Do a Google News search on “McCain FEC” and look at the results. In the past two days, there has not been even one story from a non-biased U.S. media source about McCain and the fact that he is now in clear violation of federal election laws. Not one. You have to go back to March 3rd to find one, and that’s an LA Times piece that calls the story “a debate that only law students could enjoy.” Excuse me? The Republican nominee for president violating a law that could net him five years in federal prison?

McCain is Mr. Campaign Finance Reform, Mr. I’m Squeaky Clean, Mr. Anti-Corruption; and yet here he sits, surrounded by lobbyists, with a string of hard evidence showing that he has interceded on their behalf in governmental affairs on multiple occasions, and now he’s flipping off the FEC and saying that he can do whatever the hell he wants. McCain doesn’t like the restrictions imposed by the FEC, and the FEC chairman says he can’t withdraw? No problem: I’ll wave my magic wand–poof! I’m no longer bound by FEC rules!

Meanwhile, Obama gets steamrolled by the press on the NAFTA thing because–supposedly–it shows that his actions don’t live up to his words. Come again?

Instead, all we get is feel-good stories about McCain. The Liberal Media™ rides again!

Be honest. Considering that (a) Canada’s ruling party is staunchly conservative and favors the Republicans, (b) an Obama win today would have knocked Hillary out of the race and avoided a prolonged battle which will hurt the Democrats, and (c) the Canadian government just happened to leak a NAFTA-related memo damaging to Obama one day before the Ohio primaries, a state where NAFTA means more than in any other state… can you really brush off the whole “NAFTA-gate” affair to pure coincidence?

Not that the American media weren’t happy stooges to a smear job. If you read the whole memo, you’ll find that it was not even close to what the press made it out to be. It did not quote Obama, it didn’t even quote the advisor–it was notes taken by a Canadian official detailing his impressions of the meeting–and the whole memo shows much more than just what’s being reported. Some parts express the official’s belief that he’s being assured that it’s all just “political maneuvering” and “political positioning”–those are the only parts really quoted in the media, the ones that give the impression that Obama is lying to voters.

However, other parts of the memo contradict that impression:

On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.

Which is exactly what Obama has been telling voters:

Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive.

“We’re not going to draw a moat around the United States’ economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,” said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea.

“I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,” he said.

So, this other part of the memo–not reported widely in the media–contradicts the idea that Obama is lying to voters. But try telling that to the Liberal Media™.

What this proves is that there is no “NAFTA-gate,” Obama is not lying to the voters. Instead, you have a very poor Canadian note-taker, a right-wing Canadian administration interfering in U.S. politics at a key juncture that could swing the election, and a media which is more interested in creating a scandal than reporting the truth. (Which doesn’t take into account why they glossed over the McCain lobbyist scandal by acting like the weak sex angle was the only relevant part–unless you remember that we’re dealing with a Liberal Media™ here, out to eviscerate the Republicans!)

I don’t blame Hillary too much for taking advantage of it–it was a slick political move, if dishonest. Obama should have handled it better, though. Of course, he could not just point out what I just pointed out–it would take too long to do so, and therefore would never play in the media even if the media hadn’t decided it was suddenly Obama Season.

Instead, he should have done what (gulp) Republicans do: call it a “smear,” a “dirty trick,” maybe even some synonym for “gutter politics.” It worked for McCain a week ago. It also worked for Bush when it was revealed that he’d been arrested for drunk driving. Even though Bush had been arrested for drunk driving and his campaign didn’t challenge that, they got through it by calling the release of the information a “dirty trick,” based solely on its timing. Well, that would apply to this situation in spades–and it would have the advantage of being true, while the charges and the impressions created were patently false. Had Obama pressed that angle, it might have actually brought him some sympathy and support. But he didn’t; as far as I can tell, he just denied it was true in a plain-vanilla fashion, and that just wouldn’t fly.

No one is sure that this is what torpedoed his campaign this week, but it certainly seems to be the strongest element to that. There are reports that a lot of people in Ohio turned to Hillary because they suddenly doubted Obama. Had Obama not lost big in Ohio, Hillary’s boost would have been significantly reduced; additionally, the NAFTA faux-scandal may have even tipped the balance in Texas. Had both those states been closer, Hillary might still be celebrating, but she would not have the aura of a comeback like she got tonight.

And to be frank, tonight’s results makes little difference in real terms: Hillary won only a few delegates, and is still about a hundred behind Obama; Obama may even diminish her gains further if the Texas caucus goes his way. Hillary’s only hope is for this win to give her a boost and break Obama’s momentum.

But the real story tonight is how the Democratic race will now continue for at least a few more months, and maybe even right up until August, in a way that could potentially split the party and lose an election that should have been a cake walk.

Tonight may have been a good night for Hillary, but it was a great night for Republicans–with a little help from their friends north of the border.

Sometimes the nuances of another language can be hard to figure out. They’ve tripped me up on quite a few occasions.

Let me explain. One example I stumbled upon a while ago was the expression “hard to see” in Japanese. In Japanese, one can use the root form of a verb followed by -nikui (difficult) to express the meaning, “difficult to (do something).” For example, wakarimasu means “to understand”; wakari-nikui means “difficult to understand.”

Well, I figured that the root of “to see” is mi (from mimasu), so I tried to say, mi-nikui. Problem is, minikui means “ugly.” That makes sense, when you realize that mimasu is not “to see,” but “to look at”; saying that something is “hard to look at” could be interpreted as saying that it’s ugly. Miemasu is “to see,” and so mienikui means “hard to see.”

However, “hard to look at” does not necessarily mean “ugly,” at least in English; it could mean something that is difficult to focus on, or something that causes eye discomfort. “My computer screen was hard to look at after spending all day in front of computers” would have a very different feeling than just “ugly.” What I haven’t figured out yet is whether or not minikui really means “ugly” or if it is simply translated that way; maybe in Japanese, ugly things are referred to as “hard to look at” as a way of “softening” or euphemizing the language. In Japanese, muzukashii (“difficult”) is used to mean “impossible” in the same way.

