Well, the SteveNote has started. Like last time, I feel a bit weird blogging live about someone else blogging live–but with there being no live webcast, there’s not much I can do about that, except not to live-blog, but then what would I do while waiting for screen refreshes? I mean, get real.

MacRumors has the best coverage–their notes are fairly good–not as good as Engadget’s, but you have to reload the whole Engadget page (the reload fails most of the time), whereas MacRumors has a smarter system which updates continuously, and works pretty well. Apple stock is moving very little (in fact, it’s falling), surprising considering that they just announced 4 million sales of iPhones and 5 million sales of Leopard. The 20% adoption of Leopard is great news, but 4 million iPhones? That’s a hell of a lot of iPhones, more than I believe a lot of people expected they’d be able to sell.

Steve is showing off the new iPhone features, but (a) they are pretty much the same as what had been leaked a few weeks back, and (b), the main thing I want to know is, when is it coming to Japan! I will be very disappointed if that’s not announced today. Ummm…. he just finished talking about the iPhone, and no announcements about its release. Yargh. Later? “One more thing”?

The iTunes movie rentals are being announced, and every major studio seems to be on board with the service–including Universal. How about that. The base service can be wholly computer-based. Rental rules: 30 days to start viewing, 24 hours to finish viewing after you start; viewable very quickly, you don’t have to wait forever for the download to get there; $3 for older films, $4 for newer films; new titles available 30 days after the DVD release (NetFlix doesn’t seem to have too much to be worried about). No word yet on the resolution of the movies. And something I’m wondering: like iTunes, will I be able to use the service from Japan, so long as I have a credit card with a U.S. billing address? Hmmm….

AppleTV does get in on the show, however. If you want DVD-quality movies, you can get it with the AppleTV unit, which can be used as a stand-alone box, no computer required. (Hmm–that suggests that computer-only rentals are “less-than-DVD quality”…). You pay more: $5 for an HD rental. No wonder all the studios are on board–Apple seems to have caved on the pricing.

Okay, what the heck is going on with Apple’s stock? I don’t see anything so far that is not good, and yet AAPL is dropping like a rock–almost $10, or more than 5%, most of that since the keynote started. Am I missing something? I know that Apple rises on rumor and drops on news, but (a) it hasn’t risen on rumor that much lately, and (b) last year, it rose a lot on news… so I am just trying to figure out what’s up with this.

Right. It’s time for MacBook Air. Again, this is almost exactly as the rumors have predicted–almost no surprises at all in this Expo son far. (Is that why the stock is dropping? Strange if true.) Seems to be targeted between the MacBook and MacBook pro lines.

They finally showed pictures of it. Damn, that’s a slim notebook. Where the hell does the battery go? As rumors said, they must have left out the optical drive. BlueTooth and WiFi-n, natch–you would need wireless on this thing.

Well, Damn. No iPhone-for-Japan announcement. How depressing.

As I wait for the MacWorld Expo to start, I figured that now would be a good time to catch up on posting the birding shots I collected in the U.S. around Christmastime. There were some good shots from a trip I took to the water treatment plant on Radio Road out in Foster City. One of the best was a Common Yellowthroat I stumbled upon while taking a road out to the less-peopled bayfront side of the plant. I was walking along this path bordered with medium brush, and there he was:

Beautiful little thing, isn’t it? I don’t care if it’s a “Common” anything, that is one vibrant, startling bird. Click on it for a larger shot, or just see a closer view here:

Here’s where the new camera really pays off. Not only in the many shots I could snap off immediately, but in the quality of the close-up shot. Here’s another shot:

Nearby, I saw a Yellow-rumped Warbler flitting around a fence:

These must be fairly common themselves–I saw a few at a winery Sachi and I visited in Los Gatos:

There were tons of Cinnamon Teals there, not just the single one I spied last year.

There were a number of other ducks present as well: Norther Shovelers, America Widgeons, Mallards, Green-winged Teals, Northern Pintails, and Ruddy Ducks.

Tons of shorebirds, too–here you can see a Black-necked Stilt (also above), an American Avocet (both of those very common), some Marbled Godwits, and some Willets.

The Willets were particularly notable in flight, with those contrasting black-and-white wings. There were tons of shorebirds–not surprising along the shore….

There were some other miscellaneous birds–a Rustic Bunting, for example:

…And a female Common Yellowthroat, not as striking as her male counterpart, to be certain:

Perhaps the most interesting, however, was a Red-tailed Hawk that I spied sitting on a fence post as I walked down that path:

As I tried to sneak in closer (not that he didn’t see me clearly!), a couple walked by and scared him into a tree. Gorgeous!

But the tree, apparently, was home to some crows, who definitely did not like the hawk being there!

They tried to harry him for a while, but the hawk was not at all perturbed. Just sat there like the crows weren’t swooping at him at all.

A few more photos from the vacation later on, but that’s most of the birds right there.

I’ve never liked that legal principle–the idea that a person who doesn’t go far enough to make their goodies inaccessible is more responsible for harm to those who try to access them illicitly. The classic example is when a person has a swimming pool, but their fence isn’t high enough to discourage people from climbing over it to trespass and play in the pool–and so when a trespasser drowns, it’s the fault of the person who owns the pool. Unless it can be shown that the pool owner knowingly enticed people to come play in his pool or otherwise gave permission, I do not agree that he should be held liable.

That principle is at play in a lawsuit filed by a prisoner, who says that the state is at fault for injuries he received while attempting to escape from prison. Why is the state at fault? Because they made it too easy to escape.

I don’t agree with Kevin Drum that the guy has a point. Sure, the prison may have been stupid to take a guy who once escaped by pushing up a ceiling tile, and put him back into the cell where he could escape by pushing up a ceiling tile again. But to say that they bear the burden of responsibility for they guy injuring himself is ludicrous.

It all comes down to responsibility. Yes, the prison bears some responsibility for making it too easy for a prisoner to escape their cell, but that responsibility is to the community, not to the prisoner. The greater responsibility, especially to himself, is borne by the guy who tried to escape. Now, if the prisoner escaped and injured a citizen, then the citizen could take action against the criminal and the prison, in that order–they would have a case, being damaged by events that both other parties bore responsibility for.

But for the criminal to sue the prison for damages he was more responsible for, I do not accept that idea. Just like the idea that a trespasser can sue a homeowner for failing to make a swimming pool inaccessible enough–the person who trespasses and decides to use the pool is more responsible, and so has no right pointing the finger elsewhere and demanding redress.

