Hillary got a big boost quoting a Saturday Night Live skit when it parodied the media having an Obama love-fest. I wonder if she’ll be quoting this SNL bit:

Yes, it absolutely savages Hillary in a totally unfair manner. If you’re a Hillary supporter and don’t like it, then just join the club. Maybe the media can get you a pillow or something.

Another tack Obama should take: deconstructing McCain’s image as a campaign finance reform champion. With all the campaign finance laws and rules McCain has twisted and broken (not to mention breaking many of his own policies), from using his wife’s corporate jet while she steadfastly refuses to make her tax returns public, to violating federal law on withdrawing from public financing without FEC approval and after having used public financing as collateral on a loan and Bush’s attempt to re-staff the FEC to ignore McCain’s violations, Obama could have a field day with McCain on what is supposed to be one of McCain’s strongest issues.

And that’s before we even get to the fact that McCain has surrounded himself with lobbyists. Consider today’s news: a second McCain aide had to resign because he’s a lobbyist for the brutal regime in Myanmar. Think about that: McCain had not one, but two campaign aides who were paid lobbyists for the same small foreign power. McCain has so many lobbyists working for him that two are significantly connected with a relatively unknown southeast Asian ruling junta. You could probably throw a dart at the issues board and be assured of hitting something connected to more than one lobbyist working for McCain these days. After getting all that laid out in public view, we can move on to the many instances of McCain exerting his official influence to pay back lobbyists who have him in their pocket.

Of course, with this issue and the issue of McBush/McSame, the problem lies in getting the media to recognize it. But there should be an easy way: somebody at SNL should write a skit where the media is ignoring every single McCain misstep while jumping down Obama’s throat on the irrelevant stuff. It’d be a funny skit, and if the media responds to it like they did to the skit which had them loving Obama, then there should be an immediate dumping on John McCain like never before.

Obama should continue striking this theme. Remember how the Republicans successfully hung Clinton on Gore in 2000; Gore’s big mistake there was to distance himself from Clinton, whose popularity was high at the time–more than twice Bush’s rating now, Clinton was in the 60% range. Obama could easily hang McCain with 28% Bush, seeing as how McCain’s policies are very, very close to the current president’s, whose unfavorables are higher than Nixon’s just before he was forced to resign.

The beauty of this tactic is that it’s policy based, not distraction based, and draws upon huge dissatisfaction not only in the country in general, but from within the Republican ranks as well. Bush is not only divisive for the country, he is also now divisive within his own party. And while McCain and his supporters have tried to distance themselves from Bush, they find that when pressed, they cannot–and more importantly, do not want to–draw that distinction. A prime example, via My DD:

BLITZER: You just heard Congressman Van Hollen say that he represents a third Bush term. You know how unpopular the job approval numbers are right now.

[HOUSE GOP WHIP ROY] BLUNT: I don’t think anybody believes that. I think everybody does believe from his record that here is somebody who has always been willing to complain about the way business was done in Washington. And, frankly, people want to see that…

BLITZER: When it comes to domestic economic issues, what is the major difference between President Bush’s policies, what he wants to do, and what John McCain would do if he were president?

BLUNT: Well, I think what John McCain wants to do is continue these pro-growth tax policies that our friends on the other side have been talking…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But that’s what President Bush wants to do too.

BLUNT: And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

Emphasis mine. Rather amazing, isn’t it, how Blunt morphs from “Nobody believes that” to “I believe it, and it’s a good thing” so quickly. It’s pretty laughable when you know what to look for.

And that’s the key: McCain doesn’t want to be seen stating emphatically that he’s no George W. Bush, that he thinks Bush is a failure. McCain will spout on about how he’s criticized this president, how he was the first and the loudest out there to say Bush made mistakes–but when it comes down to it, he’s not gonna say that Bush was a bad president. McCain is in bed with Bush in terms of policies on the economy, Iraq, energy, taxes, abortion, foreign policy, gun control, health care, corporate welfare, deregulation, stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing constructionist judges, the list goes on. Ironically, McCain is also the same as Bush, from the right-wing perspective, on immigration, which will hurt him with Republicans. Hell, McCain even voted with Bush on torture, when it came down to it. The biggest contrast with Bush is supposed to be campaign finance reform, but with McCain violating campaign finance laws and ripping the laws’ spirit to shreds, there’s really not much of an actual difference there, either.