A slightly different problem has popped up for me in the past week or so. Twice, I’ve made a mistake when talking with Sachi in Japanese. It comes when I use another verb-root suffix, this one being -gai ga aru (or possibly -gai no aru), which means that something is “worthwhile doing.” For example, yarimasu means “to try,” and so yari-gai ga aru means “worth trying.”

Well, I wanted to say, “it’s worth waiting for.” Tonight, I made a nice dinner for Sachi–sauteed chicken (with cream cheese and spices for flavoring) and stir-fried vegetables, and some salmon with a sauce I cooked up (cream, lemon juice, wasabi, and pimenton spice), along with a salad and rice. It took a long time to make and Sachi was hungry waiting for it, but it turned out really well. So I wanted to say, “it was worth waiting for, right?”

The problem is, the root of “wait” is machi-, and when put together with -gai ga aru, it comes out as machi-gai ga aru, ne? –which means, “there’s a mistake, isn’t there?” You see, in Japanese, machigai is homonymous with the word for “error” or “mistake.” Sachi thought I was saying that something went wrong with the meal, so she disagreed. We then had to figure out where the miscommunication took place.

At least I’m learning.

It is more than just a little coincidental, that in the few days leading up to the critically important Ohio primary, the Canadian government just “happens” to leak an explosive document which could severely damage the Obama campaign in that state. The “coincidence” starts to become more dramatic when one reflects on the fact that the memo is a subjective account from a politically biased administration: Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, is a “George W. Bush Republican.” And his “statement of regret” over the leaking of this story at just the right time to undermine the Obama campaign, and even sounds like it is confirming the accusation; Harper said, “The Canadian embasy in Washington has issued a statement indicating its regret at the fact that information has come out that would imply Sen. Obama has been saying different things in public than in private.” Already, opposition politicians in Canada have accused Harper of trying to sabotage the Obama campaign at a critical moment.

The memo, at worst, is not really that damaging. It is notes taken by a second party, not quotes, putting to paper their interpretation of something said by an Obama advisor, not Obama himself. Furthermore, if you read past the explosive sentence which seems to suggest that Obama is lying to the American public about his NAFTA stand, the rest of the memo makes pretty clear that Obama’s public statements were in sync with the representation understood by the Canadian memo-taker.

Instead of saying that Obama actually supported NAFTA as it stands, the rest of the memo goes on about how Obama wishes to renegotiate the treaty, “clarifying” language in the treaty that would keep jobs from being exported to other countries so easily (confirming Obama’s public statements about renegotiating labor provisions), and restricting the expansion of the treaty to new countries. None of this contradicts Obama’s campaign language concerning NAFTA. It is just that early excerpt saying Obama’s message is “more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans” that sounds pretty bad; though the rest of the memo contradicts this, the press coverage and attacks from the Clinton campaign make it difficult to point this out.

What seems to be most damaging is the initial denial by Obama that the meeting even took place; Clinton is using that as an opening with which to give other accusations more credence.

In an otherwise near-perfectly-run campaign, this is a less-than-perfect day for Obama. Obama has slipped back to a dead heat with Clinton in Texas after being ahead, and Clinton seems to have regained some ground in Ohio, even before the memo leak. Despite impressions that the media is in love with Obama, they love nothing more than a timely scandal and will lustily jump all over this one (and you can bet they won’t play it like they played the McCain lobbying scandal, where they went whole-hog in trying to clear him of any suspicion). Despite impressions that Obama is still carrying momentum and is expected to win fairly big, Obama could in fact be slipping and might not win either state; even a narrow win for Hillary in both states could be played up to put her back in the race. Tomorrow will be very interesting indeed, especially with terrible weather brewing over Ohio.

If you don’t know who Marc Andreessen is, then look at the program you’re reading this with. If it’s an RSS reader, then never mind. But if it’s a browser, then Marc Andreessen is its granddaddy–he invented the modern web browser, which made the World Wide Web really possible. As a college student, he co-authored the browser Mosaic, seen as the turning-point app that made the web accessible to everyone. After leaving college, he formed the Netscape company, which became the #1 browser–until Microsoft used its OS dominance to kill them off. Still, Netscape was sold to AOL for $4.2 billion. His second venture, Opsware, was sold for $1.6 billion.

Still, he’s a multi-millionaire (or billionaire?) Internet “whiz kid” who is still active in the industry, right now with the social network Ning. And currently, he maintains a blog. Today’s topic: about a year ago, Andreessen had the chance to sit down and speak with Barack Obama, privately, for about an hour an a half–probably one of the last times the candidate was able to sit down with anyone for that amount of time. His conclusions: he was markedly impressed. I’ll let you read the whole post yourself, but at least part of the last point is worth reprinting:

Before I close, let me share two specific things he said at the time — early 2007 — on the topic of whether he’s ready.

We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven’t had meaningful experience as an executive — as a manager and leader of people?

He said, watch how I run my campaign — you’ll see my leadership skills in action.

At the time, I wasn’t sure what to make of his answer — political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?

Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama’s opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win — and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

This speaks well to the Senator’s ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers — another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point — well, let’s just say it’s a very interesting data point.

Read the second part of the experience answer on his blog.

This guy (who Kevin Drum often references) is arguing that the Surge worked because of these numbers:

His case: if those wimps Hillary or Obama had their way and we’d pulled out just before the surge, none of this would have happened.

The problem: like so many others, he completely ignores the Mahdi Army cease-fire. Look at Civilian, Iraq Police/Military, and Coalition deaths where the Mahdi Army cease fire is taken into account:

Statistically speaking, the surge had little or no effect in the time it was working–the drops in casualties came after the Mahdi Army called a cease fire. There were peaks and valleys during the surge, but the lasting decrease in violence came only after the cease fire had begun. And seriously, that explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense. Adding a fractional number of soldiers to the battlefield is far less likely to have made the difference than the insurgents most responsible for violence calling a stop to their attacks. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.

