Predictably, public funding for SETI has dried up:

NASA had provided the financial backing for some early SETI projects, but that funding dried up under Congressional scrutiny, with some lawmakers criticizing the “chase” for Martians and flying saucers.

While I support science spending in general, and would greatly support anything which leads us to discovering life elsewhere in the universe, I frankly don’t believe that SETI will get anywhere. I explain that in this blog post from five years ago, but long story short, I think that if aliens are talking, it’s not with any technology we currently possess. I hate to sound like Sagan’s David Drumlin character, but it would be better to invest the science spending somewhere else.

Republicans are eager to blame Obama as much as possible for high gas prices. Boehner, however, messed up when he reflexively tried to defend huge government subsidies for energy corporations already making obscene profits. Obama and the Dems want to target those subsidies as a way to help balance the budget. Good for them.

Boehner hits back that socking the energy corps won’t cut gas prices:

If someone in the administration can show me that raising taxes on American energy production will lower gas prices and create jobs, then I will gladly discuss it. But since nobody can, and the president’s letter to Congress today doesn’t, this is merely an attempt to deflect from the policies of the past two years.

He’s hoping, of course, that nobody will notice that not eliminating the subsidies would have any better an effect–energy corporations don’t need an excuse to hike prices–or that it wasn’t liberal policies that brought up gas prices either. In fact, I am pretty sure that perhaps the only government actions that could bring energy costs down are price controls or stricter regulation of speculation–neither of which I bet Boehner would support.

It looks, however, like Obama is aiming for possibly the better practical policy (if way too little and late): regulation of speculation, elimination of unneeded subsidies, and investment in alternate energy sources. All of which, of course, Republicans will object to. They will instead wish to invest all possible resources into (1) putting even more money into the pockets of big oil, and (2) blaming Obama and the Democrats for everything. Because whining and blaming is so much easier than actually fixing stuff.

This is weird, at least to me:

Google says that 39% admit to having used their smarpthone [sic] while going to the bathroom….

OK, not “smarpthone,” that’s obviously just a typo. But first, why use the verb “admit to”? Is there something shameful about using your smartphone on the john? Heck, I sometimes take my iPad or even my laptop in there. Proudly!

The other odd thing is, only 39%? Does this tie in to the shame some people apparently feel? Using a smartphone would seem only natural, especially as it is an item we often carry with us and so is handy when no other material is available. I mean, really, some people resort to reading the labels on shampoo bottles; you’d think that people would be happy to be able to whip out their phone to play a few rounds of their favorite game or catch up on their email.

Instead of assuming that only 39% of people admit to using their smartphone in the bathroom, I would assume that 61% simply forgot to bring it with them.

Trump was furious when city officials revealed that he hadn’t voted much for a few decades:

Records unearthed by NY1, Trump’s hometown news station, show he has not voted in primary elections for 21 years. City election board spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez confirmed NY1’s story at the weekend.

The news prompted a furious denial from Trump. “I voted in every general election … You’re going to pay a big price because you’re wrong … I have records that I voted and so does the board of elections … I signed in at every election,” he told NY1.

“Pay a big price,” huh? What, he’s going to sue?

And you know what would work better than threatening to show records that you voted? Actually showing records that you voted. If I were Trump and I had the records, I would have simply picked up the records (presumably they are not buried in the arctic or anything) and shown them right away. So far, no records.

Instead, all we get is hot wind from a man who has shown the intellectual and political savvy of a turnip. Really, the man thinks he’ll lower oil prices by just blustering, and had no idea why privacy had anything to do with abortion. And when he claimed that he was uncovering dirt on Obama in Hawaii and was asked for an example, he told the interviewer, “That’s none of your business.”

Right now, Trump has even less credibility than Palin, and that is saying a hell of a lot. It’s not everyone who can appear even dumber and more blustery than her. Seriously, Trump could claim that he was breathing and I would not trust him until someone held a mirror up to his nose.

So, naturally, he’s the most popular presidential candidate amongst Republicans.

Michael Bloomberg thinks that Obama will win Republican hearts & minds by showing he cares:

The president’s got to start inviting people over for dinner. He’s got to play golf with them. He has to pick up the phone and call and say, “I know we disagree on this, but I just want to say — I heard it was your wife’s birthday or your kid just got into college.”

Frankly, I think Bloomberg is delusional. The Republicans have made it crystal clear that their primary goal in life is to destroy Obama. It is the pinnacle of naivete to think that Republicans are opposing the president because their relationship isn’t good. His chatting them up won’t make the tiniest bit of difference. Seriously, is Bloomberg even paying attention?

The current argument by right-wingers is that we need to give more and more tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations because they will take that money and create new jobs. This has long been the argument for sweeping tax cuts for the upper class, but I have never understood why people give this claim any credence, beyond the simple reason that they don’t apply any thought to it whatsoever.

I mean, think about it–we’re talking about essentially giving rich people loads of money with no strings attached. They don’t have to create jobs. All there is is the theory that some of the money could be put toward job creation, if the wealthy people in question felt so inclined. Doesn’t seem like a really wise plan. This reminds me of the deal made with telecom carriers, allowing them to hike prices in the hopes that they would apply this money to creating high-speed Internet nationwide–but the deal did not require them to do it. Guess what? They took the money, and didn’t use it to create high-speed connections. Not to sound flippant, but that is exactly what I would expect, given the conditions of the deal.

Only an idiot would give someone else money unconditionally and expect that person would spend it exactly as the giver desired. Only a fool would be in the perfect position to set conditions and yet set none.