Even more indefensible is the case where a burglar sues a homeowner for injuries they sustained while burgling that person’s home. To even imagine that such a suit could be awarded is so unbelievably preposterous that it makes me wonder if such a thing ever really happened at all, or if it simply one of those apocryphal stories ginned up when someone is trying to put a cap on lawsuit awards.

It all comes down to responsibility. If I wander on to someone’s lawn–a place where it is understood that I should not go without specific good reason–then it’s my own damned fault if I trip on a sprinkler head and break my silly neck. In the context of lawsuit awards, the court system should observe a “glass houses” principle.

Obama released the details (PDF) for a $120 billion stimulus package he is introducing as a bill in the Senate which would give an immediate $250 tax cut for working families, with an additional $250 in the future if the economy worsened.

What does the Republican political machine call it? A “knee-jerk tax-and-spend” proposal.

A tax cut is ”tax-and-spend“? Interesting. I don’t recall them saying that when Dubya cut taxes for rich people. Maybe that’s it–it’s a tax on wealthy people when you give working families a break.

The package demonstrates a big difference between how Democrats and Republicans approach stimulus: Republicans favor top-down (or ”trickle-down“), where you give money to rich people and corporations, and, in theory, the money will make its way down to the lower classes, who will then spend it and the economy gets better. Democrats cut out the middle man and give it directly to the people who can do the actual stimulating. Not to mention the people who are more likely to keep it in the U.S. as opposed to sending it offshore to avoid taxes.

After seeing this story summing up all the candidates’ stands on evolution (read Mike Gravel’s in particular), I was reminded of an excellent television program aired a few months back: NOVA’s (when aren’t they excellent?) special two-hour Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. If you haven’t seen it, you can (and should) watch it wholly online at NOVA’s web site.

The program does a very good job of describing the trial in Dover, PA, where a judge ruled unconstitutional a school board policy to present Intelligent Design as an alternate theory to Evolution. Not only did the Evolution side blow the ID claims out of the water, but they also succeeded in revealing a paper trail which showed that ID was the direct evolutionary descendant of creationism.

I’ve made my thoughts on ID clear in this blog before. It is, as the Dover case illustrated, nothing more than creationism reworked for the sole purpose of sneaking it into science classes. Simply put, ID has no evidence to back it up; its entire case is that evolution is wrong, and therefore ID is right. There is no evidence, no mathematical model which supports ID; it is a theory based upon a negative, relying purely upon fallacious criticisms of evolution so that a metaphysical argument is “proven” by nothing more than the process of elimination.

It is a theory which personifies the creationist mindset: don’t think. It doesn’t rely on any positive evidence. It requires no deep study, no deep thinking–just belief. Essentially, it says that we are just too complex, so don’t even bother finding an explanation other than god. And that pretty concisely sums up how creationists approach things: not with deep understanding, but with a superficial denial based upon a poor grasp of core issues.

You can see this in action by looking at the PBS Ombudsman’s column for the show, where a good deal of viewer mail is displayed. It is quite educational.

One question asked by several creationists is best stated here:

If evolution were true and man “evolved” from apes, why do we have apes and monkeys co-existing with man? Why have the apes not all turned into humans?

This is the sort of question that so baldly expresses the simple lack of understanding of evolution by those who feel they know more than enough to dismiss it. It reminds me of my co-worker from years back who felt confident that radioactive dating methods that showed the Earth being far more than 6000 years old were wrong because she believed she found a fatal flaw in the science… based on her hearing a summary of the procedure in her high school Science class. She didn’t study, didn’t ask, didn’t investigate; she just found something that sounded like it could be a flaw, and immediately decided that science must be wrong and her religion correct.

This question about co-existing with other primates is a classic example of this sort of shallow, non-thinking reasoning. The person who asked it obviously wasn’t looking for an answer; a quick Google search would have provided him with the answer, as would have a simply query over the phone to any local Science teacher or perhaps even any librarian. Clearly this person had either heard this question asked but not answered, or thought of it themselves, and never sought an answer to it beyond the ID community.

Had they done so, they would have found the answer. First, and most glaringly, we did not evolve from “apes.” Both humans and apes evolved from early primates. There is somehow the idea that the apes that now exist also existed back then, and we are descended from them; this is incorrect. Now, if you want to call the early primates “apes,” go ahead, but it is an incorrect classification that leads to further misunderstanding. Second, evolution is not a process where all members of a species change at the same time and in the same way; this was amply demonstrated in the NOVA documentary when it explained “branching.” And while the early primates from which all current primates evolved went extinct, there is no rule which says they have to disappear. Some species have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years; it is possible for a new species to have branched from an ancient one, and yet both still exist side-by-side.

Of course, one writer mentioned the whole “macro-evolution” paradigm. Since evolution can clearly be seen at work over the course of a few years, ID’ers have split evolution into two categories–“micro-evolution,” which they concede happens but does not contradict creationism, and “macro-evolution,” which is large changes over large spans of time, which they deny because it does contradict creationism. This is known as “moving the goal posts,” something that the creationist crowd does constantly. You provide proof that a creationist claim is wrong, they either ignore it, deny it, or, in the goal-post-moving paradigm, claim that it’s not enough and more specific evidence is needed.

Another viewer writes:

This was labeled as a landmark case. Not so. This was a smaller court not a Federal court from what I have found.

Again, we have people not just assuming facts not in evidence, but assuming facts contrary to clear evidence. Right at the beginning of the documentary, it was made clear that the judge in the case was appointed by President Bush. That clearly makes him a federal judge. Not to mention that a very quick Google could have shown the fact even more clearly. The same writer continues:

Most scientists who are Darwinists have atheistic beliefs just as there are people of faith who support creation or ID. About two years ago a FEDERAL court ruled that atheism is a religion.

And here we come to another common belief among creationists: that evolution is as much a child of atheism as creationism is of religion. Of course “Atheism” (“strong Atheism,” that is, the belief that god does not exist) is a religion belief system not based on fact, as is a belief in the existence of god [edit]. But evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with Atheism. Atheism is a belief system; evolution is a scientific theory with huge amounts of physical evidence which has healthily survived a century and a half of strident and piercing attack and review.

It is only from the fundamentalist religious viewpoint that evolution is a belief system, or is part of one, and that is chiefly because fundamentalists use biblical scripture as if it were a Science text, and from there come to conclusions about the nature of the universe which are easily shown as false by physical observations. Fundamentalists see any idea or information which contradicts their religious beliefs as being just as much based on a belief system, and so they ascribe it to Atheism, or as an attack on their religion.

