Good news on the referral spam front: only 6 of the top 25 referrals were spammers, for a total of 187 hits between them. Lots more spammers with only a few hits per in the complete list, but this is a hopeful sign.

On the other hand, comment spam has started rising again, but mostly due to one porn web hosting company which sends hundreds of blog comment spams through each and every day, and has been for a few months now. Not a single one has made it onto the blog, of course, but they continue to spam away.

One more note: after peaking in April, visitor numbers have more or less held steady since then, though in the past month or two the number of spammers in the totals has been cut by the AwStats filter. Nevertheless, this month had the highest number of total unique visitors per month–22,554, a hundred or so higher than April, when spammers were fully counted in that total. Still, with some spammers getting through, the number of real visitors is more likely closer to 20,000, probably under that.

Speaking on Iraq:

Sixty years ago this Friday, General Douglas MacArthur accepted the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. With Japan’s surrender, the last of our enemies in World War II was defeated, and a World War that began for America in the Pacific came to an end in the Pacific. As we mark this anniversary, we are again a nation at war. Once again, war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood. Once again, we face determined enemies who follow a ruthless ideology that despises everything America stands for. Once again, America and our allies are waging a global campaign with forces deployed on virtually every continent. And once again, we will not rest until victory is America’s and our freedom is secure. [Transcript]

And once again, Bush equates 9/11 with Iraq, as if the two were in some way connected. Pearl Harbor led to the American occupation of Japan, and Bush is implying that this is parallel to the idea that 9/11 led to the American occupation of Iraq. A complete and utter lie. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Iraq was not involved in 9/11, and though two years ago Bush admitted there was no connection (“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th”), the endless hints, innuendo and outright accusations coming from the administration have made most Americans believe there was a connection, to the point where 70% of the American public believed it at one time.

Bush tries to continue the lie by insinuating that while Hussein was not involved directly in 9/11, he had al Qaeda ties. In the same breath in which he admitted Hussein was not involved in 9/11, he also said:

And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. … There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.

However, the CIA disagreed, saying that there was no evidence to support or deny the claim–in other words, Bush was making up the whole thing out of desire, political expediency, and whole cloth. A CIA official was quoted as saying that “there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad.” Like the first assertion the administration made about Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, the al-Zarqawi claim is just as bogus, trying to claim that Hussein was in bed with bin Laden when in truth the two despised each other and had no working ties. So then the claim goes to Abu Nidal, a terrorist who went to Iraq. There’s the tie, said Bush & Co. Except Abu Nidal was killed by Saddam Hussein, unless you accept the idea that he committed suicide for no good reason, and by shooting himself several times.

But Bush will not give up on a lie that has served him so well to this point. He is now refreshing the mendacity by making it analogous to Japan after WWII, saying that there were problems there as well:

President Roosevelt, and later President Truman, wisely resolved that we would not make that mistake in our treatment of a defeated Japan. They understood that the sacrifices of allied forces would mean nothing unless we used our victory to help the Japanese people transform their nation from tyranny to freedom. There were many doubters.

American and Japanese experts claimed that the Japanese weren’t ready for democracy.

In a letter to a friend back home, one of our soldiers on the ground offered a different view. Sergeant Richard Leonard’s brother had been killed in fighting the Japanese, but after being stationed in Japan and meeting Japanese people, he found he could not hate them. He wrote, “Sure, we’ve got to occupy their country and watch them. But at the same time, we’ve got to help them and do everything possible to reconstruct them as a peace-loving nation.”

Except, of course, that the two nations in post-war venues were completely different in nature.

• The Japanese were one people, homogenous; Iraq is made up of three very different groups prone to disagreement;
• The Japanese were fiercely loyal to the Emperor, who told them to surrender and cooperate; nothing even similar exists in Iraq;
• There was little or no insurgency in Japan, unlike Iraq;
• In Japan, the people accepted American rule, resigned themselves to it; Iraq is not quite the same;
• In Japan, we more or less forced a constitution on the Japanese, writing in for them and then sitting on them for seven years before ending the occupation;
• In Japan, the obedience and the general makeup of the Japanese people made them far different than the Iraqis today in terms of accepting an occupation;
• Japan was not seen by its own people as oppressive, and had for more than 80 years experienced a parliamentary system, a constitutional monarchy, not a succession of thuggish dictators;
• In Japan, there was absolutely no parallel to the situation of America in the Middle East today in religious, historical, economic or political terms;
• In Japan, we gave massive financial aid, opened up use of patents, and in 1950 used Japan as a staging area for the Korean War, infusing huge amounts of capital into the country, leading to the “economic miracle” which made Japanese more content with the position they had taken on; there is little expectation the Iraqis will so profit even if another war does break out;
• In Japan, the U.S. took on a huge chunk of the country’s defense, allowing the country to focus on financial rebuilding; there is no evidence that anything similar will happen in Iraq–in fact, the current stated goal is for the opposite to happen.
• In Iraq, “our enemies” have not been defeated; the enemies that attacked on 9/11 are still on the loose, in large part because Bush took an unnecessary detour in Iraq. In contrast, in post-WWII Japan, the enemies who had attacked us were defeated, and were not fighting back.

I’m sure others like Tim could add a few dozen more points. In general, the idea that Iraq is even remotely similar to Japan after WWII is mind-bogglingly wrong. There simply is no parallel beyond the downright simplistic rendering that we conquered both nations and then tried to set up a Democracy. Any and all parallels end there, and a flood of differences and polar opposites begin.

Iraq is not Japan. Not even close. This is just more posturing, more knowingly false analogies. More lies to the American people.

