Statements rich in meaning.

I have been thinking about English lately, and have realized that some simple sentences have rich layers of meaning. These are not always obvious, but become so when one starts to peel away each layer.

"East Asians orient ..."

This one is rather simple in its layered meaning. First, the word "orient" originates from the Latin word "oriens" literally meaning "east". It's meaning of "to ascertain the bearings of" is the transitive verb form of the word (as it is intended on being used in this case), and (possibly) derives from a Mediaeval practice of placing East at the top of maps. Anyway, by changing out "East" with "orient", we get:

"Orient Asians orient ..."

Then we look at the noun form of "orient", which refers to areas east of Europe: Asia. (Technically, this used to mean only the area we now call the "Middle East", but now generally refers to the continent, as well as the peoples and nations in that continent.) Therefore, if we change out "Asians" (people from Asia) with "Orientals" (people from the Orient), we get:

"Orient Orientals orient ..." or, going the other way:
"East Easterners east ..."

Yes, the whole thing falls down into gibberish. However, recognizing the meanings of the word "orient" makes the phrase "East Asians orient ..." one rich with hidden repetition.


The second one is:

"The typical American likes to drink a cup of coffee."

Nothing there, right? Well, this one requires that you remember your American colloquialisms from the middle of the 20th Century. The image of the "common man," the "everyday man," the "every man," the "typical citizen" was the "Average Joe," sometimes shortened to just "Joe." Changing out "typical American" for "average Joe" gets you:

"The average Joe likes to drink a cup of coffee."

Once you make this first change, one might see where the layered meaning comes in, since it is still rather common (I think) to call a cup of coffee a "cup of joe." Changing this out gets you:

"The average Joe likes to drink a cup of joe."

If one shortens "the average Joe" to just "Joe" and "cup of joe" to just "joe", and imply the action of drinking, one gets:

"Joe likes joe."

This might be a serendipitous linguistic connection between coffee and its image of being the drink of the common man. In any case, the original statement has a rich meaning that underlines (and encircles) the connection between the everyday American and the hot caffeinated drink of Americans.

Georgia can't move its border, right?

UPDATE (2/26/08): Georgia says it is really going to pursue this one. Tennessee introduces a resolution meant to counter Georgia's previously passed resolution.

UPDATE (2/22/08): Tennessee is stating that it won't go along with the resolutions passed in Georgia. I wonder why this is even happening.

UPDATE (2/21/08): Georgia's legislature passed two resolutions to have the border resurveyed, and have the whole thing wind up in the Supreme Court if TN and NC don't agree to go along.

UPDATE (2/15/08): Georgia tried another water grab - demanding extra water from the Lake Lanier Reservoir. That one got shut-down in court.

The state of Georgia is trying to move its border 1.1 miles north to intersect with the Tennessee River.

Wait, can they do that?

Um.... No. I don't think that the state legislature of Georgia can move its border. It was my understanding that it is the Federal government that can create the borders of new states of the Union from Territorial areas.

What gets me is this:
"The Tennessee River was part of Georgia long before there was a state of Tennessee," said Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth), the resolution's sponsor. "I don't understand why a water-sharing agreement can't be worked out between the two states."

In this paragraph, Senator Shafer says two things that appear to be diametrically opposed. First, he says that the Tennessee River historically belongs to Georgia. Then he says that water-sharing shouldn't be a topic of concern for Georgia and Tennessee. What? If Georgia was supposed to have a border 1.1 miles to the north, why didn't Georgia shout bloody murder when the border was first drawn, or when the "mistake" was first discovered? Why wait until a year into a major drought before considering the possibility of moving the border? Surely, the silence of 211 years (Tennessee was made a state in 1796) provides some backing for Tennessee's claim on its borders?

Shifting the border of the state would require that the Congress of the United States approve the border shift (unlikely to happen). Even if it did happen, the approved border shift would (based on my understanding of the law) require the border shift to be retroactive, since a shift in the border alone would not guarantee Georgia all the water that is in Nickajack Lake. Since the lake was created by the TVA, the TVA has the right to apportion water as it feel necessary. If Georgia doesn't get a retroactive border shift to before the creation of the TVA, then Georgia's water claim post-dates the TVA's water management strategies, and Georgia would have to go to court to fight for those water rights.