Most of the negative views on the documentary accused it of bias. An easy accusation, since it’s such a contentious topic, and so many see it in a deeply subjective light. But ultimately, it’s a false claim, based upon the perception that their side was not adequately presented–because their side was shown as losing.

Any look at the evolution vs. ID debate is going to be controversial, and any view that winds up supporting one side will naturally be called biased by the other side. What NOVA did was to focus on the two in the crucible of a federal courtroom, not to mention one presided over by a Republican, a Lutheran, and appointed by George W. Bush, no less. ID’ers could not have asked for a fairer judge, and initially, were pleased, as this commenter on a ID blog wrote:

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. … Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

NOVA looked at the issue in the most even-handed venue that could be found (one which actually leaned in favor of ID from all appearances), where both sides had their chance to present their arguments.

One clear fact is that the side representing evolution won, and won big. That would suggest that they made their case much better, and therefore NOVA’s presentation was probably more toward the “fair” side of things. The only way you could get around this would be to suggest that Judge Jones was somehow so biased and unfair that the decision was fatally flawed and incorrect… and predictably, this is exactly the tack that ID’ers have taken since the decision was handed down, and they turned viciously against “their” judge.

Some commenters on the NOVA documentary felt that there was even a conspiracy at work:

WHAT IS PBS AFRAID OF, that they would not allow it??? PBS’s refusal to allow a fair rebuttal tells the whole story. What a shame that so many Americans who can intuitively see that there is a difference between intelligent involvement and random chance must pay for such one-sided reporting. It is sad that the Intelligent Design idea has been hushed-up. Talk about loss of freedom of speech!

What it really comes down to, however, is that the claims of “Intelligent Design” are completely unscientific, and are not backed up by a shred of evidence that can withstand any sort of review. Any “evidence” posited by the ID side can inevitably be knocked down. For a large number of examples of this, visit the Index to Creationist Claims, which deals with all such “evidence” with comprehensive and devastating detail. Really, go take a look at it–it’s pretty impressive.

And that’s why Science ends up winning cases like the one in Dover: they have got their stuff together. I guess defending a theory successfully over a century and a half of arduous attack will leave you that way.

Though I kind of like the way Ars Mathematica put it, graphically:

Today, what does that mean? A recent post by Paul got me thinking about that, and reminded me of some fundamental principles involved in being a Democrat–and how more people would probably vote Democratic were they only to think about things a bit more. Paul suggested we pose questions that would make that point, so here is an extension of what he did.

Usually, people ask questions like, “do you support abortion rights,” or “are you for gun control?” However, such questions focus on specific issues and not the general, underlying principles. The point here is that a lot of people think that their stands on issues are based firmly on those principles, when in fact the truth is less so. Often I see people who profess to principles that only Democratic politicians actually protect, buy they vote Republican, because they hear Republican politicians mouth the principles even though they clearly do not live up to them.

Here are some key questions which highlight important differences between Democrats and Republicans, in terms of the policies that the parties are more likely to support. The more you answer “yes” to these questions, the more you’re a Democrat. Some of these do not represent absolutes; a question might simply emphasize which direction you lean toward.

• Do you favor paying as you go instead of going into debt? Do you prefer paying off your debts as opposed to continuously servicing them?

• Do you support the Constitution, and I mean all of the Constitution as it currently stands?
• Are people more important than corporations? Do you feel that corporations inevitably feed their bottom line at the cost of everything and everyone else?
• Do you believe that people who have more should support society more?
• Should all people be treated equally, even if their talents and background are not equal?
• Can you respect other people’s privacy in all matters, so long as what they do is consensual and does not cause permanent bodily harm?
• Do you agree with the idea that everyone in society should support each other, as opposed to everyone fending for themselves?
• Do you favor preparation and prevention over waiting for something bad to happen and dealing with it then?
• If you feel that a man is guilty, but cannot prove it, would you set him free even though it means releasing a man you believe is dangerous back into society?
• If treatment for a crime works better than punishment, would you favor treatment over punishment?
• Do you respect people more for being honest than for being effective?
• Do you believe that true patriotism sometimes means criticizing your own country?
• Could you support the statement “America is as good as anyone else in the world” over the statement “America is better than everyone else in the world”?
• Do you believe that your leaders should be smarter and better than you are?
• Would you rather hear true news rather than news that makes you feel good? Can you fairly easily accept the fact that you may be wrong, even on matters that might be important to you?

In making this list, I tried to limit it to questions that Democrats, and not Republicans, could truly answer “yes” to, to the extent of weeding out questions such as, “do you favor more job creation?” or, “are you against pork-barrel spending and political corruption?” Such questions absolutely apply to contrasts between Democrats and Republicans, but might strike readers as being too “slanted.” As Stephen Colbert said, however, “the truth has a liberal bias.”

Can you think of any other questions I missed?

“Okay, kids–now, leeeaan to the right! Just like the Supreme Court! Eh heh heh!”

Rumors and an elaborate mock-up have started making the Internet rounds about an alleged new feature for the iPhone: make Starbucks orders using your iPhone without having to stand in line.

See the full series of mock-up images.

This was reported by Forbes a few weeks ago. Let’s say you walk into a Starbucks or other place with a long line of people waiting to order something. Instead of waiting in line, just get out your iPhone, place the order wirelessly, and then wait for your iPhone to report to you that your order is ready and waiting–and then pick it up. You have just jumped to the head of the line, cutting in front of all those other people waiting like suckers!

It’s not as impolite as it sounds, though–people who order electronically bypass the line altogether. People in line are not waiting for their product, they are waiting for the services of a human at the register to take their order. People who order by iPhone still have to wait for their order to be processed, like everyone else. It’s just like getting a movie ticket on Fandango–when you get to the theater, you can bypass the line of people who want to buy a ticket at the counter, and instead you go to the line of people waiting to show their ticket to get in.

What the new iPhone feature does is make it so you can order “online” from within the store itself, a big change over ordering from your home PC. This could make a big difference in how people shop. Instead of having to prepare everything in advance from home, you could make an order on the fly from just about anywhere.

An interesting element of the mock-up:

It’s the use of SemaCode, a 2-dimensional barcode, to place the order. In Japan, a similar 2-D barcode called “QR Code” is often seen; however, as far as I can tell, it’s not used in the same way as suggested above. In Japan, the code is often seen on ads in magazines and posters on walls in any public venue. You use your phone’s digital camera to scan the code, and your phone decodes the data. It might be a telephone number you can call, or a hyperlink to a web page your cell phone can then visit. Often these codes can be seen on food wrappers; scanning them can tell you the history of the item, like where and when a certain fish was caught, or where and when the potatoes for a bag of chips were grown and harvested.