One of the birds that surprised me when I went to Enoshima was the Black Kite. It surprised me not just in how close one could approach it, but more so in what numbers it was present in. When I first appeared on the beach, more than a dozen were immediately visible. A half dozen or so perched close together in a tree on a nearby cliff; three or four more perched on masts of docked small ships and on lamp posts close to the shore; and another more than half dozen circling in the air. I rarely saw one swoop down and take anything, so it didn’t seem like there was an abundance of prey that would attract them. And they persisted in the area, from the coast beach to Enoshima to Kamakura; they were everywhere.

So here are some of the images, several having blow-ups when you click them–like these first two, nice portraits of Kites on ship masts:

And here’s a close-up shot of the first bird’s head:

Here’s the best shot I could manage of the Kites in the trees; if you look closely, you’ll see five Kites in this photo; more were perched in the area, but it wasn’t so easy to get all of them together.

I was able to get some nice shots of Kites circling against the cliffs on Enoshima, near where I spotted the Blue Rock Thrush. Usually, the birds are silhouetted against the sky, making it hard to see light detail on their undersides. These photos had the cliff in the background, bringing less of a contrast and a better image. The first has a large version when clicked:

Notice the white patch near the ‘finger’ feathers; that’s a key identification point for the Black Kite. But look at this other, less-detailed shot:

The white area seems different. A different species? Hard to say, I’ll have to look into that.

Finally, I got a gorgeous look at a Black Kite that apparently had snagged some chicken skin or something. It had perched unsuccessfully on slippery, angled lamp post, which led it to land on a railing for the main walkway on the Enoshima ocean view, very close to me. Note the food in its right claw, and how it’s not using the claw to perch. A large version available on clicking.

Some pretty birds here.

I figured it was time to go through my records and figure out how many birds I’ve photographed, total, in Japan. Although there have been some uncertain identifications and I probably have got a few more than I counted, but officially, the count stands at 75. This does not count the birds I’ve identified by their calls alone, or birds I’ve spotted but not photographed. Here’s the list. About half are water birds, but I feel short on the passerine (perching or land birds) side; I have to find out where I can get to see more.

I decided to take one last day trip to go birdwatching before my vacation ends next week. This time I figured I’d head down to the southern Kanagawa coast, visiting Enoshima and Kamakura. Kamakura was less than productive bird-wise, but Enoshima gave me a lot to look at. There wasn’t much variety, though; most of the birds one could see were Black-tailed Gulls and Black Kites, the latter of which were in surprising numbers. However, I’ll post on the hawks in another entry as there’s a lot to show. This one I want to showcase a new bird for me: the Blue Rock Thrush (Isohiyo-dori • イソヒヨドリ), which I spotted on the island Enoshima, a small resort island just off the Kanagawa coast.

These two photos really show up the thrush’s colors. The white edge to the feathers is not usual, or so it would seem from the many photos I’ve found of this bird; none had them like this. But it definitely is the Blue Rock Thrush, just perhaps still getting its colors in. The bird is usually blue with a red belly, the colors solid and a bit deeper than you see here. Females are brown, and there is a completely blue sub-species. Below is a female:

So a very interesting bird. Other than that and the Kites, there were a good number of Gulls, but most if not all were Black-tailed Gulls (in Japanese, “Umi-neko,” or “Sea-cat” likely because of their mewing calls). I’ve gotten them before, but there were a few new photos that came out well:

And a close-up, or unreduced image from that last one; note the back- and red-tipped bill.

Coming up: the Kites of Enoshima.

You can’t say that scientists don’t have a sense of humor. And when it comes to showing up “Intelligent Design” as the pseudoscientific fraud that it is, it does not hurt at all to possess a good sense of humor.

Enter Bobby Henderson of venganza.org, a 24-year-old unemployed graduate in Physics from Oregon. The Kansas School Board made the decision to promote ID to the status of scientific theory on the premise that students should be exposed to multiple theories so they can choose for themselves. In response to this decision, Henderson most logically proposed that his theory should also be taught in Science classes, so that the students can decide for themselves. Same logic as the school board. So he wrote and sent a letter to the Kansas School Board to urge them to include in Science classes the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

According to Henderson’s Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), whose noodly refrain is “RAmen!” the FSM created the universe as it is in the recent past, and that when scientists perform radioactive dating tests, the FSM changes the results with His Noodly Appendage for His reasons to make the fossil seem older than the universe really is.

Henderson also points out that there is a direct correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and global warming, complete with a graph showing the connection. In short, we need a lot more pirates if we want to get rid of global warming. I believe this environmentalist message will resonate with a lot of students, because they tend to think pirates are pretty cool. And, after all, it is another point of view, and the students should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Henderson also adds three reasons why people should convert to FSM-ism:

• Flimsy moral standards.
• Every Friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
• Our heaven is WAY better. We’ve got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.

Responsible, professional scientists have found themselves unable to refute Mr. Henderson’s theory. One points out how String Theory should in fact be called “Noodle Theory,” most others make clear that the FSM theory has more credibility than ID, and one Ph.D., a Dr. H. Neville, simply said, “MMMMMmmmmm, spaghetti.”

On a more serious note, Dr. Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer explained:

In discussing competing theories, if one is to present ID then it is only fair and logical to teach other theories with commensurate evidence. Based on Mr. Henderson’s letter, it is clear that the FSM theory has evidence comparable in weight to ID. As a scientist and professor, it is often difficult to present differing opinions in an unbiased way. However, it is important to the student to be exposed to these ideas to form their own opinions. This comes right out of the handbook of the ID purporters: present the different “theories” and let the listener decide. If those in favor of ID are so convinced, then they should not be concerned that the presentation of the FSM theory would serve to undermine the credibility of ID.

In due observance of the holiness and scientific viability of his theory, Henderson is selling T-shirts and coffee mugs. You might also want to check out the FSM image gallery.

I never thought I’d be saying this, but Battlestar Galactica is a very good television show.

