Just watching it on CNN now. I’m taping it and will comment on it more later. But I just wanted to say one thing: Kerry is impressive here. He just gave a reply to the question, “do you regret voting to give the president approval in the war in Iraq?” (That’s the essence, not a direct quote.) His answer was great. He didn’t hem or haw, but replied with a definite, almost definitive, “NO.” He pointed out that Congress forced Bush to agree to three things in getting that approval, that being to build a true global coalition, to respect the U.N.’s weapons inspection process, and to go to war as a last resort–and that he violated every one of those promises. An excellent argument, as a war in Iraq under those conditions would have been more acceptable (and probably would not have happened), but Kerry was as impressive in how he said it. He is coming across as very forceful, very passionate though very measured, and very presidential.

Been a while since I’ve done this. A few short comments on items in the news:

Although Bush will certainly milk the process for all it’s worth, the Gay Marriage amendment to the constitution appears to have already died a deserving death. The Democratic Underground is of course biased, but they have a list of 34 Senators who are on the record as being opposed to the amendment, which is enough to kill the whole business right there. Those are all solid stands, according to the Senators’ own offices or in statements made to the press. Sure, some could switch, but the list does not include Senators who have not taken an official stand, and may well land on the opposition side of the fence. It seems pretty much locked up, considering everything. From here, it is a dead certainty that whatever Bush does to push the bill is purely for partisan political purposes, no doubt remains on that.

Of note: there are eight Republicans in that list of 34: Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Snowe, Campbell and Alexander. When already, this early in the game, one-sixth of all Republican Senators have taken a stance against the proposal, you know that there is something wrong with it. Probably most take a principled stance, though it may not be beyond imagining that a few see a very likely downside to Bush’s attack strategy.

The Vatican is against the “zero tolerance” policy against child molestation now practiced by the American Bishops. The reason: they are afraid that priests charged with child molestation might be innocent of the charge. However, the zero-tolerance policy does not remove priests simply because somebody makes a claim; there must be a “credible” allegation of sexual misconduct. Not a conviction, but presumably if there is a strong reason to believe something untoward happened, then the priests may be removed from church work, and if the evidence is strong enough, removed from the priesthood. There is no telling how these rather unspecific terms will be handled; it is still a very new policy.

This may turn out to be unfair for some priests, but considering the church’s history, the position of great responsibility involved, and the likelihood of unthinkable harm to so many children that could result from a lesser policy, it is not hard to see this as a quite necessary evil, if it is an evil at all.

And although the Vatican might have its reasons, it is still rather depressing that they have taken this public tone; to this day, they still are rather unapologetic, and in the eyes of many, without much sympathy at all for the victims of their willing negligence in the matter. We should be concerned for the priests, but more concerned for the children in their charge.

Mike Luckovich came out with this rather appropriate editorial cartoon a few days ago:

“Osama bin Laden will probably be captured or killed one day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday, but he added he had no idea when.” (source)

Well, it’s good to know they’re on the ball. At least now they’ve started concentrating on bin Laden again, though it took massive failures in Iraq to spin them in that direction. Maybe if the Neocons had less control over Bush and instead of invading Iraq we spent a tenth as much to find Osama, then perhaps we would have caught him by now and would have much less of a budget deficit to boot. But then, the Republicans would not have been able to gain a few seats in Congress. Yeah, that was worth all the trouble.

Rosie O’Donnell has made a media event of the fact that she will be one of those getting married in San Francisco. Usually, I’d say more power to her, but I don’t think she’s doing the movement much good. I don’t think the movement really lacks a voice, and it smacks a bit too much of self-aggrandizement. Besides, I haven’t had much respect for her since she hogged media attention during the Million Mom March and said that we don’t need 20,000 gun laws, we need 40,000. It just went to show that she didn’t understand what she was talking about. The 20,000 laws were an artifact of the NRA, in that it successfully stopped legislation at the federal and state level, so individual communities were forced to make their own gun control laws. However, this created the ‘patchwork quilt’ of gun laws, which leaves gaping holes which render the entire system useless. We don’t need 20,000 laws, and certainly not 40,000; we need one gun control law, comprehensive, at the federal level.

That aside, Rosie does not exactly come across as a likable figure in the public arena most times. When there is already perhaps so much publicity that even moderates are being pushed away from the table, a loud, abrasive voice may not be the most helpful addition.

Amending the Constitution of the United States is supposed to be a historic and lofty event; we do not lightly or crassly change what to Americans is (or should be) a document sacred to us. And yet, all too often politicians, often for their own sordid, partisan motives, put forth proposals to amend the highest law of the country.

President Bush has done exactly this with the proposed amendment against gay marriage. Aside from being homophobic, discriminatory, and insulting to a sizable segment of the population, it is also opportunistic and highly politically motivated. Bush knows it will never pass two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of all states. It is clear it will fail. So Bush is obviously not doing this out of principle. He is doing this solely to use the most sacred document of our country, the Constitution, and the rights of an entire class of our society, as a gross partisan political weapon during a presidential election year. This, in my book, is yet another reason to get this man out of the White House as soon as is humanly possible–say, January 20th of next year. Impeachment would be better, but the Republicans control the Senate, so not much hope there.

Bush said that he is acting out of concern because of “activist judges” in Massachusetts (mostly appointed by Republicans, by the way) are legislating from the bench. This charge is so old and tired it should have been put to sleep long ago. Whenever a court comes to a decision that conservatives don’t like, they always resort to that knee-jerk appellation, “legislating from the bench.” Well, go ahead and read the decision (PDF file)–it is very easy for the layman to understand for a high court opinion, and is very well written. The dissent (PDF file), on the other hand, is far less reasoning; it is clear that at least Sosnan is opining from personal prejudice, and Spina doesn’t recognize that the judiciary is empowered to check the legislature if it finds that its laws violate the state constitution.

Just for edification purposes, here is the process for amending the constitution; here are the six amendments that passed Congress but not the states, and here is a list of proposed amendments over the past dozen years or so that never got past Congress.

I have selected some of the more dubious ones from the US Constitution.Net site, and listed & commented on them below.

