From a news report that caught my eye:

Timing, faith, heroics, preparation and a bit of luck spared thousands.
Local, state and federal officials credit luck, happenstance, timing, faith, heroics, preparation and the seasoned experience that comes with living in the heart of Tornado Alley for the relatively low victim count.

Really? Faith was one of the elements? How did that work?

Of the elements listed, “luck,” “happenstance,” and “timing” all pretty much mean the same thing, and are true. Some people survived simply due to chance.

“Heroics” I get as well—for example, teachers risking their lives to save their students.

“Preparation” definitely—storm shelters no doubt saved many lives. Related to that would be “seasoned experience,” which both led to the preparation and informed people what to do in cases like these.

But “faith”? Where did that come in? I mean, let’s say we’re assuming God controls everything, at least as far as nature is concerned (people have free will). Okay, but then that means that he sent the tornado. I don’t see how faith helps you there. And if it means that praying saved people, then that must also be applied to those who did not survive: did they fail to pray? And if so, did God kill them for it? What if they did pray but died anyway; how would faith have helped them there? Surely there must be many among the survivors who did not pray; why were they left alive?

So, really, I don’t see how faith could possibly be included in that list. Maybe as a coping mechanism afterwards, but in terms of keeping people from harm? Hardly. So why force that into the list? Read the article, and you will see no evidence whatsoever to support the inclusion.

Eventually, the “news media” was also credited, albeit only near the end of the article; acknowledgment of the communication system for warnings is appropriate, surely more than faith was.

However, something far more relevant was pretty much ignored: science. You know how all those people got warned so quickly? Scientists studied how weather works. Scientists, some of whom risk their lives chasing these storms to get the data required, worked out the mechanics of tornado prediction. And scientists developed the technology which brought the message to these people. Not to mention that engineers designed the building structures and shelters that saved so many lives.

So, really, the biggest thanks of all should go to scientists, who probably were #1 on the list of life savers.

How many thanks did they get? How many were mentioned in stories like these?

None.

But faith gets a big “thank you.” Not as big as God himself, though; see the video at top, in which Wolf Blitzer awkwardly tries to actually press a “thanks” to the Lord for the woman and her child surviving the storm. It’s not just that she was an atheist, but rather that Blitzer seemed so eager to get a “Thanks be to Jesus!” out of her.

Next time, Wolf, ask someone if they might want to say a word of thanks to the nameless scientists who did most of the work. But then, if he did that instead of trying to praise Jesus, then he’d be part of the War on Christianity™.

None of this will stop Republicans and their PR machine from claiming they are scandals worse than Watergate-times-infinity-plus-one, however. Republicans desperately want a scandal to be there, and will never stop investigating, will never stop reacting in false outrage, and will never stop making baseless accusations which they claim are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Republican leaders in Congress have refused to investigate who exposed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked after her husband, Joe Wilson, challenged the administration’s claims that Iraq sought nuclear weapons. They have held virtually no public hearings on the hundreds of misleading claims made by administration officials about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.

They have failed to probe allegations that administration officials misled Congress about the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill. And they have ignored the ethical lapses of administration officials, such as the senior Medicare official who negotiated future employment representing drug companies while drafting the prescription drug bill. …

There is a simple but deplorable principle at work. In both the Clinton and Bush eras, oversight has been driven by raw partisanship. Congressional leaders have vacillated between the extremes of abusing their investigative powers and ignoring them, depending on the party affiliation of the president.

Nor were they really trying that hard to hide why:

Republican Rep. Ray LaHood aptly characterized recent congressional oversight of the administration: “Our party controls the levers of government. We’re not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn.”

In fact, they not only avoided investigations, they deplored them as unpatriotic and damaging to the nation. They went so far as to make the claim that any such investigations would derail the business of government and cause us to plummet into an abyss of anarchy and terror. And no, I’m not really exaggerating here. They claimed that such investigations would literally cause terror attacks. Starting in early 2006, Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, sent out multiple fundraising letters which warned that Democrats would try to investigate, censure and impeach Bush if they took back Congress. This warning, for example, went out in March:

The Democrats’ plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?

