A Pennsylvania judge ruled today that the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it required 9th grade biology courses introduce Intelligent Design theory as an alternative to Neo-Darwinian evolution theory. While the board did not require the outright teaching of ID, they required the following statement to be read before 9th grade biology classes:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

At first glance, this statement seems rather inocuous. In fact, I agree that students should be encouraged to filter any theory through a skeptic lense. Upon reflection, however, I can find two major problems.

First, is the notion that evolutionary theory is an “origins of life” theory - it simply isn’t. It’s a way of understanding the diversity of life on this planet, the biological processes of variation and adaptation, and the surprising number of characteristics we share with other organisms. That ID proponents confuse any cosmological claims made in a science class with the theory of evolution indicates a complete misunderstanding of either of the fields of inquiry.

Second, is the fact that ID is the only alternative theory offered. This has the effect of placing ID in favored light over other cosmological ideas. Coupled with the blatently religious nature of ID, this really is a thinly veiled attempt at erecting a government sanctioned religious ideology.

I, for one, am very pleased with the ruling. The underlying problem still remains, however, and I find myself somewhat confused. In my view, the ID debate is part of the larger debate over who gets to decide what children learn and the proper role of government in the education process.

As a Libertarian, you’d probably assume that I think the government has no role. I am actually torn on the subject and the ID discussion is a perfect example of why. This single issue simultaneously brings to light both the failure of the public education system and the need for one. I say failure becuase that’s the only thing I can call it when so many Americans believe that evolution states that humans “came from” monkeys. I say we need public education becuase without it, children will continue to be force-fed idiotic folk tales about the universe by undereducated morons in their living rooms.

In the end, I don’t know which road to take. All I can say for today is, hooray for the Constitution.

I only have a few moments, but I thought this was worth sharing. The ACLU has a very amusing paranoid-privacy-pizza thing on their website. Turn on your sound and check it out for yourselves.

I don’t agree with our nation’s foreign policy and I especially despise the tendency for military adventurism - but I am also constantly amazed that men and women will knowingly put themselves in harm’s way in order to ensure the continutaion of our heritage of freedom. Now, if we could just get our elected officials to respect the liberty these brave few willingly stand up to defend.

In response to my post from yesterday, I received the following comment:

I’m not sure I agree with the rejection of the monorail project. As much as I don’t like it, I find it ridiculous that the voters have passed the monorail four times prior to this election. It’s as if the government is saying “No, you really didn’t want to vote that way… try again.” I have a feeling had the outcome been “Yes”, we would have seen another vote next fall. I voted yes for the monorail on principle, though I didn’t agree with it one bit.

There is something that needs to be cleared up here. Namely, this idea that the citizens of Seattle voted in favor of the monorail four times before rejecting it on Tuesday. While there were, indeed, four previous monorail-related intitiatives (for a total of five), they did not represent the same thing. To be more clear, each of these initiatives inacted different laws and represented different goals and were, in the end, asking different questions.

Here’s the timeline:

November 4, 1997 - Seattle Initiative No. 41 is approved with 52.6% of the vote. Only 77% of those who voted in the election that year actually voted on I-41 (at at time when just over 40% of the voting age population typically voted*). Anyway, this initiative specified plans for a giant “X” shaped monorail system that expanded the 1962 line. It did not authorize any particular funds, but it did give the city council the authority to come up with funds via taxes, bonds, etc.

July, 2000 - The Seattle City Council passes Ordinance 120049 that ammended Initiative No. 41 removing from it the requirement for the city to fund the system (as opposed to using strictly state and federal dollars). It also eliminated the Elevated Transportation Company and replaced it with the Elevated Transit Committee tasked with conducting and reviewing an “Intermediate Capacity Transit Service Study” - allowing for the possibility that a monorail solution may not be the best solution.

November 7, 2000 - Seattle Initiative No. 53 is approved with 56.36% of the vote. Being an election year, voter turnout was higher with almost 58% of the voting age population actually voting*. In Seattle, 75.6% of those registered to vote actually did and of those 92.39% voted on Initiative No. 53. This measure was basically a response to Ordinance 120049, re-establishing the Elevated Transportation Company and giving it money. It also gave the re-instated ETC 2 years to come up with a monorail plan that would have to be voted on by the citizens in the election after it’s completion. In case you missed it, I-53 mandated another monorail election in 2002.

August 5, 2002 - The ETC approves the “Green Line” plan which creates a 14-mile, $1.2 billion monorail. It was to run between Crown Hill and West Seattle to Seattle Center, then through downtown Seattle, across the West Seattle Bridge, then along California Avenue SW to SW Morgan Street.

November 5, 2002 - Seattle Citizen Inititative No. 1 is approved with 50.23% of the vote - a margin of only 877 votes. Only 45.54% of the registered voters in Seattle actually voted in the General Election, though 96.31% of those people voted on Initiative No. 1. And all this in a year when under 40% of the voting age population bothered to vote at all*. Initiative No. 1 created the Seattle Monorail Project Authority and provided $1.75 billion in funding for the Green Line via a motor vehicile excise tax and bonds. This money was to include operating expenses. It also stipulated that voter approval would be required if the city needed to issue bonds in excess of $1.5 billion - in case you missed it again, Initiative 1 mandated another monorail election if the costs changed.

November 2, 2004 - Initiative No. 83 is soundly rejected with 63.52% of the vote. Voter turnout was extremely high in 2004, with 86.6% of registered voters casting ballots in Seattle - though nearly 9% of those casting ballots did not vote on I-83. It was also a year of increased voter participation in general, with 68.36% of the voting age population turning out*. If it had passed, I-83 would have prohibited Seattle from allowing any new monorail lines to cross or otherwise use city streets or sidewalks. It would have killed the construction of the Green Line, but it did not repeal the initiative passed in 2002, it did not prevent the city from planning a new monorail line, and most importantly it did not repeal the 1.4% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax! When all this is considered, rejection of I-83 should is not equivalent to approval of the monorail.