With this line of attack, Obama can (a) be telling the truth, (b) stick to policy debates instead of trivial distractions, and (c) go way negative on McCain without actually going negative–and McCain would have a hard time saying how being equated to Bush is a “negative” attack without alienating his core base.

From Maureen Dowd:

Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton. …how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black?

Like asking whether an irresistible force or an immovable object wins in a face-off, it’s the question itself which is flawed. Obama would have to be an egomaniacal idiot to think it was necessary to “punish” Hillary. I happen to think that he’s a wee bit better than that. He won’t seek to punish Hillary, he’ll try to figure out what’s the best way to push on in his campaign. If he addresses Hillary, it’ll be out of necessity, not spite.

Either that, or else Obama’s not the man I believe him to be.

In Nagoya today, a man was arrested after dousing himself with kerosene. The police kept asking him to change out of his clothes, but he refused. The police didn’t seem capable of getting rid of the kerosene by either removing his clothing by coercion or force, or by shoving him into a shower and washing the stuff off of him.

Instead, they gave him cigarettes and a lighter.

Oh, I’m sorry, I misreported that. According to the news source, the man, who was being held in police custody, somehow “gained access to a lighter.”

Surprisingly, the man caught on fire.

Who could have seen that coming?

During the 2000 election, Bush repeatedly attacked Clinton for cutting military spending and allowing the armed forces to weaken, primarily because of deployments in the Balkans:

“If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report …, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’”

But Maj. Thomas Collins, an Army spokesman, told CNN: “All 10 Army divisions are combat-ready, fully able to meet their war-fighting mission.”

The ten divisions included the two that Bush claimed were not ready–a claim clearly recognizable as false, as the two divisions were at that time deployed, therefore obviously ready to report for duty. That didn’t stop Bush, of course. He claimed that the Clinton administration was responsible for the cuts in military spending–ignoring the fact that Bush’s father (with Dick Cheney at his side) started the cuts as part of the post-Cold-War “Peace Dividend,” that Bush 41 cut more funding than Clinton had, and that Clinton was actually reversing the trend of cuts and was starting to increase military spending.

Bush has increased military spending to levels higher than at the end of the Cold War, a tragic irony considering that despite the expenditures, Bush has broken the military and made it less ready to fight a war than it has been since after Vietnam. Clinton’s military was positively buff in comparison.

Today, the U.S. military has been stretched far too thin. Think that’s a convenient liberal myth? Then think again–that’s what “3,400 active and retired officers at the highest levels of command”–that means officers of the rank of Major or higher–said in a recent survey (PDF). 88% reported that the Iraq War has “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.” Not just thin, but dangerously thin. 52% of all interviewed said they “strongly agreed” with that assertion.

And that’s not the only opinion they have: 60% say the military is weaker now than it was 5 years ago; the three most important reasons were cited as the pace of troop deployments and rotations, civilian leadership/oversight, and wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, according to 76% of those who thought the military is weaker. Only 2% of the one-quarter minority who thought the military is stronger cited civilian leadership as the reason (53% said it was “personnel with more experience, education, and training”).

80% said it would be unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to successfully wage another major war somewhere else in the world today. 50% said “very unreasonable.” Only 3% said “very reasonable.” So, what was that Bush was saying in 2000 about two of ten divisions reporting “not ready” if called on for duty?

74% said that the Bush administration set unreasonable goals for the military in post-war Iraq. Only 7% approved of using criminal and health waivers to beef up the military–the least-approved of measure, which is exactly what the Bush administration is resorting to now.

52% said that the military is weaker than it was 10 years ago, under Clinton, as opposed to 35% who said it was stronger; this coming from a strongly conservative military community–so much for Bush’s claims. Almost the exact same number–51%–said the military is weaker today than it was in 1993, when Bush 41 handed it over to Clinton. Again, a sharp blow to the idea that Clinton was the one who weakened the military somehow.