Here’s another from May:

This year, we face another momentous choice. Fight and defeat the terrorists, or retreat from the central front in the War on Terror. Live up to our calling as Americans to stand for freedom, or choose Democrats, who are being as clear as they possibly can that they will censure and impeach the President if they win back Congress.

Republicans continued to use this scare tactic even after Pelosi specifically ruled out any attempt at impeachment should Democrats take back Congress.

Of course, Democrats did win back both houses in 2006—and did not try to investigate, censure, or impeach Bush, despite having a long list of offenses which richly merited such attention.

Like the post’s title said, this is nothing new. However, it does bear repeating from time to time when it is at peak tide.

Precisely. I’ve also been reading Thomas Frank’s Pity the Billionaire, which deals with the same topic from a different perspective.

The frustrating thing is, this should be so obvious, as obvious as the fact that the Laffer curve was full of crap. And yet millions, even a majority, buy into the bull.

Money naturally circulates upward; in order for an economy to work well, there must be some kind of mechanism to circulate the money back down. Conservatives think that jobs will perform this function all by themselves, even as they try to destroy unions, deny workers benefits, and otherwise minimize that precise flow downwards. In fact, a healthily progressive tax system and good working conditions are what create jobs and a prosperous economy.

The best way to stimulate the economy is to inject the money into the lower half of the economic cycle; injecting it into the upper half is counter-productive.

Taxing the rich is not only a good thing, it is a necessary thing. Government spending on infrastructure, education, and supporting the poorest among us is not just a good thing, it is a necessary thing. If you truly wish to have a robust economy.

But just as we still prosecute the same old drug war despite decades of studies telling us that decriminalization and treatment would be light-years better, we still bridle against the bloody obvious in economics.

We know it’s a fact that dollar for dollar, food stamps are the most effective stimulus mechanism, followed closely by unemployment benefits and infrastructure spending, and yet most of the nation seems to accept Republican whining about how that will destroy the economy.

It is just as solid a fact that dividend & capital tax gain tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, and the billionaire-slanted Bush tax cuts are among the absolute worst stimulators–and yet we somehow allow right-wingers to insist that these be given a priority.

We’ve tried it the Republican way for 30 years and we have nearly destroyed our economy. Now right-winger shriek about how they have never gotten a chance and how liberals have ruined everything. They are absolutely wrong. Tax rates for the wealthy and for corporations should rise, for their own good as well as everyone else’s. Tax rates for the middle class should stay the same (being as low as they are) or be eased. Money should be spent on infrastructure, scientific & technological research, and education.

I pointed out that the definition of “appeasement” requires the actor to “pacify or placate someone by acceding to their demands.”

Now, in retrospect, I see that in fact, they were right about Obama. Not in that he appeased Hamas or Iran or anyone they were suggesting… but that Obama is an appeaser at home. His major flaw is genuinely wanting to bring in a consensus, despite facing an implacably irrational opposition dead-set to oppose him on any grounds.

Bush and McCain were correct, just not about who Obama would, to our own ruin, appease.

It’s a blind spot that has cost us dearly.

One email leaked by Republicans, from Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser to President Obama, read thus:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

The problem? He didn’t write that. The administration released the actual emails today. In the email quoted above, the genuine quote is:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

Just a wee bit different, wouldn’t you say?

Turns out that CBS, which received the leaked emails and reported them on May 10, were none too pleased at having been lied to. Their original report did not specify where they had gotten the emails.

This is a common game in D.C.: partisan players leak info damaging to the other side, but demand anonymity so that it won’t look like a partisan attack. The news agency reports the information without naming the biased source, thus presenting the appearance that the information is more trustworthy and not part of a political attack.

Except in this case, the release included intentionally faked information to make the administration look bad—meaning that Republicans hoodwinked CBS into making a false political smear against the administration.

So today, they not only noted the altered emails, they also revealed their source as having been Republicans.

Another alteration, this one of an email purportedly written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland, read:

…and the penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency [CIA] about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda…[which] could be abused by members of Congress to fault the State Department for not paying attention… so why would we want to cede that, either?

The actual email:

…and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings, so why would we want to cede that, either?

The main point that Republicans are making is that the Obama administration altered information given to the public for political purposes. Which is exactly what the Republicans did here.