June 20, 2005 - The Board of the Seattle Monorail Project rejects a staff-proposed financing plan for the Green Line. The details of this plan stir up public discontent. At the heart of the matter was the 50-year $11 billion-plus debt service structure for the (now) $2 billion project.

August 10, 2005 - Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels gives the SMP until September 15, 2005 to come up with a new financing plan.

September 16, 2005 - Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels withdraws support for the monorail project and cancels the Transit Way Agreement. He also calls on the Seattle Public Monorail Authority to place an advisory measure on the November General Election ballot.

September 23, 2005 - The Seattle City Council unanimously passes a resolution supporting the cancellation of the Transit Way Agreement and prohibiting city departments from issuing construction permits to the monorail board. This effectively kills the monorail project.

October 17, 2005 - The Seattle Monorail Project accepts a new finance plan for a new monorail project running just 10 miles instead of the initial 14.

November 8, 2005 - Proposition No. 1 is soundly rejected by 64.4% of the vote. Of course, only 33.23% of the registered voters in Seattle bothered to vote - though 95.7% of those who cast ballots had something to say about this measure. Proposition 1 would have implemented the shortened Green Line route, though it would not have provided clear funding for that project. It was basically written to give the monorail project a little more time to figure things out. Seattle voters decided not to go along.

Now that I’ve laid this history out, I hope it is clear the the citizens of Seattle have not voted five times on the same thing. There is a long, complex history of trial and error going on here and the bottom line is this: whether or not you love or hate the idea of a new Seattle monorail, there is no way to pay for the construction of such a thing. I opposed the monorail for this very reason. It is simply not a viable option for our community.

The other important point to all of this as that far too few of us participate in our political system. But that discussion will have to wait.

* Note: the percentage of voting age population that voted is an estimated number based in part on the data available at the Secretary of State’s website. Information about Seattle turnout is based on election results published in various online resources, including newspaper articles. Information about the 1997 election is not specifically available, so I made an educated approximation. Please don’t cite these numbers as an authority. I include them to give some perspective on exactly what “majority support” for the monorail project really means.

Well yesterday was election day and once again I find myself struggling with pessimism. This time I didn’t have any delusions of Libertarian victories because I finally understand what winning campaigns are made of. This time my frustration is over the fact that the citizens of Washington State just passed Inititative 901, banning smoking pretty much everywhere. Now, I’m no longer a smoker (haven’t been for years), but the idea that over 2/3rds of the voting population think it’s okay to restrict the voluntary actions of others is just discouraging. Of course, it’s equally discouraging that nearly 2/3rds of those registered to vote - and even fewer of those eligible to vote - don’t even bother to fill out a ballot.

Of course, I’m not really surprised that I-901 passed given the amount of money the proponents raised. According to the PDC, the Yes on 901 PAC had a warchest of $1,560,666.93! Compare that with the meager $26,340.00 raised by the opposition and it’s easier to understand how this thing passed. And besides the money, I-901 was supported by some very well established and highly respected organizations like the American Cancer Society. Groups like that have years of experience in turning people into activists. Again, compare that with the fact that opposition group was run by an employee of a bowling alley and supported by a handful of bar and restaurant owners - hardly experienced political activists.

Money played big role in the failure of another intiative, I-912, that would have repealed the recent gas tax hike here in Washington. The proponents argued that the increase couldn’t be justified given the failure of transportation officials to address traffic congestion and given the history of ridiculous spending on pet projects like light rail and monorails. The opponents of I-912, and supporters of the gas tax, argued that the money was needed to repair the crumbling transporation infrastructure and make safety improvements. What I find funny is that the No on 912 (and yes on taxes) group fails to explain why we should give more money to the people who let our roads deteriorate in the first place. They also failed to explain why the tax revenue wasn’t going to be used to fully fund the correction of these safety problems.

Alas, it’s not about being correct. It’s about being well funded and well organized. In this case, the FIVE different PACs that organized against I-912 raised a combined total of $3,031,736.69, compared to the $614,247.53 raised by the I-912 supporters. Interestingly, the I-912 donors were mostly individuals while the opponents were funded mostly by corporations (like Boeing and Microsoft) and, of course, the Washington Asphalt Pavement Association. I heard on radio talk show host refer to the No On 912 campaign as the “coalition of rich people who want you to pay more taxes” - which I find as amusing as it is accurate.

Anyway, there were two bright spots yesterday. Voters across the state passed Initiative 900 that basically mandates and funds (from existing revenue) government performance audits. And here in Seattle, voters finally rejected the monorail project.

As for my Libertarian friends who ran for office, results were mixed. Larey McLaren seems to have won his bid for Alderwood Water District Commissioner, Pos. 3 and Kelly Haughton appears to have won his bid for Charter Review Commission Dist. 7 Pos. 2 in Pierce County. Both races were non-partisan and low-level in the scheme of things, but every race won is a race to learn from.

As for my fellow UW students who ran for office, Astrid Gielen got 19,807 votes (for a total of 26.71%) in her bid for Seattle School Board Pos. 4 - against a guy who spent $25,855.35 to win. Morgan Catha didn’t fare as well in his bid for King County Council. He only got 4.22% of the vote - but he was facing incumbent for life, Larry Gossett, and only 32,964 (28.34%) people voted on the race.

Anyway, I’ve been typing so long that I have turned a corner and I am once again optimistic about humanitiy. I just have a lot of work to do to make that optimism pay off.