Instead, if tax cuts to create jobs is what you’re after, making it conditional is a no-brainer. Frankly, it sounds stupid to even have to suggest this, but here we are. The cuts would have to be carefully crafted so they could not be taken advantage of. For example, a simple “create jobs and get tax breaks” law could spur many businesses to fire loads of people before the break comes into effect, so they could hire people back to get the breaks. Or, businesses would hire people at the lowest possible salary for the shortest amount of time–so that would have to be factored in, etc. etc.

How about this: create a tax credit for any business that can show a net increase in hiring and payrolls in non-administrative positions over a span of, say, three years, with perhaps conditions where the benefits increase as the new jobs continue over the years. Reward hiring, punish firing and off-shoring. The amount of the tax break would depend upon the amount paid and the benefits included. You might even give greater benefits for certain jobs–for example, manufacturing jobs with good benefits. That way, the tax cuts go only to businesses that actually hire new people for good or better positions with much better salaries and benefits.

Of course, this is not what Republicans want, because creating jobs is not the actual reason for the tax cuts–it is, instead, only the excuse. And a rather lame one at that. Republicans might grudgingly agree to a job-generating plan if it were all they could get, but it is certainly not what they would propose or prefer to settle for.

Obama and/or the Democrats should probably set this as the compromise target, which means they should ask for something far more–like the Republicans calling for the end of Medicare, for example. Dems should say, raise the taxes on people making more than $250,000 to 40%, on millionaires to 45%, and billionaires to 50%, and close all the loopholes–something like that, which they know will never get through. Then settle for Clinton-era tax levels (or, hopefully, a bit better) with targeted breaks for job creation.

Not that that will happen. Dems will likely continue to ask for no more than the Clinton-era levels, and then either completely cave and extend the Bush tax cuts again, or settle for something very close to what the GOP wants.

A recent Salon article on “Trig Thutherism”:

Trig Truthers have fixated on any number of details about Sarah Palin’s pregnancy. Sullivan, for example, thinks it was irresponsible that, shortly before she went into labor, Palin got on a plane from Texas, where she had been speaking at a conference, and flew to Alaska.

But whether Palin acted irresponsibly is beside the point. The most important tenet of Trig Trutherism, of course, is that Palin simply was not pregnant before Trig was born.

Whoa. “Whether Palin acted irresponsibly is beside the point”? Where did that come from? As far as I am concerned, it is the only point–that, during a special-needs pregnancy, after her water broke, she gave a political speech, took plane flights with a layover, and then trekked to a hometown hospital before giving birth. That quite simply makes no sense whatsoever. The writer of this article focused purely on whether or not Palin was the one to give birth. Frankly, that’s beside the point. The primary point is that, if we take Palin at her word, she acted with reckless irresponsibility. She’s either an idiot or a liar–or, possibly, both. The tale of Trig’s birth is emblematic of this.

Of course, since the whole Trig thing has so much baggage (personal lives are off-limit, don’t focus on children, people identify this as a loony conspiracy-theory kind of thing), it’s less than optimal to use this as a rallying point to show how Palin should never be allowed within a hundred miles of the presidency.

Fortunately, there is such a wealth of solid, factual evidence of this aside from the Trig story, this does not present a problem. The sheer number of lies, scandals, acts of irresponsibility, and fantastically stupid claims make for easy picking. From her claim that she fought the “Bridge to Nowhere” to her fictional “death panels” of the ACA, from Troopergate to resigning halfway through her term as governor so she could become a reality TV star and Fox News commentator, there’s virtually no end to reasons to question her capacity to serve in any position of responsibility.

Hell, just the idea that she persistently claimed that Alaska’s proximity to the farthest reaches of Russia magically endowed her with foreign policy credentials is enough for me. As for irresponsibility, the trend she set for politicians in elections to deny press access and communicate only through thoroughly biased sources is a huge one. I find myself wanting to go on (“In what way, Charlie?”), but the point should be clear–there is no end to the reasons why Palin should never be trusted by anyone. Just as well to leave the whole Trig mess behind. Indeed, focusing on the one thing Palin can most easily defend herself on only gives her strength and credence.

Michele Bachmann (yes, I know) said this on a Sunday show this week:

If we taxed 100 percent of what everyone made who make $250,000 or more — everything they made — that would get us about six months worth of revenue. … We could take 100 percent of the profits of every Fortune 500 company and that would give us 40 days worth of revenue. We could also take 100 percent of everything that the billionaires in this country own, and that wouldn’t be enough to solve the problem.

This is hardly new–in fact, I quote Bachmann mainly because the line she is using, its truthfulness notwithstanding, is virtually a cliché. It might go back even farther, but I remember the exact same sentiment (though the starting figure was a million dollars back then) being used to argue against higher taxes for the wealthy back in the 80’s and 90’s.

However, when right-wingers are trying to argue against tax increases for the rich, they complain that the wealthy are paying far too much in taxes already–not as a percent of their total actual income or wealth (because that starts to get embarrassing), but as a percentage of the total taxes paid. This was used throughout the Bush years to justify his tax cuts going mostly to the wealthiest Americans. Ironically, Bachmann only recently used this other cliché just a week and a half ago:

Well, remember, again, already the top 1 percent of income earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government. So if you want to talk about fairness, the top 1 percent are paying 40 percent of all of the income.

Got that? The richest people are paying the biggest share of the taxes already, but if you increased their taxes to 100%, you could only fund the U.S. government for six months.

Now, I may not be a math whiz, but something doesn’t compute. Obviously some games are being played here with the numbers. The marginal tax rate for personal and corporate income is 35%, meaning that nobody should ever be paying more than a third of their income in federal taxes. The top 1% earn $410,000 and up, so people earning $250,000 and more are without doubt more than that top 1%, meaning that the $250,000+ group are supposedly paying more than 40% of the taxes. And Bachmann says that the $250,000+ group could only supply half of the country’s revenue even if we confiscated all of their money.