You might wonder, “Why is this at all important? The changes don’t seem too great, and it’s not as big an impact as the government misinforming the people in the midst of a presidential election.”

The answer is that, in the case of the administration reports before the election, it is virtually impossible that different reporting by the administration could have altered the election. After all, Republicans were making great hay about Benghazi in the final weeks of the election; had there been 100% perfect transmission of information from the administration from Day One, there would have been far less damage to the administration—and yet, despite the greater damage, Obama still won handily. In short, the impact of the claimed distortions was petty, at best.

On the other hand, Republicans would clearly love to impeach Obama over this controversy; failing that, they wish to damage Obama at least to the degree of derailing his political agenda and bringing even more gridlock and delay to government policies intended to repair the economy and fix the problems we face. In which case, faked information could have a substantially significant impact.

In the end, however, this entire affair comes down to nothing more than sordid and contemptible political game-playing—which means that facts have little impact on what will happen. It’s has moved from a matter of saying and doing things with meaning, to a reprehensible game of creating and fighting back against absurd partisan narratives.

We no longer have a functioning government. But then, that is hardly news.

UPDATE: New Headline!

FOX: NEW EVIDENCE HILLARY KILLED LINCOLN

The accusation against Mrs. Clinton drew a strong response from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.—S. Carolina): “There’s been a concerted effort by Hillary Clinton to cover up her role in President Lincoln’s murder. She has said nothing about it. This is bigger than Watergate, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Second World War put together.”

We are now seeing mass shootings as common occurrences, and it is most likely we are become inured to them. After a shooter kills a few dozen first-graders, after all, what’s all that big about 19 shot in a New Orleans Mother’s Day parade?

Certainly, we should not react in a shocked manner, and absolutely it’s not something that should, for the nth time, trigger discussion about actually doing something about reasonable gun control. After all, HITLER! And OBAMA WILL CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS! And BOOGAH BOOGAH!!

Though I am not sure what effect this will have; after Newtown, not only did Congress fail to pass gun control, they actually passed laws that weakened gun control. Will the New Orleans mass shooting trigger even more pro-gun laws? Hard to tell.

It does beg the question: what will it take?

At least 19 injured in New Orleans Mother’s Day shooting
Sunday, May 12, 2013
At least nineteen people in New Orleans, including two children, were injured on Sunday when multiple gunmen opened fire on a Mother’s Day parade, police said. A 10-year-old boy and 10-year-old girl were grazed by bullets but are in good condition, New Orleans Police spokesman Garry Flot said in a statement.

But hey, no one was killed, right? Just like no one was killed here:

North Vallejo Little League cancels Saturday games after shooting
Sunday, May 12, 2013
VALLEJO, Calif. (KGO) — Vallejo Little League players are disappointed after they learned that all of thier Saturday games were cancelled because of another shooting near one of their fields. This is the second time shots were fired near North Vallejo little league players.

I mean, just because we have multiple incidents of shots being fired near Little League games doesn’t me we should be concerned! After all, who would be upset that kids can’t play baseball in their own neighborhood for fear of being shot? Besides, we all know that Vallejo is a shooting gallery anyway.

And it’s not like any of this is unusual. In an incomplete count, Slate tallies a minimum of 3963 shooting deaths in 149 days, about 25 people killed each day. But don’t worry, only 75 were children—well, unless you count the 199 teens. But that’s only three or four children and ten teenage kids killed a week. Perfectly acceptable losses for the right to unfettered gun ownership!

Why bother with training, controls, screening, and registration when we’re only talking about 60 small children slaughtered every year? 70 tops! And only 500 or so teens, which is OK, because they don’t count as much. [Note: suicides are typically not counted in the tolls being referenced here.]

Here’s a very small sampling of gun violence in the past 24 hours, from Google News—and you can be certain that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Buncombe County Triple Shooting
Sunday, May 12 2013, 03:33 PM EDT
The Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a domestic shooting that injured two people and left another dead. It happened around 1:30 this morning on Rathfarahan Circle. Investigators say Arthur McArdle and Banning McArdle were taken to Mission Hospital. The shooter, Joshua McArdle, died at the scene from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Deputies say there are no other suspects. Neighbors tell News 13 Joshua Mcardle had been fighting with his father and brother for the past few days.