Calling for the repeal of the 8th Amendment and its replacement with wording prohibiting incarceration for minor traffic offenses (for those of you who would have to look it up, the 8th is the one about Cruel and Unusual punishment)

Apart from the traffic offenses part sounding weird, this one is dangerous–it would open up all kinds of unthinkable punishments. Definitely a bad idea.

To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency

The “Schwarzenegger Amendment.” Not that the idea itself is that unreasonable (I could argue for or against it), it’s just when a constitutional amendment is aimed at one person for current political gain–or, in fact, any amendment is intended for a short-sighted, partisan political goal–it is almost certainly a very, very bad idea.

To limit pardons granted between October 1 and January 21 of any presidential election year

Some Clinton-hater dreamed this one up as a way to block lame duck presidents from enacting corrupt pardons on their way out. Or it could have been a Bush 41-hater, George Sr. had his own highly questionable last-minute pardons. While it could be possible that corrupt pardons go through, that window could be a time for righteous pardons that might otherwise be undoable to go through as well. And again, it is based on a present-day political situation. This could be viable, but I would want to see more evidence that it is truly a problem for the country.

To allow a Presidential pardon of an individual only after said individual has been tried and convicted of a crime

As much as I would have loved to have seen Nixon prosecuted, I think this one is more vindictive than useful. A pardon is a pardon, and is meant to alleviate a wrongdoing or to alleviate a national crisis. This amendment is designed to see political opponents twist in the wind before they are reprieved. We can do without that.

To declare that life begins at conception and that the 5th and 14th amendments apply to unborn children

Talk about imposing religious beliefs…

To clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires school prayer

Which is to say, opening the door to allow same, again imposing beliefs. You gotta love that “nor requires” bit–added to make it sound less biased.

To provide for “moments of silence” in public schools

I have even less respect for them if they don’t have the guts to say what they really mean.

To provide for the reconfirmation of federal judges every 10 years

Can anyone say “judicial gerrymandering”? Very bad idea. This would make political hostages out of judges, and lead to all sorts of political manipulation of the justice system–as if we don’t already have far more than enough of that already.

To provide for the recall of Representatives and Senators

Booo! Even if used on Republicans! If they did that bad, impeach them. If not, live with it until the built-in recall process–we call them “elections”–comes around. Recalls open the door for removing politicians for purely political reasons, as we’ve seen. Too opportunistic and destabilizing.

To force a three-fifths vote for any bill that raises taxes

Taxes pay for stuff. Unless lowering taxes is similarly difficult, this is a bad idea. Too much a conservative obsession–taxes, though painful, are nevertheless necessary. It is already too hard to pass them when they are needed.

To repeal the 26th Amendment (granting the vote to 18-year olds) and granting the right to vote to 16-year olds

Um… why??

Anyone know how to keep pigeons off your balcony?

Perhaps mistakenly, I didn’t shoo them off the balcony last year in time, and when they laid eggs, I didn’t want to destroy them, so I let them stay for the duration. Made for an interesting education in pigeon growth, not to mention some blog fodder, but good lord, what an ungodly mess they left! I don’t want to surrender my balcony again, or have to clean up that unspeakable carpet of, well, better left unsaid.

Problem is, the same pair have recently taken to appearing on the balcony in the mornings, and I do not wish for them to procreate again on that spot. I try to shoo them away, but the darn flappy bastards keep coming back.

Anyone know a good method of keeping them away? Some kind of scent? A scarecrow? A photo of John Ashcroft?

I have a new mantra this election season: turnout. I’ve been talking about it for weeks, posting on discussion forums–and just realized that I had not expounded on it here in my own blog.

There is much talk about the race this year, and what factors might affect it. Despite the recent month or two, with Bush’s PR people floundering, talk about the race from this point onward has been pessimistic of a Democratic victory. Bush has a $170 million war chest, filled with special interest money, and will use it to decimate Kerry. Nader has joined the race, and that will draw votes away from the Democratic candidate. Kerry is a senator, and no senator has directly been elected president since Kennedy. Kerry’s record is long and is full of targets for the GOP to shoot at, painting him as a Massachusetts liberal.

But there is reason to see things going the other way. Dean had a huge war chest, but Kerry won anyway. The economy is not doing too well, especially when it comes to jobs; if that continues, Bush could have big trouble. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose; if he is not captured, and there are no big victories in the War on Terror(TM), then again it would look bad for Bush. The planned elections at the end of June look like they won’t happen, and may be pushed back to election time or later–and our troops will still be in Iraq beyond the elections, and they will probably, unfortunately, still be dying. The WMD case will still be there, and Bush’s credibility will still be in question. And there may be fallout from two criminal investigations in the GOP: the theft of computer files by Senate Republicans, and possible arrests and prosecutions of Cheney staffers in the Valerie Plame affair.

But ever since Iowa, I have been hearing one word that has great significance, but almost no one is really talking about: turnout.

The Iowa caucus had a turnout above 124,000, more than double the number of people who attended in 2000. In New Hampshire, a record 219,000 Democrats came out to vote, more than turned out in 1992, the last high-turnout year; turnout this time was about 40% higher than in 2000. New Mexico saw double the expected turnout, and numbers in Nevada were several times greater than previous elections. Michigan and Wisconsin both saw the second-highest turnout ever, with Wisconsin getting its highest turnout since 1980. I saw the same thing here in Japan–the number of attendees for the Tokyo caucus for Democrats Abroad was four times higher than 2000. In France, they predicted a record turnout of 300, and more than double that number showed up.

In almost every state where a primaries and caucuses have been held this year, there have been record turnouts of Democrats. What is more, Bush’s support is turning out to be soft. In the New Hampshire primary, Bush only got 77.9% of the Republican vote, even though he was uncontested. 11.9% of the remaining votes by Republicans were for Democratic candidates.

Bush has the support of his base, but his fringe is showing signs of dropping away, and Republicans–many of them very disappointed in the massive Republican spending spree–are not very energized. Democrats, on the other hand, are stridently galvanized. After three years of Bush, liberals and many moderates as well are–and there’s no better way of putting this–massively pissed off. Those who were willing to give Bush a chance feel that they were lied to. The tax cuts turned out to be paltry, and the price for them far too high. They see rampant corruption, a quagmire war that Bush lied to them about, and a $750 billion dollar turnaround from Clinton surpluses to Bush deficits. They are mad as hell, and they are showing it with their votes.