All of this for some water? Why doesn't Georgia suck it up, realize that it is in a major drought? Why doesn't it realize that you can't sustain a major city like Atlanta on a river like the Chattahoochee? When are they going to come out with a realistic water conservation strategy, instead of a set of partial-measures?

And if this is all for water, then Georgia isn't seriously considering all the implications of all the property tax structures, service provisions, congressional redistricting, census tallies, etc that would have to out when such a border shift were to happen? Does Sen. Shafer consider these in his bill?

(Just as a side-point, the graphic in the AJC is wrong. It includes areas west of the Georgia/Alabama border. So far as I know, Alabama is not arguing about the movement of the its border with Tennessee.) I redid the map, showing a more-proper proposed border shift. (Seriously, the AJC needs to find someone that knows how to use GIS!)

The Character "Doctor Manhattan"

I recently cited the graphic novel The Watchmen's character Rorschach, and had a video of a guy doing some extemporaneous throat-singing.

Well, he's put up another video. He hasn't made any statement that he was trying to use special effects that made him look like characters from The Watchmen, but with the glowing blue skin, he looks a lot like Dr. Manhattan.

I wonder which one of the characters he will be next?

"Foreign-born" Presidents

I might eventually want to run for the office of the President. However, I was born on Guam. In order to meet the requirements for that office, I must, at the time of my inauguration, be:

• at least 35 year's old,
• inhabitant of the United States for at least fourteen years, and
• a natural born citizen (or a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution").

I will meet the first two requirements by the time of the next election (2012), if I were to choose to run, but what about the third one; what is a "natural born citizen"? Everyone agrees that anyone born in the 50-state union of United States is a natural born citizen. Most people seem to agree that if someone was born in Washington, D.C. that they be considered a "natural born citizen." But apparently there isn't much agreement (or any precedent) beyond this.

Guam is an organized unincorporated Territory of the United States. Digging a little deeper, there seem to be several types of Territories of the United States. The Territorial type may well allow people born there to eventually become the President of the United States. I don't know this to be true, but I'm going to assume that there is a hierarchy of Territory types. (NOTE: this classification system is my own musings, and not based on any Constitutional law.)

1. Incorporated organized Territories: Lands contiguous with a full-fledged state, and with a set of laws put forth through an Organic Act by the national Congress.
2. Unincorporated organized Territories: Lands not contiguous with a full-fledged state, and with a set of laws put forth through an Organic Act by the national Congress.
3. Incorporated unorganized Territories: Lands contiguous with a full-fledged state, and without a set of laws put forth through an Organic Act by the national Congress.
4. Unincorporated unorganized Territories: Lands not contiguous with a full-fledged state, and without a set of laws put forth through an Organic Act by the national Congress.

What's a Territory?
Under Article IV (Sec. 3, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

So... Article IV provides definitions of what Congress can do with Territories (or other property) belonging to the United States, but does not provide a definition of what a Territory is. However (without doing a Constitutional study of the meaning), it appears that the working definition of "Territory" falls generally in a rough definition of "lands won or bought by the United States government" (my own words). This matches with the creation methods of Alaska Territory, Louisiana Territory, Oregon Territory, Hawaii Territory, etc.

Since Guam was ceded from Spain after the Spanish-American War in the Protocol of Peace, it (as well as Puerto Rico and the Philippines) became a Territory of the United States; won as a consequence of that war.

The Panama Canal Zone (PCZ) is an interesting case, since it was effectively purchased from the newly-independent country of Panama in the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty. Admittedly, this was done as a mechanism to provide monetary backing for building and maintaining the Panama Canal, but the United States effectively purchased the area through which the Panama Canal ran, thereby making the PCZ a Territory of the United States (through purchase). Due to the governance of the Territory (first by a military governor, then by President-appointed civil governors), it is likely that, while the PCZ was an American Territory, it would have been classified as an Incorporated (not an “Insular Area” Territory) Unorganized (had no Organic Act) Territory, but I can find no evidence that this was the case.

Creation of the (Un)Organized Category
The presence or absence of an "Organic Act" is what determines a Territory’s “Organized” status. The act sets forth the rules for government (a pseudo-Constitution, if you will) in a Territory of the United States, establishing, in the case of Guam, branches of government, and moving its federal governance from the Dept. of the Navy to the Dept. of the Interior, and providing a level of independent governance. I assume that Organic Acts for other organized Territories are similar in the creation of government bodies and federal oversight. Just as a reminder, "organized" Territories have Organic Acts, "unorganized" Territories don't have an Organic Act.