Four injured during shooting at motorcycle club
May 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM
APACHE JUNCTION, Ariz. — Four people were injured early Sunday morning when a shootout took place at a motorcycle club in Apache Junction.

Police Investigating Double Shooting In Hartford
2:37 p.m. EDT, May 12, 2013
HARTFORD—
Police are investigating a double shooting that took place early Sunday morning on Lawrence Street. Police said officers responded to the area of 172 Lawrence St. at 1:54 a.m. for reports of several shots fired. When they arrived at the scene they found one victim shot in the arm. A second victim arrived later at St. Francis with a gunshot wound to the foot, police said.

Four dead in Waynesville shooting
May 12, 2013
Autopsies will be conducted Monday on the bodies of four people murdered inside a home in Waynesville in Bartholomew County.

Man, woman wanted in connection to D.C. shooting
May 12, 2013 6:01 pm
Police are on the lookout for a male and female in connection with a shooting on the District’s southeast side early Sunday morning. Around 1:43 a.m. Sunday, D.C. police responded to reports of a shooting on the 2500 block of Pennsylvania Avenue SE. On the scene, authorities found an adult male suffering from an apparent gunshot wound. He was conscious and breathing.

Elderly man charged with murder after Mother’s Day shooting
May 12, 2013 at 6:33 PM
GASTON COUNTY, N.C. – Police arrested an elderly man after they said he shot and killed a woman Sunday afternoon. The shooting happened around 12:30 p.m. on Venn Drive. Authorities said they answered a call for a cardiac arrest, but when they arrived they found Vivian Schronce, 80, shot in the chest. Shortly after the shooting, she was pronounced dead at Caromont Regional Medical Center.

Hammond man killed at party early Sunday
May 12, 2013
HAMMOND | A 21-year-old man was killed after being gunned down early Sunday at a party on the 600 block of Sibley Street in Hammond, police said. Jeffrey Morgan, of the 6400 block of Monroe Avenue in Hammond, died from multiple gunshot wounds about 1:27 a.m., according to a release from the Lake County coroner’s office.

Police search for two suspects in Saturday shooting
MAY 12, 2013
Revere police are searching for two men who allegedly shot a man in the back on Sagamore Street Saturday night before fleeing on foot.

Man killed, woman in critical condition after Jacksonville shooting; 1 in custody
May 12, 2013 – 3:01am
A Jacksonville man who served 21 years in prison for the attempted murder of civil rights leader W.W. Schell is back behind bars after a weekend shooting killed one man and critically injured a woman.

Neighbor heard ‘angry voices’ prior to fatal shooting in Central District
May 12, 2013 at 9:10 AM PDT
SEATTLE — A man believed to be in his 20s was fatally shot in the city’s Central District neighborhood early Sunday morning, Seattle Police said.

Man, 22, Killed In Bridgeport Shooting
4:35 p.m. EDT, May 12, 2013
BRIDGEPORT—
Police are investigating a fatal shooting Sunday morning on Berkshire Avenue near the Noble Avenue intersection. Police responded to the area at 4:15 a.m. after receiving a report of gunfire and found a parked silver Ford Fusion with several bullet holes, authorities said. Inside the car was Robert Rivera, 22, of Bridgeport, who had been shot multiple times, police said.

Just another Sunday in America. But hey, freedom ain’t free, right? And if we had to get training for guns and submit to background checks, we wouldn’t be free, now would we? Mandatory firearm safety training? Might as well just lock us all in concentration camps. FEMA has some ready, I hear.

In this world where everyone is a publisher, there is a trend to the extreme — where those who want to stand out opt for sensationalism and hyperbole over nuanced analysis. In this world where page views are currency, heat is often more valued than light. Stark black-and-white caricatures are sometimes more valued than shades-of-gray reality.

So let’s pause for a moment and consider the center. In the center, selling 100 million copies of a product is a good thing. In the center, listening to feedback and improving a product is a good thing.

“Nuanced analysis” being sales-talk for “I’m about to lie to you.” Hate to carp on this, buddy, but you didn’t sell 100 million copies. That may be the pipeline number, but as for actual copies sold and in use, the number is closer to 60 million. Some of the licenses have been shipped but not sold, and a good many are simply not used—users even pay a premium so they can downgrade to Windows 7.