After five years and endless reports that our soldiers are not being equipped properly, 45% still report that the administration is still equipping soldiers “inadequately,” as opposed to 34% who said the equipment was “adequate.”

37% said that Iran has gained the greatest strategic advantage from the war in Iraq; China came in second at 22%, and the U.S. third at 19%. Heckuva job, Bushie!

95% of those who responded to the survey had served at least 16 years; 81% had served 21 or more years.

After understanding all of that, consider that John McCain wants to keep our troops in Iraq for another fifty to one hundred years.

While Hillary is making a huge deal out of the fact that more uneducated but hardworking white voters in Indiana and North Carolina are voting slightly more for her than they were before, is she also going to recognize that her 10-point win in California has changed into a 6-point loss to Obama, with men and women, not to mention white voters in general, surging in Obama’s favor? This (PDF) from SUSA, one of the most accurate polling outfits.

Or does California also not matter any more?

Last December, Mitt Romney made a speech addressing concerns about his Mormonism, in which he said:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. …

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

Throughout the speech, Romney kept referring to America as a nation of Christians, making no reference to anyone who was not a believer–you get the feeling that such Americans either don’t exist, or else that they are the shadowy someones that Romney suggests are trying to steal god away from the real Americans.

After the speech, it was pointed out to him that he had excluded atheists from his speech; Romney reacted as if he didn’t understand what was being said. And it may be exactly like that–that people with such strong religious beliefs are blind to the exclusion they impose on the non-religious.

Surprisingly, Romney is now expressing a small degree of regret for that exclusion, though a close look at the statement and Romney’s overall opinions makes one wonder exactly what he means by it:

Upon reflection, I came to understand that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity . . . an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty. If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

This statement is nice, but it is rather weak and tempered–not to mention that it still demonstrates a lack of understanding on Romney’s part. For example, “it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned”? It “may” be? Earth to Romney: it already is. In a country where no one without Christian beliefs has even the slimmest chance to approach a position of leadership, where religion is infused into the public debate to an enormous degree, where extremist religious forces are constantly trying to inject religious themes, practices, doctrine and monuments into courts, schools, and government offices as well as the public square, non-believers are constantly under a fire that represents such a natural state to many believers that they cannot see it any more than they can see the air around them.

In fact, the state constitutions or bills of rights in Maryland, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee all require a belief in god in order to hold political office in those states; Arkansas and Maryland constitutions both say that you cannot be a witness before a court unless you believe in god. These laws may be trumped by the 6th Article of and the First Amendment to the federal constitution, but if such a case were to be brought to today’s supreme court, I would not bet on such an outcome.

Does Romney really believe that non-believers are not condemned? Homosexuals and Muslims are heartily condemned in American society, and yet both of those hated groups are considered far more desirable than atheists. A recent survey showed that nearly half of all Americans view atheists as the most “dangerous or threatening” of all groups in the country, that atheists are the most distrusted and disapproved-of group. Atheists are excluded from many social organizations, including the Boy Scouts–excluded in a way that if you substituted the word “Christian” for the word “Atheist” in their charters, there would be a huge public outcry. This in a nation where the 80% majority cries persecution, claiming there is a “war” being waged against their religion because retailers say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

It is also questionable as to what Romney means by “religious liberty” in his recent statement; he obviously detests secularism, so does he mean that atheists and agnostics have a vital self-interest at stake which can only be protected by allowing the unfettered injection of religion into public and government arenas? I’d love to hear some clarification by Romney on this. But it seems to me that Romney is simply taking the opportunity to sound conciliatory, while in fact trying to tell non-believers that they’d better stop trying to defend secularism, or else their own belief systems could come under attack.

The answer: it depends. It depends on how you count superdelegates. You may have noticed that almost every news organization has a different tally. Many are reporting that Obama has taken the lead, primarily based upon the reports out of ABC and the tendency of people leaning towards Obama to favor the first report to say so. But not everyone is in agreement.

As of this moment, CNN has Clinton ahead by four, 272 to 268. Fox has Hillary retaining a lead at 271.5 to 267. The AP has it close, with Clinton at 272.5 to Obama’s 271. USAToday has Clinton ahead by a hair, 271.5 to 271, a count which MSNBC agrees with. CBS has a slightly larger lead for Clinton–271 to 270.