And Muqtada al-Sadr did not call a cease fire because of the surge, he called it because his army was beginning to factionalize, and he needed the down-time to keep them together under his control. This does not mean that the underlying problem in Iraq has been curbed or is under control, it means that the same groups that caused most of the bloodshed before are marshaling their forces in preparation for a longer, bloodier fight. So you cannot credit the surge for lighting a fire under al-Sadr.

While it is good news that al-Sadr called the cease-fire, it is completely unreasonable to think that it will last forever, or even long enough for the Iraqi government to stabilize.

The unfortunate thing I see is that Iraq-war cheerleaders now have their talking points: the surge worked, and when the Democrats pull out the troops then (a) if there is peace, it’s only because of the surge and George Bush, and (b) if there is war, it’s only because the damn Democrats pulled out like cowards. Never mind that al-Sadr is the one who can make or break this thing and he is not going to be controlled by whatever number of forces we are able to put on the ground.

Long story short: Republicans created this unholy mess and are perfectly poised to claim credit for any victory and blame Democrats for any problems.

In other words, business as usual.

Here’s the latest genius masterstroke from the networks:

Looking to strike a blow against the proliferation of digital video recorders, the ABC network, its affiliated broadcast stations, and Cox Communications’ cable systems are establishing an on-demand video service that would allow viewers to watch ABC shows like “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” any time they choose.

The catch: It uses a new technology that disables the viewers’ ability to fast-forward through commercials. …

ABC and Cox executives said that consumer response to the test had been positive. Several executives involved in the project, which ABC plans to offer to other cable systems around the country, said the move was an overt attempt to staunch the use of DVRs like TiVo, which viewers often use to avoid commercials. That activity is increasingly seen as threat to broadcast television, which depends on ad revenue to pay for programs.

“This does counter the DVR,” said Anne Sweeney, the president of the Disney-ABC television group. “You don’t need TiVo if you have fast-forward-disabled video on demand. It gives you the same opportunity to catch up to your favorite shows.”

So, to quote Maxwell Smart’s various and sundry opponents, exactly what kind of idiots do they think we are? “Hmm, I have this DVR sitting right here and can record the TV show in high-def and can blow through all the commercials… or I can wait a few days, and then slowly download a lower-res, DRM-studded version of the show that I have to watch on my PC with the fast-forward disabled, forcing me to watch commercials.”

Easy choice! Since I’m a complete and utter moron, I’ll watch the downloadable version!

They just don’t get it, do they? The networks, I mean. They seem to think that these various schemes they keep on coming up with will somehow just destroy people’s ability to think rationally and decide to do what is in their best interests. Now, if they were Republicans, maybe they’d be a lot more skilled at it. Unfortunately, studio and network executives aren’t running the GOP, otherwise Bush would have certainly lost four years ago. Instead, their stupidity is wasted on these Quixotic, worthless attempts to bypass the far more appealing alternatives that average viewers can clearly see are better for them.

I have said it before: there is only one way this can work out to the content providers’ benefit: narrowcasting.

What they have to do is give up the old-school thinking of doing things in broadcast mode and switch to delivering personalized content. The pay-as-you-go method of making people pay $2 to watch a TV show they’re used to getting for free just ain’t gonna cut it with 95% of the audience. And people are now too used to being able to cut through commercials or otherwise getting past the dreck that is advertising. 97% of the audience isn’t expected to watch or be interested in commercials anyway–it’s just getting that 3% who happen to be interested in the commercial being shown at the moment which is key. And there is only one solution that is really going to work in a big way.

Here’s the condensed version: make all video content available online–all old movies and TV shows, as well as new television series episodes as they are produced. Make it so people can browse an iTunes-like interface and easily choose which programming they’d like. Then stream it to them, or download in higher definition, whatever works best.

But here’s the key: personalize the commercials. Don’t broadcast, narrowcast. You’ll have to find out what people want to see, so instead of charging money, you have people answer some questions once a month. They have to say what kind of commercials they like to see, want to see. What will they be buying in the next month? What subjects are they interested in?

One thing we all have in common is that there are commercials we like to see. For me, if all my commercials were movie previews, computer commercials, and commercials for stuff I plan to buy in the near future (local wedding chapels is one, in my case, or ideas for what to buy Sachi for her birthday)–then I would want to watch the commercial breaks.

Knowing that I would have to watch commercials, I would be OK so long as the commercials were ones I wanted to see. And I would be glad to give up that info to get access to all the programming I’d like to watch. Privacy, schmivacy–most people give up that data in exchange for a member’s card at their local supermarket and a two-dollar discount on three refrigerator packs of Diet Coke.

This would be golden for the advertisers: instead of reaching only 3% of the audience, they’d be reaching over 90% in all likelihood–30 times the value. The studios could even eliminate the middleman in the form of local stations, and make off like bandits. The advertisers would be happy, the viewers would be happy, and the studios would get rich.

It’ll take bigger investment in broadband, which is overdue anyway, and details would have to be worked out to salvage DVD sales. Maybe offer the downloadable stuff in 480i old-fashioned TV quality, and then sell DVDs of the shows in Blu-ray with the extra features and commentary–they’ve probably already mined out most of the 480i DVD sales anyway.

However they figure that out, the narrowcasting option is the only viable option that I can see. Frankly, whenever I see one of these stupid, lame attempts by the networks to “do away with” DVRs or pirate downloads or whatever, I just laugh. They are all pathetic and doomed, and clearly so.

When are they going to learn?

That’s right, Microsoft is taking the rather surprising course of reducing the price of their Chrome-Plated Turd™ by 15 to 20%. That brings Vista Home Premium down to $130, coincidentally the same price as Leopard.

So, why are they doing this? The quote:

We have observed market behavior … that suggests an opportunity to expand Windows standalone sales to other segments of the consumer market.

In short, they think they will sell more if they lower the price. Genius!