Answer me this: how can you be shouldering more than 40% of the taxes, but if you triple your tax rate, you’re only paying 50%?

Like I said, clearly she’s playing games–just like right-wingers always are, lying with numbers to get what they want. And, like I said, this is nothing new–I have been hearing variations on these claims for decades. When you want to raise taxes on the wealthy, they don’t have enough money to matter; but when they want to cut taxes for the wealthy, they pay the lion’s share already.

Part of this number-twisting is exposed here (the top 1% pay a total of 28.1% of federal revenues), despite the fact that the same top 1% possess about 40% of the nation’s wealth. It is reported that they also earn about 20% of the total income, but I do not know how much of that is hidden, sheltered, or otherwise not counted due to what tax laws allow.

However, even assuming that the top 1% earn about 20% of the income, that they shoulder about 28% of the burden does not sound incredibly oppressive.

Now, the right wing (and Bachmann in particular) love to whine about how 47% of the people pay no taxes at all–which, of course, is a lie, because most of them do pay non-income taxes–in fact, only 10% pay no federal taxes at all, and almost everybody pays taxes of some kind, especially sales taxes.

What the right-wingers neglect to mention why so many people don’t pay any federal income taxes: it’s because most of them don’t make enough money to get by in the first place.

However, Bachmann and the wingnuts will go on and on about how people in the middle class might actually get tax credits when they pay no taxes, but will blithely ignore corporations like GE getting billions in tax credits while paying 0% on massive profits.

No, this is about scapegoating, creating a villain they can use to help their patrons. They want people to believe that (1) the 47% is the liberal half of the country, and (2) they make lots of money but leech off the honest, hard-working, conservative (“real”) Americans.

Of course, if Bachmann were earning the average income of that 47%, I betcha anything she would be whining about how high her taxes are. Now, instead, Bachmann is actually implying that we should be taxing the poor more:

Part of the problem, George, is that 47 percent of all Americans pay virtually no federal income tax, so we need to broaden the base.

“We need to broaden the base.” That can mean nothing other than raising taxes on the lower-middle class. At the same time when Republicans are clamoring for yet more massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

Wow.

Marilyn Davenport, a Tea Party activist and Republican Party central committee official representing the 72nd assembly district in Orange County, sent an email with this photo:

The image was accompanied by the tag line, “Now you know why — no birth certificate!”

When news of the image got out, Davenport became defensive:

Oh, come on! Everybody who knows me knows that I am not a racist. It was a joke. I have friends who are black. Besides, I only sent it to a few people–mostly people I didn’t think would be upset by it.

I’ve heard this many times before, and probably you have as well. People clearly cross the line in terms of expressions which are clearly inappropriate in terms of race, and then deny any hint of racism. All too often, the standard “some of my best friends” defense is used, which in itself is rather telling.

Part of the problem is in the exact use of terms, and part is in the misunderstood nature of racism.

First, it is within the realm of possibility that Ms. Davenport is not in the least bit racist. And yet, the image she sent was clearly racist. For this to be possible, we simply have to assume that Ms. Davenport simply is clueless as to racial sensitivities; she would have to be almost completely ignorant as to the history and nature of racism, what offends people, and why such things offend people.

For example, I might hear someone use a term which is racist, but I have never heard it before, and I don’t recognize any racism in the context of the utterance, so I just think it’s a general term not related to race. Then, at a later time, I use the term myself, and am accused of saying something racist. I can claim that I am not a racist–but I would also have to admit to being ignorant about the nature of the term. In this case, however, Ms. Davenport would have to be pretty damned ignorant not to know that depicting black people as chimps has no racial connotations.

Then we have the misunderstood nature of racism. There is a general impression that for a person to be racist, they have to pass a certain threshold of knowing, overt hatred and contempt. That’s not the case. It is entirely possible to be prejudiced and yet honestly believe yourself to be a tolerant person. And yes, you can even have friends who are black and still do things which are racist.

Perhaps the most common expression of racism is in terms of comfort zones, most likely at the unconscious level. The impressions and connotations we collect over a lifetime of experience lead to certain emotional and even informational biases which we take for granted as normalcy. We don’t even think about them most of the time, and often don’t recognize them when we use them as factors in coming to a decision.

Take the act of hiring a person for a job. We tend to think of this as an objective task, based on training, qualifications, and performance under a strict set of professionally determined parameters. However, a great deal of what we judge will be based upon our subjective impressions of how this person will work in the job. Doubts might surface with people we have been prone to discriminate against which would not arise with people we are more comfortable with; confidence may emerge concerning a candidate who looks more like an “ideal” person than it would with someone we are less inclined to trust. We believe that these impressions are purely a result of what the candidates present, when in fact they come from within ourselves–a result of a lifetime of conditioning. Worse, since we sincerely believe that we are not racists, we refuse to believe that these impressions could be racist in nature, only strengthening the conviction that they are rational and objective, and therefore justified.

I experienced this firsthand once. As an administrator at a conversation school in Japan many years ago, I was involved in the hiring process. It was my duty to field phone calls from prospective candidates, weed out the ones who were not qualified, and make phone calls to the ones who might be acceptable. Over the phone, I would gather impressions based on spoken presentation, gather more background information, and make a further decision as to whether the person should come in for an interview in person. Other administrators would then give the interview and make final decisions about hiring.

One person I spoke to over the phone seemed like an ideal candidate. His resume was good; it was well-written, and he had training and experience related to the position. Over the phone, his voice was clear and pleasant, and his demeanor was calm and agreeable. I came out with a strong impression that this person would be a very good teacher, so I approved him for an interview slot.