By this, of course, I mean the current version of the show being broadcast on the Sci-Fi channel, not the original 1980 version which was a poorly-produced half-assed attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze. I don’t know how they can actually sell DVD sets of that series. Even being the sci-fi fan that I am, I wouldn’t watch it again even if it were a free download. To me, it was pretty much a how-to manual on how not to make a sci-fi series. Everything from the kid with his robot dog to the endlessly-recycled poor special effects, the show was a loser, and quite forgettable.

The new show is almost the polar opposite of the original. It was well-constructed, is well-written and well-produced. Somehow they got two very respectable actors, Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell, to head up the cast, and filled in the rest with good people, though relatively unknown. The general storyline is, surprisingly, very close to the original–a robotic race called the Cylons attack twelve human colonies on twelve worlds; survivors flee in ships around the last remaining (or so it is thought) battle cruiser, which leads them on a journey to a mythical world called Earth. But the new version throws in twists and new angles that make the series less about cashing in and more about drama and storytelling.

One angle is that the Cylons have produced a new model which looks entirely human, and can be programmed to think its a human while the machine mind sleeps underneath, ready to take over at any time. When one of these human-Cylon hybrids is killed, their memories are uploaded to a Cylon database and a new copy of the individual is made. This introduces story angles including paranoia and distrust, as well as the question of what being human is, in a sinister kind of way.

Another angle is politics; where in the original series, Commander Adama (played by Lorne Greene) ruled everything, here there is a war of control between him and the emergency civilian administration, where the president (played by Mary McDonnell) used to be the education minister, but has taken strong hold of the reins. Richard Hatch, who played Apollo, Adama’s son, in the 80’s series, is back as Tom Zarek, a political dissident angling to become the new leader of the what’s left of the human race.

One more angle is faith: there is a certain amount of mysticism involved, including a religion with a prophecy which the characters would appear to be playing out. How much of it is real, how much of it is self-fulfilling, and how much of it is simply manufactured by the Cylons, who seem to have a mysterious faith of their own?

The characters in this series are also very three-dimensional. Olmos plays Adama as a tough, gruff, but wise take-control military man, unwilling to believe in legends and prophecies, but human enough to realize when he’s wrong. He is perhaps the least-flawed of all the characters, with the exception of his son, now named Lee, who is more about doing what’s right than adhering to loyalty or even the chain of command. But more interesting are the more flawed characters.

Dr. Baltar (played by John Colicos in the original series, and thoroughly re-imagined here), is a quirky genius who unwittingly gave the Cylons access to allow them to wipe out humanity; this was done through a female Cylon-human hybrid who seduced him, and told him of his culpability when the nuclear weapons started going off. In an interesting twist, even after leaving this female Cylon behind on the bombed-out colony, he still sees her with him everywhere, as if she were real; he can see her, hear her and even feel her, though she is only in his mind and nobody else knows she’s there. But she’s there to him, constantly cajoling, threatening, seducing and leading him on–and the viewer is left to guess whether she’s somehow been implanted into his brain, or if she’s simply a schizophrenic hallucination he’s built up to avoid the horrendous guilt of having been responsible for billions of deaths. Everyone else trusts him; he’s in charge of finding disguised Cylons, he’s made vice-president of the civilian government, and he’s either mad, compromised, or both.

Starbuck is no long Dirk Benedict, nor is she male; but she’s still the best pilot, along with being inventive and highly skilled at other things. But she’s got a checkered past, and has big issues with authority. She tends to be the smartass to Lee Adama’s straight-man routine, and leaves you wondering where she’ll go next. Lieutenant Boomer also went from male to female in this series, this time a pilot who is not quite sure who she is, and for a while, neither are you.

President Roslin, played by McDonnell, is dying of breast cancer. She unwillingly takes on the role of president, but takes it by the throat and will not let go. Eventually she becomes obsessed with the prophecy which she believes she is destined to carry out, and makes certain compromises she feels are necessary but is not comfortable with. Her character is endlessly driven, and McDonnell plays it well. On the other end of the dedication scale is Adama’s first officer, Colonel Tigh. An alcoholic with a scheming, manipulative wife, he is portrayed as both talented and as a pathetic loser, desperately hanging on to a raging tiger by his fingernails, doing his best but being less than effective.

The series began with a miniseries back in 2003, followed by a truncated 13-episode “first season,” and now by a second season that will take a hiatus from late September to early January. If you haven’t been watching it, you should go back to the beginning and do so, if possible. The series is popular with the BitTorrent community, and may be re-viewable there.

Adding to the interest to a certain degree is that the producer, Ron Moore, does a weekly podcast commentary on the episode, just like on DVDs. If you record the show or have a recording of it, you can play the podcast and watch the show with the sound off at the same time, and it’s just like a DVD commentary–except it’s an ongoing broadcast TV show. As far as I know, this is the first time that’s ever been done. It is, however, very much in the style of Babylon 5’s Joe Straczynski, who in the 90’s communicated quite a bit with fans online. Moore similarly answers a lot of questions by fans, though a lot less frequently.

Altogether, this is a series to be taken far more seriously than its predecessor, with far greater human interest and far better storytelling. Even the special effects, while uncontrolling and relatively unobtrusive, are quite impressive, especially for a low-budget TV show on a cable channel. Kudos to Ron Moore and the Sci-Fi Channel on this one.

Some of these are about birds, and some are just shots I took. Nothing important here. Two or three will have larger versions available if you click the photo.

First, the birds: I’ve been able to get shots of Little Grebes before, but nothing big and sharp. When I went to Ueno a few days ago as part of a multi-stop trip (Akihabara, Ueno, Shinjuku and Shibuya, to run errands), there were some Grebes in the rowing lake, and they were very close to the shore. Plus, it was direct daylight, so they came out pretty well. This first shot is of an adult, with a blowup on click:

Here’s a cute youngling in mid-quack:

Also spotted is what must be a Northern Shoveler, though the colors are too dark. Still, the bill is unmistakable, and the colors mean that this is a female.

