The Blog From Another Dimension

IP Telephony

I had planned to go to the opening of the new Apple Store in Ginza today, and post on it in the blog tonight, but weather and work interfered, so it will have to wait for a few days. In the meantime:

---

I have wanted to get IP over Telephone service for some time. Here in Japan, various ISPs offer it, and it would cut my international calling rates down to only 6 or 7 cents per minute--a considerable reduction, especially compared to the dollars-per-minute charges I experienced when I first came to Japan under the KDD monopoly.

However, I use NTT Flets to get my DSL line, and they do not allow IP Telephony--about the only service that doesn't, probably. I have wanted to switch, but in Japan the DSL people have a nasty little piece of red tape: if you want to switch DSL providers, you must complete your disconnection from the provider you currently use before you are allowed to sign up for any new service--and after signing up, it will take up to three weeks to get your new DSL service in. So one must go without the Internet for that long if you want to switch. Something tells me that NTT planned it that way--as it was with me, they have the advantage of being the first to offer DSL anywhere, so they have all the early adopters trapped.

So my current plan is to go off of NTT as I leave for my Christmas trip to the U.S., and sign up for another service--likely KDDi, as they have English support--to begin as I come back from the U.S. That might, however, cause me to miss a few days at either end, but I might be able to arrange for dial-up connections for those few days, and certainly it is much better than going three weeks without.

In any case, IP Telephony is catching on in the U.S., it seems, and is at the center of some debate, as it would allow the Telecoms to avoid a hundred years of regulation, not to mention a great amount of taxation. Currently, the Internet is not taxed (you know they're gonna do it, eventually), nor is email regulated, and that is how telephony works: instead of using a circuit to send an analog signal carrying a voice conversation, the IP phone call is achieved instead by digitizing the call, and, in the same way that any Internet data are transmitted, the audio is divided into small packets. So you say, "Hello," and that sound is compressed and then cut up into packets, which are then routed over the Internet; when they get to their destination, they are reconstituted into the original file, and the "Hello" you just said is then played from the local station to the recipient of your greeting. By doing this, not only can the quality of the audio be greatly improved over current phone standards, but many phone conversations can be sent via the same wire that used to allow only one. That's part of how they save money and can offer low rates.

But they also save because there are no taxes or regulations, that is good and bad: good because it means things are cheaper, but bad because governments lose a lot of tax revenues which they must make up for elsewhere, and many of the regulations are intended to protect consumers.

The Seattle Times article covers the issue pretty well. The lowdown: enjoy it while it's still this cheap, it will likely not last too much longer.

Going for a New Look

For the first time the blog took shape back in April, I'm trying a new look to the joint. I was kind of getting tired of the old look. I tend to prefer brushed metal (and yes, I know a lot of Mac people don't, but I do), and was able to Photoshop up a few nice graphics for the header. Not much time for actual blogging, as I am both correcting last-chapter exams, prepping grade calculations, and authoring a new final exam for my Introduction to Computers class (four sections this semester!).

I'll be back in full force in a few days, and hope to blog through my trip back home to the San Francisco Bay Area.

Japan Christmas Past

Speaking of Christmas in Japan, I recalled this photo taken many years ago--1989, if I am not mistaken--of my workaround for the Christmas Tree problem. Since full-sized trees are so expensive, and I am not too fond of fake ones, I compromised and got a bonsai. It was affordable because it was already on its way out, not having been well-maintained at the garden shop I bought it from. But it made a quite nice tree, matching my apartment at the time in size, no less. I even made a popcorn-and-cranberry wrap for it, though I do not clearly recall what I used for cranberries, as they aren't sold here in Japan, at least not that I was able to find.

Anyway, I thought this made a very charming compromise between Japan and America during the holidays.

Come to think of it, it was '89--that's a trans-bay world series cap I got as a gift, sitting under the tree (next to it, really), and the Loma Prieta of '89 interrupted the series.