Not to mention that of the 60 million probable actual sales, it is more than likely that most were not willful, but instead were people who simply bought computers and Windows 8 happened to be on them. Not to mention that Windows 8 is now on tablets, which cannot downgrade to Windows 7, and tablet sales are included in the numbers reported, inflating the overall numbers and yet making the picture more dismal for the Desktop.

This all means that instead of matching the adoption rate of Windows 7, Windows 8 is doing probably only about half as well, if even that.

Which, of course, is in line with reality, as most people agree: Windows 8 sucks on desktop computers. I get the same vibe from W8 users that I got from Vista users. If Vista was a Chrome-Plated Turd, Win 8 is a Turd in a Metro interface. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not just trashing Windows, else I would call W8 a total failure. The fact is, for a tablet, 8 is supposedly a sweet ride. But that’s the problem: Microsoft designed 8 for tablets, and apparently figured that it would be perfectly fine for desktops as well.

Which raises the same question I had on the first day of the Windows 8 public beta release: What the frack is Microsoft thinking? It took me all of five minutes to conclude that Windows 8 was a complete and total frack-up on a desktop. It was not an act of genius on my part, it was simply stupendously obvious.

I mean, really: changes to the basic user interface without even a hint to users about what to do? No tutorial? No step-by-step? Are you kidding me? And then later, with the official release, still no compensation?

And even if Microsoft had decided to keep the Start menu in it, the OS was hardly a worthy upgrade for desktop users in the first place.

Shaw’s complaint comes across as… well, let’s just say that if we pause for a moment and consider the center, the center is realizing that you have seriously screwed up and so you have to cover your ass with excuses. Which explains his corporate ass-covering statement.

Microsoft has had four OS releases in the past 12 years. Two have been successful, stable, and well-liked releases. However, the other two have been breathtaking pieces of crap.

That’s not really a very good track record.

Ponta got bit today. We took him to the hospital and had him treated. The wound was about an inch long and required four stitches.

We usually take Ponta to Koganei Park, a large park to the south of here. It has a three-pen dog run, big with good trees and running area. The pens are separated into large dogs, small dogs, and an exercise area for retrieving and so forth.

Ponta is small, but too big for the small-dog pen, so we always take him to the large pen. He is aloof from other dogs, but plays with partners that are usually his own size. Today, for example, there was a Shiba mix named “Penne” that Ponta got along great with.

Sometimes there are aggressive dogs. The first time we came, a Shiba mix named Sakura kept bullying Ponta, but he got over it. Several months ago, a chocolate lab named Cocoa was very aggressive with Ponta, to the point where I had to pick Ponta up to protect him.

Today, there were two white shepherds, dogs we had seen at the run several times before. They are sizably bigger than most of the dogs in the run, and tend to be pretty forward—not so much aggressive as they simply are big and imposing. Ponta got along OK with them, at least up until today.

Below is an image of the white shepherds and their owner.

Today, we were at the run, and everything was okay. At one point, a few new dogs, a pair of border collies, were introduced. Ponta didn’t seem to like them very much, but had approached one. He growled and barked a bit, and the other dog growled and barked back—nothing really unusual, but enough for me to get up and stand over them, ready to pull Ponta out should things get dicey.

Just as Ponta and the collie had a bark-and-stance, with one other dog close in, one of the white shepherds jumped into them, and it devolved into what I suppose you could call a scrum—all dogs at close quarters, barking and making such close contact that there was no space between any of them. Almost immediately, within a second or so, I saw the shepherd bite into Ponta’s neck, and had no doubt that this was way more serious than usual. Ponta yelped and more or less screamed, and it was clear that his teeth were deep into Ponta’s neck.

Within a few seconds, the scrum separated, but the shepherd kept coming after Ponta. Ponta was unmistakably scared and defensive, trying to get away. I placed my body between them—the shepherd did not seem like he was dangerous to humans—and then I picked Ponta up. At that point, I was not sure that Ponta’s skin had been broken, but I was fairly sure he had taken some damage, even if just a bruise.