After the interview, however, he was turned down. Surprised, I asked the guy in charge, the one who made the decision, as to why. The response was that the candidate was distinctly unfriendly, that his manner was too aggressive, and students would be intimidated by him. I was taken aback by this, but understood that sometimes people come across differently in person, or they just might be in a different mood at the time of the interview.

However, I later asked the other person who attended the interview, a young woman who was a junior staff member, and asked her if she had gotten the same impression. She looked around to make sure the other guy wasn’t there, and then quietly shook her head. Her reaction told me two things: that the first guy’s impression of the candidate was probably not objective, and the staff member thought the other guy was unreasonable. So I went back and checked the person’s file, which included a photograph we asked people to bring in when they came for an interview. Sure enough, the candidate was black.

The administrator in question had never said or done anything previous to that which would have led me to believe that he was racist. I was pretty confident that if I confronted him and suggested that race had played a role in his decision, that he would deny it completely–and would probably be offended by the suggestion. Nevertheless, it seemed pretty clear that his personal biases, probably wholly unconscious in nature, led him to feel intimidated, influencing his judgment of the candidate.

This is the problem: these people thoroughly believe they are not racist, and so get angry and defensive when it is suggested, even indirectly, that race was involved. Because they see racism as an all-out attitude, that their image of racism is one of a person who overtly believes people are inferior because of race and are generally contemptible, asinine, and even evil, they cannot accept the idea that they could be associated with that group. They fail to see that racism can be subtle, and can issue from people who genuinely see themselves as unprejudiced. This misunderstanding, unfortunately, only perpetuates discrimination of the type most common in this day and age.

However, to those who are even more defiant about race, it can be overt and still they’ll deny racism. I once knew someone who felt that, as a businessman, he could consciously refuse to hire any black people on the grounds that statistically, black people were more prone to crime–and he insisted that this was not racist, and he was completely tolerant.

And yes, he had black friends.

David Simon, an author, journalist, and a writer/producer, said to Bill Moyers:

One of the themes of The Wire really was that statistics will always lie. Statistics can be made to say anything.

You show me anything that depicts institutional progress in America: school test scores, crime stats, arrest reports, anything that a politician can run on, anything that somebody can get a promotion on, and as soon as you invent that statistical category, fifty people in that institution will be at work trying to figure out a way to make it look as if progress is actually occurring when actually no progress is.

I mean, our entire economic structure fell behind the idea that these mortgage-backed securities were actually valuable, and they had absolutely no value. They were toxic. And yet they were being traded and being hurled about, because somebody could make some short-term profit. In the same way that a police commissioner or a deputy commissioner can get promoted, and a major can become a colonel, and an assistant school superintendent can become a school superintendent, if they make it look like the kids are learning and that they’re solving crime. That was a front-row seat for me as a reporter, getting to figure out how once they got done with them the crime stats actually didn’t represent anything.

I agree with Simon that politicians and many others use statistics to lie, but I strongly disagree with the sentiment that “statistics will always lie.” Statistics can be and often are very true and extremely useful. It’s people who lie. They use statistics to lie in the same way they use any other fact, true or false. Correct statistics can often be used to out the lies–but when people believe that statistics as a whole is suspect, they will just as often use that as an excuse not to listen to the truth. They’ll believe the lie because they want to.

One reason statistics are often used is because they easy to express, but a more important reason is that they imply careful research was done to produce them, therefore giving a stronger sense of authority. It’s the same reason why interested parties will pay for fake “scientific” studies, like tobacco companies often do–because research carries weight and it’s easier for people to believe in research results.

Sometimes statistics are just made up, but more often they are the result of some kind of study or poll. Often the untruth lies in the intent of the study, but even when the study is completely legitimate, telling only specific results in the absence of a complete context–in essence, the half-truth.

An excellent example is the common right-wing lie that during the Reagan years, we cut taxes and doubled revenue. That’s a regular fact and a statistical fact. Both are true. However, they are used to present a completely false impression, that tax cuts during the Reagan era caused a doubling of revenue, thus proving correct the “trickle-down” theory. The lie comes from the misuse of the facts. Yes, it is true, we cut some taxes, but we raised others more, and in the end had a cumulative tax hike. And yes, revenues roughly doubled, but that figure fails to take inflation into account, something which distorts any claimed effect. The true reading of the facts tells us that taxes were raised slightly under Reagan and revenues increased by a few dozen percent–obviously not supporting trickle-down at all.

In this example, we see both statistical and non-statistical data used to lie–but that doesn’t mean that both types of facts will “always” lie. Discerning accurate and honest application of statistics is a necessary skill for any consumer of information.

Simon, in his broad dismissal of statistics as a whole, is being intellectually lazy–the same fault which causes people to believe bad statistics in the first place. People tend to take facts at face value and are too lazy to think critically, to question the facts they are presented, to check them or to apply logic to them, which would allow them to see past the lies.

In politics, when speaking to the public, it’s far easier to tell a lie, and much harder to tell the truth. This is mostly true because people believe certain things more than others: they more easily believe claims that jibe with their personal beliefs, they quickly believe things that sound attractive, and they just as quickly believe things that frighten them.

Take the whole Reaganomics thing: cutting taxes will increase revenues. Everyone loves cutting taxes, even when it’s not for them. Tell them that you can do this and the government will actually take in more money, and you’ve got most of the public believing you–despite the fact that the claim is contrary to basic logic. Not to worry–just make the claim that there is some expert that supports your statement. “Oh, we’ve got this thing called the Laffer Curve, these expert economists back us up.” “OK, good enough for us!” It’s the same principle that scam artists use to fleece people of their money. It works.