Creating the (Un)Incorporated Category
Early in 1901, there were a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding the status of import duties (DeLima v. Bidwell), export duties (Dooley v. United States), and whether Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution included the newly acquired Territory of Puerto Rico (Downes v. Bidwell) - and, by extension, the other Territories acquired by the United States. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on DeLima and 5-4 on Dooley, effectively stating that no import or export duties could be levied on trade with Puerto Rico. However, the Bidwell decision (5-4 against Downes) effectively stated that without an Act of Congress, all Territories of the United States (at that time including Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, as well as the Spanish-American War acquisitions) did not have equal constitutional rights. It wasn't until three years later (1904), that this decision was effectively overturned in the Dorr v. United States case, and this Supreme Court decision effectively created the categories of "incorporated" and "unincorporated" Territories. Management of unincorporated Territories - all technically “Insular Area” Territories – is by the Office of Insular Affairs in the Department of the Interior (ironic, no?)

In both incorporated and unincorporated Territories, "fundamental rights" under the Constitution apply. "Procedural rights" only automatically apply to incorporated Territories. Unincorporated Territories can only gain these procedural rights by an Act of Congress. (Yay for the executive decision - backed by Congress - on creating a reactive legal framework for the Philippines, which tacked U.S. fundamental rights onto Spanish procedural rights when forming the Philippine Commission, which then formed the precedent needed to extended the decision to all Territories won from Spain.)

Incorporated Organized Territories (IOTs)
Since the creation of the state of Hawai'i in 1959 (as the 50th state of the Union), there have been no incorporated organized Territories. How Hawai'i, located thousands of miles off the West Coast of the mainland, could geographically be considered "incorporated" (i.e., contiguous with the United States "mainland") is beyond my comprehension. However, since it wasn't acquired from Spain, it was legally defined as incorporated. Hawai'i got later became "organized" when with its Organic Act (section 3: "That a Territorial government is hereby established over the said Territory, with its capital at Honolulu, on the island of Oahu.")

So, what do we learn from the case of Hawai'i? It indicates that if the U.S. Congress says that a Territory is incorporated (regardless of its land borders, or lack thereof), then it is legally incorporated, and since it was able to get an Organic Act, it was on its way to statehood.

I placed IOTs at the highest "level" of Territory, since IOTs are legally contiguous with the mainland of the Union, and have a federally organized government that runs the Territory. In addition, all IOTs eventually have became full members of the Union.

What about Washington, D.C.?
Isn't D.C. technically an IOT? According to thegreenpapers.com, it is the only one left, but is a special case (being a federal district specially created by the Constitution), but I don't want to get into that discussion. However, one can look here for some history about DC's slow march toward self-representation.

Unincorporated Organized Territories (UOTs)
Those possessions the United States gained following the Spanish-American War (Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico), became the first Territories of the United States that were unincorporated, that is, they were not legally contiguous with the United States mainland.

Since these Territories are organized, they all have an Organic Act that outlines how the Territory is to be governed, written by the United States Congress. No UOT has yet become a full-fledged state in the Union, but I feel that this is just a matter of time.

I placed UOTs at the second-highest "level" of Territory, since these Territories do have an Organic Act, but do not meet the benefits of full Constitutional protections that are guaranteed to incorporated Territories.

Incorporated Unorganized Territories (IUTs)
I’ve only been able to find one current example of an IUT: Palmyra Atoll. It was created when it was split off from Hawai’i Territory once Hawai’i became a state in 1959. Since the Hawai’i Territory was technically considered to be “incorporated,” the Palmyra Atoll inherited that distinction upon its being shorn from the new state of Hawai’i.

I placed IUTs at the third-place “level” of Territory, since they do not have an Organic Act, even though the residents do get full Constitutional protections. The lack of an Organic Act, however, means there is not a document describing how the Territory is to be governed. The need for an Organic Act, I feel, is greater than the need for “incorporation,” since an Act of Congress can allow for the increased Constitutional protections guaranteed to incorporated Territories, while the lack of an Organic Act means the chance for self-governance is limited.

Unincorporated Unorganized Territories (UUTs)
There are many UUTs, almost all of which are in the Pacific Ocean and uninhabited. There is one major exceptions, however: American Samoa.