The New York Times just tipped from one to the other, with Obama taking the lead 265 to 264. The Politico has Obama with a wider lead, 271 to 207.5. But ABC was the first to give Obama the lead, now counting his delegates at 267 versus Hillary’s 265.

You might think that such a count would be straightforward, with superdelegates either being for one candidate or not, but apparently it’s not so simple. The Politico ran a story explaining why about a month ago. Apparently, each news organization has different rules about who to count and who not to. First, everyone seems to have different sources; some rely on claims by the campaigns, others do not. It is up to each news office to decide whether to count only official announcements, which leaners to take how seriously, whose word to take, or what technicalities to observe. For example, one superdelegate voiced support for Obama, but had to take it back because of state party rules; the NY Times doesn’t count her, but the Politico does.

You might also wonder how candidates can have half a delegate, as many tallies show; this is because of Democrats Abroad, who have eight supers, but each only counts as half a delegate. That’s where those halves come from.

Only one thing seems for sure: as Obama picks up close to a dozen superdelegates in just a day or two, while Hillary gained one while having another switch to Obama, it seems pretty inevitable that within a day or two, everyone will have Obama in the lead. And with that in Obama’s column, Hillary has pretty much nothing left. Obama has pledged delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, the most states won, so forth and so on.

The only way Hillary can claim the lead in any way is by using baseball stats–you know, where announcers tell you that a player leads the league in triples scored in away games when it’s raining and the opposing team is wearing their white shoes. Hillary sent out a PowerPoint presentation saying that she’s ahead in winning “competitive” districts, in other words, 20 districts where freshmen Democrats won elections in Republican-leaning areas. That’s spiffy and all that, but when you get to such specific breakdowns, you could probably make a convincing argument that John Edwards should get the superdelegates’ votes. It’s just playing with the numbers.

A lot of people not only figure Hillary will not give up, but that she should stay in the race–provided that she tones down the mudslinging and becomes as civilized and conciliatory as Obama has become.

Clearly, Hillary is having none of that. Not only has she sent out that presentation, she made a claim that has made more than a few people upset–that AP exit polls “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Aside from the unfortunate wording that makes her sound like she’s saying that black Americans are not hard-working, there remains the fact that she is emphasizing racial lines, and doing so selectively, and in a divisive way. I mean, really, whites in Indiana and North Carolina who had not completed college were edging in her direction? The numerical consequence of such a swing is insignificant considering the difference between party and general elections taking place six months apart; it’s almost like she’s trying more to draw Obama or his supporters into making “hillbilly” comments than actually making a case that she deserves to win.

Update: In Kentucky, Clinton goes on about how Obama is unelectable, that he will lose to McCain, and that he is disregarding the people of that state and others like it.

However you slice it, Hillary is not changing her tactics, and more and more people have got to be wondering: what is her end game here? The most conspiracy-theory minded have Hillary intentionally throwing the election to McCain so she can retain party control and have a shot at winning in 2012; the more charitably-minded simply say that she’s got nothing to lose, that an argument could be made for promoting party registration and that while she may not win, she still has a chance if Obama does anything between now and the convention to make him unelectable. An incredibly long shot, at best, but personally, she has little if anything to lose.

Then there is the negotiation theory: that Hillary is trying to angle herself, if not for the nomination, then for the best consolation prize she can get. Many say she wants the VP slot (perhaps with other concessions, like say over cabinet appointments), giving her influence and a guaranteed shot at the 2016 race (she’d be 69 then, however); others think she wants a top party leadership spot; many believe she is holding out for Obama to pay off not only her campaign debt, but the $11 million she and Bill spent on the campaign as well.

Obama has rather clearly switched to the high road here, saying only nice and/or respectful stuff about Hillary, focusing his criticism on McCain, and otherwise acting the part of the party nominee without making that actual claim.

What happens next? Stay tuned.