The idea that this technology is being integrated into the iPhone certainly makes sense regarding the rumor that the iPhone will soon be announced for Japan.

From the way the Supreme Court justices were forming their questions, it seems pretty clear that the Republican majority among them, this time including Kennedy, was biased in favor of supporting Republican attempts to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The case in question is an Indiana law that requires voters to present a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Supporters of such ID laws (coincidentally, they are pretty much always Republicans) argue that the measure will stem voter fraud, though they cannot produce evidence of voter fraud that they are supposedly guarding against. Nationwide, it has been an open secret that such laws are favored by conservatives because mostly Democratic voters are the ones who lack such IDs. And while in most (but not all) cases, it is possible for people to get such IDs, the fact remains that it is an additional hurdle, and every additional hurdle causes a certain number of voters to turn away from the polls.

A way of measuring this is actually pretty easy: imagine that a law is passed which requires only Republican voters to first go to their county office and pick up a “voting slip,” for free, which would then be presented at the polling place to allow the person to vote. The method is easy, it’s free (beyond transportation costs and time), and does not deny a single person the right to vote–so why object? Well, of course, because it only requires Republicans to do so, not Independents, Democrats, Libertarians, or others. All the arguments you hear the right-wing Supreme Court justices using could apply to this law as well: the process is easy and free, everyone would still be able to vote, etc.

Three problems: it is a hurdle which discourages legitimate voters, there is no genuine reason to do so, and it is a law used almost exclusively by one political party which unfairly burdens an opposing party. Such laws are nothing but watered-down, modern-day Jim Crow poll taxes. The entire matter, cast by Republicans as a law enforcement issue, is almost by definition a wholly political issue. The laws are drafted, campaigned for, and passed by Republicans over the protests of Democrats, have little or no effect on Republican voters while bearing a definite burden on Democratic voters, and in courts, the laws are upheld by Republican-appointed judges and dissented to by Democratic-appointed judges.

Naturally, such niceties slipped right past the conservative justices. Alito said, “There is nothing to quantify the extent of the problem or the extent of the burden,” but despite this, showed signs that he would uphold the Republican law. So, it’s OK to disenfranchise voters so long as you work in grey areas? I’m glad that his standards are so high; usually, where there is doubt, I would think one should lean toward protecting people’s rights instead of stripping them away, but then I’m not a Supreme Court justice like Alito is.

Roberts said, “”You cannot point to a single instance of someone who was denied the right to vote,“ despite the fact that the plaintiffs did exactly that, in the case of one Mary-Jo Criswell. Not to mention that the Republicans defending this cannot point to a single instance where this law would prevent voter fraud. And, apparently, Roberts is OK with people who are unfairly and unnecessarily burdened and discouraged from voting, so long as they are not demonstrably stripped of their voting rights.

Scalia went double-time in his conservative defense of the law; he reportedly ”wondered why the Democrats were the ones filing the lawsuit, saying it should have been filed by individual voters who may have been directly harmed by the law.“ Apparently Scalia forgot to ask why the Republicans were the ones pushing for the laws in every state; apparently, only the motives of Democrats, not Republicans, are suspect. Scalia also suggested that ”the Democrats’ claim should be thrown out because it did not rely on instances of people who were actually prevented from voting.“ Two problems: as stated above, they did show people who were prevented from voting (and could point to hurdles unfairly discouraging specific groups), and then there’s the fact that the Republicans who drafted the law did not rely on instances of people who were actually committing voter fraud. Apparently none of these ironies registered with the justice whose political party would benefit from the law.

Thomas was quiet, as always, but one can pretty easily guess as to what he was thinking.

Hopefully, the idea that Kennedy will add some caveats to the decision will come true, and we’ll see some reasonable restrictions that will not condone the full-out Republican drive to stem voter fraud that doesn’t exist in order to suppress Democratic voters.

Ah, so familiar a story. For years, Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House (and even before, when they controlled just Congress for years), Republican pork spending explodes to stratospheric levels, and Bush never vetoes it or does anything about it.

Then Democrats win back the Congress. Suddenly, the president sees pork as a major problem. Democrats cut pork spending in half, taking most of the brunt themselves, as Republicans still dominate pork even from the minority.

Seeing even bigger Democratic wins coming soon, leading to more Democratic pork than Republican pork, right-wingers complain that pork is again a major problem. With Congress bound to remain Democratic and a Democratic president seemingly inevitable, conservatives start to clamor for pork to be eliminated altogether.

Until, and you can bet the house on this, Republicans take control again someday. At which point, pork will return in a massive surge and Republicans will find no problems with it.

The End.

Hat tip to C&L.

You never know. In this race, front runners always seem to drop behind at the last moment. Hillary wins New Hampshire, albeit by a slim margin–2% at this time, with 81% of districts reporting. This is great for Hillary, who was on the verge of losing big, and not-so-great news for Obama, who will have to come back strong–again. In a very real way, it’s all about expectations. Two weeks ago, Obama getting 37% to Hillary’s 39% would have been a huge win for Obama. Today, with pre-primary polls (three times fast!) averaging about 5-6% for Obama, it comes as a defeat. In neutral terms, it’s almost a tie for the votes of the state, a close race.

But this is all about expectations and momentum, which have now returned to Hillary’s camp. Which makes her the front runner again, and so far in this race, that doesn’t mean very much. Whatever the New Hampshire result means, Obama’s Iowa bounce has made him a serious contender. Neither candidate is out of it now.

One question a lot of people will ask: how much did Hillary’s “emotional moment” have to do with this? If not that, then what was it? Or were the 50% of polls that put Obama ahead simply wrong, and the other half which had Clinton and Obama neck-and-neck simply the right ones?

It will be interesting to see details on New Hampshire turnout and how youth, independents, and even Republicans voted in the Democratic primary.

One good thing: it keeps the media’s eyes even more closely focused on the Democratic race; had Obama blown Hillary out of the water too quickly, the media would have paid more attention to the Republicans, giving them more air time, more exposure, which only would have helped their cause.

From today’s Supreme Court deliberations concerning lethal injections, and the fact that they can inflict excruciating pain:

Justice Antonin Scalia said states have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs. “There is no painless requirement” in the Constitution, Scalia said. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also indicated their support for the states’ procedures.

Apparently, Scalia believes that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t exist, unless I missed something and “excruciating pain” and “cruel and unusual punishment” are not as similar as they seem.