I have a different explanation: Vista sales suck big hairy donkey balls. Just take a look: after 13 months on the market, Vista has all of a 13% share of the market. That’s a 1% market share increase per month. They plan to release the next version of Windows in late 2009; presuming a December release, Vista should have just over a third of the market by that time. Which is rather pathetic, as I observed before–especially since most people who buy computers simply accept Vista by default. If people were offered a choice at every purchase, then we’d probably see Vista sales at half of what they are now.

All this explains a bit better why Microsoft is reducing their prices–but I really don’t think it’ll help. If Vista market share explodes after this, or even grows somewhat more rapidly, I will be surprised (unless it happens because MS stops selling XP at all). People are not shunning Vista because it costs $30 more than they wanted to pay. They are shunning it because it’s bloated, buggy, does not add all that much functionality, is loaded with DRM and other anti-consumer “features,” and requires too many people to buy all-new computers (or spend money on pricey upgrades) in order to run it halfway decently. Call me crazy, but I don’t think people will overlook all of those negatives for a thirty-dollar discount. Vista will most likely continue to increase only as fast as Microsoft can force people to buy it with new computer purchases.

As it turns out, the alleged case of rape in Okinawa that I reported on two weeks ago, may not have been a rape. It’s pretty clear that something illicit had happened–an American serviceman took a 14-year-old girl home on his motorcycle and forcibly tried to kiss her; when she started crying, he offered to take her home in her car. She then went to the police and made the charge of full rape, and that’s when everyone went nuts. The local population exploded in protest, and local politicians jumped on this as a reason to force U.S. bases and the 40,000 U.S. troops in Okinawa to pack up and leave. The U.S. troops were all put under a sweeping curfew.

But now, it seems that there may not have been a rape after all. This point is not clear–the police are not clearing the soldier publicly, or at least not yet–but the soldier in question has been released and the family is dropping charges. This is not proof that rape did not take place; it is possible that the young girl was so traumatized that the family decided that a trial would not help her. Or it is possible that the girl made a bad decision and made a charge that could not be upheld.

That we still don’t know is just more evidence, to me, that taking such cases and blowing them up into international incidents is very poor judgment. Allow the system of justice to take its course, wait to see what truth filters through, and act on that if it is relevant.

From the WaPo:

The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has “waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church.”

Hagee, who is known for his crusading support of Israel, backed McCain’s presidential bid Wednesday, standing next to the senator at a hotel in San Antonio and calling McCain “a man of principle.”

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, “calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’”

“Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee,” Donohue said.

So, Barack Obama catches hell in the media for being endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, and gets double-teamed by a debate “moderator” and his opponent for only “denouncing” and not immediately “rejecting” the endorsement; meanwhile, McCain is not only endorsed by a religious bigot, but makes a special trip to accept the endorsement and to say he’s “honored” to get it.

Will the “liberal media” come down on him for this? Don’t bet on it.

From The NYT:

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain said Thursday that he had no concerns about his meeting the constitutional qualifications for the presidency because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. A Democratic colleague said she wanted to remove even a trace of doubt.

The Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced legislation that would declare that any child born abroad to citizens serving in the United States military would meet the constitutional requirement that anyone serving as president be a “natural born” citizen.

“In America, so many parents say to their young children, ‘If you work hard and you play by the rules, in America someday you can be president of the United States,’ ” said Ms. McCaskill, a supporter of the presidential bid of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. “Our brave and respected military should never have to spend a minute worrying whether or not that saying is true for their child.”

And rightly so.

But it brings up an interesting point, in that this is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. Had it been Obama born outside the U.S., he would likely have had no Republican trying to come to his defense–much less a Republican supporter of his presidential rival. Instead, Republicans would have exploited this to attack him endlessly, using it to suggest that he’s not a “real” American. Being a child in a military family stationed overseas would not have made a difference; partisan Republicans have shown no reluctance to defecate on members of the military in political power plays, as we saw with their debasing of McCain in 2000, Max Cleland in 2002, and John Kerry in 2004.

I know, these are common as weeds in politics, but the latest one is pretty interesting.

John McCain is not being very closely scrutinized in the media for his stated decision to “opt out” of federal funding for his campaign. Not one, but two rules prohibit him from legally opting out (FEC must approve but is currently disabled; McCain used funding as collateral for a loan and is now locked in), meaning that McCain may have already violated federal law, and is not legally allowed to spend any more money for the next six months. This is a huge development, unprecedented in any prior election, to my knowledge. And it is not a liberal-blogger maybe-this-could-stick theory; the Republican FEC chairman, David Mason, himself stated this as being a fact. The story is further significant due to McCain’s reputation as a campaign finance icon, someone who is supposed to be all about reform, not breaking campaign finance law. And yet the media somehow finds it reasonable to relegate this story to the back pages.

That same media, however, has been paying considerably more attention to McCain’s criticisms of Obama concerning Obama’s pledge to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” A lot more media outlets are covering this, and giving it front-page attention. The thing is, this is a story about a decision Obama hasn’t even made yet–it is about a potential future action by a candidate to violate a non-legally-binding promise–something done every other hour in Washington D.C.

So the media virtually ignores it when the GOP front-runner overtly breaks campaign finance law even though he helped write those laws, and instead the media plays up a story where the Democratic front-runner might sometime in the future decide not to live up to a promise he made a while ago, which would not break any law at all.

Damn that liberal media!!

Also of note: McCain is supposed to be Mr. Campaign Finance Reform, but surrounds himself with lobbyists and can demonstrably be shown as doing favors for them beyond what is reasonable for his position; again, this gets little play. What also gets less play is the fact that Obama does not accept money from PACs or federal lobbyists at all, and that the vast majority of his contributions come from ordinary people–which means that opting in for federal funding would not make much if any difference in how clean his campaign is.

So tell me: if the press really “loves” Barack Obama as much as it is hyped to, why these disparities? Could it be that the press doesn’t really love him so much, but people get that impression simply because there’s so much good news coming his way, because whenever they point a camera at him, he’s surrounded by enthusiastic supporters?

Maybe I’m just not seeing this unreasonable media infatuation with Obama that gets him all this disproportionate fawning. Could someone point out a few instances of it for me? Please?