Yeah, They're Not Biased

Look at one of the top political stories on Fox News' web site--not presented as an editorial, but straight news--and tell me about how Fox is not conservative, or is even just slightly so. This network is so tilted I'm surprised they don't slide right off the media table.

In the meantime, the rest of the "liberal media" is still largely ignoring the fact that Republican staffers were caught red-handed raiding the Democrats' server computers, stealing their files, and then leaking said files to Sean Hannity on the "fair and balanced" network. How is this not big news? Fox, CNN, USA Today, ABC, and MSNBC--none of them are even listing the story on their web sites, not even among the minor items in their political news sections--or any sections at all--fully 24 hours after the news broke. Only CBS seems to be covering the story seriously after the original AP report broke just a little more than a day ago--they have it right at the top of their political section. Even on omnibus news sites like Yahoo News, the story is buried among the minor, small-type stories at the bottom of the Congressional news section within the Political section of their site--and even then, it is listed as "Senate Republican Staffer Put on Leave." Three stories down from the news that some Representative held a news conference with the San Diego Chicken and will send baseball equipment to Iraq. (I would not even have heard of this news myself if I were not a daily visitor to Josh Marshall's excellent Talking Points Memo site.)

"Liberal Media" my foot.

Senate Republicans Caught Spying on Democrats

Remember about three weeks ago, when Washington Republicans got all out of sorts when Sean Hannity, a well-known conservative pundit on Fox, revealed a memo drafted within the Democratic party? The memo, actually, was not really that bad--it did suggest that Democrats should try to make political hay out of investigations into pre-war intelligence, but it laid out plans in a very reasonable way, even stating that an investigation should not be called for until "it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority." It did not say anything about being dishonest, rather it slammed the Bush administration for its dishonesty and outlined the Democrats' responsibility to report this dishonesty.

The GOP, naturally, glossed over this and railed at the Democrats for being so heinous. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "I will not permit the Intelligence Committee to be so misused for blatant partisan gain," and while completely ignoring the appearance that Republicans stole and leaked the memo, he instead attacked Democrats, saying "the author or authors and intended recipient or recipients of this memorandum to disavow this partisan attack in its entirety," and until that happened, the Intelligence Committee "cannot function and will not serve its purpose."

In outrage, Republicans have been trying to figure out how exactly to punish Democrats, including calling for an ethics investigation, or even reworking the committee's rules to essentially remove any power or influence at all for Democrats serving on the committee. Senator Orrin Hatch agreed that the memo bordered on "treason." He also said that was "no indication" that the memos were stolen.

Well, guess what. It turns out that the memo--which, by the way, was a draft memo, written by a staff aide and never approved by any Democratic Senator nor ever distributed among Democrats--was stolen by Republicans. Specifically, by one of Orrin hatch's own staff members, apparently with the help of a former staff member.

About a week ago, Senator Durbin filed a formal complaint to Capitol police, and just now the news is breaking that the majority staffer was likely responsible, having raided the Democrats' computers for files that could be damaging to them if made public (it is reassuring that the memo in question was the worst they could find). And if indeed that is proven, then it only naturally follows that the memo was subsequently leaked by Republicans, to Fox News, coincidentally a conservative network, and Hannity, a conservative pundit.

At least Hatch has the decency to decry that this happened "on his watch." But it also shows up the massive dishonesty and hypocrisy within the Republican party. One wonders what one might find if one raided their secret files....

It is interesting to note, by the way, that the "liberal" press is not only under-reporting the story (burying it deeply, while the memo leak itself was front-page), but it is also refraining from even using the word "stealing"--instead referring to the incident as "improperly obtaining."

Just like Bush "improperly obtained" the election.

Christmas in Japan

Well, it is exactly a month before Christmas, and I've noticed people putting up their Christmas decorations recently; scattered apartments and houses around Tokyo putting up lights, stores with the usual displays, playing Christmas carols for store music. Even though Japan is predominantly Shinto and Buddhist, with Christians forming a minority 1% or so, Christmas is nonetheless a middlin'-to-big thing over here, for much the same reason it is in the U.S.: commercialism. But with a Japanese twist.