McCain has been riding a smear against Obama for some time now, attempting to link Obama to Hamas, a terrorist organization. This started when, about a month ago, an political advisor for Hamas approved of Obama:

Hamas’ top political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, embraced the Obama campaign Sunday in an interview on WABC radio, saying, “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election.”

He compared the Illinois senator to President John F. Kennedy, saying he was a “great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.”

Obama immediately rejected the unsolicited approval by that organization, denouncing Hamas and criticizing former president Carter’s meetings with them. His campaign released this statement:

Senator Obama has repeatedly rejected and denounced the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many innocents, that is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. As president, Obama will work with Israel to isolate terrorist groups like Hamas, target their resources, and support Israel’s right and capability to defend itself from any attack.

McCain, however, pounced on the chance to associate Obama with terrorists. On a call with conservative bloggers in late April, McCain said:

I think it’s very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare… If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

McCain continued this attack, repeating it again and again over the past two weeks. Obama responded by criticizing McCain for running a smear campaign, after McCain had repeatedly claimed his campaign would take the high road:

Yeah, this is offensive.

And I think it’s disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I’m not going to run that kind of politics. And then to engage in that kind of, you know, smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy towards Hamas has been no different than his.

I’ve said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they’re willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.

The McCain campaign responded to this not by defending the accusation that Obama is bad because Hamas likes him, nor by explaining how such a charge is somehow compatible with a “clean” campaign; instead, they focused on the comment by Obama that McCain had “lost his bearings.” Obama, with that remark, in the context of just having pointed out McCain’s promise not to practice “that kind of politics,” had clearly and plainly meant “losing his bearings” to mean “straying from his stated principles.” There is no parsing or equivocating here; Obama’s remarks were without any doubt whatsoever a reference to principles, and not age.

The McCain campaign, however, in the grand tradition of Republican political strategy (e.g. “inventing the Internet”), twisted the statement to be an attack on McCain’s age:

McCain senior adviser Mark Salter shot out a memo saying the ”bearings” crack was ”not a particular clever way” of making an issue of McCain’s age. Obama’s ”new brand” of politics, said Salter, was really an attack, and that ”is called hypocrisy.”

Salter said McCain was raising ”legitimate questions” about Obama’s ”judgment and preparedness” to be president. Salter said they won’t be scared off by an Obama team tactic to call ”ANY criticism on ANY issue” — Salter used capital letters — ”negative, personal attacks.”

Now, here’s where the startling bias comes in: the media is not only buying McCain’s complete and utter misrepresentation of Obama’s remark, but they are actually ignoring the complete context of the “bearings” comment. CNN, the very network where Obama first made the comment, carried this exchange:

BANDERAS: Meantime, McCain’s likely opponent, Barack Obama, made what some are calling a dig at John McCain’s age. So, will this be an issue in the general election? We’re talking now to Wendy Schiller, associate professor of political science at Brown University, also a regular guest on The [O’Reilly] Factor. Thank you so much for talking to us.

SCHILLER: Good morning.

BANDERAS: Let’s first address Obama’s comments by basically saying, or possibly bringing up the age issue by saying that McCain is losing his bearings. He has been around. He’s 71 years old. He’s been in the Senate for more than 21 years. He knows how to stand up to a guy like Obama. What do you think?

SCHILLER: Well, I think just like you said — he’s been around for a long time. And I think every time Obama says “age,” you know, McCain says “experience.” And so, it’s a risky strategy for Obama, I think, to go after McCain on his age. Also, let’s not forget: Who votes the most frequently? What’s the biggest turnout rate, highest turnout rate? People over 65 in this country. People are living longer, more active. Nobody over 70 wants to be told that they’re irrelevant. So I think on a double level, I think Obama’s taking a risk here. And I don’t know that it’s going to pay off for him.

Completely ignored the Hamas smear. Completely ignored the context of the statement. Completely misrepresented it’s plainly obvious meaning, and accepted with only the mildest of non-specific caveats the unmistakable re-imagining of its meaning.

Consider: while the statement “losing one’s bearings” can refer to losing one’s faculties, it depends completely on the context. If you are navigating a boat, and I point out that we are off course, and say you have “lost your bearings, you need to change course” can this possibly be construed as a comment on your losing your mind? The answer: only if you force that meaning into the statement, and dishonestly so.