American Samoa passed its last governing constitution in 1967, it is only technically an unorganized Territory (it doesn’t have an Organic Act), but is effectively self-governing, thanks to that constitution. As an exception to the rule, I will not be discussing it in detail here. American Samoa was not won in the Spanish-American War, but was gained as a settlement with Germany after an unfought battle over control of the Samoan archipelago. However, even though it wasn’t won from Spain, is considered an “insular Territory” in that it is managed by the Office of Insular Affairs, and is therefore unincorporated.

The other islands (Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Petrel Island, Serranilla Bank, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, and Wake Atoll) are all either uninhabited or have no indigenous population. Wake Atoll does have non-military residents, but serving only as contractors from the Marshall Islands.

I placed UUTs at the bottom “level” of Territory, since they do not have an Organic Act, and don’t have all the Constitutional protections as incorporated territories. Also, due to a lack of indigenous populations, they are unlikely to ever have an Organic Act, let alone have an Act of Congress passed providing them with the full protections of the Constitution.

The 14^th Amendment
Now, my original question was whether I could run for President, and it seems to me that none of the above – while interesting and highly informative – directly answers that question. Therefore, I look again to the Constitution to see the requirements of citizenship. I’m assuming that if one can claim citizenship at birth – due to the geographic location of birth – that one can call oneself a “natural born” citizen.

The text of the 14^th Amendment (Section 1) states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The key clause in my case is (apparently), “All persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” This clause apparently provides birthright citizenship. More specifically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) supported (6-2 decision!) the language of the first clause by stating:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution …contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Although I was not born in a state of the United States, I was born in a territory “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” thereby immediately becoming a U.S. citizen. By the justification of this statement alone, babies born in any sovereign American territory (IOTs, UOTs, IUTs, and UUTs) are automatically citizens.

What about the “natural born” language? Well, the Wing Kim Ark decision also has quotes from Chancellor Kent addressing language of “natural born,” taken from the common law roots of American law:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

I could base the question of whether I am “natural born” on this argument. Unfortunately, the Wing Kim Ark case does not directly specify whether or not I am “natural born”, since Ark was born in the United States proper.

So, can I run for President? Well, if Senator McCain wins the Republican nomination, this question will probably be answered for me. I believe he will be the first Presidential candidate born in a territory not in the mainland of the United States (or in 13 Colonies). Barry Goldwater (1964 Presidential candidate) was born in Arizona Territory (technically a IOT), and is the last presidential candidate to be born in a Territory. Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C. (I'm not counting D.C. as a "true" Territory, since it was explicitly created from another state as a federal district) and is the only person born not born in a state (or in the 13 Colonies) to become Vice President. McCain was born in the PCZ (possibly a UUT). (This is why I alluded to the PCZ above. Tricky bugger, aren’t I?) If McCain becomes the Republican Presidential candidate, I am sure highly competent legal scholars will be asked to weigh in on the issue of whether he is natural-born or not. (However, it looks like common law is on McCain's side.) If legal scholars (or the Supreme Court) decide that McCain is fit to run, then I'm pretty sure that I'll be in the clear to run in the future, too. (One more reason why I hope he gets the nomination.)

UPDATE (February 12, 2008): Based on an online conversation over at Dispatches, "Alex" made me aware of George W. Romney's (admittedly unsuccessful) Presidential bid in 1968. G.W. Romney was Galeana, Mexico. When he made his bid, he had to defend his "natural born" status, which - due to the extension of common law blockquoted above - he was eventually considered to be. If G.W.R. was able to run for the G.O.P. nomination for President in 1968, having been born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, then there is no reason why McCain shouldn't also be allowed to do so. (That G.W.R. didn't eventually get the nomination - which went to Nixon - is beside the point.)

In addition, Steve Reuland also pointed out that Title 8 of the US Code (Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401) sets out the criteria for citizenship at birth. More specifically (for McCain's purposes), section 1403 states:

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

Looks like Jonny's in the clear. As for me, seeing that I was born on Guam, section 1407 pertains to me:

(a) The following persons, and their children born after April 11, 1899, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of August 1, 1950, if they were residing on August 1, 1950, on the island of Guam or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty:

(1) All inhabitants of the island of Guam on April 11, 1899, including those temporarily absent from the island on that date, who were Spanish subjects, who after that date continued to reside in Guam or other territory over which the United States exercises sovereignty, and who have taken no affirmative steps to preserve or acquire foreign nationality; and

(2) All persons born in the island of Guam who resided in Guam on April 11, 1899, including those temporarily absent from the island on that date, who after that date continued to reside in Guam or other territory over which the United States exercises sovereignty, and who have taken no affirmative steps to preserve or acquire foreign nationality.