What is exciting about all this is the fact that high turnout against Bush will not just sweep the Democratic candidate into office. Those who go to vote Democrat will do so down the line, which means that there could very well be a dramatic coat-tails effect for congressional seats. Two seats in the Senate, a few more than a dozen in the House, and Democrats could regain control.

Yes, I know I may be hoping for too much. But the signs so far are excellent. At the very least, it will be very telling to keep an eye on turnouts from this point on, with Kerry almost certain to be the Democratic candidate, and to see how voter registration drives work out.

Last November, you may recall that I reported on the fact that Republicans in the Senate had raided the computer files of Democrats; at least a few of those stolen documents were then passed on to conservative reporters and pundits, among them Sean Hannity, who made political hay out of them. Senate Democrats were not amused, and asked for an investigation to take place. The man they asked was Senate Sergeant at Arms Bill Pickle, who then started the investigation. And somewhere in the fracas, GOP leadership aide Manuel Miranda admitted to reading the leaked files. One GOP staffer quit soon after the matter became public, and another was suspended.

For some time now, the matter has been under everybody’s radar. that will not last for long. On March 5th, it is expected that Sergeant at Arms Pickle will come out with the results of the internal investigation–and it does not bode well for the GOP. First of all, the theft of files from Democrats’ computers was not minor: about 5,000 files were stolen over a period of about 18 months. That this was accomplished by computer means no less than if GOP staffers were to break into the offices of Senate Democrats, rifle through their file cabinets, and photocopy thousands of their documents–repeatedly, over a year and a half. That’s a serious offense.

And that’s what Pickle is expected to report in a few weeks. And criminal referrals are expected. Which means the Justice Department will be called upon, and a special prosecutor will very likely be appointed. Not something you really want to have happen in an election year if you are a Senate Republican. or a Republican period. So, naturally, conservatives are extremely ticked off that this all has happened. They are mad at Orrin Hatch for cooperating with authorities and not hobbling the investigation, and they are mad that people are paying attention to the theft of the files when we should all be paying attention to the dirt the thieves uncovered when they stole the files.

So far, things are not shaping up well for conservatives this election year–another investigation aimed at conservatives is close to breaking out soon as well. Remember the Niger uranium lie Bush told? Remember how Ambassador Wilson revealed that Bush was lying? Remember how someone in the White House, as retribution, named Wilson’s wife and blew her cover as a CIA operative, endangering her life and the lives of those she had dealings with? That investigation is due to break soon as well, and word is that the FBI is now focusing on members of Vice President Cheney’s staff, and criminal charges may be forthcoming there as well. Specifically, John Hannah, Cheney’s top Mideast staffer, and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff. And the reporters who got the leak may by law be forced to reveal their sources. Considering that the penalty for disclosing Plame’s identity is up to ten years in federal prison, someone may be prepared to cut a deal.

Cheney’s popularity is already at a low, low 20%, and Bush’s just dropped to 48% even in a Fox News poll. If both of these investigations erupt in the press over the next few months, there could be significant trouble in the Republican Party.

Quite a pickle, indeed.

The Bush administration has been under attack for the “jobless recovery,” and has hardly been doing a skilled job at covering for itself. Recently, there have been three attempts to create the appearance of job recovery without the actual job recovery itself.

First was the claim that we should be including household employment in the job numbers. In January, only 112,000 new jobs were created by the traditional Current Employment Statistics counting method. Because this looked bad, conservatives tried to spin the numbers by suddenly insisting that we look at the household measure of job growth, which gave a more impressive number of 496,000 new jobs. The household measure includes self-employed and home-working jobs; aside from being a completely different counting system, these jobs are typically not as well-paying, and are usually not considered as important to the economy as jobs counted in the traditional method. Also, if we were to switch to the new counting system retroactively, we would still see the same pattern of job loss, just on a different scale.

But that was not what the conservatives were pushing; they wanted the pure smoke-and-mirror effect that would make people think that half a million new jobs had been won instead of a less-than-satisfactory 112,000. That is redefining, however, not actual recovery. Suddenly switching to a different counting system does not mean there was greater job growth, any more than changing from Celsius to Fahrenheit means that it just got a lot hotter.

Second came the claims that what we did get–366,000 jobs since last August–was somehow a very good number, and the administration deserves praise for this. Again, redefinition, not recovery. 750,000 jobs in that time period would have been breaking even; 366,000 is bad.

And now, with the exporting of America’s manufacturing job base as a hot campaign issue, we are getting a sneak peek at yet another new attempt at redefinition by Bush economists with Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, actually suggesting that jobs at fast food restaurant’s like McDonald’s and Burger King be counted as manufacturing jobs.

As a reporter on Lou Dobb’s show put it, it would be funny if they weren’t actually serious about it.

Isn’t the recent bent towards redefining the economy to make things look good when they are not going way too far?

John Kerry just qualified for secret service protection, according to reports. Which made me wonder, how do you qualify? I figured there must have been some system for it, they can’t just do it willy-nilly. And so Google comes to the rescue once again. A PDF file from the Senate web site gave the following information. A candidate can get secret service protection if s/he:

1. is a publicly declared candidate;
2. is actively campaigning nationally and is contesting at least 10 state primaries;
3. is pursuing the nomination of a qualified party (i.e., whose presidential candidate received at least 10% of the popular vote in the prior election);
4. has qualified for public matching funds of at least $100,000, and has raised at least $2 million in additional contributions; and;
5. as of April 1 of the election year, has received at least an average of five percent in individual candidate preferences in the most recent national opinion polls by ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, or has received at least 10% of the votes cast for all candidates in two same-day or consecutive primaries or caucuses.

Under special circumstances, secret service protection may still be granted to a candidate even if they haven’t met these requirements, but only if the Secretary of the Treasury agrees and gets clearance from a congressional committee. Usually, protection doesn’t begin before January.

I believe the candidate also has to request it.