Also in Ueno Park were a number of cats. They seem to love these markers, gravestones or otherwise, using them as basking thrones:

Also on that day, I stopped by the Tama River. The typhoon that was supposed to slam into us actually just grazed us. There were maybe 20 minutes of torrential rain and high winds and a lot more of just regular rain, but not the deluge that was promised; the storm veered off into the Pacific again instead of heading straight over Tokyo. Nevertheless, when I visited the river, the waters had risen more than ten feet! In this shot, you can see the middles and tops of trees that got drowned in the rising waters:

In the photo above, about an inch and a half from the left edge, you can see one of the taller, bushy trees just off the banks, with a dark area at its base, and if you look hard, you might notice a tiny white speck in there just above the waterline. This is what that was:

So not everyone was challenged by the rising waters, some seemed to like it.

Also unusual at the river were the bats. Bats are common in Japan, especially near rivers, but usually only after dusk. This was mid-afternoon on a hot, sunny day, and there were bats flying around. Kinda strange. It’s really hard to catch these guys–they flit around and change direction all the time to you can’t take any time to focus or set up a shot, not to mention that they do not land anywhere. This was the best shot I got:

And one more flying beast: a jet of the Japanese SDF. What kind, I don’t know, but maybe a sub chaser with a lot of radar bays, or a cargo jet. More bumps on this thing than a toad. Click on it for a blow-up.

So, who are your favorites?

Let’s take a look at the candidates here, those that are being tossed around in the blogosphere, in alphabetical order:

Al Gore, former Vice-President
Al Sharpton, former candidate for Mayor/Senator/President
Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois
Bill Bradley, former Senator from New Jersey
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, former US Ambassador to the U.N.
Blanche Lincoln, Senator from Arkansas, youngest woman elected to Senate
Bob Graham, Senator from Florida
Chris Dodd, Senator from Connecticut; might run for Governor of Connecticut in 2006
Dennis Kucinich, Congressional Representative from Ohio
Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania, former chair of DNC
Evan Bayh, Senator from Indiana
Gary Hart, former Senator from Colorado
Harold Ford, Jr, Congressional representative from Tennessee
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from New York and former First Lady
Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, DNC Chairman
John Edwards, Senator from North Carolina, former VP candidate
John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts, former presidential candidate
Joseph Biden, Senator from Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Joseph Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut
Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia
Pat Leahy, Senator from Vermont, ranking member of Senate Judiciary Committee
Phil Bredesen, Governor of Tennessee
Richard Gephardt, Congressional Represenative from Missouri
Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois
Russ Feingold, Senator from Wisconsin
Tom Daschle, Senator from South Dakota
Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa
Wesley Clark, former US Army General

Al Sharpton is included simply because it seems likely that he’ll run and make some noise. Kucunich is almost as unlikely, but is popular in some quarters, and may decide to weigh in so his ideas may be heard and given some weight. In my opinion, former candidates who may enter but who have no chance of winning would include Kerry, Dean, Lieberman and Gore. Dean and Gore probably will not even try; Kerry and Lieberman might, but I think their stars have fallen too much to be real contenders. Kerry won’t be seen as winning material, and Lieberman is practically a Republican. There has been talk about Gary Hart, and while most scoff, some say he’d be a viable elder (but at age 71, he may be too elderly). Tom Daschle is really not a big hope as he was beaten for his senate seat in ’04.

The obvious big-name front-runners: Hillary Clinton, especially if she slam-dunks the senate election in 2006. The GOP is trying to pull a Daschle on her and put her down in ’06, but her rival, D.A. Jeanine Pirro, fumbled badly upon announcing her run by starting a sentence with “Hillary Clinton….” and then saying nothing for 32 seconds because she couldn’t find the page of her speech. If you recall, Bill Clinton delivered a complex State of the Union speech with no teleprompter or notes when an old speech was mistakenly put up for him; Pirro couldn’t figure out anything to say about her opponent for 32 seconds without page ten in front of her. Then there’s John Edwards, who lost as VP candidate in ’04, but still has appeal.

Other well-known names: Joe Biden, who announced his intention to run in 2008 recently, though he’s going to see if he can raise enough money by the end of the year. Biden is said to have a winning personality, and could run as an elder statesman, but he lost to Dukakis in ’88 when it appeared that he plagiarized a speech, and there were questions about his law school records.

Russ Feingold, well-known for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reforms, is looking at a run from Wisconsin. He stood out by being the only one to vote against the Patriot Act and opposed the Iraq War, so might be seen as someone unafraid to speak out, like Dean was. However, he has recently divorced, for a second time; while this would be a standard resume filler for a Republican, that won’t stop the GOP from using it to savage him.

One problem here is position: Senators don’t often win the White House, and governors do. And if you look at the list, there are not too many governors, and aside from Dean who almost certainly will not run, few if any have any name recognition or notoriety at all.

On the Washington-outsider front, Wesley Clark is said to be all but decided to join the race, and many say the only reason he didn’t do well before was that he entered the race way too late. He’s a strong speaker; I’ve seen him go up against the right-wing talking heads and eat them for lunch. Some say he doesn’t have what it takes, but between his background and his style, I think he has more of a chance than many think.

Bill Bradley, former NBA star and Senator from New Jersey, now radio talk-show host, is mentioned as a candidate, but he’s not likely to run in 2008.

Other names you might recognize: Chris Dodd, elected three times to the House, and five times to the Senate, and said to be considering a run for Governor of Connecticut in ’06, though he has denied it publicly. He’s been successfully on the offensive against the Bolton nomination. He decided against running fro president in 2004, and declined candidacy for the post of Senate Minority Leader. Considering all of that, it’s not too likely he’d run in 2008. And of course, Barack Obama, a shining name at the moment in Democratic circles–but probably far too inexperienced to be a serious contender. Yes, I know Bush only had six years as governor, but it’s easier for governors and he had the Bush family machine and most of the GOP behind him.