(b) All persons born in the island of Guam on or after April 11, 1899 (whether before or after August 1, 1950) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, That in the case of any person born before August 1, 1950, he has taken no affirmative steps to preserve or acquire foreign nationality.

(c) Any person hereinbefore described who is a citizen or national of a country other than the United States and desires to retain his present political status shall have made, prior to August 1, 1952, a declaration under oath of such desire, said declaration to be in form and executed in the manner prescribed by regulations. From and after the making of such a declaration any such person shall be held not to be a national of the United States by virtue of this chapter.

Hmm... let's see this is how the parts of section 1407 read for me:

(a): "The following persons [born before I was] are declared to be citizens of the United States as of August 1, 1950, if they were residing on August 1, 1950, on the island of Guam or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty:

(a)(1): [Not applicable.]

(a)(2): [Not applicable.]

(b): All persons born in the island of Guam [well before I was] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, [a non-applicable case].

(c): [Not applicable.]"

Apparently, therefore, I'm "natural-born"!

High-speed trains better than flying?

So, I've been thinking about this for a long time: how to make train use more ubiquitous in the United States, especially high-speed trains. This interest was piqued again when I read the Treehugger article "Spain's New High-Speed Rail Service Challenges the Airlines." So, just how much better is it to take a high-speed train (at various average speeds) over that of flying?

I made the following assumptions when making my back-of-the envelope calculations:

1. Three average speeds of high-speed trains (HSPs) were calculated: 100mph, 150mph, and 200mph. This allows for possible stops on the way.
2. The train travel distance is the same as a driving distance. Driving distances were measured using Google Maps. This assumption does not always hold, but I do not know of any railroad distance measurements.
3. All flights are non-stop direct flights (i.e., no layovers or transfers).
   
4. Flight times were estimated by looking at flight times of actual flights using Orbitz.com.
5. Travel times to and from terminals were consistent estimates (1 hour for trains, 2 hours for airplanes).
6. The requirement to arrive early at the terminal remained consistent across estimates (1 hour for trains, 2 hours for airplanes).
7. The requirement of staying at the terminal for baggage pick-up remained consistent across estimates (0 hours for trains, 1 hour for airplanes).

With these understandings, the following estimates (very rough) were found:

Mode	From	To	Distance	Total time
HSP100	New York	Richmond	342	5.42
HSP150	New York	Richmond	342	4.28
HSP200	New York	Richmond	342	3.71
Plane	New York	Richmond		6.50
HSP100	New York	St. Louis	950	11.50
HSP150	New York	St. Louis	950	8.33
HSP200	New York	St. Louis	950	6.75
Plane	New York	St. Louis		8.00
HSP100	New York	Austin	1741	19.41
HSP150	New York	Austin	1741	13.61
HSP200	New York	Austin	1741	10.71
Plane	New York	Austin		9.5
HSP100	New York	San Diego	2801	30.01
HSP150	New York	San Diego	2801	20.67
HSP200	New York	San Diego	2801	16.01
Plane	New York	San Diego		11.50

Obviously, the longer the distance of travel, the faster the trip is made by plane in comparison to the train. However, if you add in the time for possible layovers or transfers (anywhere from 1 to 3 hours), airplane travel times (even on longer trips) increase beyond the level of the type of train travel times that you might expect, based on the speeds of the new Spanish trains.

Therefore, it may make more sense - in terms of travel times - to take a fast train, rather than to fly. Add into this the comfort issue (trains have more space than airplanes) and the fuel cost issue (trains use less fuel per passenger), and one may well think that adding in a HSP system to the United States' transportation options may be a good one to make, especially serving those cities that already have railway infrastructure.

Rorschach, the character.

For those of you who have read the Watchmen DC comic, then you know of the character called Rorschach. Recently, there has been talk (what with all the other comics-to-film that have been coming out) of translating this rather dark graphic novel to celluloid.

Well, I found a new video out there of a rorschach-like effect of a guy playing guitar and throat-singing extemporaneously. Check it out.

Listening to debate between evolution and anti-evolution

If you are interested in listening to a terribly one-sided "debate" between an evolutionary biologist (PZ Meyers) and anti-evolutionary person (Simmons), listen to this debate. I'm surprised how poorly prepared Simmons seems to have been. If this wasn't hosted by a Christian radio station, I would have thought that Simmons was brought on to be a punching bag for Meyers' intellectual boxing pleasure.