This is the same Scalia who believes there is no separation of church and state, and that the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant. You’ll also recall that Scalia dismissed innocent people put to death by the state an “insignificant minimum.” He said that if the wedding of religion and government offends non-believers, they can just “turn their eyes away.” As to the Ninth Amendment protection of unenumerated rights, Scalia said that the Congress was best equipped to decide which rights the Congress could strip the people of. Not to mention that Scalia has ethics problems, even beyond stuff like not recusing himself when cases involving his buddies reach the Supreme Court.

Can’t a Supreme Court justice be impeached for flagrant disregard for the document he is sworn to protect and uphold? The Constitution says they can hold office as long as they serve with “good behavior,” and SC justices can be impeached. One would think that the outright denial of clearly stated constitutional rights by a Supreme Court justice is not precisely “good behavior”–but in this day and age, such an observation would simply be dismissed as “political.”

Good news for Obama: a new USA Today/Gallup poll has Obama out in front with a 13-point lead in New Hampshire, 41% to 28%, with Edwards trailing at 19%. Meanwhile, a new CNN/WMUR poll put Obama ahead by 10 points. That makes four polls with Obama ahead by double-digits.

The polls seem to suffer from dual-personality disorder (c’mon, admit it, “schizophrenic” works better there, despite the inaccuracy of the medical term), as just as many recent polls put Clinton and Obama within just a few points. Here’s how TPM lists it:

ARG: Obama +11
Gallup: Obama +13
CNN/UNH: Obama +10
Rasmussen: Obama +12
Suffolk: Clinton +2
Mason-Dixon: Obama +2
Zogby: Clinton +1
Research 2000: Obama +1

Also, one has to remember that these polls take their samples according to historically representative voting groups, which means that Obama’s lead might even be understated, as it was in the Iowa polls. Not to set too high a bar, but this could be turning into a blowout.

A few more recent polls from New Hampshire show a similar range:

CNN: Obama +9
Suffolk: Obama +1
Fox: Obama +4

Not surprisingly, Obama is surging in South Carolina:

SurveyUSA: Obama +20
Rasmussen: Obama +12

But the biggest surprise is nationally:

Gallup: Obama/Clinton even
Rasmussen: Clinton +4

While that might not look impressive for Obama out of context, it’s huge news: Obama is catching up everywhere, not just in the few early-primary states. And given that Clinton had a 15-point-plus lead over Obama nationally just a week ago, these numbers are rather breathtaking. Iowa started a trend, and now it’s exploding. Just a few days ago, people were warning that even if Obama won in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Hillary was still strong elsewhere and Obama would have a tough time beating her. Now that seems to be reversing; one influential web opinionator, Kos, now wonders how Hillary can possibly recover.

Usually I would say that it’s still too early to start making predictions, but with the primaries stacked like they are, this whole thing could be over in a short matter of weeks, and with Obama trending like this, it is indeed hard to see how this could all change. Not that it couldn’t, but it would have to take something pretty dramatic to do it.

Here’s a recent news story, via Pharyngula, about a teenage girl who now cowers in fear at the prospect of going back to school because an atheist there publicly disrespected her god:

As many Parker High School students get ready for Christmas break, junior Elle Jacobson is at home and will not be returning like her friends.

“I have never felt threatened like that in a classroom before,” said Jacobson.

The 17-year-old is talking about an incident in her English class two weeks ago during a class presentation.

“This boy got up and his visual aid was a Bible and a book. And he got up and started his speech by saying ‘Now, this piece of crap’ and pointed to the Bible.”

Jacobson said that she quickly felt threatened.

“He took the Bible and he said, ‘I’m going to do this because I can. I’m going to do something that your stupid, little minds aren’t going to be able to comprehend and he took the Bible and started ripping out pages.”

Hmm. Seems like that boy was right on target in his prediction about his classmates not being able to handle something. He gets failing grades for tolerance and tact, but top grades for stirring the pot and eliciting meaning in a riveting manner.

The question is, despite the student’s belittling manner, why should any student feel threatened by what he did, to the extent that they have to cower in fear in their homes?

To answer the question, put yourself into the state of mind of a young, impressionable child who has, for all of her life, been told that there is an all-powerful god in the sky who will send you to be hideously tortured for all eternity if you don’t believe in him (because he is loving and forgiving, after all), and you believe this is as true and as real as the desk that you are sitting at, and the poor grade you’ll get from your teacher if you perform badly on tests.

I suppose that if I believed that story so strongly, I’d be scared out of my wits to be even near someone who then called the holiest of all books, god’s own words, “crap,” and then ripped it up.

That does make you realize some important things. For example, think of your distant ancestors, huddling in a cave, wearing animals skins, cringing at the thunder and the invisible god that wielded the lightning, who would strike you down or fail to provide you food unless you offered up a deer or something as a bloody sacrifice.

And then think of how far we have come since those days!

Depressing, isn’t it?

Obama is now surging in new polls out. While a few (like CNN’s) have him neck-and-neck with Hillary and picking up only marginal gains, two polls–Rasmussen and the American Research Group (ARG)–show Obama surging ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire by 10 to 12 points. Other polls report that Obama’s positives are similarly surging, as are his ratings for electability, now equal to Hillary’s.

Though Clinton has somewhat successfully gone negative (“successful” in that she got negative barbs out), Obama remained aloofly positive, and in the end, I think people will react better to that. Clinton’s overall strategy: paint Obama as a liberal (now, that’s hitting below the belt! And incredibly ironic!), claiming that he’s too far to the left–at the same time that Obama’s message of unity has some lefty bloggers worrying that he might run to the center. I believe their worries are misplaced; Obama shows respect for all views, but he comes out of the reasoning and the negotiation process with solutions still well within liberal bounds.

But I think there’s an angle here that few if any have picked up on: Obama is likely to be the liberal version of Reagan, a great orator who will inspire people to follow him. Obama will not be a Clinton, chasing after the electorate in the hopes they will favor him. Obama’s eloquence, his trustability, his appeal to independents and even Republicans is more likely to allow him to sell his liberal ideas and policies. From 2009, we might start hearing people talk about “Obama Republicans,” like we heard of “Reagan Democrats” in the 80’s. Obama could get these the same way Reagan did, by speaking directly to the nation in a way that would cause a popular upswell, bringing enough Republicans nervous about their electability over to Obama’s side. And he would not need too many Republicans to get the bills he wants passed, as Congress will likely still have a Democratic majority.