Sometimes it is rather amazing how openly politicians go about not only accepting bribes, but demanding them. As I understand it, the laws they have drafted to police themselves essentially require a signed confession before bribery can be called bribery.

And still, we have quotes like this:

“It’s quite discouraging,” said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general.

“These companies just won’t do anything,” the aide said. “Even when you have the Democrats working against their bottom line.”…

In short: Republicans are complaining that they are not getting more money from the Telecoms after all that work they have done to try to give the Telecoms immunity from billions of dollars in lawsuits for violating people’s privacy. I would also presume that the Republicans want more money for their attempts to cut down Network Neutrality as well. But the point here is that these Republicans see a definite quid pro quo at work here: we do the Telecoms a huge favor, they owe us money.

It reminds me of the time when Bill Clinton, while president, was assailed by politicians from both parties when he accepted a donation from a black caucus but did not do what they asked him to do. He was castigated for not doing their bidding in exchange for money–the classic definition of a bribe.

So, how overt does a bribe have to be in order for someone to actually act on it? I suppose, with John McCain being surrounded by 30 lobbyists in his campaign and yet the press still lauds him for his campaign finance reform, you have to be pretty damned blatant for anyone to blink an eye.

On the right sidebar to this blog, I have a feature called “On this day…,” a nice WordPress widget which shows you posts from this day on past years. As you know if you’ve read this blog, I have been blogging nonstop for more than four and a half years now.

So tonight, after it turned midnight, I looked at the sidebar and got a shock: there was only one blog post from this day, and it was in 2004. Somehow, I had missed blogging on this day for the past three years!

And then, I realized what day it was.

My brother gave me a book some time ago, one called No Lesser Plea, recommending it as one to read. It is, from what I can tell, a story about a ruthless killer who slips through the cracks of the justice system, and must be dealt with accordingly. The problem is, I couldn’t finish it. It was just too ridiculously a right-wing fantasy. It was bad enough that the author had a cold-blooded murderer which the police had dead to rights get off scot-free by erupting in court and yelling “You hurt my momma!” (Um, yeah, right. Like that’s all it takes.) But I really had to put the book down after reading this description of the court-appointed psychiatrist:

Dr. Stone was not prejudiced. He considered himself a liberal, in that he believed that when black people were violent and committed crimes it was not really their fault.

All of this struck me as so ludicrous as to be beyond belief, except maybe by Ann-Coulter-level wingnuts who spout that kind of crap. But when I looked up the book in reviews on the web, nobody seemed to realize this. One review called the legal action “realistic,” and others praised the book in similar fashion. I mean, really? If I read a story where the author wrote, “He considered himself a conservative, in that he believed all black people were violent and committed crimes,” I would have a similar reaction; when the bias is so stark and unbelievable, the story loses its realism and becomes unpalatable.

I have to wonder, though, how many people believe this stuff. There seems to be a wide acceptance of the kinds of ideas this author, Tanenbaum, is shoveling forth. Maybe this is just colored by my own bias, but it seems that radical liberals are much more talked about as being out there, but radical conservative myths seem to be far more widely accepted and believed. Criminals being let off by liberal bleeding hearts, welfare queens bleeding the system dry, illegal immigrants stealing jobs and leeching off social welfare, Democrats guilty of taxing and spending us out of house and home… these untenable stereotypes nonetheless seem to get the greatest attention and the most widespread belief.

Is it just my imagination? Or is there far more outrageous right-wing myth circulating out there than there is liberal myth? If the reverse is true, then what are the liberal myths that have such strong a hold on the imagination and the fears of the American people?

The Japan Times article appeared in the paper today. Very nice, and I’m flattered and all… but I don’t think it’ll get anyone to visit my site. They kinda forgot to include the blog’s address in the story. Ah well. Can’t ask for everything.

I’m sorry, but Clinton is starting to look unhinged. She is shooting off contradictions right and left. After Super Tuesday, Texas and Ohio were the important races, ignore those Obama wins in February; but now that Obama is winning in Texas and catching up in Ohio, they’re suddenly unimportant, and Michigan and Florida must be seated–though she initially agreed to not run in those states, when she figured she’s be nominated without them (even though she still put her name on both ballots), and now champions counting the delegates she once agreed to abandon.

On her attacks against Obama, she’s similarly of two minds. Obama’s health care plan is terrible, and what’s more, he is criticizing another Democrat’s health care plan! Obama shouldn’t lift entire passages from other people’s speeches… like I do! On a regular basis! I respect Obama and am honored to share the stage with him, so shame on him for being such a bastard! He’s misrepresenting me on my fliers, just like I’m misrepresenting him!

So, are you ready for a new one? Here it comes:

A set of talking points emailed to Clinton supporters within organized labor describes the arguments to use on uncommitted super delegates. In the email, the Clinton campaign suggests telling the uncommitted delegates that “it would be unfair and unjust to cut off the nominating process now. There might come a time when the process needs to come to a close, but that time is not now.”

Um, are we talking about the same superdelegates that Hillary was busy getting to commit to vote for her since quite some time ago? The same ones whose commitments to her she stressed were supposed to be not only counted but emphasized?

Of course, that was when superdelegates were on her side. When Obama had the lead with pledged delegates, Hillary stressed how important the superdelegates were, because she had so many that had given her their votes. But now, the supers are trending toward Obama–so now superdelegates throwing in with someone is “unfair and unjust”? Can she be serious?

She seems to be. The campaign’s email warns that “If House, Senate and DNC members try to end this process now, it would be very damaging to those institutions, the Democratic Party and our chances in November.” Funny, she was OK with that happening until up to just a few weeks ago.

I am beginning to think that she will do just about anything to win this, no matter what she has to do, and frankly, it’s getting a bit scary. She’s already tarnished her own image almost beyond repair at this point, digging so deeply in the mud that she’d have a hard time selling herself as being a better person than McCain. But now I am getting seriously worried as to what damage she’s prepared to do to the party so long as she believes there is any chance for her to pull a victory out of this. A close friend and an ardent Hillary supporter told me that she was depressed at what has been happening lately, sad to see that Hillary comes across now as a wounded animal. An appropriate metaphor, perhaps; they are the most dangerous kind.

