conservatives, and the rest are simply not paying attention.

I almost had to stay in a Japanese hospital, but not quite–the surgery got cancelled last week. One evening maybe 6 years ago, I got food poisoning from a sushi bar (which I of course no longer frequent), started going into shock, and got taken to a hospital by a neighbor–but didn’t stay the night. They pumped me full of fluids and I don’t know what else (not in the condition to observe at the time), and they sent me home. As a result, so far I have not had a stay in a hospital in Japan. But I’ve heard things about what it entails, and my near-stay last week got me another glimpse of that scenario, which I’d forgotten about long ago.

What’s different? Well, there’s a lot of stuff you have to bring. Stuff like pajamas and your toothbrush are not so hard to understand. But kleenex? And soap? True, hospital rooms don’t cost as much in Japan as they do in the U.S., but really, they can’t spring for tissues to blow your nose with?

Here’s the whole list of things you have to bring, aside from your papers: toothbrush, soap, shampoo, hair brush, shaving utensils, etc.; chopsticks, chopstick holder, spoon (a spoon?), teacup, and other eating utensils; pajamas, underwear, hand towel, bath towel, slippers, kleenex, and other overnight stuff. Anything you forget you can buy at the hospital shop.

The room I had a choice about: if I just go with what the insurance paid for only, the room would be free–but shared by four people. A semi-private room would set me back ¥4,200 ($35) a day. A private room would be ¥7,350 ($60). And a “big” private room would be ¥12,600 ($105) a day. And you get charged not by how many nights you stay, but any daytime stay–so though I would have been entering on Wednesday afternoon and leaving Saturday morning, I’d be charged for both Wednesday and Saturday, or a total of 4 days. But I guess that’s to be expected.

Whatever you may say about Japanese medical care, however, you can’t say that the care itself is too expensive. The national insurance, maybe (though I’d like to see how it compares to U.S. insurance), but the care itself is cheap–mainly because the government dictates prices, which keeps costs down significantly. The prices I quoted above for rooms are probably cheap compared to a U.S. hospital. Last year in the U.S., I got a bad nosebleed and had to get hospital care, which added up to about $1500 for only a half dozen visits (no stays). When I got back to Japan, I found out that my national insurance would cover it–but only up to the amount they would pay a hospital in Japan. That turned out to be ¥20,000 ($165). Considering that they pay 70% of medical fees, that means the total government-controlled cost of hospital care would have been ¥28,600 ($240), or about 1/6th of the U.S. costs.

True, Japanese hospitals aren’t as nice or as well-equipped, but they certainly are good enough. The lobby is not as plush, but the system works. And frankly, I experienced wait times at the U.S. hospital that were equivalent to what I experienced here in Japan.

So all the foibles about bringing your own kleenex aside, it’s really not so bad a deal here–U.S. health care could learn some lessons, particularly in cost control.

Well, I’m getting things wrapped up. I just finished grading for the Fall 2005 semester (four sections of “Introduction to Computers,” so it was a bit busy). The last part of grading was to review the students’ blogs. I start them on blogging (using Google’s Blogspot, of course) in the first month of class, and have them blog on the topic of computers once a week for ten weeks. This semester, they learned how to use Blogspot’s image capacity, so that really jazzed things up. Go ahead and look at what they blogged on if you like (blog links are halfway down the page); they were given topics like “The Future of Computers,” “My History with Computers,” “What Computer Gifts Would I Buy Family and Friends,” and so on–as well as some free-topic weeks. They also came up with some creative stuff, including the names for their blogs–like “With Rabbits,” “Egg & Vinegar & Oil,” “Froggy’s Trash Can,” “Hand in My Pocket,” “Without Thinking,” “Hello! Hello? Hello!” “Blog 101,” and my personal favorite, “Don’t Read!” If some of the later entries seem effusive with praise for the class, keep in mind that I hadn’t given them grades yet…

I also just finished the main page for their web page projects, which I host on a domain which I otherwise don’t use but has lots of disk space and bandwidth. A few of them just do the minimal prerequisite, but some went to a great deal of trouble, and a few had designs so nice I almost thought they stole it from somewhere. They used a lot of graphics off the web (I warn them about lifting copyrighted material, but for the purposes of practice I give them leeway), but a lot of the design and content is pretty good, considering that few if any of them ever made a web page before they came to my class.

As you can see, they get pretty creative. The blog and web pages are two of three projects they do in the class–the third being a PowerPoint presentation. I intentionally do not show them how to use wizards or templates, and require them to start with a blank slide show–and they come out with some fantastic presentations.

It can be a fun class to teach.

This is a nothing-post; I just saw a cute sig line and had to post it:

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.