The traditions in Japan are different, however; first of all, almost nobody has an actual Christmas tree. Trees in Japan are way too expensive, and there are no Douglas Fir farms in the hills that I know about. If anyone has a Christmas tree in Japan, it will be made of metal and plastic, readily stowed away in a closet from January, waiting for the next holiday season. And, to the best of my knowledge, even if a Japanese family has a tree, presents don't get put under it; it is simply a decoration. No cranberry-and-popcorn strings, either (I always loved making those with the family), rather just some ordinary store-bought garnishes. I've never seen tinsel here.

Presents are exchanged, though Christmas is not exactly the reason: it is bonus season. In Japanese employment, one's meager salary is usually bolstered by bonuses, traditionally given out twice a year--once in summer, once in winter. The summer bonus marks the Chugen season, the winter one is called Seibo. Each one is marked by a special gift section created in stores across the country, sometimes taking up as much as half of a floor of a department store. In such gift areas you'll find a plethora of items, popular ones including small rolled hams, and a wide variety of product packs--a 20-piece soap package, a 15-can beer package, packages with assortments of cookies, coffees, salad oils, fruit juices, canned seafood, and countless other consumer items. One buys gifts here and either gives them or has them delivered to the recipients. The Seibo gift centers are already open for business.

Next is a tradition also made in Japan: Christmas Cake. Don't ask me why, probably a confectioner thought it up, just like they thought up White Day for bakers (White Day comes a month after Valentine's Day--Valentine's is for chocolate, which women give to men; White Day is for men to give cookies or other treats to women, and is supposed to have been created simply as a way to sell sweets). At Christmas time, people who choose to celebrate have a Christmas Cake. It even became a metaphor in the 80's--women who had not married by age 26 were rather callously called "Christmas Cake," meaning that nobody wants to buy the old cakes after the 25th of December. That attitude has changed, by the way, and most young people today have never even heard of the expression.

And for some reason, Chicken is the meal of choice. Turkey just isn't popular here, I suppose, and ham isn't exactly the same, either. I found out early on that if you want KFC on the 24th of December, you'd better make a reservation (yes, you heard me) if you don't want to wait two hours for your order to be filled, or better, just go another day. KFC is swamped on Christmas Eve. Good thing I always vacation in the U.S. every Christmas (coming back to Japan before New Year's--I like that holiday here). Not that I eat at KFC anymore--they usually refuse to let you choose which pieces you're going to get.

One other Christmas tradition in Japan: romantic evenings at a romantic restaurant, followed by a visit to a love hotel (or perhaps any nice hotel would do). Again, I don't really know why, but having a date on Christmas Day is considered a must for young couples. This article refers to a love hotel in Kanagawa which has permanent Christmas decorations in order to attract visitors. Some say there is an urban legend that if you confess your love to your special someone on Christmas Eve, your wish will come true.

But to many in Japan, Christmas is simply a secular affair, if an affair at all. Some make something of it, others do not. Here is an interesting sampling of responses in a kind of "man-on-the-street" survey in Tokyo. And here is an interesting article from the Japan Times last year about Christmas in Japan, including some history behind it.

And Such Nice Guests, Too

As if it isn't too much for Bush to be going to England at the taxpayer's expense in what amounts to a campaign trip to make him look presidential, to a country which--although it is our strongest ally--has a huge number of its citizens up in arms about what Bush and Blair are doing to them. But Bush has to give it that little extra arrogant touch.

The least of his offenses is the fact that, as part of his already-overflowing 650-person entourage (I thought he was against big government?), he took along with him five personal chefs. The Queen of England, understandably, was a bit put off with the revelation--essentially a slap in the face of her own, presumably adequate, cooking staff. But then, President "You're-Either-With-Us-Or-Against-Us", Mr. "This-Is-A-Crusade", Commander in Chief "You're-Irrelevant-If-You-Don't-Let-Us-Do-What-We-Want"--has never been known for his diplomatic prowess.