And there are a lot more, as you can see from the list. So here’s an invitation: who are you betting on for being the Democratic candidate in 2008, and who could be a likely running mate? An additional point could be who is your dream team, who do you think has the most chance of winning?

For me, barring some scandal or a rather unlikely win by Pirro, I would say Hillary Clinton is likely to be the candidate. She has powerful name recognition, a lot of pull in the Democratic party, sympathy and popularity with many Americans. Like Dubya, she is polarizing, but mostly in the sense that many die-hard Republicans despise anyone named “Clinton” out of knee-jerk reaction and years of indoctrination by right-wing media figures–and those who see her so negatively won’t vote Democratic anyway, no matter who runs. But she has more going for her than against her in that department, and promising to be the first woman president would likely turn out more voters than not. And by 2008, with the deficit soaring, the economy probably still floundering, the country awash in right-wing corporate and political scandal, and the quagmire in Iraq, the idea of another Clinton presidency, eight years of prosperity, will be pretty appealing to a lot of people, no matter how little the association might actually be relevant. The point is, she won’t be as afraid to capitalize on that as Gore was, to his downfall.

Who might her running mate be? Excellent question. John Edwards would be a good choice, but he probably wouldn’t demur to the second seat a second time. Geographically, a southerner would fare well considering Clinton’s Illinois roots and New York Senate seat–but then again, Edwards didn’t do Kerry much good in the South, or so it would seem. Wesley Clark might be a good choice; he’s a good speaker and a respectable veteran and leader, and never having held political office, could bring the image of Washington outsider.

However, I’m going to go to left field here and make my dream-team choice the same as my real-life guess: Barack Obama. This guy can give a speech. This guy has the potential to rally support, and more than coming from a state or balancing a ticket, he could actually motivate people and get them to come to vote. He is inclusive, he is positive, and he is young and energetic. He’s also one of the most popular senators around. On the more cynical side, his color will be both a positive and a negative; he will attract minority voters, but for some Americans, a woman president and a black vice-president may just be too much. Nevertheless, I am willing to bet that these people will mostly be solid right-wingers anyway, and Obama’s positive enthusiasm and inclusiveness will win the day.

All that said, I would still be comfortable with Wesley Clark being the candidate, and there are likely some other faces bound to enter the race which didn’t get on the list above.

So go ahead and comment. How much am I guilty of wishful thinking or political naivety when it comes to electoral realities? But more importantly, who do you think will be there, and who do you wish will be there?

And please, no Jimmy Smits jokes.

Two and a half years ago, Pat Robertson declared Islam a violent religion, echoed months later by Jerry Falwell’s description of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a “terrorist.” Robertson said that “Islam is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate, and then if need be destroy.” Falwell elaborated, saying, “I think Muhammad was a terrorist. . . I’ve read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war . . . Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Muhammad set an opposite example.”

And to show how Christians are so peaceful and loving, Robertson is now advocating the assassination of a South American leader, and both Falwell and Robertson heartily approve of the Iraq War, in which at least 25,000 Iraq civilians have been killed. Falwell went so far as to say that if you’re anti-war, then you’re anti-American, and to him that means anti-Christian as well.

Juan Cole, blogger and professor of Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan wrote a short piece showing how the reverse could also be presented–many events in the bible could classify iconic Christians as terrorists, and the Koran does teach, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not begin hostilities, for God does not love aggressors.”

I would go so far as to say that most Christians and most Muslims are peaceful, loving people, and it is the extremists in both religions that are screwing things up with their violent ways.

By the way, Robertson “apologized” today, by way of saying that his words were taken out of context. He now says, “Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should, quote, ‘take him out,’ and ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping.” However, his original statement was “I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” After getting back from the studios, Robertson must have been shown a transcript of his original remarks, because he again amended himself, saying he had “ad-libbed” that response.

He also added, “If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe. . . . I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”

So, I guess we’ll have to wait and see how he plans to wrestle the steering wheel out of Bush’s hands.

Typhoon #11 is making its way for Tokyo, dead-on, hitting us from the southwest via Shizuoka and Kanagawa. Should be overhead after midnight (peaking maybe at 3 am), about six to eight hours from now; right now, the Izu Peninsula is getting hit pretty hard, affecting some train services, with many services closed after 4 pm today. Dozens of flights have been cancelled tonight out of Haneda. The forecasters say that 14 inches of rain will be dropped on Tokyo and Tama by tomorrow morning. Strong winds and high waves are also in the cards.

This is, after all, Typhoon season, which lasts from June to November, most storms hitting in August and early September. While this is not the first typhoon to hit Tokyo this summer, it is certainly the strongest to hit this area so far this year. They’re showing scenes on TV of huge waves breaking on docks, a lot of rain and winds. Trees are down in Shizuoka. Three houses have been flooded and more than 80 households have been evacuated along the coast. Looks miserable there, and already rain is falling pretty heavy inland here, the wind throwing the rain directly onto the windows.

If you go to work really early, expect some train delays. If you’re planning on staying out late tonight, don’t expect to get back easily.

This should be quite a storm.

The other day I was visiting the same hilly neighborhood where I saw the Enaga (Long-tailed Tit), and spotted something I had never seen before: Pheasants. Not, not serfs. The birds. Specifically, the Japanese Green Pheasant (Kiji • キジ). Unfortunately, it was a hen and her growing youngster (or possibly two hens), which are fairly plain, and not the garish and wattled red, purple, green, and grey adult male. But still, it’s a new species for me.

After spotting them, I spoke with a resident of the area, a nice woman who did not like the birds so much, as they raided her garden, especially of fruits such as strawberries, and–why, she could not fathom–eggplants.