I find a few points in there interesting. For example, the fact that your party has to have won 10% of the popular vote in the last election–that kind of narrows it down to the Republicans and Democrats, although the Reform Party could have qualified at one point (Perot got 19% in the 1992 election), but Libertarians, Greens and others need not apply. I guess you have to limit it somewhere so that you don’t have to waste highly-trained personnel on every crackpot who registers (not to mention the legitimacy it provides); it just surprises me that they went this far. I guess Congress must have decided at some point, and there are, after all, not too many Libertarians, Greens or Populists in there. And the polls are interesting too–only the major TV networks? What about the print media? And when did CNN get added? Though I suppose for all of those points, if there really were a serious candidate who didn’t qualify on all five points, I doubt that Congress would really deny them the protection.

On a side note, I read that in 1988, Kerry made a bit of a joke concerning the secret service. He is reported to have said, “Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they’re to shoot Quayle.”

Then, after the laughs died down, “There isn’t any press here, is there?.

In past months–actually, almost a year now–I have been thinking about getting a new printer, and a new fax machine. What has recently come to my attention are the new lines of all-in-one devices. My first exposure, of sorts, came when a colleague at my school got a combination printer-scanner machine for his desk in the office. In the computer class I teach, I have long told my students that a copy machine is essentially a scanner atop a printer. And that’s what this kind of thing is; in addition to scanning and printing, they linked the two together so you have a kind of ad-hoc copy machine. And since it’s based on ink-jet technology, it’s essentially a color copier.

But with a little imagination, they have taken the idea to its logical extreme, which leads us to the all-in-one machines. This monster seems to be a conglomeration of every other peripheral out there. The functions include: scanner, printer, copier, fax machine, and photo printer. And the things are starting to come with a large set of special features using special software designed for the tasks. You’ll begin to wonder when the damn thing will start making breakfast.

The photo printer in particular caught my eye. The printer I’m looking at buying (the HP PSC 2450, called the 2410 in the U.S.–pictured top right), has four slots for the flash memory cards used by digital cameras (capable of accepting five or six different types of cards). Take some photos, take out the flash card (the digital equivalent of a roll of film, some as small as a nickel, some holding hundreds of photos), stick the flash card into the printer–and in a few seconds, the photos begin to show up on a small color LCD screen atop the machine. Choose the shot, the paper size, and whatever other options you like, and push a button–instant photo.

Even more sexy (but probably ultimately less useful) is the index sheet–the printer will print out a contact sheet with a dozen or more small thumbnails of your photos. Each one has a small empty oval, like the ovals you saw on those machine-read scan tests you took in school. With a pen, fill in the ovals under the photos you want printed; pass it back through the scanner, and the printer will read your marks as commands to print those photos.

In the end, though, the photo printer may be the feature I least use, based on past experience that the neatest-looking features ten to be the least used. The fax will come in handy from time to time, though perhaps only once a month–email attachments (pre-arranged so you can trust ’em) are eating up more of what the fax used to do. Also, I already have a scanner–but the copier feature is what would come in most handy as far as scanning is concerned. Though apparently the scanner on the all-in-one can automatically save document images as PDF files, which is not too shabby.

Other downsides include size–the thing is as big as a small-to-medium-sized microwave oven; ink cartridges–there is only one cartridge for color, meaning you toss unused ink when just one color runs out; and connectivity–this model is not a network printer (that costs $200 extra), and so I’d have to swap cables between my Mac and my PC as need arises. And it’s a USB 2.0 cable, so i don’t know how my USB 1.1 Mac will do speed-wise. Also, this model lacks a sheet feeder, but I’m not really gonna do a whole lot of OCR with it anyway. The big problem, same with most ink-jets: costs of photo paper, and, especially, ink. That ink is almost worth its weight in gold, when you figure things out.

What I am primarily looking for is a fair ink-jet printer to replace my 6-year-old, clunky, noisy-as-hell Epson (which might actually still work, though I haven’t used it forever). This all-in-one goes for 30,000 yen (about $280), about twice the price of a decent cheap printer. Not excessively expensive for what it does (especially considering most fax phones cost at least that much and more, and I already have a phone).

Some extra good points: it comes Mac- and Windows-ready, suiting both of my computers; the software package for the Mac alone is about 60MB-plus, so it’s not the usual 10-apps-for-Windows-and-one-for-the-Mac. The print quality (4800 x 1200 dpi) looks pretty good. It prints borderless, so it can shoot out what could pass for lab-quality prints (though I have yet to find out how long the inks last on paper before they start to fade). Basic low-res copy speeds look good,l and there are zoom features included with that. And in what is one of the most-appreciated features, one which is thankfully popping up on lots of electronic devices in Japan nowadays–a multilingual control panel, switchable to English. Which means less guessing and figuring-out what the heck that kanji means.

So I’ll be looking over these things in the next few weeks, my usual process when buying a big ticket item, and figuring out if I need one and if this model is the best for me. If anyone out there knows about these things, please comment!

I just got finished watching the most recent episode of The West Wing, entitled “The Warfare of Genghis Khan.” This was what could have been one of the best shows of the series; however, it instead stands as an example of how a great show has become simply a good show in the absence of the series creator and past writer of most of the episodes, Aaron Sorkin.

As is often the case in such shows, there was a main plot and a few sub-plots. The main story was about a mysterious atmospheric nuclear test in the Indian Ocean; no one claimed responsibility, and so North Korea and Iran were the main suspects. The main subplot was about NASA representatives lobbying Josh to approve a mission to Mars. (It would be interesting to find out if that particular story idea was there before or after the current administration rolled out their announcement to do the same thing.) The other subplot was about the vice president wanting an issue to do something about, and being handed the boring choice of “good government.”

One of my bigger problems with the episode, certainly from a personal vantage, was a scene where a NASA official (a pretty young woman, of course) takes Josh out stargazing. I hope they would do it well, but, as is predictable, they did not; whomever did the opticals obviously did not have the experience of stargazing, or at least they could not apply that knowledge to the visuals they created. The images they showed Josh looking at through the telescope were way too big, way too detailed–they looked like publicity stills or something, seen through a cardboard tube.