The word “bearings” means “the direction or position of something, or the direction of movement, relative to a fixed point.” So to say one has promised to follow the principles of clean campaigning, devoid of smears, and then has resorted to smears, and so has lost one’s bearings–well, there really is no question here. None at all.

The irony is that in so lying about Obama’s statement, McCain is digging himself even deeper into a combative, smear-based low-road campaign, further violating his own pledge not to campaign dirty. And instead of noting this, the media seems happy to essentially be a mouthpiece for the McCain campaign.

Any journalist who gloms on to McCain’s intentional misinterpretation of the statement without noting the original context is dishonest and biased–whether for political leanings or for sensationalism, either way it’s dishonest and definitely not “journalism.”

Who’d have thought that Batman was a visionary?

Of course, this explains the last eight years as well. Just replace “brass band” with “propaganda news network,” and “pretty girls” with “dirty tricks & slime campaign,” and you pretty much have it right there.

As Christian Fundamentalists work hard to undermine science in the U.S. and the Bush administration subverts the field for their political goals, the Japanese government is planning to hire a new generation of Science teachers for primary, middle, and high schools to spur new interest in the field in Japanese youngsters.

Meanwhile, how is your Internet connection in the U.S.? I currently pay $40/mo. for a 100 Mbps fiber optic line, and the reception’s great. I can do that because years ago, the Japanese government implemented a policy called “e-Japan” to spur Internet development in Japan. It worked, finishing a year ahead of schedule in its goal to make almost all of Japan able to connect to the Net at speeds no less than 30 Mbps at low cost.

The U.S., to this date, still has no coherent policy on Internet development. Beyond, that is, abortive attempts by bought-off congress members to repeal Network Neutrality, allowing the Telecoms to charge even more for Internet connections, while not binding them to any promises to develop faster broadband connections.

All this while Americans are suddenly realizing that gas prices are only going up, and those gas-guzzling SUV’s they thought were so cool are far too expensive to maintain. Guess which country is the only one specializing in smaller, fuel-efficient automobiles?

You would think that at some point, the U.S. would learn a lesson or two. This time around, it’s not so much about Japan being super-smart as it is about America being super-dumb.

Via Andrew Sullivan, an absolutely hilarious and spot-on editorial cartoon from Spain:

Pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?

We just felt another one. This was somewhat closer, a 4.5 magnitude quake just north of Chiba City, not far from the eastern Tokyo border.

Meanwhile, quakes continue to rock the same fault off the coast of Honshu that produced the larger quakes yesterday early morning. The USGS reports twenty quakes over 4 in that area, including a 4.9 just an hour ago.

Sites to monitor quake activity:

http://www.tenki.jp/qua/index.html
http://www.hinet.bosai.go.jp/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_35_eqs.php

Update: we didn’t feel it, but a 5.6 just hit the active area off the coast.

I have begun to notice something about Hillary supporters: they’re beginning to sound laughable almost to the extent of farce. Yesterday, watching Lanny Davis defend Clinton, and today, watching Charles Rangel do the same, I actually laughed out loud listening to them. Rangel, for example, was cheerfully in denial; when asked to explain what possible path Hillary could have left to the nomination, he just said, “I don’t know” and went on about how wonderful Hillary was and how she should absolutely keep fighting, as if not having a path to the nomination was somehow irrelevant. When asked whether Hillary’s loaning more than $6 million of her own money to her campaign in addition to the previous $5 million showed that she was in financial trouble, Rangel happily spouted that it “showed the depth of her commitment” to the campaign.

Even if Hillary’s campaign were not effectively dead, these statements would sound like bluster and denial; but with things the way they are right now, they are downright comically preposterous. Seriously, these performances would not be out of line in a Saturday Night Live skit.

I just felt a quake here (at 1:02 am), which in Ikebukuro above the 20th floor, seemed fairly strong; it was one of those long, swaying types that usually indicates a stronger earthquake some distance away. Sure enough, the quake was some distance off the east coast of Japan, magnitude 6.3. they say there’s no tsunami threat.