Email spam filters now do a pretty good job of keeping your email account relatively clean, but it is best not to attract any spam in the first place. I’ve posted on this before, but it was a while ago and I wanted to refresh and expand the advice a little bit. Here is the basic list of dos and don’ts:

1. Never respond to a spam email for any reason; never click on any link in an email unless you are 500% certain it is not spam
2. Do not publish your email address on any web page, BBS/Forum, chat, or anywhere public on the web. If you are required to supply an email address, use a fake address or a throwaway account (see explanation of throwaway accounts below)
3. Do not use your main email address to sign up for anything; use a throwaway account
4. Whenever you give your email address, even to family and friends, stress that they must never sign you up for anything, or distribute your email address to anyone without your permission, especially to any commercial enterprise
5. When choosing a hotmail, yahoo, or any free mail account address, don’t choose a short name (to avoid dictionary spam)
6. Do not use the “opt-out” link in any email you receive, and do not sign up for any do-not-email list; they will only result in more spam being sent your way
7. Turn off HTML graphics in your email–they will notify the spammer that you’re viewing their email and probably identify you specifically to the spammer (this is more commonly allowed in email clients like Eudora or Outlook, but check for it in your browser-based email accounts as well)
8. Use an email program with effective spam filters. If you’re worried that a legitimate emailer might get blocked, remember that most email client spam filters will always allow email through if the address of the sender is in your address book for the program
9. If you use Windows, then be sure to use an effective anti-virus program, making certain that it successfully and automatically updates the virus definition list on a regular and frequent basis. Some viruses are designed by spammers to raid your address book for addresses to be added to spam lists. Try avoiding adware and spyware as well (Ad-Aware and Spybot are popular programs for clearing these pests)
10. Do not use the “send this story/picture/anything to your friend” feature offered on many web sites, and tell those with your email address never to put your address into one of them. Many services, including some respected periodicals, will give you the option of sending something interesting, like a news story or a cartoon, to your friend–all you have to do is enter their email address and hit “Send.” A friend of mine once did that “for” me, sending a story using the BBC’s news service. Within hours I was getting spam related to the topic of the story. If you want to inform a friend of something interesting on a web site, copy the address of the web page and paste it into an email you send them directly
11. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER buy ANYTHING from a spammer. Ever. If you do, then then anti-spam vigilantes will enter your house in the dead of night and tattoo the word “IDIOT” on your forehead in bright, day-glo colors. Or they would in a more perfect world.

One basic rule of thumb: treat your main, real email account like a top-secret piece of information. Only hand it out to people you know and trust, or people who absolutely need to have it. If you do business with an email address and have to give it out less discriminately, then create a special business-oriented email account, and keep special track of whom you give it to, so if it becomes spam-flooded and you need to change, you can send an email out to all the people you’ve given it to and notify them you’re changing to a new address.

In other situations, an important tool is the throwaway account. If you’re like me and you have some domain names at your disposal, you will have the ability to easily generate new email accounts to be used and discarded at will. But if you don’t have your own domain and/or can’t easily generate email accounts for it, then you’ll have to rely on Yahoo, Hotmail and GMail. It might be easier to sit down in one session and create half a dozen or so accounts at once, of course writing down each specific address and its username and password. Keep in mind that if these accounts will expire after x amount of time if not accessed by you, but no biggie, just go back and generate a half dozen new ones every three to six months.

Why throwaway accounts? What are they good for? Well, nowadays a lot of places require you to give an email address if you want to do what you want to do on the web. If you want to join a forum, enter a restricted area, sign on for a “free” subscription to something, or to make a purchase, it is very likely that you will be asked for an email address. This is usually so they can generate a list of email addresses that they can sell to spammers and make a bit of money on the side, or it is for their own private advertising purposes. Most times they don’t even bother to lie to you about the address being so they can contact you if something goes wrong.

So why not just give a fake email address? Because most times when they ask you for an email address, they will then send an email to that account with an “activation” code, and you won’t be able to do what you wanted to do unless you go to the email account in question, get the code, and enter it into the web site. Many times this is a legitimate way for the web site to make sure you are a human being and not some robot program made by a spammer or hacker, but many times also it is a way for spammers to make sure you gave them a real live email address they can send spam to. So use a throwaway account.

So am I being paranoid here? Not at all. I tested some of the traps I mentioned in the list above. For example, I created some special throwaway accounts with very specific names which had never before existed, and I told no one of them. They were squeaky clean, no way for spammers to know they existed.

One of them I put on this web page, but I made it invisible to the eye. In a small area with a plain gray background, I typed the email address (not a “mailto” link, just the address in plain text) and made it the exact same gray color as the background. That meant that it would be invisible to any human visitor to the site unless they selected all the text on the page and searched carefully for the email address, which no one would do (don’t try now, it’s not there anymore). In theory, it should have remained secret. But within a few days, dozens of spams started pouring in (most of them Nigeria or European lottery scam artists, actually, but a lot of it also plain-vanilla spam).

So what happened? The spammers (and scammers) use robot programs to scan every web page they can find for anything containing an email address. They usually just look for the @ mark, and a period followed by a domain suffix; both are necessary in any email address. The addresses found are harvested, spammed, and sold to other spammers.

That’s why you don’t want to write your email address on any web page on the Internet. It will be found, and you will get spammed.

Another test I did was the opt-out. That’s when the spam you receive has a bit (usually at the bottom) where they “allow” you to add your email address to a list of do-not-mail addresses, under the premise that this will actually remove you from anyone’s spam list. Most often, it is simply a trap.

You see, spammers have huge lists of email addresses, but they face a problem: most of the addresses are fake, expired, or are never used. And they mostly don’t know which ones are which. An email address which is certifiably active is valuable to them. An email address belonging to someone who reads spam messages is golden. An email address where the owner is gullible enough to respond to spam is the Holy Goddamned Grail.