Telling the lie is easy, you don’t really need to explain or prove anything. Just present the thesis, claim you have support, and you’re done.

Debunking the lie is far harder. People won’t simply believe the same thing in reverse, because it’s not what they want to hear. So you’ll need to prove what you say. And that involves using explanations–facts and logic which take time and require listeners to actively think, all to conclude that what they want to believe isn’t true. Naturally, it doesn’t take very long before most of your audience loses interest and stops listening. So your best chance is to conclusively prove the lie is false in a clear and concise statement–and that’s often extremely difficult, if not impossible.

This is how it is going with most Republican claims and proposals these days. They have become extremely adept at the easy lie. Despite having been lied to–demonstrably–on multiple occasions in the recent past by the GOP, people still generally accept whatever they say.

Take, for example, the new Republican plan to cut spending:

At first glance, the survey results aren’t exactly encouraging. When respondents were asked whether or not they favored the Republicans’ a 10-year plan to cut spending $6.2 trillion, it scored pretty well — 48% supported the idea, which is pretty high, while 33% were against it.

But then respondents were given an accurate description of the same plan, noting, among other things, that the GOP proposal “makes small cuts in defense spending,” repeals health care reform, cuts taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and makes “major cuts” to Medicaid and Medicare.

At that point, support dropped from 48% to 36%, and opposition rose from 33% to 56%.

What’s more, the pollster explained the Republicans’ plan for Medicare: “This plan would cut Medicare spending and replace Medicare with a voucher system, which will force seniors to negotiate with private insurance companies, which are free to raise rates and deny coverage. Medicare’s guaranteed coverage of care would end, and seniors would have to pay more and more out of pocket.” All of this is accurate, by the way.

After hearing this description, 66% of respondents said they have “serious doubts” about the GOP proposal. [Poll (PDF)]

This is how it goes in general: most people simply accept what Republicans say. They don’t think about it, they don’t check the facts. The more you tell them the facts, however, the more they would go against the Republican proposal.

Unfortunately, this survey was unusual, because it created a context in which people were willing to sit and listen attentively to certain statements and then respond with a considered opinion. This will not happen with most people in real life. They will read the headlines, see the false claim, not bother to read the details (even if they are presented, which all too often they are not), and remain solidly with their initial impression.

In the end, believing what you like or what you fear is easier, because it is a matter of feeling rather than thinking. Most people prefer not to think; as Colbert put it, most people like to go with their guts–facts, on the other hand, have a liberal bias.

This kind of time is always pretty hectic. Previous to the 15th, Sachi and I were packing everything we owned into boxes, not a trivial task. Whenever I had to make a run to the new house, I would load up two backpacks and sometimes another carry bag with stuff to bring, and cart it over on my scooter, as a way to get things done just a bit more quickly. We had to stop electricity, water, gas, Internet, cable TV, and probably another service or two I am forgetting. Inform the post office and file all kinds of forms.

Two days before moving day, we had construction crews at the new place installing hanger poles in the closets, curtain rods on every window, and a shelf above the door in the bath anteroom (there is almost no storage there). In the meantime, the moving crew’s electrical team came to take down the air conditioners and remove the washlet on the toilet.

On moving day, there was the predictable task of disconnecting and pre-packing the final bits, the stuff we wanted to use until the last day, and then help the movers and clean up after. In the meantime, the cable guy came to take away the old tuner. As they finished loading up the truck for the first of two trips, Sachi stayed at the old place to organize and clean, while I went to the new place to receive them and tell them where to put everything.

However, between the two trips, the cable TV guys came too early and the movers were late; while we had the TV at the new place, the power cords were in a box waiting to be brought on the second trip. So the cable guys instead did everything short of connecting the tuner–they hung cable from the street, added a booster in the space above the bath where the cables split, and brought in all the stuff. Then they had to wait, as the movers were late coming–a team of four or five guys just sitting in their vans.

When the movers finally came, they claimed that the boxes were not too far back, and they would get to them as fast as they could. But as the cable team waited, the movers not only went at a normal pace, they cleared out every other item aside from the boxes–which were crammed into the very back of the truck–and when they got to the boxes, made no effort to uncover enough so I could find the box in question. So I had to keep the cable guys waiting more than an hour before they could come in and install the tuner box.

While all that was happening, the gas guy came to get that started, and the guy who installs the screen doors came two days early. So we had, at one point, four different teams coming in and out at the same time.

After that, we faced un-boxing everything. Still maybe a quarter or a fifth of the boxes are not unpacked, but we’ve done enough over the past two days to make it look like we’re not drowning in them.

Today, the guys came to install the air conditioners–not an easy task as the house has nothing but electrical sockets for the machines. So they had to install the frames, hang the units, set up the piping–but most of all, they had to drill through the walls. We opted for covers for the outside so the piping didn’t look horrendous and the elements don’t wear down the pipes too quickly; I have to say, it looks a lot nicer than it otherwise would have.

The hole-drilling, however, left a find residue of plaster dust, like chalk dust, everywhere in the rooms they did the drilling–nearly everywhere, that is. As they were doing this, we discovered that a dresser was misplaced on the first floor–it should have been on the second floor–and the dresser was damned heavy, had drawers you can’t remove, and had no handles or bevels for getting a purchase. Nevertheless, we managed to get it up the stairs one step at a time.

We still have to unpack a few dozen boxes. Internet, as I mentioned, comes mid-week. A whole set of furniture we ordered–a reclining chair, reclining sofa, bedroom dresser, and three kitchen pieces–won’t come until the 25th, at which time I will have to assemble most of it. And we’ll have to go to the local police station to have ID cards amended. And, of course, a whole bunch of smaller projects–for example, I want to try to install carpet on all the stairs to improve purchase on them, but it will involve a lot of sizing and precise cutting and laying. Lots of little stuff like that.