The interesting thing is, there seem to have been about half a dozen medium-to-large quakes in roughly the same area over the last 12 hours:

2:39 pm, (5/7/08) M 4.5
6:59 pm, M 4.9
7:50 pm, M 4.6
12:25 am (5/8/08), M 4.6
1:02 am, M 6.3
1:10 am, M 4.2

Damn, there’s another one, feels even bigger than before, but is showing as 5.6:

1:18 am, M 5.6 (correction: M 6.2)

That last one was very shallow, only 100 meters (?) below the surface, again off the east coast in the same area as the others. This is starting to get me worried that it’s building up to something bigger. But it’s really having an effect–it started three minutes ago, and my building is swaying more than before!

Seriously, this is getting creepy.

Update: More quakes registered, though I didn’t feel them:

1:25 am, M 4.1

Plus a few in Tohoku, northern Honshu, under 4.0

Update 2: OK, THAT WAS BIG! A 7.2-magnitude quake, again off the Chiba coast. The place is really rocking now! Woke poor Sachi up. Doors knocked, building creaked. Even felt some up-and-down action at the start.

The TV is saying it was only 6.7, hitting at 1:45 am. The building here is just finishing its rocking, six minutes later. Wow.

Are we finished yet?

The pundits in the press, as I listen to them, are straining as hard as they can to claim that this race is not over yet, even going so far as to suggest that the superdelegates might fall in behind Hillary, a suggestion so ludicrous that it strains credulity to the breaking point. Clinton supporters are going even further, claiming that Hillary’s “win” in Indiana (she was supposed to win by about 5%, she may win by as little as a single percent) is devastating for Obama because a month or two ago, Obama expected to win that state. (Only one poll, a small unknown pollster, had Obama ever being ahead in Indiana.) Clinton herself is on stage now, carrying the Clinton message about how Obama said he was going to win Indiana, and how the polls said he was going to win Indiana (despite all but one very old, outlier poll saying that Hillary was going to win), and that because she has “won” Indiana (by less than she was supposed to, a very thin margin–they haven’t even called the state yet, for criminy’s sake), that this is a “tie-breaker” and therefore, she wins the race! Obama might as well just give up! I know she’s got to put a good face on things, but, I mean, really. Sheesh.

There’s no getting away from one thing: Hillary needed some kind of big win tonight. And while the results are not yet all in, it looks pretty clear: Obama won, and Hillary either lost big or didn’t get the minimal win necessary to make her look credible. Indiana, while not an Obama win, may be a Hillary loss; the networks are still not calling it yet despite 87% of the votes counted with Hillary ahead by 4%, because the last district not reporting is a big one, is adjacent to Obama’s Chicago, has a strong African-American population, and has seen tremendously high turnout. It is even possible, however remote, that Obama could still win Indiana–which would be a huge embarrassment for Hillary. While Clinton will probably win the state, it could be very close; in terms of delegates, it will be just as close, maybe almost an even split. In North Carolina, where Hillary needed to at least get close, she is being taken down by double-digit numbers, perhaps as much as 14%. Obama is outperforming the polls tonight.

Perhaps people will shake off this media-induced fuzz where people forgot that Ohio and Pennsylvania were always Hillary strongholds, and that Obama lost very few delegates in those states despite losing the popular vote. Maybe people will begin to recognize that Obama is still dominating the superdelegate gains, that he is now less than 20 superdelegates behind Hillary (some say as few as 14), and after Obama’s performance tonight, that gap is bound to close even faster.

Naturally, Hillary will not quit, neither will the Republicans (who have been helping Hillary all they possibly can because they see her as the easy one to beat) nor the media (who want the race and the mudslinging to continue as long as possible); in coming weeks, you will start to hear a lot more about Florida and Michigan.

But Obama now has his mojo back; expect that to be a big factor from now.

In response to how Burma handled a cyclone (hurricane) which devastated the country:

Laura Bush condemned the military government in Burma yesterday for its “inept” response to a deadly weekend cyclone, marking an unusual foray by the president’s spouse into a high-profile foreign policy crisis. …

“Although they were aware of the threat, Burma’s state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm’s path,” she said. “The response to this cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta’s failures to meet its people’s basic needs.”