In the wake of his passage through Buckingham palace, Bush further proved himself the oafish guest by having his people trample the gardens, causing tens of thousands of pounds in damage and possibly ruining several rare plants, some cultivated and planted by the queen herself.

One of the more serious snags in the setup for the visit was about how well-armed and immune from prosecution the Bush detail would be. Bush's people had asked for the subways in London to be shut down, to fly U.S. Air Force jets and Black Hawk helicopters above London, supply his guards with "mini-guns" (capable of firing huge numbers of rounds per second), to place snipers along the president's path, and to give immunity to any Bush personnel who happened to gun down and kill any Brit who they felt threatened the detail. One wonders what kind of wild party they had planned.

Now, Robert Heinlein once said that the best way to judge the fairness of any deal is to turn it around and see if the other fellow is still willing to accept it. Let's try that here. Imagine if Tony Blair were visiting Washington D.C., and he demanded that public transport be shut down for his visit, British RAF Harriers and helicopters be given free reign over Washington airspace, for his entourage to be magnificently armed and immune from prosecution were they to, for some reason, snuff an American citizen here or there. You think that George Bush would accept those terms?

Of course not. Not in a million years. So what in the world were U.S. negotiators thinking when they asked for such things? Did they seriously expect Blair and his people to accept an armed, immune American presence in London? Bad enough that British security is being taxed to the limit, that Londoners and Brits in general paying a huge sum, all for a PR stunt for a man many of them despise. All in a day's work, I suppose.

It should also be pointed out that virtually none of this is being reported in the U.S. media.

Anti-Spam Scam?

More than half of all email sent today was spam. It is becoming the single greatest threat to the growth and prosperity of the Internet, save possibly for the unspeakable morons who actually buy things that spam advertises, thus giving the marketers a reason to do their stuff. The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a new bill that would, in theory, control most spam. The bill includes the following points:

• Allows the Federal Trade Commission to create a "do not spam" registry (the FTC is not required to do so);
• Requires "opt-out" links so people may unsubscribe from mailing lists;
• Messages must have a functioning return email address (to allow people to opt out);
• Messages must "obviously" be advertisements, no misleading subject headers (e.g., "Important Account Information");
• Messages must have a valid U.S. postal address or P.O. box in the email;
• Outlaws dictionary spamming and address harvesting using bots;
• Outlaws automated programs that sign up for free email accounts to be used to send spam;

And in areas that particularly have teeth, there is a 3-year prison sentence for those who create fake domains or email accounts to send spam, and a 5-year sentence for those who send pornography in unsolicited spam.

I am not certain if it requires all spammers to put an "ADV" tag in each subject header.

Now, for the $64 question: will it work? In all likelihood--not a dang bit. All the spammers have to do is move their main operations off-shore, and they're golden. In fact, some sources report that 80% or more of spam today comes from outside the U.S.

And if the FTC takes up the option of creating a "do not spam" registry, stay away--and stay away from those "unsubscribe" opt-out links--because it will only reveal your active email address to spammers, especially those overseas, who will then spam the heck out of you from their safe havens. More people may fall for that particular trap if it is legitimized by this legislation. Even if one were not so victimized, it is still a free pass for every individual spammer to send you at least one spam for free, and would require each recipient to opt-out from each spammer's list--which could number in the thousands. A bit more effective, and much more protective of people's privacy, would be an "opt-in" registry, requiring spammers to stay away from all addresses except those who add themselves to the list. Europe has such a law--and the irony of the new federal U.S. law would be that it would override state laws (like the new one in California) that do require the more restrictive opt-in requirement.

This new law really just appears to be showboating by the politicians to show they're doing something about the problem, and, regrettably, may very well just lead to more spam overflowing your email box, rather than the reverse. What is needed is not a nation-wide, but a world-wide solution. There should be a new requirement for any country that wants to join the web: institute a set of tough spam laws, and enforce them--or else you get cut off from the web. Yes, that's right--entire countries could get cut off. I really think that's the only way to handle it, if it is technically possible. There might be some squawking, but if a majority of nations--especially those in Europe and North America, and key Asian countries--would stick to it and keep the rules reasonable, a great deal more progress could be made.