Visions through a telescope don’t look like that. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen planets and so forth through a telescope, but they look far less detailed and “pretty,” but at the same time infinitely more amazing. They don’t have so much color. But they have the feeling of being real. And I suppose that’s just not something you can put on a TV screen, but they most definitely could have done a better job. Shown something more real. Brighter, more washed out, a bit jiggly perhaps. But real. Maybe my experiences as an amateur astronomer in my younger days made it impossible for me to enjoy those scenes, but there’s a magic which still I think could have been shown there.

But that’s not where Sorkin’s writing was lacking. I thought, halfway through the episode, that nothing here was really funny. A joke Josh told about landing on the sun at night–it didn’t work. The story he told later on about the singer who had a rough life and death, but his music just left the solar system–it didn’t click, not the way it did with Sorkin. The banter and little jokes that littered the script when Sorkin wrote, they’re notably missing. His talent at the turn of a phrase, it is just palpably not there.

By the end of the episode, Josh gets sold on the Mars thing–but the story ends with him not quite having the sales pitch down. The other subplot with the vice president ended with him taking on the boring and ultimately worthless task he’s been given. And in ending it like that, the writer missed a great tie-in: give the Mars mission to the vice president. Who is, let’s not forget, the head of the space program. Would have brought the story elements together quite nicely, but they dropped the ball on that one.

Another Sorkin trademark was ending the episode on a song played in the background while we saw the final scenes play out wordlessly–the singing of “The Little Drummer Boy” at the end of “In Excelsis Deo,” the use of “Somebody’s Going to Emergency, Somebody’s Going to Jail” in the episode of the same name, or the song “Hallelujah” in the third-season ender, “Posse Comitatus.” This time they played the song Josh mentioned, “Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground” by Blind Willie Johnson. But somehow it just didn’t work. A bit from Sorkin’s writing–he may not have chosen to play the music after considering the piece and how it would play–but maybe more, somehow, the direction or the editing, or even the version of the song they chose. Somehow it just didn’t… click, the way it used to.

It is still a very good show. One of the better shows on TV. I still watch it, and of course will, and I would still very much recommend it. The only problem is, it’s not great anymore. Maybe they’ll pick up. But I have this regrettable feeling it never will be exactly what it used to be.

Let’s just hope that Sorkin is now working on something new that we can enjoy as much.

First it was Botox. Then it was Jane Fonda. Then Drudge seemed to score big when he “broke” the story about Kerry and an “intern.” He claimed it started when Wesley Clark told a dozen reporters off the record that Kerry would implode over an intern, and three of those reporters–never named, never confirmed–told Drudge they absolutely confirmed it was true. Then he claimed that several big news outfits were “investigating” it (what, they heard about it and found it was baseless?), and reported it as if it were then well-established fact–and millions of conservatives across the nation accepted it as such.

But the really telling thing was that everything hinged on Drudge. The Clark story, the news outfits reporting on it, the entire story, in fact, every last detail, came directly from Drudge. No evidence, no corroboration. It sounded like maybe there was something when the girl’s parents called Kerry a sleazeball, even though they denied the affair in the same breath.

And guess what?

You got it. It’s all fake. To the last drop. Kerry denied it. The woman’s parents denied it. Now the woman, Alex Polier, denies it.. Drudge’s story that she “fled” to Africa seem false as well; she apparently now lives in Africa, with her fiance. Clark endorsed Kerry, making it fairly certain the reports of his statement were false. The woman’s parents now even say they’ll be voting for Kerry, and when you note the “sleazeball” quote was only sourced by “The Sun,” a British tabloid reeking of sleaze itself, you begin to wonder if even that quote wasn’t manufactured. And still not a shred of evidence.

And golly if conservatives aren’t still running with the story! (That includes nearly all the conservatives on the forums I frequent.) And Drudge himself has moved on to even more bizarre sleaze, now claiming that Polier had an affair with Kerry Finance Director Peter Maroney. Oh, those goofy right-wingers.

But hang in there folks. So Drudge has struck out, and there’s one down on the Right-wing line-up. But this is just the first out of the first inning. We got nine more months of this to go. To buckle up, and make sure you’re wearing your foulies–the mud and sleaze will be thick and heavy from Right field in this game.

This from the Washingtonian via Talking points Memo. White House doyenne Helen Thomas could be on to something. In the early “gaggle session” (the more contentious White House press briefing which is not televised like the session later in the day, and where things can get rough), Thomas “had gotten a tip that Bush might have been absent from duty in Alabama because he was performing court-ordered community service in Texas in 1972. She asked McClellan if that was accurate.”

At which point, McClellan got his shorts all up in a bunch and denounced Thomas’ question as “trash.” This did not sit well with many of the reporters present. One “veteran” journalist remarked, “Scott is trashing reporters for asking questions. He’s dissipating the goodwill he had for not being Ari Fleischer. He’s proving to be as testy and disdainful as Ari.”

Thomas herself saw red flags in McClellan’s response. “I think they are getting pretty nervous about this. I’ve learned over the years that when you put out records, it often leads to more questions.”

The matter Thomas asked about is, in fact, not new. People have known about it for many years. In 1972, Bush did community service for Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled minority youths. It has always aroused suspicion, because it is so out of character for Bush at the time–an alcoholic, possibly substance-abusing young man, a party-goer, frat boy, draft-dodger–and suddenly, out of nowhere, he starts doing community service? For no reason? The same kind of service many people are told they must do to avoid a harsher sentence from a court? Hardly proof of anything, but it does make one a bit suspicious.

In the book “Fortunate Son,” J. H. Hatfield recounts that Bush was arrested for cocaine use, and in a backroom deal engineered by his father, then Congressman Bush, George Jr. got community service and his record was expunged. Hatfield claims he has three very reliable sources, including “a high-ranking advisor,” for this story, but there is no hard evidence and, as far as I know, the sources are not identified (though I have not read the book). Hatfield also claimed he spoke to McClellan on the phone, and asked Project P.U.L.L. was “court-ordered community service.” McClellan’s reportedly spoke a “sudden, almost inaudible ‘Oh shit.’ followed by a, ‘No comment.'” Take that for what you will–again, undocumented.