Yes, because if there were ever a hurricane that could hit the U.S. in a devastating fashion, the Bush administration would be doing everything it, uh… I mean, it would be ready days in advance to, um… that is, it would never be “inept” about, er….

I mean, really. Seriously. What the hell was she thinking? I can only presume that the reason Laura Bush was tapped to send this message is because of all the people associated with the Bush administration, she was perhaps seen as the least associated with the Katrina debacle.

In other words, yet another brilliant PR move by the Bush administration.

And, predictably, the “Liberal Media™” was completely silent concerning the irony.

So, Sachi and I climbed Takao-san a few days ago, like I said. We are still recovering; Sachi mentioned that we look like penguins, waddling around because our calves ache so much. We really don’t do this quite so much, and weren’t physically prepared. I mean, I exercise regularly nowadays, but that wasn’t quite enough.

Coming down the mountain that day, it was painful exactly as I expected: my knees hurt like hell, though fortunately they really went out only at the very end, and only when stepping downwards. Sachi’s knees hurt also, but not as much as mine–mine have been bad that way since I was in high school. It was excruciating every time we encountered another set of steps at the end. But we heard a lot of people complaining of similar joint pain. But we didn’t expect the next-day calf pain (maybe next-week calf pain–it’s been two days and it’s not getting better) to be quite as harsh as it is.

And that’s despite Sachi praying at a temple along the ascent which, appropriately enough, is a special one for foot and leg pain sufferers. But maybe that’s because Sachi just prayed for our mothers, who have leg ailments all the time, and certainly need more help with that than we do….

In any case, we continued up the mountain, posing for pictures every now and then.

The main trail was crowded right up to the top, and most of the way was fully artificial–cement stairways, paved roads, etc. This segment here was lined with wooden planks commemorating people who made donations to the local shrine. The second shows a nearby path lined with lanterns, each wired up for electricity (electric power lines traced the entire route).

Not that the shrines and temples weren’t pretty to look at:

And, of course, more views of the cities below. This was a nice shot of the city below, the kind of shot that has nothing but buildings in view. To get a bigger version with a lot more detail, click on the image.

And then, finally, we got to the peak–which looked like a crowded city square.

We decided to take an alternate trail down, but soon encountered a problem: the shorter, more nature-oriented path had a long segment which was essentially stepping stones along a small stream. And probably because of the less physically-able climbers, the path was a single-file traffic jam, moving painfully slowly.

We kept hearing these sharp yelps from somewhere down the trail, and after a bit, found out what they were: someone had brought their Dachshund up the trail, and the poor thing just wasn’t built for this kind of path. As they passed us, they were carrying the poor thing, but it was half-wet and still occasionally yelping.

The people coming up were less numerous, and so were forced to take the non-stepping-stone side of the path left by the crowd waiting to progress down; the people going up had wet and muddy shoes and socks.

After a while of this, with no end to the traffic jam in sight, we decided to take a branch course at a junction, despite the other course being longer; it was supposed to take 20 minutes more than the original path, but we figured that without the traffic jam, we’d save a lot more time in the end.

I had hoped to do quite a bit of birdwatching, and indeed, there were tons of birds. The problem: almost none were visible. We must have heard birdsong from maybe twenty different species, but we only saw four or five, including the Asian House Martin, Gray Wagtail, and Varied Tit, as pictured below.

All pretty birds, but not all that unusual. The rest were adept at hiding out of view, likely in or atop the greenery of the forest canopy. Maybe a professional birder could have helped us spot some, but I’m just an amateur. Ah well.

I will close with a few more images of Sachi and myself on the trail. For all the resultant muscle and joint pain, it was still a very nice hike.

The evidence is beginning to mount for a Japan release of the iPhone. In addition to recent news that NTT DoCoMo, the main contender for the iPhone contract for Japan, is launching a make-over aimed at recapturing the mobile market at the exact same time the 3G iPhone is universally expected to come out, there is now news that the iPhone 2.0 firmware update includes Japanese-language input capability (images of interface at link). While not a lock for the July release in Japan, it certainly adds to the now-strong impression that this will be so.