So it’s a bit too early to call it a complete home yet, but at least it’s taking shape. Maybe by the end of the month, it’ll be ready.

Even as such, having your own home feels good. Park in your own driveway, do whatever you want to the walls without involving a landlord, and generally you just have your own house.

We woke up at 5:30 am to get a fresh start, and spent much of the time until 8 am finishing the last of the packing–the phones, WiFi, TV and video boxes, computers, all the stuff we wanted to use to the last day.

The movers arrived promptly at eight, and we got started closing up boxes and setting stuff up while the blue-walled everything and started wrapping up the furniture. Because the new house is so close to the old apartment, they’re using only one truck, making two goes. As I write this, they are finishing up the first round and we’re about to break for lunch.

These guys have this down to a science. They make sure that they tell you in advance all the dents and scuff marks on the furniture and the walls and floors so you’ll know they didn’t put them there. They seem to know exactly what order everything has to go in so they can cram it all into the relatively small truck. Before they make the truck run, they show you numbered plastic bands that they attach to the doors, and make sure you OK them when they are taken off at the destination, so you know they that didn’t stop and unload anything along the way.

So far, they’ve dropped a few things (like drawers falling from desks which are moved), but nothing is damaged, and as is common (though not universal; Ark was good, but Heart was not so great) with moving companies, they tend to be cheerful, helpful, and efficient.

It’s only been 100 days since the Republicans took the House? It already feels like it’s been more than a year. Geez, this is gonna be a long term.

We’ve already been through a protracted budget crisis where Republicans threatened to shut down government if they didn’t get their spending cuts. It sure sounded like the Dems caved, big-time. But now we’ve been hearing more of the details, and it looks like about half of the cuts were things that were going to be cut anyway–unused census money, for example–and the real cuts are $14.7 billion, not $38.5 billion. Another estimate has the real cuts being only a few hundred million, but that factors in increased war spending, which, if I am not mistaken, Republicans fought to get passed anyway.

Still, we went through a period in which the GOP used a threat of high-powered destructive action–shutting down the federal government–as a means to pressure for what they wanted.

Next up? The debt limit. Which, if not raised, could lead to far more dire circumstances for the nation. Republicans are saying they’ll refuse to cooperate unless they get to attack more Democratic programs.

It’s like being in a car driven by a petty, whining madman who threatens to drive off a cliff every time he doesn’t get to play the song he wants on the radio or stop at the restaurant he wants to–and you get the very strong feeling that he would drive off that cliff, he’s just that freaking crazy.

Is this going to be the norm from now on? Republicans refusing to go along with every major piece of business that could cause major disruption, as a way of getting stuff they want? Because that’s gonna get old real fast, and harder and harder each time to blame on the other guys.

When you tell a Japanese ISP that you want a connection, they give you the same predictable response: it’ll take three to four weeks to hook it up. It’s as if there is an eternal backlog, as that is always the lag time. Why, I cannot guess. It should not be backlog of previous orders, as it is always in effect, no matter what the season; if they were always three weeks behind in orders, all they would have to do is hire some extra people to catch up and then there would be no more problem. Or else, hire a few more people for the long run.

As a result, I can only figure that there is either some regulation causing the delay, or else the ISPs just don’t give a damn and this works for them financially.

I keep forgetting about this, and so in this current moving process, I waited until just after we closed the deal on the house to make the arrangements. Now, that’s what they tell you to do–technically, they are not allowed to start the process until you have officially taken up residence. In the past, when I remembered and planned ahead, I lied about living there and they never knew the difference. This time, I contacted them after we closed on the house, a few weeks before we moved, and kicked myself mentally when they reminded me of the 3-4 weeks thing. I was looking at at least a few weeks without Internet. I was not too worried, though–I had considered doing the 2-week trial for WiMAX during the transition anyway.

Apparently they have learned from customer complaints, however–they have given us a loaner. It’s a USB dongle which seems to use CDMA, but when you use the utility to connect, it claims it’s WiMAX. Huh. So far, in testing I have only gotten 2 Mbps from it–enough, but not exactly what you would expect from WiMAX. KDDI didn’t explain very clearly what the connection is, but whatever.

The problem is, it only gives an Internet connection to one computer–and Sachi and I have four devices that need a connection, one (the iPad) requiring a WiFi hookup. Fortunately, it’s possible to turn your computer into a WiFi hotspot. From what I can tell, to do so with Windows requires that you download and install software called “Connectify.”

On the Mac, however, the capability is built-in. In System Preferences, you can open Sharing and then activate Internet Sharing, choosing which connection (Ethernet, WiFi, FireWire) to share. Then just use the network menu in the menu bar to create a network, give it a name and password, and that’s it. I tested it at the new house and it works great–I was able to get a strong signal from anywhere else in the house.

For fun, I might also do the 2-week free trial for WiMax anyway; you go in and sign up, and they give you your choice of base station (e.g., fixed or portable), and you take it home. I have a feeling that they won’t make it that easy–there will doubtlessly be a form and I’ll have to register my credit card, and ending without signing a contract will probably be a hassle.

In the meantime, KDDI has picked up on a trick used by cell phone carriers (which, via “au,” they are), and is now hooking customers with two-year contracts by overcharging for setup fees. In the past, ISPs I contract with either offer a free setup, or a setup fee around 10,000 yen which they immediately discount. Now, however, KDDI is telling me that setup fees are 31,500 yen (about $375). When they tell you this, they know you’ll object, so the reps are trained, when they mention this, to immediately, without pause, add that this is spread out of 24 months, and KDDI discounts 1/24th of the fee each month–so long as you stay with KDDI.