Another possibility I have heard and like is the charge-to-send (let's call it "CTS") email plan. Under this plan, everyone who wants to send email to a CTS email account would be required to have a pre-paid account on the web, say, five dollars minimum, attached to their email account. Every time you send an email to someone with such an account, the recipient has the option of charging you one cent per email. All they have to do is click on a button, or send the offending email to a mailbox where all contents are charged, and the sender notified. If the recipient does not do this, however, you are not charged.

Since most people send legit email to people they know, their accounts would never diminish. If someone abuses the system and tries to collect pennies, people would probably just stop sending emails to them. If you lose a few pennies here and there, however, there's no big loss.

Spammers, on the other hand, would be in deep trouble. They routinely send out millions of emails every day. If their spam is caught by filters such as my own and routed to the "charge" folder, their spam--almost free for them today--could start costing them huge amounts of money. Heck, at a penny a pop, I estimate I could bring in $15 a month easy. And they could not circumvent the system, because it would have to be pre-paid, and if an account goes broke, email is returned. (We would have to increase security so that email accounts with their money prepaid could not be 'stolen' and turned to illicit spam-senders.)

The present email system could remain, but those entering the new system could have a new suffix added to their address to join the CTS email system. Those who don't want to shell out the measly $5 fee could still use the old spam-infested email.

This would not be an undue burden on direct marketers--they already spend far more than a penny a piece to send ads through traditional mail and other routes; a penny per would still be a tremendous bargain--but it would force them to drastically cut their flood of spam, be very cautious of whom they send anything to, and actually honor anyone who wants to opt-out of their list.

If a business were to set such a system up, they might even make a fortune simply by collecting interest on the millions of multiples of five-dollar deposits they safeguard.

Inagi View

The night seemed clear, so I went up to the 10th floor to take some time-exposure shots of the city (from my floor, much of the city is obscured by local hills). They turned out pretty well, and I was able to fairly successfully stitch together some shots to make a nice panorama of Tokyo, spreading from Fuchu, Ikebukuro, Shinjuku, Shibuya, and down to Futagoyama, as seen from West Tokyo (the Tama area). Below is a much-reduced version, a thumbnail you could say (450 pixels wide). The full-size photo was more than 6000 pixels across, so I cut it down to about 3000 pixels wide (still more than 3 times the width of the average screen). If you click on the small image below, the 3000-pixel version will be displayed in its own window. The file is 376 KB.

Here's a shot of downtown Shinjuku, first its size in the 3000-pixel version, then in the 6000-pixel version. You can clearly make out the twi-tower Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building--not bad for a shot taken 20 km distant with a digital camera with only a 3x zoom.

Rain Geta

Spotted these on the platform while waiting for the train--rain geta. Geta are the traditional Japanese clog shoes, basic wooden platforms atop two wood blocks, with a thong on top. This is the first time I recall seeing a pair covered in clear plastic for rainy weather. They were worn by an elderly lady in a classic dark-tone kimono. An interesting modern touch on a traditional costume.

A Private Instituition

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Now everyone is in an uproar, and polls are saying that close to 60% of Americans disapprove of gay marriage, including half of all Democrats. (And naturally, Bush and the Republicans are positioning themselves to make this a hot issue to help them win the election next year.)

What the hell is wrong with people? Is this another one of those issues about which people form their opinions based simply on hearing that it is unpopular? It smacks of the cloning issue--most people were against it, but when it came down to it, they really had no idea why they were against it--they just heard that "moral leaders" said it was wrong and accepted that idea. I know a few people, whom I consider otherwise intelligent, who are against cloning--but when I asked them why, I got the "army of robots" response. Seriously. After I pointed out that a clone is no different from an identical twin and is no more a potential "robot" than any other child, the answer turned to ambiguous, subjective disapproval.