The bit I like the most was PZ Meyer's statement: "Your ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence there are holes in evolutionary theory."

Here's a bit of my transcription of the back-and-forth (starts roughly half way through the mp3) that was common throughout the discussion.

When asked why the debate of evolution isn't discussed, Meyers answered:
We do debate evolutionary theory all the time. Some of the debates get pretty fierce as well. ... There's a lot of argument about issues that matter. ... What's being brought up by the Intelligent Design group is an issue that don't matter, and they are often using falsified scraps of incorrect evidence, ah, a perfect example of what you did with whale fossils. You've written a book that says there're billions and billions of missing links, you've written a book that says, "here's what Darwin didn't know," and you you haven't even bothered to look at the current record for one of your examples: the evolution of whales? Don't you find that a little bit embarrassing?

Simmons: I don't think you answered my question for one, and for two, I don't think we're gonna get settled on this whale issue. The question is why can't [mp3 break] issues ... I'm not talking about scientists talking among themselves about their theory on water boiling or evo-devo is worthwhile or what's wrong with it. I'm talking about what's wrong with evolution, and what are the problems with it, and .. how can we address them. At least let the students hear where the flaws are. I mean it's like the door's absolutely closed to talking about - it's like reverse inquisition from 300 or how many years ago that was.

Meyers: This is absurd.

Simmons: No it isn't absurd.

Meyers: You know nothing about the field. Um. I'll recommend a book to you. Look up a book by Mary Jane West-Eberhard called Developmental Plasticity in Evolution, and this is a book by a credentialed academic, a very smart woman who's done a lot of really good work in evolutionary biology, and one of the first things she does in this book is she lists all the problems in modern theories of evolution. She documents them and says, "here's things we have to ... here's things we have to research further. ... [repeats the author's name for Simmons] The difference though is that she is also proposing other explanations. She is making a positive approach. She's saying, "here's a flaw in evolution." So for instance, she discusses the concept of adaptive landscapes - which is a term we use a lot in certain fields of evolutionary biology - she says, "there's a real problem with this metaphor of adaptive landscapes and heres a list of the problems and here are some solutions people have proposed to these problems. These are things we have to pursue." So it is seriously discussed. However, we don't sit there and say, "whales didn't evolve." Okay? uh ... That's just infantile and ludicrous. This is not the kind of thing that biologists discuss.

Simmons: Well I think the word "infantile" falls on the same level as as the previous word, and I really don't want to get into an insulting discussion. Let me give you an example of where I'm coming from, is take the human brain. Three ... thirty-five trillion cells. Many of which, if not all of which have as many as ten thousand connections. Most of which, if not all, have at least forty chemicals at each one of those chem... ah, connections. And they disclose those in different packets and different concentrations to send messages to each other. And they work in groups of millions and billions at a time. It's beyond my comprehension that this could have come about by trial-and-error. And this isn't discussed in books that discuss the Theory of Evolution.

Meyers: Yes it is.

[talking over each other]

Simmons: Explain that.

Meyers: I'm a developmental biologist. I'm afraid you're stepping right into my field here with that question. [Simmons tries to say something.] We do discuss this in great detail and actually know quite a bit about how the brain forms and how it works, and you may be surprised to hear this, but there is a lot of trial-and-error that goes on. ... Ah, when you study the development of the brain what you quickly learn is that neurons grow out at a frantic pace and tend to make ten times as many connections as are appropriate for the adult. And what happens then is progres- in development as it progresses, it is that inappropriate connections are pruned. By trial-and-error. Ones that make appropriate connections are retained. The ones that do not are lost. [Simmons tries to say something.] A perfect analogue to natural selection.

Simmons: Or perhaps they're pruned by design.

Meyers: I mean you don't know how they're pruned or why they're pruned. [Simmons laughs.] And there's no way you could know.

The discussion continues from here, mostly on Meyer's side. In my opinion, Meyers won this debate. What I find humorous is that during the breaks, the radio show was touting their upcoming trip to the Creation Museum. I wonder what Meyers thought about that, but I think Meyers already knows of the trip and has already stated some views of this wondrous place.