So the spammers want to know that they succeeded in catching a live one. But they won’t know unless you tell them somehow. The “opt-out” is all too often a scam to do just that. They put a line at the bottom of the email claiming that your email address was collected in some completely legal and honest fashion, and if it was a “mistake,” then just click on this link, type in your email address, and we’ll happily remove you from our lists.

What really happens, of course, is that when you visit that page and type in your email address, they know that (a) the email account is real, (b) you read the spam they send to it, and (c) are gullible enough to fall for the scam. Congratulations–you have just signed up to the Holy Grail of Spamming list and are about to get that email address flooded with more spam than ever before.

I tested this by going through some recent spam I’d received in a different account and culling a few dozen “opt-out” addresses. I then visited these pages and typed in one of those squeaky-clean throwaway accounts I had generated. If the opt-out promise were honored, that site should never receive spam; if spam came in, I would know for certain that it came from the opt-outs.

After seeding the address in the opt-out pages, nothing happened for a few weeks; after all, if they immediately started spamming you, you would likely catch on to what caused it. But after two weeks, the spam started rolling in. After a few months, the account was receiving more than a dozen spams a day. I shut it down before it got out of hand, but had I let it roll, it would probably be getting a few hundred spams a day by now.

Worse than this, there are scammers out there who will even charge you to get your name added to a no-spam list. Don’t fall for it. And what about that government no-spam list? If someone suggests that they can put you on it, don’t fall for it–it doesn’t exist. Although the naive and useless CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 allows for such a list to be made, the Federal Trade Commission decided it was unworkable. Why unworkable? Well, 80% of spammers are outside the US and therefore are outside the reach of US law. But they can still read the don’t-spam list, and get tons of juicy, active email accounts from it. And even spammers within the US might feel like raiding the list, since US law enforcement can’t go after all the spammers out there.

And why is the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 useless, after we’ve seen a couple of cases of spammers getting arrested? The answer is simple: look at the spam in your email box. Mine hasn’t been reduced since 2003, and if yours has, it is probably because your ISP put a better spam filter into place. The CAN-SPAM Act is simply another example of your congresscritter trying to look like they’re doing something when there’s nothing really that they can do. The New York Times reported in February 2005 that the act had done little or nothing to stop spam, and that spam volume had only increased since the law was passed.

So in the end, the best way to stop, or at least stem spam is to do it yourself. Follow the rules listed at the top of this post. Don’t make me get out my tattoo needle and day-glo inks.

Flipping through channels, I saw CNN promoting a piece on the anti-Sheehan protesters, and since I’d blogged on their coverage of Sheehan’s protest as a liberal-bigwig-sponsored PR stunt, in all fairness I should see how they covered the other side. They didn’t show much of the ranks of protesters, but they showed enough so that if you were looking and thinking, you could see that they were receiving big support as well–professionally made banners, PR coverage, the works.

So would CNN cover that just like they did for the Sheehan protest?

The answer: of course not. The story they did on Sheehan didn’t cover Sheehan or any single protester; the majority of the story was on the politics. But when covering the other side, they went for the soft-center sob story.

There was not a single mention of Republican-generated PR coverage, of media consultants, of donations by conservative backers–not a single word.

Instead, they focused on one protester, a neighbor in the area, a young woman whose father is serving in Iraq as a chaplain. They covered her home life, the family’s sacrifices, how reasonable and fair she was, and how she supported the president 100%.

Not a word about the other neighbors who fired shotgun blasts over the Sheehan protests while they were in a prayer vigil, or the one who ran over a long line of crosses with American flags memorializing the war dead.

It was about a cute girl with a military chaplain dad and a soccer mom and their personal sacrifice.

Damn that liberal media. They never give the other side a chance.

Not a big deal here, but this one web site caught my attention because of their high score on the sliminess scale. First of all, I found them because they referral-spammed me. Whenever a new address appears on my referral list, it could either be (a) a legit site with a link to my page sending real people my way, or (b) a spammer. Sometimes the domain name gives it away, as is the case with most porn sites, for example. But often times the domain name seems innocuous but may be spam, so I have to check it out before putting it on my blacklist.

Now, when I do this, I never click on the link my stats page generates–because if I do so, the spammer will see where I came from, and that’s a no-no. So I copy and paste the URL into a blank window, making it a direct referral with no traceback to the origin. Will I contribute to the spammer’s number of visitors? Yes, but I don’t care, I’m not buying anything so it does them zero good.

When I got to this site, I found that they were selling something with the quite asinine name of “Blog Blaster.” Yep, they were selling people on plastering their ads on blogs. Swell. By the way, it seems that their primary target is a free blogging tool called “GetFreeBlogs.com,” so you will want to steer clear of that place. But what really caught my attention was the prominent logo on the spammer’s site: a big “no-spam” mark, the word “spam” with a red circle and a line through it. I just love it when spammers claim they are against spam; that’s Burnham-style.

Considering that I found them via their spamming me, that’s just too precious.

---

By the way, I’ve noticed something new about referral spam that has a relation to email spam: they’re starting to mark the spam with tracking codes. When I started looking into email spam way back, I noticed that some of the links in emails had nonsense text-strings as part of the web page address–for example (fake address), http://spammer.com/ksjb39p4qh/ or something like that. I soon figured out what the nonsense was: a tracking code. When the spammer sends the email spam, each spam has a different link tracking code which they associate with a different email address. Without that, they don’t know which spam victims came back to them, which email addresses were active and reading spam. But if the unwary victim clicks on the link, the referral they generate will identify them in the spammer’s database.

Now it appears that referral spammers are using the same method. Apparently the trick I used above to avoid creating an identifiable referral for the spammer to know where I came from, is common enough for spammers to want to get around it–or there is some other element to the game I’m missing. Either way, the referral spammers are now tagging their spam to get more info on who is coming back to them. Sneaky. Slimy. And busted–I’m not falling for it.