Oh boy–Hillary with an important statement:

We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.

When Hillary was way ahead in Texas, Texas was make-or-break. The states that went for Obama “didn’t matter.” Now that Texas seems to be going for Obama, Texas no longer matters.

But the more significant thing here is that Hillary is embarking on a dangerous gambit here: she said she’s going to fight for Florida and Michigan, as they originally voted, to be counted at the party convention, without a re-do caucus as the party insists:

Interviewer: So your intention is to press this issue?

Clinton: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

That’s a bit worrying. I suppose the $64 question is, how hard will she push? If she’s just talking about stressing it but not taking any action if she’s turned down, then we’re okay. But that doesn’t sound like Hillary; knowing her, she’ll go to fairly extreme lengths to get this done if it means the difference between winning and losing.

And maybe some people would say, “great, we need a fighter.” But we need someone who will fight for the party, not within it; someone who will fight within the rules, and not against them for personal gain. If Clinton seriously tries to defy the party, to violate the clearly-stated rules, and to shut down any chance for a caucus (which has recent precedents), then she could create a huge divide in the party and start a major war within the ranks.

That would be selfish, probably futile, and I would even say extremely stupid. I hope she’s just posturing, and doesn’t go beyond any damaging point. But I doubt it.

Hat tip to Kos.

The story is still pretty unclear, but by now you’ve probably heard about “the photo.” The Drudge Report (not the most trusted name in news) released a story claiming that Clinton staffers circulated a photo of Obama from a 5-nation tour of Africa in 2006, in which he tried on Somali garb while in Kenya. This is the kind of thing that happens all the time with politicians traveling abroad; you see photos of congressmen and even presidents doing this a lot. Hell, every time Bush attends an APEC summit he wears something new.

But the problem with the Obama photo is that whoever chose to circulate it chose the one photo which (in the eyes of less-aware people) makes Obama look like he’s a Muslim. This is not just a photo you release randomly or casually. This is a photo you release if you want to do some serious race/religion-baiting, on the level of “accidentally” calling Obama “Osama.” This is a photo you release if you are trying to out-Rove Karl Rove. The photo itself is completely innocent; the intent behind circulating it is explosively sleazy.

Now, here’s the thing: coming from Drudge, you’d want to confirm the story before blasting Hillary for it. Drudge names no sources, though he does quote Clinton staffers. Did the Clinton campaign really release this photo? Maybe it was released by right-wingers attributing it to Clinton in hopes of taking shots at both Hillary and Obama.

However, the responses coming from the Clinton campaign seem to bolster the Drudge story. Had the Clinton campaign not been involved, one would think they would have simply said, “no, we didn’t release that photo; someone is trying to make us look bad,” or something along those lines. But they didn’t. The Clinton campaign simply says the photo wasn’t “sanctioned,” and they are not “aware” of anyone in their campaign circulating it:

“Here’s what I’d say: I’ve never seen that picture before, I’m not aware that anyone here has, I’m not aware that anyone sent any such e-mail.”

That’s not a denial, that’s more a way of saying “it was someone we can claim distance from doing our dirty work.” Hardly proof that the Clinton campaign was involved, but it does give the impression that it’s true. At the very least, it says that the campaign isn’t sure that it wasn’t them, and is covering its bases.

Along with the non-denial denials, the Clinton campaign chided Obama for being offended at nothing, and trying to “distract” people:

“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely,” [Clinton campaign manager Maggie] Williams wrote in an e-mail to reporters. “This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”

One thing for certain: if the Clinton campaign really did release this photo, then it was a desperate gambit, and probably a really stupid one; Obama could benefit from this a lot more than the photo would hurt him. But then, the Clinton campaign has done a lot of stupid stuff in the past few months.

All this as a new poll shows Obama taking the lead in Texas, and another poll showing Obama coming to within 4 points of Clinton in Ohio.

Perhaps it’s a bit late, but I did take down notes on the debate, no sense in wasting it. It’s not a transcription, but a summary–maybe preferable to those who didn’t want to wade through all the details (here’s the transcript in case you do), but also were not satisfied with the press summary.

In their opening statements, Obama won the coin toss and let Clinton go first. Her speech was more of a rah-rah get-the-crowd-cheering speech; Obama was more sober, speaking of people who suffered without health care and factories where equipment was unbolted from the floor and shipped overseas. While Clinton captured the initial mood, Obama made a good choice, enabling him to play off of that and come across as more serious and presidential.

First question: On talks and relations with our enemies, in this case, for example, Cuba:

Clinton: we should meet with leaders with an eye toward normalization, but a presidential meeting should be held back as a plum to reward concessions.

Obama: we should meet with leaders with an eye toward normalization, but we should not hold ourselves so lofty as to say just meeting with our president is a prize; instead, we should realize that valuable and meaningful progress is mostly achieved in early meetings between heads of state.

Comment: both have points to make here. It may be my bias speaking, but I prefer the Obama’s idea. Hillary might a point that if we have a commodity worth something, we can use it as a coin to trade with. However, I think Obama has a better point: better to get the job done instead of waiting and hoping for other countries to pay for the privilege of being seen with our lofty leaders. It is somewhat arrogant, and there is an upside to opening dialogs with others. Being willing to talk is a commodity as well.

Second question: How do differentiate yourselves from each other on the economy?

Obama: Shift tax breaks from companies investing overseas to those investing at home; shift tax cuts from the wealthy to the middle and lower class; move to a “green” economy which will reduce dependence on foreign oil. We agree on many of these, but the difference is how they’re done. We must work together and get rid of special interests.

Clinton: I agree with Obama on the basics he laid out. Also: hold a “trade agreement time-out” until we can review those agreements to make sure they are beneficial to us. Take immediate action on the sub-prime crisis: put a moratorium on foreclosures and freeze interest rates. Next: create green jobs, invest in infrastructure, end Bush’s war on science.