In fact, if Obama can translate his ability to bring in huge voter turnout from Iowa to the national stage, we might see more Democrats winning Senate and House seats than expected. A few Obama Republicans might be all that is needed to create a super-majority and remove the Republicans’ massively-overused filibuster weapon from their arsenal. And if Obama can show that he has coattails that will let Democrats beat out Republicans in close races, it might be an easy sell to get those borderline Republicans to vote with him.

In short, instead of running to the center–which Hillary would absolutely do, without any doubt whatsoever–Obama could bring the center to him, and swing the country to the left. No way Hillary could do that, and Edwards doing it would be a stretch.

Obama’s big win in Iowa was invigorating. Not only did he pull way out ahead of where the polls said he’d land, he did it in a powerful and ultimately hopeful way: by bringing out the voters who usually don’t vote. Young people were the big surprise; usually, they don’t vote as much as other groups, but for Obama, they came out more than the traditional groups. Voter turnout for Democrats was almost double of what it was in 2004, and was far higher than it was for Republicans. Here are the Iowa results portrayed not by percentages for each party, but in percentages overall, and it shows something scary for the Republican Party:

Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

I am beginning to think more and more that not only can Obama win, but he could win big.

Of course, I’m getting ahead of myself; there are still a few contests left before a president is chosen. And Obama’s next big challenge is New Hampshire, where Hillary still leads, but the trends show Obama is gaining. And let’s not forget that before Iowa voted, Clinton and Obama were neck and neck; it was the unexpected turnout that vaulted Obama ahead, and the same could happen in New Hampshire. Right now, Hillary has something like a 6-8% lead over Obama. Even a close tie in that state would be a definite win for Obama. If he comes out with more votes than Hillary, Obama would have even more momentum going into South Carolina–he might even by that time be called the front-runner.

It used to be that you could be denied the privilege of adopting children if you were gay, as if gayness were a disease, or somehow something that kids could pick up from their parents, something we would never want to inflict on kids. I mean, make kids gay? Think of all the horrible suffering they would have to endure at our hands!

Well, it’s not as if those days are past–the homophobes still usually win out when it comes to adoption. But now a new band of social pariahs have been added to the No-Adopt list: atheists.

In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” Despite Eleanor Katherine’s tender years, he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

Note: This article, it turns out, is from 1970. It should also be noted, however, that in such issues, atheism still puts a prospective parent at a disadvantage.

There is just so much in there that is disturbing and wrong that I don’t feel like delving into it in length at this late hour. Short story: Christian extremist judge assumes that only those who believe in a religion are fit parents, claiming that only religious parents will allow children to choose a god to believe in (as if that were an absolute imperative for kids). What unadulterated crap. Most atheists are of the agnostic stripe and feel that children should not be locked into one belief system, but rather exposed to all and allowed to make a choice. I cannot imagine that more religious parents will do the same. Religious parents tend to feel that their beliefs are correct, and therefore lock kids into one belief system, denying them this choice. But somehow I don’t think that such a thing bothers this particular judge.

The next time I see or hear some religious person going on about how religious people are being persecuted in America because Christianity is not allowed to be crammed into every public space, I will have the urge to have this article ready to shove into their face. But then, I am all too aware that if they believe the nonsense about religious persecution, they will already be predisposed to not comprehend the moral vacancy involved in decisions like the one this judge made. I can only take comfort in that most religious people are not that intolerant or blind. What troubles me is that the religious extremists who are ignorant and blind seem to be the ones with power and influence. My bias coloring my views, I can only hope.

Question: how long before a judge decides to grant custody to one parent because they are religious and the other one isn’t? Oh, wait–that already happens with regularity.

Okay, then: how long before judges start to remove children from atheist parents on the grounds that the child should have religion growing up? Don’t scoff: that is almost exactly what the court case above is doing, just one step shy. I would not be surprised at all if such a thing had already happened under some circumstance or another. And if not, it probably will soon.

A lot of what I like about Obama goes back to this speech, back in 2004. In many ways, Obama is the Bill Clinton of 2008. Like Clinton giving the keynote speech for a future lost Democratic bid in 1988, Obama came of note in 2004–except that Obama’s speech was far better, far more uprising. Obama is a stirring orator, someone capable of reaching across divided lines, and uniting people who might be surprised to find themselves on common ground. As I noted before, I have seen conservatives with an unabated hatred of Hillary Clinton and of Democrats in general say that they actually like Obama, or at least would be satisfied with him.

Usually, politicians try to offend the least number of people possible. To do so, they state their stands on issues as seldom as possible, swinging instead to generalized, feel-good rhetoric which, in the end, doesn’t really mean very much. They try to ride public trends, even if it means derailing their principles. They come across as shallow. I remember seeing a debate of the Democratic candidates where Clinton, Edwards, and Obama spoke on an issue. Clinton seemed calculating, and both she and Edwards–Edwards especially–spoke broadly but vaguely; in then end, I wasn’t sure what they meant. But Obama spoke specifically, giving examples and citing cases. I teach students how to write, and drill into them the importance of examples. When Obama gave his reasons, I felt that he was not just trying to rouse the crowd with dazzling campaign-style language. It seemed instead that he had studied the issue, fought with himself on deciding why he should see it this way or that, and came to a decision as to what was best, and now he was trying to explain it to me in a way that made sense. Edwards, who had just spoken before, appeared to me as superficial–crowd-pleasing within a liberal context, but essentially not meaningful.

I finally broke down and bought Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, so that I could have a clearer picture of the candidate. What it has told me confirms the view I had had, and gives me even greater confidence in this candidate.

I have said before that where Bush claimed to be a united and not a divider, Obama actually is, even though he doesn’t try to claim that mantle like Bush so crassly (and so falsely) did. When I write on political matters, I do what a lot of people do: I write with conviction and anger, with an Us vs. Them paradigm. This is satisfying, but in the end, will not sway the other side so well.

Obama manages to say the exact kind of things that I want to say, but he does so in a way that shows due respect to all sides, taking into account differing perspectives and political points of view. He doesn’t say, “I’m right and you’re wrong,” nor does he try to obfuscate his way out of taking a stand. He points out the facts and the arguments that both sides would acknowledge, points out the core principle which is important to him, shows how these elements guided his decision, and then states clearly what he thinks should be done. In stating his case in this way, he shows you that he considers your point of view, values what is important to you, and that his decision is what he honestly feels best answers the problem at hand. He has not come to his decision through politics and polls, but through logic, understanding, and compassion. One example from his book was when a decision had to be made in Illinois concerning police interrogations; instead of simply laying down a decision, he called together all interested parties and hammered out a solution that everyone could agree to.