But there are conflicting stories about this. Another version of events is told by Bill Minutaglio, Dallas Morning News reporter and author of “First Son: George W. Bush and the Family Dynasty.” Minutaglio claims that Bush’s father made him go into the P.U.L.L. program after he caught George Jr. driving drunk with his younger brother Marvin in the car. From a Salon web page:

Bush apparently reached his nadir around Christmas 1972. Home for the holidays, worrying his parents by working too little and partying too much, he got carried away at a party with his 15-year-old brother Marvin, and drove the boy home drunk, smashing into a neighbor’s garbage cans and infuriating his parents. His father asked to see him in the den, and a drunk George W. burst in: “I hear you’re looking for me. You wanna go mano a mano right here?”

Then there is the mysterious business with the driver’s license. When Bush became Governor of Texas in 1994, he had his old driver’s license changed into a new one, with the ID #000000005. His license was not near expiration, and the stated reason for the change–“security”–made no sense. The change, however, would have destroyed the records of his previous license, which would include any court decisions that may have gotten him placed in the community service program.

So when Helen Thomas, about as far as you can get from a trash journalist, starts asking the question due to tips from her own sources, and the White House press secretary starts biting her head off…. Well, maybe there’s nothing there. But it is something to look out for.

Today is a bit of a milestone for me. I tend to have trouble keeping non-essential projects going, but wanted to do better with this blog. So my resolution was to enter at least one blog post every day.

Today is the 200th consecutive day of posting, since I last took a break on August 1 last year.

Now to get to 300.

Got this cute joke from a comment at Daily Kos:

Three Texas surgeons were playing golf and discussing surgeries that they had performed.

One of them said, “I’m the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident, I reattached them and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England.”

One of the other surgeons said; “That’s nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in an accident, I reattached them and 2 years later he won a gold medal in field events in the Olympics.”

The third surgeon said; “You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a cowboy who was high on cocaine and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse’s ass and a cowboy hat. He is now the President of the United States.”

In the forum where I debate matters political and otherwise with others, the members on the conservative side of the aisle are riding on Kerry quite a bit, and trying to make the case that there’s nothing on the issues Bush is in trouble for (a reflection of what the hardcore conservatives are doing at the national level). They insisted, days ago, that the Bush AWOL scandal was dead, gone, case closed, Bush served. But this new Kerry story about the affair, watch out! They also endlessly quoted the Bush people as calling Kerry a “target-rich” environment, as if that actually meant something. Politics, yes, partisan, yes, and that is understandable. But things are a bit extreme, especially when viewed in the context of what can be evidenced.

Now, I’m as partisan as the next guy, but at least I remain somewhat grounded in what can be shown, what can be demonstrated. When I get on Bush’s case, I do everything possible to make sure it is backed up by evidence. And there is tons of evidence in the AWOL case–most notably the order not to go to Alabama which was ignored by Bush, and the document that stated positively that Bush had not been observed on the Texas base he was supposed to return to later. New testimony and records are coming out every day which raise questions–like why didn’t Bush have to get a waiver when he reported two arrests, two speeding tickets, and two automobile accidents upon entering the Guard, like everyone else? Why was he accepted as a pilot despite abysmal scores? Why was he promoted to 2nd Lieutenant despite not have qualified? The few people who have come out to say Bush served either present no evidence nor even specifics–or the specifics they do present turn out to be so full of holes as to be laughable. And all just happen to be staunch Republicans and/or Bush supporters.

There are those that try to attack Bush on far more tenuous, unproven grounds–that he knocked up a girl and had the child aborted, as one example. But not many forward that, because there is nothing one could point to as evidence. Maybe it is in part because there is just so much on Bush, documented, with witnesses, that there’s no need to get into the fringe stuff. But in my experience, it is not common for mainstream liberals to get onto stories that have no credence or reliable sources.

Not so with right-wing conservatives, at least the ones I run into. Everything out of Drudge seems to be taken at face value–Botox, Fonda, the alleged affair–accepted as if there’s reason to believe. This is a continuation of the Clinton phenomenon, where any and every venal rumor that hit the Internet was added to the mantra and accepted as real.

As much as I think Bush is a very real danger to our country and the world, and wish for nothing more than that he be shown the door, I could not believe in or forward as fact any story about Bush that was not substantiated. If I speculate, I note is as being such. But the stuff conservatives are buying into and disseminating as all but proven fact is appalling. Take the recent story about Kerry and the woman. There was not a shred of proof. It came from Drudge, widely known to be an immensely unreliable, fiercely partisan source. But the story was believed in, perpetuated, presented as inevitable.

In all truth, if someone on the liberal side as dirty as Drudge were to release a story about Bush and an intern, with the same lack of evidence, the same crass bias… I will not say that I would not hope it were true. But reprint it? Forward it? Try to make people believe in it? No. Not even close. If there were enough evidence to cause questions, I would ask questions. If there were enough evidence to warrant suspicion or belief, then so be it.

It is, I suppose, an artifact of the new politics, the kind I have commented on before–that the GOP has become so skilled at dirty tricks, media manipulation, and partisan mudslinging that sometimes I wish the Democrats were that good at it, maybe we’d win more election–and then withdraw from the thought. But for the more-than-moderate-Right, it seems to have become a new standard.

And this is just February.

It’s going to be a long, long year.

The other night my dad told me about a news story that was, to say the least, rather outrageous. It has to do with American Airlines, an incident that occurred a week ago, on Saturday, February 7th. Imagine you’re getting on a flight to New York, you’ve sat down and the pilot comes on over the intercom. This is the man who is about to take you off the ground, and will have your life in his hands for the next several hours.

One passenger recalls, “We were just at the beginning of our flight. The pilot came on to greet everyone and give his comments for the morning, and he said he’d recently been on a mission trip, and he’d like all the Christians to please raise their hands.” The passenger said that the pilot then “invited us to look around at one another.” The pilot added, “If you are not [raising your hand], you’re crazy.”