Comment: Obama clearly expected to be able to respond to what Clinton said (as she was allowed with the first question), but the CNN moderator cut off the question after Hillary went over her time, and moved to the next question.

To Clinton: Would you consider stopping federal immigration raids?

Clinton: In “egregious” cases, we would have to continue raids, but otherwise we have to stop. Need to have immigration reform; crack down on employers, federal help for communities on costs for immigration enforcement, help create jobs south of the border, create a path to legalization (pay fines & back taxes, learn English).

Obama: tone down the ugly rhetoric and lessen antagonism toward immigrants; bring comprehensive reform: stronger border security, crack down on employers, require undocumented workers to pay fines, back taxes, learn English–and go to the back of the line. Fix the legal (but discriminatory) immigration system, and improve our relationship with Mexico and fix problems on that side of the border.

Comment: I like the fact that both are for cracking down on employers. In my opinion, that’s the only way to stop illegal immigration–if that’s truly what you want to do, with all the costs that move implies.

Are you for or against the border fence? (Asked to Clinton, whereupon I began to notice that Clinton is for some reason being given first shot so far at any question of interest to the Hispanic community, allowing her to score all the big points, and leaving Obama to say “me too” and mention some side point in addition.)

Clinton: our current policy is stupid. In some places, a fence is good; in other places, it’s bad; decide by asking people who live where the fence would go. (After finishing, interviewer gives Clinton another chance to explain her points.) Where there’s no fence, use technology and manpower.

Obama: We almost entirely agree. Consult with local communities; some places need fences, other places need the manpower & technology. Important point: we need to also deal with the 12 million immigrants here, and to do that, we need to address the problem of incoming immigrants. Also: an immediate solution is to allow immigrant children better access to education, to avoid the creation of “two classes.”

Comment: Both make fair points, but neither makes much sense on the fence. Do they really think we need that, or are they just saying that to get votes? The fence is stupid; it’s not hard to defeat, even without gaping holes and breaks.

By 2050, we’ll have 120 million Hispanics. How about becoming a bilingual nation? (Again, Clinton gets first shot.)

Clinton: as many Americans as possible should become bilingual, but English should remain as “common, unifying” language. English should not be the “official” language, but should be the dominant language.

Obama: important that everyone learns English, but also every student should be learning a second language. If bilingual education helps, then have it, but also emphasize foreign-language study. NCLB, with its standardized testing, has pushed out foreign language study.

For Clinton: You’ve both attacked each other. let’s haul out one of the reasons you think Obama is bad and discuss it. Do you really think Obama is all talk and no substance as you have said on the campaign trail?

Clinton: I respect Obama and this has been a civil campaign, but I offer solutions and I have better records and accomplishments. (Did I hear hissing when Hillary brought up Obama supporter’s inability to name his accomplishments?) Actions speak louder than words.

Obama: I’ve acted a lot: provided health care, tax breaks to struggling families, reformed criminal justice, reformed political financing and pork-barrel spending, helped veterans in need–I have a strong record of action. Our records differ in how we enact change. The charge against me is that everyone who supports me (gives long list) is being duped, when in fact they all recognize that the manner of affecting change is important, and they support my way. We need to inspire people to get past divisions and act at the grassroots level and get real change passed. (great defense)

The moderator jumps on the ‘attack Obama’ bandwagon and brings up “related” (?) point of Obama using speech from Deval Patrick’s speeches.

Obama: Deval Patrick is my national co-chair, advises me, and suggested I use the lines; to suggest this is “plagiarism” is “just silly.” This kind of “silly season” is discouraging and distracts us from the issues. Segues into issues he wants to press–making college affordable, change tax code, get us out of Iraq–specific, concrete proposals. We should spend time on these, not tearing each other down. (OK, that was masterful–especially his “admission” that some of his speeches were “pretty good.” The attack backfired.)

Clinton: if your campaign is “about words,” then they should be your words; if you sell “change you can believe in,” you should not lift “whole passages” and sell “change you can Xerox.” (Obama mutters disapproval, crowd echoes.) Look at the YouTube to see the plagiarism. (Segues into biting attack on Obama over health care and mandates. Hillary is then allowed to ramble on for a while about her accomplishments, despite being way off topic.)

Obama: Responds to health care accusation; explains features which are similar. Defends stand on mandates: it’s not that people don’t want it, it’s that people can’t afford it. It is not true that my plan “leaves out” 15 million people. Clinton’s ’93 was poorly done because it closed out everyone else, even other Democrats; an Obama plan would bring everyone to the table. The point: unless we change the way things are done in Washington, we won’t accomplish anything. (Obama fumbled a bit and was hard to follow in the beginning, but eventually came back and got off enough of an answer to satisfy.)

Comment: This is where I got the distinct impression that CNN was for some reason was trying to throw the debate to Hillary. Not only did they give her first shot at all Hispanic issues, allowing her to score all the points on questions important to a key demographic in Texas, but now they’re essentially doing a “best of” hit-parade of let’s-trash-Obama. They start by suggesting that both of them went negative, which is highly unbalanced (Hillary has been way more negative), but then they just pile on with attacks against Obama. Obama is inexperienced, Obama plagiarizes, Obama’s not ready–huge openings to allow Hillary to attack Obama, where Obama has to go on constant defense. Here’s the last one:

To Clinton: Are you saying Obama’s not ready to be president?

Clinton: I’m ready, you decide about Obama–but I wanna talk about health care. [Moderator tries to stop her, but she steamrolls through.] If we don’t have mandatory health insurance, it won’t work because so many people will not pay.

Comment: See? Not only that, after giving Hillary a chance to rip Obama one more time, the moderator tries to stop Obama and move on before he even gets a chance to speak! Obama won’t have that, however–and the moderator “patiently” allows him a “brief” comment:

Obama: Mandatory programs have a problem: some cannot afford to pay; if you have non penalties, people won’t buy in anyway. If they can’t afford to pay, they are stuck paying fines and still don’t have insurance–so mandates are not a good answer either. We have to debate how to work this out.