More on Peak Oil

Yet another posting from treehugger.com about peak oil. Admittedly, this might be a hot topic because of a syzygy of events:

• Growing understanding (in this country) of the existence of climate change.
• Increasing petroleum costs for vehicular use.
• Increasing number of home foreclosures (many of which are located on the fringes of cities, to where people must drive in order to work).

I think the presence of new-home mortgage walk-away websites is telling. Telling of what, I cannot immediately say, but I can imagine that the presence of this new trend of websites is another troubling tell on the state of the US economy and may also show how fragile an urban system that is so dependent on upon private vehicular access is.

Re-designing cities.

Yesterday, I posted a rather rambling entry about what might happen to this country after the forecasted end-of-oil. One thing I mentioned was how American cities are tacitly assume that residents have and extensively use motor vehicles. How nice to see in Treehugger.com an article summarizing (mostly direct-quoting) an essay by Alex Steffin about how sensible urban planning can be greener than changing the types of cars we drive. Check it out.

Ann Arbor has LED streetlights

From the story at inhabitat.com:

We haven’t been giving Ann Arbor, Michigan enough attention and the city deserves it! Last year Ann Arbor joined forces with LED manufacturer Cree, Inc, on an ever-expanding citywide LED initiative to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With a recent retrofit contract signed with Lumecon, Ann Arbor is on its way to being the first U.S. city to light up its downtown with 100% LED technology!

The city strung its holiday cheer with about 114,000 LED lights and plans to convert all of its downtown public lighting starting with more than 1,000 LED streetlights. The effort is aligned with other North American cities like Raleigh, N.C., and Toronto, which have both started similar energy-saving efforts.

When Ann Arbor reaches its ambitious goal, city officials expect to see energy use for public lighting cut in half and a reduction of 2,425 tons CO2 annually. The city also expects a short payback of 3.8 years on its investment, which was funded in part with a $630,000 grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. A pilot program on one city block with 25 LED lights helped bring the LED idea from theory to application with three years of research on how the technology saves the city about 50% on energy and maintenance costs. Based on their research, Ann Arbor city officials project an annual savings of over $100,000 on just the first 1,000 retrofits alone. The city plans to complete the conversion to LED over the next two years.

Now if the city could just figure out that it could save extra money by having street lights that didn't shine upwards (into people's apartments), then they would be at the next stage.

(Personally, I want to know who's idea it was at the U. Hospital to have a bright sodium light shine directly at my house, forcing me to shut my blinds when going to sleep or choose to lie in a glowing orange room.)

Where would we be without oil?

"Where would we be without oil?" This question is - in so many ways - a non-starter. The most primary reason is that it is based on a high level of conjecture, and is highly non-specific. First of all, does the question assume that petroleum oils (and I'm assuming one means petroleum oils and not vegetable oils) never existed? If this is the assumption, then does coal exist, too? Does the question assume that we ran out of oil very early in our quest for mechanization? Because of these integral problems to the question that leaves such musing only to the realm of alternate historians, I will not focus on that question.

Instead, I will look briefly on the question, "Where will we be after oil?" This question is much more meritorious of consideration because it doesn't assume a different present condition than what we see (or assume we see) today. The impacts of the future are still questionable, highly contingent upon when we "run out" of oil.

My quick consideration of this question - written extemporaneously - considers that we run out when great experts in in the field say we will run out in a letter - a version of which has recently been posted on their website - namely "...Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand." The discussion of "easy-to-access" oil and gas implies that there is always retrievable oil, but it will not be economically viable unless people accept increased cost of extraction or when technology decreases the economic costs of extraction. Therefore, Mr. van der Veer's estimate gives us seven (7) years until we reach "peak oil" based on today's technology and assumed willingness-to-pay.

To put it another way, this is:

• roughly 28 quarters of economic activity,
• almost 2 American presidential terms,
• 3.5 terms of an American representative,
• a year more than 1 term for an American senator,
• at least one election within China's National People's Congress,
  
• potentially two elections of India's House of the People,
  
• one election of India's House of States, and
  
• (for facetiousness-sake only) roughly seven Italian governments.

Why do I make all these pronouncements? Well, as much as many people in the United States might still believe in the prominent role of the United States in setting global oil prices, what is closer to the truth is something different. China and India have increased oil imports dramatically over the past eight years, and OPEC oil production is not so nicely relate-able to oil prices any more. True, the United States has increased its oil consumption along with oil prices. However, if you look at the trajectories of Chinese and Indian oil imports (even only considering 2004 trajectories), the seemingly ever-increasing oil prices on the world market start to make more sense. Again, so what?