In short, it’s an artificial way of forcing customers to stay with their business for at least two years, styled after the telephone companies’ subsidization plans for cell phones like the iPhone.

I’m not fazed by it, primarily because it works out the same in the end–I’ve been with KDDI for some time and their service is pretty good, plus they have English tech support. I was, however, amused by the rather blatant artificial fee and the transparent hook. I am now wondering where else I will see the 2-year “deal” appear, and what fees previously discounted freely will be parceled out to keep customers on the line. I also wonder why it’s always two years; is there some law which prevents companies from stringing it out longer?

Of interest: up until now, we have been using KDDI’s 100 Mbps fiber optic service. When I arranged for service at the new house, they informed me that the 100 Mbps service is no longer available.

The only fiber-optic plan they offer is 1 Gbps. Monthly fees are ¥4,777. With IP telephone services, it’s ¥6,090.

While 1 Gbps sounds nice, it’s also overkill. I am also kind of irked that I am paying not for just one, but for three Internet connections: the home connection, and two cell phone data plans. If I want to get a connection with my iPad anywhere I go, that would be another connection–and each one is up to 5000 yen ($60) a month–pricey, to say the least.

When the iPhone 4’s contract comes up, WiMAX should have its 300 Mbps service going. I will be sorely tempted to terminate our fiber-optic connection, keep using our iPhone 4s without data plans, and instead get two WiMAX accounts. That way, we’ll always have connections for all of our devices, at less cost than we have now.

Ideally, ISPs and carriers will catch on and offer an “Internet everywhere” family plan, which will do the same thing for a flat fee. Not that I’m holding my breath.

Woke up about 15 minutes ago to another strong quake. Not the 7.0 of last night in Fukushima, but to a 6.3 in Chiba, just 80 miles (130 km) to our east.

I’m beginning to wonder… this many strong quakes a month after the primary… is that normal?

We are still shaking… just got through a rather strong quake here in Tokyo. Hard to tell, but it felt like it might have been close by… more soon.

Update: they’re reporting it as a “weak 6” in Fukushima. Quake sites are lagging, hard to get info…

Looks like a 6.0 on the Richter scale. It was pretty sizable here in Tokyo, lasting a few minutes and really shaking stuff. Not enough to throw anything, but more than enough to make everything shake and sway…

Another update: a smaller aftershock hit just a few minutes after the first one, but it was barely felt here. There is still a tsunami warning along the Tohoku coast. [Update on tsunami: serious warnings for the Ibaraki coast–tsunami as high as 2 meters, @6 ft., for that area.]

Update: Correction, that first quake was a 7.1. That sounds about right, considering how strong it was here in Tokyo!

The smaller quake after it was a 6.0, with maybe a 5.6 right on its heels.

The timing is not lost on anyone here, this aftershock (about the same strength as the main Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989) comes almost exactly one month after the Big One hit on March 11. Sachi and I were just finishing our hanami when the 2:46 pm 1-month anniversary came, blissfully unaware amongst the blossoms–which seemed fitting. Seems that Mother Nature is reminding us, not so gently, of exactly who’s in charge here.

Update: yet another quake–that’s about 6 or so quakes over 4.7 in the past 40 minutes.

Yesterday, Sachi and I did a little hanami (cherry-blossom viewing, usually while drinking beer and eating snacks) at a local park. It was OK, but the trees at the park, while nice, were no big deal. So today, we decided to do a proper viewing picnic, going to a larger park (Koganei Park this time), with better food this time (chilled beer, warm yakisoba, full compliment of snacks).

We couldn’t go when we wanted to though–we had to wait on a takkyubin delivery (new curtain rails) at the new house, one of those “be at home between 9 am and noon” deals–but it had to be at the new house, which is still bare. Fortunately, I had the sense to call the delivery company the night before and made sure they would call us 15 minutes in advance, so we could stay at our comfortable apartment and run over to receive the delivery when they called. Good thing, too–the delivery didn’t come until half past twelve, so we saved ourselves three and a half hours of waiting on cold floors. And the delivery guy called with only 5 minute’s warning, on the wrong phone. Fortunately, I had decided to go over at that time anyway, and so was waiting when they came. Good timing.

However, this all delayed our departure until about one o’clock. While I was taking the delivery, Sachi was cooking the yakisoba and packing everything in a thermal bag. We hopped on our bicycles and rode the 5 km (3 miles) to the park. Thank god for GPS and the Maps app on the iPhone, it kept us from getting lost in the labyrinth of small streets along the way.

When we got to the park, we headed over to the “Cherry Blossom Garden” where all the action was. This year, the blossoms came late and are leaving early. It seems our timing was perfect–the trees were still full of blossoms (Sachi calls the “popcorn trees”), but the blossoms had just started to fall–and did they fall. It was the time where a good wind made the blossoms fall like heavy snow, the ground a carpet of petals. Just beautiful.

Our timing was good in another respect: this is Monday, and so while there were many people, it was not very crowded. We were able to find a nice spot with ease.

So we sat, drank, snacked, and enjoyed ourselves for an hour or two, and generally got covered in flower petals. It was a little cool at times, but mostly warm enough. Everyone was having a good time. A couple of Peruvian flute bands provided a nice background music.

As usual, click on the images to see larger versions.

Note tha carpet of petals; they were everywhere

The camera did not do the “petal-fall” justice…

A crop of the last photo, you can see the petals better

Cheers!

After we had relaxed for a while, we decided to walk around, and then rode our bikes around the park a bit.