I get the same feeling on the gay marriage issue, because after looking at the arguments, I just do not see any sense in them at all. The basic argument (here is a representative sample) is that gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage, effectively devaluing it like currency. More radical groups say it is "administering a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family," and that a "tyrannical judiciary" is trying to redefine marriage "to the point of extinction."

And I'm sorry, but those arguments are just about the stupidest things I have ever heard, even the more temperate ones. I mean, seriously, weaken the institution? How? Will hordes of couples who previously would have gotten married instead stay single just because gay couples are getting married? Will two people, madly in love, who want to have children, who desire to somehow represent their personal bond of love in an official way, will these two people seriously forego marriage just because gay people are doing it? That's about as inane as suggesting that people would stop having sex because gay people do it.

Gay people serve in the military, and that hasn't stopped anyone from signing up (though Bush's Iraq policy is doing huge damage in that area--different topic for another post). Gay people work in show business, I don't see any star-struck youngsters avoiding Hollywood for that reason. Gay people are religious and go to church--but they're not the cause of straights giving up religion or staying home Sundays. Gay people work at jobs, they go on vacations, they have parades, they eat snacks, they run for office, they rent videos, they do pretty much everything straight people do--and there is not any reason I can see to believe that any of these things dissuade straight people from engaging in these activities. In fact, the recent popularity of shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" even suggest that straights might take cues from gays--maybe gay people getting marriage will even make it more hip again.

Have you ever heard anyone, I mean anyone, say that they were thinking of getting married but would not if gay people did it? Even fanatical extremists? When you hear people talk about not getting married, what are the reasons? From what I understand, it is often because people see marriages as often failing, and think that if they stayed unmarried, they could avoid the pressure of marriage--but that has nothing to do with homosexuality. Some suggest that gay marriages "lack permanence and fidelity" (see the sample argument above, and note they do not quote the study as it is almost certainly bogus)--but if gay marriages started failing, would straights follow their lead? I doubt it--more people would probably disregard it, or just shrug and figure that marriage works better for straights after all.

Frankly, I cannot imagine the issue affecting any rational person. I mean, what difference does it make? And if I were to have my desire to marry influenced by the example of another couple, I would no be at all set off by a gay couple tying the knot--I would much more likely react adversely to the straight couple living next to them, who married too soon and had kids too early, feel trapped in their marriage but staying in it for just the kids, with spousal abuse, infidelity and other poisons rotting the family from within. But even with that, I would take it as a cautionary example, a lesson on how not to do marriage the wrong way, to avoid the pitfalls and mistakes other people make. At least in that respect, the hetero marriage would have some relevance to my own situation. The gay marriage would hardly even apply to my situation in any adverse way.

Marriage is not the fragile institution that many people seem to think it is. Gay marriages will have little or no effect on it. Some call it a religious bond, some call it a social institution--but they are wrong. When it comes down to it, marriage is an expression of love and commitment between two people, their children and no one else. It applies to others only as an outgoing expression of their private bond, like saying, "just wanted you to know we're together." Other marriages are simply outside that personal universe those people occupy.

So let's stop this mindless objection, allow anyone to get married to whomever they please, and deal with more serious issues.

Cowards Hiding Behind the Honor of Soldiers

A few weeks ago, there was an anniversary that many people did not notice--the 20th anniversary of the barracks bombing in Lebanon that killed 241 U.S. Marines based there. With American forces withdrawing from that country a year later, it was a precursor to Somalia--though hopefully not to Iraq, not in the same way, at least.

For me, it was a bit of a political awakening. I had never approved of Ronald Reagan, but something he said soon after the tragedy made me feel physically ill. I recall it quite clearly. A reporter had asked Reagan about his responsibility in placing those Marines in danger, and the questionability of his political motives in sending them there and his lack of an exit strategy or even an overall strategy for them to act on. This was a legitimate question: if Reagan had placed those Marines in danger so he could look good politically, with no tangible goal or exit strategy, then he should damn well be answerable regarding his actions.