In this way, he comes across as trustworthy. If a Republican were to do this like Obama does, I would feel a lot more comfortable with them, and I think that this is very much why many independents and conservatives would accept Obama, where they might reject another candidate from either party.

I believe that Obama also has an intelligent and correct focus on what is important. I myself have always believed that the three best investments that we as a nation could make are in education, infrastructure, and science. In his book, in the chapter titled “Opportunity,” Obama lays out his big three investments: Education, Science, and Energy. He lays out the case for each, and I find myself reading his words as if I were reading my own. And while he placed energy in third place ahead of infrastructure, I find myself having to agree that it is a more pressing matter, and am not discouraged because he highlights the importance of infrastructure elsewhere.

And this is one of the things I like best about Obama: the wonkiness factor. It is the antithesis of Bush in 2000, making the case that he doesn’t need to know anything, he just needs to surround himself with “good people.” Obama appeals to me as the candidate who is actually smart enough to be president, who may not be an expert on everything, but knows enough about everything that he can make intelligent choices, and will not be led about by the nose like Bush has been. Obama has a good command of the issues, knows the facts that need to be known, and can explain it to people in ways that resonate and don’t condescend.

On the issues, Obama stands pretty much where I stand. He is a strong defender of the constitution as a living document, and opposes strict constructionism. He dislikes abortion but is pro-choice. He supports stem-cell research. He believes that deficits are dangerous, supports “pay as you go,” wants to get us out of crippling debt (and means it). He is no homophobe, and is extremely strong on civil rights. He supports free trade, but feels that strong efforts must be made to stop promoting the exportation of jobs; for example, no tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. He feels that the death penalty can be justified in extreme cases (we disagree on that a bit), but also understands that it is not a deterrent and is so prone to error and prejudice that it is not tenable. He believes that police interrogation should be videotaped. He rightly questions the way drugs are dealt with, and though he does not come out strongly on the issue, he gives me the clear impression that he knows the “war on drugs” is a sham (am I reading my biases into that?). He believes that good, solid, public education is essential, and is against vouchers or other easy feel-good political answers. He wants real reform and real funding for public education. He wants more teachers, more emphasis on teaching, more grants and support for students, and an end to crippling student debt. He approves of Ethanol, but not as the only alternative energy source. He is open to more nuclear, and supports big research into alternative fuels and renewable energy as well as higher fuel efficiency standards. He is very good on the environment. He is strong on campaign finance reform and reducing the influence of lobbyists, stating that the only lobbies he feels comfortable with are lobbies made up of people, or which work for the interests of the people–not because they are lobbies, but because their goals are already in sync with what he already believes. He is strong on gun control. He is strong on health care reform and well-versed on health issues. He is for corporations and the people cooperating for the benefit of all, but is strongly against corporate corruption and supremacy; the people come first. He believes in trickle-up, not trickle-down. He takes a reasonable middle road to immigration, open to more immigration but not to indiscriminate opening of the floodgates. (I do not agree with his fence-building support, if that was his intent in voting for it, he does seem to support cracking down on illegal employers.) He is pro-worker, pro-union, pro-people (as opposed to believing that if we support organizations, that we can trust them to take care of the people). He is strong on values, but not on ramming them down our throats. He is pro-Social Security, and against privatization. He is for middle-class tax cuts, and feels that the wealthy have been given far too much and should be made to pay their share. And though he has been called weak on foreign policy, he was one of the few voices of reason on Iraq from the very start, and shows the same level-headed promise in other areas–speaking from principle rather than from politics.

I have seen many liberals voice discomfort with Obama, which strikes me as strange because his stand on the issues is solidly liberal. I think what makes them uneasy is the fact that he does not dismiss alternate points of view out of hand. That he values what conservatives think and feel, even if he eventually disagrees with them on specifics. However, this is what makes Obama strong: that he can see both sides of an issue, draw in people from both sides, and come to a decision that many more can feel comfortable with because they feel that their values have been addressed and their leader is a true, honest straight-shooter.

I believe that Obama represents America and Americans better than anyone else out there. I see him as the most honest and informed candidate. I believe that he has the greatest appeal, the greatest likability, and is the greatest orator in the crowd. I believe that he has the best chance of winning, and more importantly, the best chance of being a great leader who takes us exactly where we need to go.

Two years and four months ago, I made a list of 28 potential Democratic candidates for the ’08 race. The list included all the eventual candidates, except one: Mike Gravel. I think I can be forgiven for overlooking him.

The purpose for making the list was to guess not only who would run, but who you would choose from that list as the best candidate for president. My choice at the time was Hillary Clinton, and I guessed as a dream-team VP candidate, Barack Obama. At the time I was being analytical, trying to figure whose chances were best. I liked Obama, but Hillary seemed much more likely to go the distance.

That opinion changed over time. As I noted in this post, I gradually became disenchanted with Hillary for two core reasons. First, I don’t believe that she’ll do the right thing. She seems to work by triangulation, not by principle. She runs to the center far too often. She may be the skilled political operative, but that doesn’t mean that she’ll do the right thing. I simply don’t like her record, nor what she says and does today.

Then there is the issue of how she would fare in the general election. Despite assurances about how she has survived and has demonstrated that she can fight back, she could far too easily be made into a figure of dislike amongst Americans in general. She seems to me to be the Kerry of 2008–the one who seems to have “winnability” only because she’s the “power” candidate. If you recall, Kerry also was the “winner” choice, and we all believed that he had the best ability to fight back against the Republican slime barrage. We were wrong. I believe that impression is similarly mistaken about Hillary. There’s just too much dirt, too much negativity and polarization to exploit.

Slowly, as I saw more of the candidates, I liked Hillary far less, and Obama far more. As I noted in 2005 when I saw Obama as a potential running mate, I noted this:

This guy can give a speech. This guy has the potential to rally support, and more than coming from a state or balancing a ticket, he could actually motivate people and get them to come to vote. He is inclusive, he is positive, and he is young and energetic. He’s also one of the most popular senators around. …Obama’s positive enthusiasm and inclusiveness will win the day.

In a February, 2006 comment to my candadite-list post, I noted:

Actually, I’m beginning to lose my interest in Clinton, and with Feinstein, for the same reasons–they are too compromising, too clinging to the middle of the road. I’m beginning to think that we need someone who is more willing to stand by their convictions. Feinstein lost my vote of confidence when she shut down the Alito filibuster before it could get started. Don’t get me wrong, [e]ither of them would be a hundred times better than Bush and many times better than any Republican candidate I have seen.