Just then, at about three o’clock, we decided to go home a few minutes early–despite the forecast of rain by 6 pm, the clouds to the north seemed a little dark, and we thought we heard thunder. So we headed back. Again, the Maps app saved us–even with it, we almost headed east instead of north. Still, the 5 km ride was longer than we would have liked, with the weather threatening like that. As we arrived home, heavy thunder and lightning were already all around us, though we walked in the door completely dry. Literally seconds after we walked in the door, heavy rain began to fall. Our timing could not have been more perfect, especially in that we had no rain gear.

So, good timing for pretty much everything. And a fun, relaxing day.

First, creationists wanted creationism to be taught in science classes. When that failed, they re-styled their product as “Intelligent Design.” When that didn’t work, they evolved the strategy into “academic freedom.”

Their current tactic? “Teach the Controversy.” A new Tennessee proposal (PDF) that passed the state House:

(a) The general assembly finds that:

(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and

(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

The language is actually quite clever; it goes to great lengths to emphasize “objectivity,” “critical thinking,” “explore,” “evidence,” “scientific theories”–making it sound like this is all about science and that there will be no funny business.

When you read the text carefully, however, it opens the door for creationism to be taught. Parts (b) and (c) effectively say that teachers can teach the controversies and administrators must assist them–that’s the door opening. Part (d) forbids administrators to prohibit teachers “helping” students to see the issues. This element is critical–it means that if a teacher, for example, were to introduce the subject in a way that greatly favored the creationist view, administrators would not be allowed to interfere. Note the language concerning “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered”; that’s code for allowing in creationist arguments that evolution is flawed.

Interestingly, it’s that last paragraph which is the real giveaway; while appearing, at first cursory glance, to be an assurance that this will not be used to promote religion, it is in fact the key to legitimizing religious doctrine as science. While it may be intended to smooth the law’s way when challenged in the courts, this part is really the slickest pro-creationist part of the bill. Some of it’s language is actually pretty bold; first, it classes religion right together with non-religion, placing them on an equal basis–meaning that religion gets equal play with secularism. Which, of course, is contradictory.

This comes from the view from a religious standpoint that secularism and atheism, seen from the distance of faith, are one and the same–that allowing no religion in a science class means that atheism is being favored. This is not true, of course–saying there is no god is just as non-scientific as saying there is one. But since fundamentalist religion in America today holds that what we observe and measure contradicts religious “truth,” reporting objective observations is, for them, tantamount to denying god, and so is atheist in nature.

Given the actual, true nature of secular science, placing secularism and religion on equal footing in a science class is just as bad as placing secularism and atheism on equal footing. Neither is secular; secular means that religious views, for or against, are simply not germane. This bill tears down that point, making science classes a referendum on religion versus atheism.

Note that the language also forbids promoting “discrimination for or against” either “a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs” or “religion or non-religion.” When you recall that “discrimination” against religious beliefs is equal to not teaching creationism in the classroom, you can see the true purpose is to include religious doctrine where none was allowed before. Keep in mind that these people believe it is discriminating against religion when children are taught that the universe is billion of years old without the Young Earth Creationist view being given equal or greater billing. The “for or against” is also key–it again places religion on an equal basis with “non-religion.” “Non-religion” is, remember, what we usually refer to as “science.”

In case you think this may be the wrong way of looking at the bill, remember that this state legislature is not precisely averse to trying to get religion in the public schools any way they can. Amusingly, one of those legislators said this in reflection on the recent bill:

Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains, quoted Albert Einstein as saying: “A little knowledge would turn your head to atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head to Christianity.”

Of course, Einstein, a non-observant Jew who said that he believed in Spinoza’s God, never said that. Nevertheless, it kind of tips this lawmaker’s hand as to his intent in passing the bill.

Anti-science rhetoric typical of creationists was also abundant from Republicans, and was just as ludicrous. Rep. Sheila Butt, R-Columbia, for example, makes this error-studded statement on why science cannot be trusted:

I remember so many of us, when we were seniors in high school, we gave up Aquanet hairspray. Do you remember why we did that? Because it was causing global warming. That that aerosol in those cans was causing global warming.
Since then scientists have said that maybe we shouldn’t have given up that aerosol can, because that aerosol was actually absorbing the earth’s rays, and was keeping us from global warming.

Umm, no. This woman appears to be going on a factoid she must have heard that aerosols help reflect solar radiation (not “the earth’s rays”). However, it was not the aerosols that were bad, it was the CFC’s in the aerosols, and they were not said to be contributing to global warming, but that they were depleting the ozone layer. Not to mention that we never gave up aerosols (you can still buy all manner of things in aerosol spray cans, as this woman seems to have overlooked), we only gave up the CFC’s in aerosols. And clearly, aerosols did not stop global warming trends. Scientists were not wrong on this; this woman, on the other hand, sounds like an idiot. And again, it reveals a clear anti-science agenda.

These are the people who wish to lecture us on and legislate “critical thinking” in science classes.

When looked at objectively, this bill is just as bad as all the other ones passed in recent years to get creationism back into the public schools. What is happening is that we’re getting the same old creationist proposals dressed up more and more deceptively, the authors hoping each time that the courts will have been sufficiently stacked with religious conservatives to allow for one of these to be approved.

The parties are really showing their stripes.

Obama opens by asking for $40 billion in new spending.

Republicans counter by asking for $32 billion in cuts, almost entirely from programs favored by the left.

The Democrats, naturally, compromise.

The compromise: $38.5 billion in cuts. Defense, where waste is greatest, got increased spending.

After the deal, Republicans whine that it’s not enough.

Why does this all sound so familiar?