Clinton : (Talking over moderator and insisting on taking another turn) Points out that Obama has mandatory insuring of children and fines for people who don’t pay but show up sick after not having insurance. Restates that Social Security and Medicare only work because they are mandatory.

Obama: Point one: everyone will be able to get insurance; two, mandates for children can be effective. If people game the system, we can penalize them. But I am not leaving out 15 million people.

Again, to Clinton: Are you saying Obama’s not ready to be president? (Um, when will get get off the “attack Obama” kick? It’s been almost half the whole debate so far.)

Clinton: I’m experienced. Here’s a list of things I’ve done, and things that are happening that need experience to manage. I am prepared to be president on day one.

Obama: I am ready, I will protect America. We need a strong military, better management, using military wisely. I have shown good judgment where Hillary was wrong, and that has had serious consequences. I decided right on Iraq, I decided right on Pakistan, hillary did not.

Comment: In some ways, Obama is a bit off his mark tonight; he pauses, hems and haws too much. Still, if nothing else, the constant moderator-driven attack against him does allow him to answer the charges directly. Still, you will notice that they never got around to pointing out what Obama criticized Hillary about. They start off by insinuating that Obama attacks Hillary as much as she attacks him, and they leave it with this?

You’re going to face a decorated veteran in the election; things in Iraq are going swimmingly, don’t you agree that the Surge™ has worked?

Clinton: the Surge™ was not just about stopping violence, it was about giving the Iraq government the chance to fix things, and they have not. I would start pulling us out in 60 days, forcing the Iraqis to move faster. I will bring the troops home; we should not continue to be there.

Obama: we’ve seen violence drop in Iraq, that’s thanks to the troops. This is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. Being against invading Iraq in the first place will be a greater advantage against McCain than it would be to argue smaller differences. The Iraq War has cost us greatly, and has benefitted Iran. This war has been too great a burden on families and veterans, we need to give them what they need. Spending $12 billion in Iraq means we can’t deliver on infrastructure and health care–McCain wants them there for 100 years, meaning we can’t do what we need at home.

Comment: I’m disappointed that neither pointed out that the al-Sadr cease fire had more to do with the drop in violence than Bush’s strategy; I suppose both either disagree with that analysis, or they fear being painted as soldier-haters for not giving the troops full credit for the drop.

Obama, you say you’re against earmarks and pork, but you asked for $91 million in earmarks and you refuse to say why.

Obama: that’s not true. We’ve disclosed all earmarks, I am for transparency in governance. We created Google for Government, to allow people to be aware of what’s being done.

Clinton, you’ve gotten $342 million in earmarks, but McCain says he’s never asked for an earmark and never will. Is he better than you on this?

Clinton: that’s meaningless because he voted for massive tax cuts for the rich and for the Iraq War. (Good point!) Bush got a surplus and balanced budget, and he blew it, and are looking at debts and deficits. I’ll get us back to fiscal responsibility. I’ll stop all tax cuts over $250 million a year and have tax cuts for the middle class. I will move us back to the path of fiscal responsibility and prosperity. (She hints that Bill got us those benefits, and that’s part of what she offers.)

For Clinton: should super-delegates decide a nomination if it goes against the popular vote?

Clinton: Don’t worry, that’ll sort things out, and we will get a nominee and be victorious in November.

Obama: Primaries and caucuses should count for something; the will of the voters will determine the nominee. Having a government that listens to the voters is the most important thing.

What moment of crisis tested you the most?

Obama: The trajectory of my life. Things were hard, I made mistakes, and what was most important was learning to take responsibility and help the community, fight as a civil rights attorney–these made me capable of working together with people and to bring the best out in people.

Clinton: I’ve lived through crises and challenging moments!! But these are nothing to what most Americans face. Others have faced terrible challenges; I have been blessed with a good life, and I want to help others. I am honored to be here with Obama. We’ve gotten support and the American people should too.

Comment: Call me paranoid, but I got the feeling that there was some Clinton-camp audience pre-planning here. If you watched the debate, you’ll note that Hillary supporters did foot-stomping in their cheers for her answers, and it didn’t seem spontaneous. That when she finished her last reply and the audience gave a standing ovation made me more suspicious. It doesn’t take the whole crowd to plan that–if just a few people stand up, most will rise as well. Some say that the ovation was for both candidates, but watching it, it looked like it was for Hillary. Again, on this point I may just be being a bit paranoid.

Overall, I kind of thought that Obama did not do as well as I expected, This was the first debate I have watched, and I expected Obama to be smoother, more confident-sounding. Instead, he seemed to stammer a bit and not get replies off to a rolling start. Hillary seemed more practiced there. But maybe that was just expectation–people who have commented on the debate have said that Obama did better than he had in the past, and that he held his own tonight.

As for Hillary’s performance, I think she sunk herself more than anything else. Her negativity was palpable. When she mentioned Chris Matthew’s stupid “gotcha” question, the crowd actually hissed; when she delivered the obviously scripted “Change you can Xerox” line, there were boos. Had Hillary not pressed these attacks, I think she could have come out with a win (especially with CNN pushing the debate in her favor like they did). She won particular distaste from me with yet another patently false claim–“lifting whole passages” was bogus, especially when Clinton’s rousing debate-ending speech was lifted from a Bill Clinton speech from years back. Again, Clinton tried to say her copying was OK but Obama’s was not because his campaign is “all about words.” What a crock. If someone is eloquent, then they’re only about the words? Get real.

Well, my bias may be showing again, but I really think that Hillary’s attacks were hollow and unpopular, as they have been since South Carolina–but I suppose that with her back to the wall, she must figure she’s got nothing to lose. And after the debate, she took the negative campaigning up a few notches, especially with the “Shame on you, Barack Obama” deal, where she tried to say that he was lying about her campaign with mailed fliers–when, of course, her campaign was sending out mailers with patent lies about Obama’s health plan. And then she decried him for criticizing another Democrat about health plans.

I’ll leave it at that.