This is one of the three parks I made it to late last week. It’s the largest of the mud flat parks I’ve visited along the bay, at least that I’ve visited. Located in Funabashi, not too far east of Kasai Rinkai, the birding is mostly along the south-western edge. There’s an observation center (not very well air-conditioned), and some outdoor sighting spots which were much better for birding the day I went.

One bird I saw better than at the Oi/Port Wild Bird Park was the Black-tailed Godwit (Oguro-shigi• オグロシギ):

A new catch for me was the Grey Plover (Daizen• ダイゼン):

And this is likely a Sanderling (Miyubi-shigi• ミユビシギ)–identified with some help from members of the Bird Forum:

Next, there was a flock of Ruddy Turnstones (Kyoujo-shigi• キョウジョシギ) towards one corner of the park. An elderly gentleman explained to me in English about how they got their name by, of course, turning over stones to get at the morsels below. I saw one of these at Oi/Minato a few days before, but it was only one, and it was a good distance away. These guys were very close up, and as you can see, in good number (this photo is only one part of the flock):

Here are a few of the better close-ups:

However, I had some trouble: these birds blend in to the background surprisingly well sometimes:

So not bad–two new life birds, and the first good look at two others, in one visit.

In case you didn’t want to use Google in Klingon, you can always switch to Swedish Chef.

By now I’m more than used to them–all the egrets and the grey herons are so common hereabouts. And yet they are still beautiful, improbably graceful birds. I got a few nice photos of some along the Tama River recently, and thought that I might share them. The first two have larger versions when clicked. Enjoy.

Apparently the Futago-Tamagawa fireworks show is tonight. I glimpsed the distant display out my window, and happened to note the just-rising moon right above it, from my perspective. Made for a very nice shot, which I thought I’d share. The very small smudge of light just above and to the left of the firework blossom is an airplane coming in for a landing at Haneda, by the way.

…so long as they’re flags being waved by liberals. Apparently that’s a patriotic loophole we’ve not heard much of before. But to Larry Chad Northern, retired real estate dealer and former Republican candidate for local office, it was his patriotic duty to drive his pickup over a bed of crosses memorializing soldiers who died in Iraq, some of which were adorned with American flags.

Because, it seems, the respect for soldiers’ sacrifices and the love of the American flags must turn to disrespect and hatred if they in any way challenge the beloved leader-on-vacation in Crawford, Texas. Apparently the pain suffered by not just Cindy Sheehan but other parents of fallen soldiers in Iraq is a hateful thing if they dare wish to question the president as to the worthiness of the cause which cost them their children’s lives.

Northern, a Vietnam veteran himself, apparently believed that being the parent of a fallen soldier was not enough of a connection to memorialize their sacrifice anywhere near the president, and that the proper response was to desecrate the memorial, desecrate crosses for the dead, and desecrate the American flag, because criticizing George W. Bush is simply too much of a crime and had to be punished somehow.

Northern is not only a Republican (former contender for local office and presently a contributor), but also a churchgoer and Sunday school teacher. He was arrested when he was found repairing a flat tire his pickup truck acquired trashing the memorial. This was apparent from the white crosses that were stuck to the truck’s undercarriage.

This is patriotism? Is Sheehan’s protest so outrageous that such a man has to go to such lengths out of anger? Or was this guy simply driven too far by the relentless campaign by the right-wing media to smear Sheehan?

What should also be noticed in a media that is filled with anti-Sheehan venom, this story about Northern is very little-covered in the “liberal” media. How much do you want to bet that if the roles were reversed, the media would be buzzing with the story? Say a group of Republican mothers of fallen soldiers in a Democratic president’s conflict held prayer vigils which were interrupted by Democrats firing shotguns into the air, or a flag-decorated memorial to soldiers overrun by a liberal in a VW van? You think that would stay off the news headlines? Like hell.

So what happened to the outrage at the desecration of American flags? Why would a Sunday school teacher feel that there was any excuse whatsoever for desecrating crosses? Why is there not a peep of condemnation by anyone on the right for such desecrations, either in the media or the blogs? Surely these commentators would not be stopped for fear of criticizing one of their own; this act was so far over the line, they could safely criticize it while patting themselves on the back and claim major props for being “fair” enough to object to something done against Sheehan.

My own theory is that conservatives feel, on some level, that they own these icons; that if they are used in a way they feel is inappropriate, they are no longer valid. If they wave a flag, it is sacred; if a liberal waves a flag, it’s an affront. To many conservatives, what Larry Chad Northern did was at the very least understandable, and to some even commendable.

I checked the Free Republic site, where the conservatives gather ’round, and while there were some who said that it was unfortunate because it made the right-wing look bad, and even a rare one or two who noted that if the roles were reversed they wouldn’t be so happy, no one I could spot objected to the desecration of flags or crosses. A great many approved of Northern’s actions, and almost all at least excused him. Among the comments:

• “That stuff [the flags and crosses] was litter.”
• “It had me cheering.”
• “Anyone collecting for his legal fees? I’d contribute.”
• “I’d gladly pay his fine.”
• “LOL. Me too.”
• “I like Larry. I bet he feels better now. I hope the local sheriff fines him $5 and then takes him out for a beer.”
• “God bless him for his service. :)”
• “Those names were being desecrated and Larry Northern had the kajones to do something about it.”
• “Public service in removing trash is all I see. Guess he just didn’t get a chance to go back and pick it up.”

At latest, they were all on the conspiracy that the flags were planted after the fact as a way to generate publicity (“proven” by photos carefully selected out of context), but wire photos taken as much as four days earlier clearly showed many flags along with the crosses. Of course, we are talking about Freepers here. Nevertheless, a principle is supposed to be a principle; if something is wrong, it’s still wrong when your guy does it. But that does not seem to hold within conservative circles, where morality and principles are contextual things, props of the moment, to be ignored when inconvenient.