Well, as you can imagine, there was a shocked reaction on the flight. Everyone fell silent. No one but a few nervous passengers raised their hands, and even they only raised their hands so very slightly. Everyone was doubtlessly trying to process this information, trying to figure out if they heard right. The pilot then continued, asking the non-Christians to talk to the Christians about their faith. “He said that our flight time was four and a half hours today and you can either use your time wisely on the flight or you can just sit back and watch the movie,” it was reported. (The onboard movie was Under the Tuscan Sun; the main character’s best friend is a lesbian in the film.)

A lot of people pulled out their cell phones, and a few went to use the on-board phone, so they could call their relatives; obviously a lot of people were thinking about 9/11 at that moment. And the flight attendants, of course, had to deal with most of the passengers expressing deep concern over the mental state of the captain.

“Just given the history of what’s happened on planes in this country, anything can happen at this point,” another passenger said. “There was definitely implication there that we felt that something was going to happen.” The pilot’s comments “felt like a threat,” reported a third passenger.

The flight crew was so beset by passengers they could not handle the matter themselves, so they had to contact the ground staff for the airline. The staff then contacted the pilot. Now, if the pilot had been a reasonable man, he would have gone on the intercom and apologized to the passengers, explaining himself and putting the passenger’s minds at ease.

But he didn’t. Instead, he apologized to the flight attendants, saying, “I want to apologize for my comments earlier. I think I threw the flight crew off a little bit and they’re getting a lot of flak for the things I said. So I want to apologise to my flight crew.”

It has been pointed out that if a passenger had acted that way, she or he would have been removed from the plane and held in custody while Homeland Security officials were notified. This pilot, however, was allowed to actually fly the airplane. He later denied that he called non-Christian passengers “crazy,” but his announcement was clearly recalled by several passengers on the flight.

American Airlines refused to apologize for some time, but just Friday, they did just that. Fully six days after the incident. The pilot, Rodger K. Findiesen, has been grounded while the airline looks into the matter. “Let me assure you that we take this very seriously and are conducting a thorough investigation,” an airline rep wrote the the Anti-Defamation League. Really? If so, then why did they wait six days before apologizing?

Findiesen, later interviewed about the incident, said, “I felt that God was telling me to say something [to the passengers].” Well. That would make me feel much better. He also claimed that he was calling the Christians “crazy,” and it was “in a positive, even admiring manner.” According to the airline, the pilot “said something along the line of ‘look at all these crazy people who were willing to raise their hands.’ ” Findiesen explained, “I just wanted to give Christians a chance to talk about why they’re Christians. … I obviously couldn’t go back there and address everyone directly, so I used the P.A.” He said he was inspired to do this because he saw a “sign from God.” The sign? A problem with the plane’s braking system had developed, and then it “inexplicably disappeared.” So naturally, when that happens, it means the pilot should start preaching to the passengers.

“There’s actually no regulation against doing what I did,” Findiesen protested. “I won’t do it again, if you want to make a big deal of it.”

Man. Scary. I do not at all fault the pilot for his religious beliefs or commitments, but I would seriously question his judgment, a vital element of being a good pilot. Calling on passengers to talk about God? Before taking off in a machine that people are nervous might drop from the sky or be blown up? Calling passengers crazy if they don’t believe, proselytizing from the cockpit? I mean, it’s not as if he is in a profession where he would not be aware of backwash from 9/11, he’s an airline pilot, for crying out loud. He should know better. Had I been on the plane, I might very well have demanded they take the plane back to the terminal so I could get off.

And maybe it’s time this guy be given a job on the ground.

Someone at the web site Professor Pollkatz’s Pool of Polls (and Auto Supply, I suppose) has, despite the goofy name, done a great job of taking the polls tracking Bush’s approval and disapproval numbers over the past three years. Fourteen different polls were taken to make the chart. Earlier, I posted about Bush’s poll numbers and noted that they indicated a natural state of descent, checked only by special events of note. This new chart only confirms that fact. Aside from 9/11, the Iraq War, and the capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush’s numbers have fallen consistently; only those events have brought his numbers up over time.

Which has gotten people to start asking, what kind of October Surprise is Bush planning? He has to know what the numbers are doing, and you can imagine Karl Rove is planning something big. At the very least, word must get out: something big happens to hike Bush’s ratings within a month or so of election, it is very likely that event was planned. When people expect that, it will have less impact, not to mention less chance of happening.

On other notes, Bush’s National Guard woes still keep on building. The White House still refuses to release all of Bush’s records, breaking Bush’s recent promise and making him a liar. Bill Burkett tells the rather convincing story, which he documented at the time when Bush was governor of Texas, that Bush’s records were “cleansed” by the Texas Guard so as not to incriminate him. Several people back him up and/or testify to his credibility. A flying buddy of Bush’s from Texas stood up to testify on Bush’s behalf, writing a letter to the editor of the Washington Times, but when the letter is dissected, it shows that Campenni has no knowledge of whether Bush went AWOL or not. Additionally, it turns out Campenni might even be lying about where he served. And even if not, his letter does nothing more than say that according to procedure, Bush probably did what he was supposed to–but the problem with that is, Bush didn’t follow standard procedure. He got preferential treatment. Like when he enlisted, and told the guard his criminal record (two arrests we knew about, but also two speeding tickets, and, interestingly, two car accidents we never heard of before), he apparently did not have to get a waiver–which anyone else would have had to do. So just because Bush got paid and honorably discharged does not actually mean he fulfilled his duties. And though one person stepped forward to say Bush was serving in Alabama, that person claims positive knowledge of “at least six” drills Bush attended–though his recent records show he did no more than four. And, oh yeah, this guy is a “staunch Republican.” Surprise. And this is in contrast to two men from the same Alabama unit who said they were looking for Bush but could never find him there.

Good lord, it is a morass, but there is more, and more and more, every day. Read Calpundit to stay up on the issue.

Here in Japan, a good dentist is worth his weight in amalgam. Or, as is the case with my latest visit, composite resin.