But here was where I became livid at the owner of the shepherds: the jerk didn’t do anything about his dogs. He hadn’t when the one got out of hand, and he didn’t when they started harassing me. I was holding Ponta up, but the shepherd was still going after him, jumping up next to me, barking, and scaring the crap out of Ponta.

And the ass who owned the dog still did nothing.

After 5 or 10 seconds, I got Ponta away from that area and the shepherd lost interest. The owner still took zero interest, though Ponta was clearly hurt. I probed Ponta’s neck and was shocked when I felt my finger go through a puncture in Ponta’s skin—easily big enough that it was clear the wound was bigger than my finger. It felt warm and wet, and when I drew my finger out, it had blood on it.

I turned to the owner, who was peering at us, and I said, rather clearly, “Ana ga aru! Chi ga deru!” (“There’s a hole! Blood is coming out!”)

The owner did not react, but simply turned and walked away, apparently unconcerned.

Ponta was a wreck; he was whimpering and his tail was down, and when I held him his heart was beating like crazy and he was shaking awfully hard. Sick with worry, we got Ponta out of there, back to the car, and took him to the nearest animal hospital. Our usual doctor’s office is closed from 12:30 to 4:00 pm; by the time we got out of the park, it was almost 3:00. The vet’s office answered, and Sachi explained Ponta’s injury while I drove—but they refused to treat Ponta until their break was over.

So instead, we drove to a hospital a bit farther from our house (but very close to our old apartment) where they opened up at 3:30, which was five minutes or so after we arrived. As we were waiting, it became clear that Ponta was bleeding a bit—but his neck fur is so thick, it’s kind of hard to see anything, and it holds the blood in.

That doesn’t look like much, but when I pulled his fur back, the seriousness of the wound was somewhat more clear:

We got in to see the vet, and they started treating Ponta right away. The vet said that they would have to shave the area (which I expected), and then they could assess the damage and do whatever they needed to do. They took Ponta in, and Sachi and I waited outside.

After a few minutes, we started hearing Ponta make frightened noises, so I asked the receptionist if we could come in and calm him down. After another minute, they called us in. As they treated Ponta, we were able to hold him and tell him what a good boy he was. This calmed him considerably, and I am really grateful to the vet for letting us do that.

Ponta was sitting on an exam table, being held bodily by a nurse, with a plastic cone around his neck, the wound being enough below it to not cause a problem. This also helped as Ponta could not see anything but us.

We could see the doctor working, however, and saw the damage—an inch-long crescent-shaped tear (the vet had clipped away excess damaged flesh). I am including the photo, but am hiding it behind a link—it is pretty graphic.

Image of Ponta’s neck wound (will open in new tab or window)

The doc gave Ponta a local anesthetic, cleaned the wound, and then stitched it up and applied an antibiotic ointment before wrapping it; again, I’ve put an image behind a link, this time of the stitches (less gory, but still kind of disturbing):

Image of Ponta’s stitches (will open in new tab or window)

The doc applied gauze to the wound, and wrapped Ponta’s neck with long bands of tape, presumably made to not stick disastrously to fur. He said Ponta would be fine, but told us to bring Ponta in two days later. One thing we like about this hospital: not only do they have better hours, they are open 365 days a year, no holidays. This is Golden Week, a huge vacation season, and two days from now is a national holiday.

We took Ponta home, gave him some nice treats (including some rice with his antibiotic medicine), and lots of love. He seems to have recovered emotionally for now, and is resting fine.

Sachi later called up the park office which oversaw the dog run. To our dismay, they refused not only to identify the owner so we could contact him, but also refused to take any action beyond simply making a record of our call. What the hell good is the registration for the place if people can bring dogs that bite and injure other dogs with no repercussions of any kind?

At the very least, I want to confront this guy and hand him the vet’s bill—though, considering his alarming unconcern at the time, I have the feeling he’s not the kind of person who would take any sort of responsibility for his dogs.

Another possibility I am mulling is to make a handout, showing the dogs and the owner, and a photo of Ponta’s wound, describing what happened, and warning people to watch out for those dogs. Maybe post it up outside the run or something.

But then, I am still more than a little pissed at the jackass; maybe I’ll calm down eventually.