The trajectories of China and India indicate a continuing race toward an oil-based economy. This race (with concomitant oil consumption growth rates) will quickly lead these countries into becoming (combined) a greater force on world oil prices than the United States. Already, these countries are approaching non-OPEC countries for oil contracts. By working with non-OPEC countries, production levels set by OPEC will not have a major impact on world oil prices, unless OPEC decide to trade directly with countries (and thereby lose out on the possible profits of selling on a world market with an ever-increasing price for their commodity). This is why India and China are important when considering the course of the next seven years.

The United States already surpassed 20million barrels of oil per day in 2004, indicating in another way what President Bush statement in his 2006 State of the Union address that "America is addicted to oil." Like any addict, coming off a drug is going to be difficult. Very difficult. Can the United States wean itself off oil before the "end of oil"? The United States is faced with a series of problems related to weaning itself off oil in the next seven years.

1. A large percentage of the imported oil is used as energy, with the lion's share of that energy being consumed in transportation.
   
• The planning of many American cities - for too many reasons to explore here - seems to have tacitly assume the extensive use of private motor vehicles, and there is now little possibility of extensive public transportation alternatives.
2. The American citizen cannot easily afford to a purchase of a new vehicle under normal economic conditions, let alone one that the United States finds itself in now (looming recession, loads of home loan foreclosures).
   
3. American motor vehicle companies have spent blood and money lobbying the government to keep fuel economy standards low, and even the recently-increased standards do not fit an adequate time line to meet the seven year projection of Mr. van der Veer.

Taking these problems together, it would appear that a majority of Americans require motor vehicles to survive adequately in today's America (although most citizens live in cities, these cities don't have high-density public transportation systems like NYC or Chicago). The majority of Americans' motor vehicles run on petroleum. The majority of these vehicles are not "fuel efficient" by today's standards, let alone the standards of 2015. The majority of Americans cannot up-and-purchase a new high-efficiency motor vehicle when petroleum prices start to climb through the roof (as we might expect will happen in 2015). This means that, while the fuel economy of the American fleet is getting better, it is likely to take more than seven years before a significant proportion of the United States can afford to purchase a truly fuel-efficient vehicle such that US oil dependence (at least in transportation) will be diminished enough for that same majority of Americans to adequately deal with the transition of fuel type without the economy grinding to a halt.

The actions of the US government in the next seven years will be very critical, since it is through the role of government that a unified plan for the betterment of a country can be made and done in such a manner that it is legally defensible. A country cannot assume the benevolence of any company, since the off-shoring and downsizing movements of the past 10 years have shown that many companies are not civic-minded, nor do they have any legal responsibility to be so. It is up to government to take care of their own country.

Similarly, China and India will have the next seven years to manage the growth trajectories of their own countries. How this will play out, I don't know (I'm not intimately knowledgeable of the situation in India and China). However, I assume that "end-of-oil" is going to be very problematic to both countries' economies, and therefore it is in their own interests to develop contingency plans. Peaceful options include developing alternative energy sources for transportation (to wield that scientific and engineering muscle that supposedly is being developed), radically changing the means of growing capital (thus forcing the world to follow their lead), or investigating more efficient fuel extraction technologies (although this is just playing the Red Queen, and will likely prove futile in the end).

What will happen in the next seven years will be interesting. Hopefully, it will not be as interesting as what will happen when we do end up on the other side of the "Age of Oil." Hopefully, answering "Where will we be after oil?" will be at a location where we will have dodged the bullet. However, in my explanation, I left out African, South American, European and SE Asian politics (let alone the outfall of what will happen to a Middle East that no longer plays a dominant role in global resource politics). Likely the Age of Oil will play out over several decades rather than within one.

Some photos (as promised)

I assume this is supposed to be a coho salmon... But with the medium of ice, such a sculpture is difficult to achieve. Not too bad, but unfortunately, the Plymouth International Ice Sculpture Spectacular doesn't hold a candle to Sapporo's Snow Festival (aka. "Yuki matsuri"). Still, not a bad couple-hour excursion out of Ann Arbor.

My new hair color. Yes, this is what happens when you try to go "bleach blond" when your natural hair color is closer to "midnight".

Salvaging the facade of the old library on Huron St. Soon, the North Quad construction will start.