A filling that I had filled maybe a decade ago started to chip a few days back. It didn’t hurt, but it was enough to make me worry and naturally warranted an immediate visit to the dentist. After a horrifying dental experience with a doctor close to my apartment which cost me a tooth, I looked for and found a good doctor: Dr. Nishibori, with offices in Sendagaya (very close to the JR station) and Roppongi, in central Tokyo. Dr. Nishibori was trained in the U.S., and has a very modern office–and two very important elements here are that (a) he speaks English well, and (b) he takes National Health Insurance.

I had visited Dr. Nishibori earlier for a full exam and to get a bridge put in (to fix up the disaster the other dentist had left behind), and I liked his offices–good, modern equipment, fast service, good people. He even recommended another dentist when he felt that other dentist provided better work than he, a sign of professional integrity.

When I came in for the tooth work yesterday (made the appointment just a day and a half before–but there was almost no wait), I noticed some new equipment. Every dental station was now equipped with a flat-panel computer display. From looking around the room, I could see that they were used for X-rays. I didn’t get to see it close-up because I didn’t need X-rays then, but I could see that the X-rays showed incredibly large and clear on the screen. A new system, Dr. Nishibori told me. Very cool.

He also gave me a resin filling instead of amalgam, the first time a dentist had done so for me. The composite resin filling, aside from being white and blending in better, bonds to the teeth better and contains no mercury, along with other benefits. The downside: some sensitivity after treatment–my teeth still hurt a bit a day later.

Nishibori, despite his qualifications, modern office equipment and central location, does not charge much: the whole session was completed in about an hour, and I was charged about 1,500 yen (maybe $13). That’s my 30%, with insurance picking up the other 70% of the bill. Not bad, as resin fillings are supposed to cost up to twice as much as silver fillings.

If you live in Tokyo and are interested in seeing Dr. Nishibori, the Sendagaya office phone number is (03) 3403-8885 (alternate is -8886). They’re open weekdays till 6 pm, and until noon on Saturdays.

Well, it’s late and I should be going to bed, but I really do want to comment on this.

You may or may not have been following this, but it is wholly possible that President Bush is in deep doo-doo. It has to do with his National Guard records. You see, it has long been known that there is something funny about his service; he was asked about it in 1994, when he ran for Governor of Texas, and in 2000 during the presidential campaign. I guess the Texas election was not important enough to bring enough scrutiny about it, and in 2000 the press and media in general were too busy adoring Bush to pay attention to little things, like did he lie to everyone and act generally like a lout in the past.

But now the atmosphere has changed. With the WMD brouhaha starting to bubble, with the FBI crawling up on several Cheney staffers on the Valerie Plame affair, with the massive spending and staggering deficits, with Bush acting the pro-military hawk and sending our people into Iraq to die and to kill, and with John Kerry being a Vietnam War hero and all–Bush seems more vulnerable in general, but more importantly, his gung-ho pro-war swagger and his new opposition make Bush’s National Guard “service” much more relevant.

Bush is trying to bury the National Guard question, but he’s not doing too good a job of it. For some bizarre reason, he agreed to be interviewed by Tim Russert. I thought that he and his people had a plan, but apparently they were just stupid. Bush always screws up when facing an unscripted interview, and he did it in that one. He lied several times (such as when he claimed that discretionary spending under his watch is down compared to Clinton, or that he had released “all” of his records about the National Guard in prior campaigns), and came across so badly that even staunch Republicans like Peggy Noonan and Bill O’Reilly are critical of him.

And that statement that he would release “everything” that could show what he was doing during ’72 and ’73 is what has gotten him into trouble. Apparently he choked and forgot to evade that question, and now an embarrassed administration is trying to backpedal on that after releasing practically illegible documents out of Colorado that see to say that Bush was paid for part of his time there but not all–and the documents still do not show where he served. Nor do they even prove that he served at all–they just show that he was paid for some days of service, but there are large gaps, months long. Not to mention that the records contradict each other in some parts (showing Bush serving during a month on one record, and not on another), and contradict past records in other parts (showing Bush attending drills while he was in Texas though past documents say he was not observed on base for the entire year).

The press has been going relatively easy on him so far, accepting the completely false claim that the records “prove” his service (they only prove that he got paid, and many were paid while dodging service). However, that may not last long: many reporters, smelling blood and fear, are rushing out to see if they can find anything else on the story. For example, while Kerry travels regularly with his “Band of Brothers,” not a single Alabama guardsman has stepped forward to say that he even saw Bush. And there may be something to give lie to the released records: Bush is recorded as attending drills just nine days before the election he had come to Alabama for, serving as deputy campaign manager for the Republican candidate. Did Bush really spend that critical weekend of the campaign attending drills? You can bet that reporters are going to check the records on that one.

And to top this all off, Bush still is refusing to sign the necessary documents to release all of his records as he so clearly promised.

So things just keeps getting more intense and mysterious, as Bush and his now-panicking company try vainly to claim that “we’ve answered the questions! We’ve dealt with that! Look over there! Pay attention to something else!”

Want to keep informed? Then be a regular visitor to Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, and Kevin Drum’s CalPundit, where they keep up with the latest and don’t shy away from calling Bush out when he so blatantly lies.

This ride may just be beginning folks… Hang on!

A Clark aide just announced a few minutes ago that after considering the most recent primary results, retired general Wesley Clark has decided to drop out of the race, and will make the official announcement tomorrow. Clark scored third in both Virginia and Tennessee, and despite coming out way ahead of Howard Dean in those states, he still has only half of Dean’s number of delegates. Clark was probably hoping for at least second-place victories. The question remains, was his decision fully independent, or was more spoken during his phone conversation with John Kerry than we have been so far told?

Dean, in the meantime, is likely to stay in past Wisconsin now, despite twin pastings in the south (with 4% and 7% showings, both distant fourth place finishes) and his former statement that Wisconsin is make-or-break (I guess it was a fundraising “ploy” after all). He is second in the delegate count, with 182, a bit ahead of Edwards’ 163, but far, far behind Kerry’s 510. Although things could indeed shift, I would be very confident now to call the race for Kerry, unless something huge happened. I do not believe there will be any more unpredicted sudden shifts like we saw in Iowa, despite Dean’s hopes for such an event. Sharpton and Kucinich, just specks on the delegate horizon now (12 and 2 respectively), are presumably staying in for recognition power.