A year ago, I had pretty much swung fully into the Obama camp, noting this:

Barack Obama scares the living crap out of [far-right-wingers]. The reasons are simple: he has no sordid, scandalous past. He has no long track record they can hang him with. But most importantly, he is a liberal who does not come across as a liberal. He comes across as centrist, reasonable, and personable as hell. His books are well-written, intelligent, and thoughtful, but can’t be pigeonholed as liberal-elite. Even more, he can see both sides of an issue; where Bush claimed to be a uniter-not-a-divider but in action was anything but, Obama does not ostentatiously claim this, but he does display it. He does not give the easy answers to people, he doesn’t tell them exactly what they want him to say–but they leave feeling that they’ve been dealt with straight. And as far as straight-talking is concerned, he makes Bush look plastic and cheap by comparison.

In short, Obama is about as liberal as you can get while having the charisma that could appeal across centrists and even fairly deep into conservative territory. There is a couple I know who are very, very conservative; they hate Clinton and love Bush, and tend to be right-wing mostly across the line. And they like Obama.

If Obama can dodge Hillary and stride out in front without getting too sullied in the primary process, then he stands to be a major threat to John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Early polls show him doing not much better than Hillary against them, but then again, Hillary has huge name recognition and Obama still has relatively little. Give him a national stage and time, and he’ll start steamrolling.

Well, that happened. Right now Obama is neck-and-neck with Hillary in most polls, and has the momentum. It helps that Kucinich told his people to make Obama a second choice; Kucinich is bound to be eliminated, and his people, while few, are enthusiastic, and did very well for Edwards in Iowa in 2004. Obama is doing pretty well in New Hampshire, given Hillary’s front-runner lead in that state–in some polls, Obama is very close to Clinton, and if he wins and she loses in Iowa, Obama could jump ahead very easily. Clinton has a huge lead in Michigan, but only because Obama and Edwards pulled out at the behest of the party; Michigan will be discounted. And in the next big test, South Carolina, Obama and Hillary are neck-and-neck. Again, Iowa could give Obama a boost to make him the early front-runner, and give him momentum he could ride to the candidacy.

Next post: why I am encouraged by Obama specifically.

Well, we’re back from Japan. I just took a little scoot down to the supermarket, and that reminded me of the times I thought of blogging on driving between the two countries.

One thing you might know from reading my blog is the disrespect I have for Japanese traffic police, and the way traffic is managed in this country. Traffic lights are often set up to alternate red and green every other light, causing traffic to stop and idle unnecessarily–with the light switching to red usually just as cars arrive at the intersection. I can’t say how many times I have been caught by a red light just as I arrive, and see no traffic come from the cross street–only to see several cars arrive on the cross street just as it turns red for them.

In the U.S., at least in my hometown, sensors are used extensively, buried under the road at most intersections, including probably all major ones. If no traffic is at a cross street, the light will turn early. Turn lanes detect when the lane goes empty and lets straight traffic through. At night, some lights remain open for the major traffic route unless a vehicle trips the magnet the other way–meaning that traffic moves as efficiently as possible. For all I hear American drivers complain, traffic lights in the U.S. are done so that traffic runs far more smoothly than in Japan. Yes, one does get tired of all the speed bumps, but that’s a small price to pay. And there are more stop signs in the U.S. (I recall seeing few if any 4-way stop signs in Japan), but that strikes me as a safer way of managing things.

Then there are the speed limits. For the past year here in Japan, I have been mentei. That means that I got enough traffic citations that I exceeded the allowed number of points. Six points means you’re mentei–damned easy to do, as 13 mph (20 kph) over the speed limit here is two points off (regardless of the base speed limit). 16 mph (25 kph) over and it’s three points. You even get points for minor parking offenses. Worse, you get punished for living near the countryside areas. Speed traps are rare or non-existent in city areas; with a few exceptions, you can speed comfortably in the city. It’s when you come to the isolated, two-lane countryside road with little traffic, long and straight stretches with no pedestrians and few cross streets–that’s where you get the tickets.

Part of it is the ludicrous speed limits they set. In the U.S., less than a week ago, I was driving down such a road between Los Gatos and Saratoga; the speed limit was 50 mph (80 kph), a speed reserved in Japan only for toll expressways. In Japan, roads like the one I drove down in the U.S. have a speed limit of 25 mph (40 kph). Virtually everybody “speeds” on those roads (you feel downright stupid going 25 mph on such a road) and it is perfectly safe–so naturally, that’s where the Japanese police set up their speed traps. Live in the countryside, you’re bound to have a worse driving record. On more than one occasion, I drove just over 38 mph (60 kph) on such roads, and got ticketed. Two points per.

The thing is, those points stay on your record if you get more points within a certain time period. They can stay on for as long as a year each time you get a new ticket. In other words, you get caught speeding in June, and then again May the next year, both citations stay on your record for a full year after the last ticket. After one and a half decades of driving without going mentei, I finally “hit the jackpot” last year. Not because I was driving dangerously, but because I passed through one too many speed traps.

So I had the choice of taking a test (Japanese only) or losing my license for 30 days. As chance had it, those 30 days were to encompass a period during which I would be in the U.S. (driving, no less!) for almost three weeks. So I took the 30 days.

After that, you have to stay ticket-free for one year, lest the prior tickets remain to be held against you. During that time, the limit for going mentei is lowered to four points, with violation of that leading to 60 days suspension. My one-year period ends in the next day or two; I have been ticket-free for that year. Had I gotten a ticket today, I would have had to wait another year for those points to disappear and to get out of the danger zone. Another ticket in December 2008 would kick me into the next level of mentei.

Fortunately, as I mentioned, I have remained ticket-free for the past year. Which is not to say that I drove more safely–I had been driving safely when I went mentei. What I had to do was to follow the rules, which often have little to do with actual safety. Also, the fact that I moved to the inner city made things much easier–I had to worry about parking, yes (not easy since starting this year, they went ultra-fascist on parking, focusing primarily, as always, on scooters), but I hardly had to worry about moving violations at all.

If I make it without a ticket for the next day or two, then I am back at the starting point, with my slate clean; like everyone else, I will have the six-point limit. However, I will be punished next license-renewal time. If you have tickets on your license, you have to pay more fees and sit through hours and hours of insipid “driving safety” lectures which–like everything else in the Japanese traffic “safety” system, have nothing whatsoever to do with actual safety. The last lecture I sat through, to the best of my ability to understand, did not include a single explanation of a safety rule. It came across as more of a way of bureaucratically slapping you around for being such a baaad boy or girl, for falling into that speed trap.