One point about all of this which is less bad than expected: vet bills in Japan are much lower than you’d expect. For injections, shaving & cleaning the wound, stitches, ointment, dressing, and the time spent by a vet and a nurse, in addition to a week’s medication, I expected a bill at least in the hundreds of dollars.

Instead, the bill came out to ¥8,295—just $85.

Sachi, meanwhile, simply does not want to return to the dog run at all—a shame, because it’s the only dog run less than 10 minutes’ drive away; we have been going there every two or three weeks for more than a year and a half now. There’s one in Tokorozawa to which there is no direct driving route; there’s another in Nerima we haven’t tried yet. Both would take about 40-45 minutes to get to. We’ll see….

There’s a small candy shop near the station exit, and as I approached, I saw four people standing in front of it: two uniformed police officers, one man in a suit, and one “regular” person, a foreigner. The person in the suit was wearing white gloves.

As I passed, I noted two things: first, the foreigner, a dark-skinned gentleman, spoke English but with an accent that suggested he was a national of an African nation. Second, the man in the suit with gloves spoke English—and was telling the man that he wanted to do a “body search” (I assume he meant a pat-down).

In the 80′s and 90′s it happened constantly. They never patted me down, but they stopped me all the time, very often when I was riding my bicycle, which they always accused me of stealing. They would ask for my ID card (all non-Japanese save for some Koreans are required by law to carry their registration cards with them at all times), sometimes that being the only purpose of the stop.

In recent years, I have not been subjected to this, but it has never stopped for many in the foreign community.

So when I saw what I did this morning, it evoked more than just a little suspicion.

True, it could have been justified—perhaps the man had actually stolen something from the store, maybe it had been caught on video or something. Or it could have been something completely unrelated to the shop.

But here’s the thing: I have never seen police confront anyone on the street in that manner before.

I have seen endless incidents of cops pulling people over in cars for traffic violations, of course. I have seen cops dealing with people in all sorts of situations. But in over 20 years in Japan, I have never see cops stand by as a man in a suit and gloves patted someone down on the street.

As I mentioned, it was somewhat disturbing to see.

First of all, where did the guy in the suit speaking English come from? Certainly not from any local police box, that’s for sure. There were no cop cars parked nearby that could see, no cars at all in fact—the streets there are pretty narrow, it’d be hard to miss. The closest police station of any size is 3km south, a good 12-14 minutes away by car—and even there, I’d be surprised to find English-speaking plain-clothed cops. So where did this guy come from? Was someone holding the man there for a half-hour while they called someone in?

More disturbing, though, was the venue: they were suggesting a pat-down, presumably for shoplifting (though who knows what they were in fact stopping him for), right there in the street.

Is it just me, or is that more than a little improper?

One incident this brought to mind was one of the many times I was stopped on suspicion of stealing the bicycle I was riding, usually in the same area I biked almost every single day. On this one occasion, I was stopped by not one cop, but by about half a dozen, with a squad car and everything. While one peered into my bicycle frame for a serial number to trace, the others grilled me about my job, where I lived, my country of origin, and so on.

Now, at this time—in the late 80′s to early 90′s—there was a great deal of friction between the U.S. and Japan, and part of this played out in police behavior and part in the media. When Americans would appear in TV dramas, they were usually violent, loud, criminal, obnoxious, and/or AIDS carriers. When Japanese pitchers intentionally hit American players with fastballs, the players would rush the mound—prompting media excitation about “害人”, supposed to be the word “foreigner,” gaijin, but spelled with the characters meaning “harmful person.” And so on.

So, when I was surrounded by those cops engaged in the serious business of discovering that I did, indeed, own my own bicycle, I saw Japanese pedestrians walking past and glancing at the tableau—and had no doubt that many were seeing me, and thinking, “So, it’s true.”

Nor did it help that, while I was pulled over with some regularity, and while I saw other foreigners pulled over, I never saw Japanese people pulled over for bike-theft checks. Not that it never happened, but it was pretty clear there was a sharp difference in how such stops were decided.

Ergo I am sensitive to such displays which center on foreign residents.

It is possible that what I saw was completely legit. However, the fact that I never seen anything even resembling this treatment before raises doubts with me.

Am I being unreasonable? I’d be interested in anyone’s thoughts on this…