Reagan, however, took the coward's course: instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he accused the reporter of suggesting that the Marines had died in vain, and then beat the reporter about the head with that. That response is what made me ill, made me enraged. What kind of a gutless coward would use the honor and sacrifice of 241 honorable men that he sent to a war zone for his political reasons, to protect his own miserable political hide? Worse, Reagan ordered other troops to invade Grenada just two days after the Lebanon disaster--leaving no doubt whatsoever that he was willing to put our soldiers' lives in danger so he could control the news cycle to his advantage. Make a mini-series about that.

And yet it has happened many times, always with Republicans at the helm, and George W. Bush has now become the master of using the honor of soldiers he sent to die as a cover for his political PR appearance. How many times now have we heard that the president and his policies should never be questioned or criticized while the soldiers are out dying in the field? The same men and women whose returning remains are hidden and their funerals muted to keep the president's poll numbers high.

And there is hypocrisy at play here, too--the Republicans never hesitated to scorch Bill Clinton while our troops were in the field. They did it repeatedly, constantly--and to his credit, Clinton never used the "troops in the field" defense card.

Now, I have not always been certain of Wesley Clark since he entered the race--he has said things which resonate strongly with me, but his past support for Bush and the Iraq war was possibly troubling, depending on where it came from within him. But in a recent interview with a snotty Fox newscaster, his responses to the issue of using troops as a human shield raised my esteem for him quite a few notches.

Fox reporter David Asman interviewed Clark (see Windows Media streams: 56 Kbps or 300 Kbps; reset options to get Real Media version), and true to Fox's conservative tone, Asman tried to do a smear job on him. He first condescended by asking if he had gotten Bill Clinton's permission to run (a surefire way to bring someone down in front of Fox's audience), and then came in with his main guns.

"One thing that you must be sick of by now, but I gotta play the game too..." (yeah, I bet he's just heartbroken that he "has" to bring this up) "... bringing up statements that you made in the past, you're not a politician at heart, therefore you've made some more mistakes than other people have, so people throw 'em back at you. One of them, though, was just yesterday, maybe it wasn't a mistake, but it caught our attention. On 'Meet the Press,' you said something about Iraq. You said, 'President Bush has said the war in Iraq is the centerpiece for the war on terror; it isn't, it's a sideshow [emphasis Asman's]. It's simply their easiest means of access to attack American soldiers, that's all it is.' You really think Iraq is only a sideshow?"

It's important to pay attention to the question, because it was obviously a direct criticism of Clark--particularly the emphasis on "sideshow" in the quote, and the emphasis on "only" in Asman's direct question. It could not have been more clear that Asman was accusing Clark of belittling the efforts of the troops overseas. Later, Asman shows he's a spineless chicken by claiming, and I quote, "I'm just repeating your own words to you... I just read back your own statement to you, General." What a gutless coward--and representative of recent prominent conservatives, defending themselves and attacking their opponents by exploiting the armed forces to their advantage.

Well, Asman miscalculated on this one--Clark did not take it sitting down. At first, Clark tried to ignore the barb and answer in a civil way to simply state his position, making a lengthy statement about Bush's huge tactical error in ignoring bin Laden and going into Iraq. Asman came back and tried to poke him with it again, asking "while our men and women are dying in Iraq, is it proper to call it a sideshow?" That is supposed to be "just repeating his own words to him"? Bullsh*t. He was now directly accusing Clark of impropriety on behalf of the soldiers. But he tried to smear the wrong man--and Clark proceeded to take his head off:

"Our men and women in Iraq are doing a fabulous job. They're doing a great job, I love them, I respect them, and I honor them. My problem is with the president of the United States. He's the man who is responsible for this, as he told us--he was going to make the decision when to go to war, and he did. Our men and women are doing everything their country has asked them to do. But for the war on terror, it is not the right thing that we should ask them to do. Don't you dare twist words into disrespect for the men and women in uniform. I love those men and women, I gave thirty-four years of my life to them, you better take my words the right way!"

That's what I want to see him say to George W. Bush in a debate. And that's probably why Bush will chicken out and either not agree to debate or keep it down to one with no direct speaking between candidates.

And I'm that much closer to moving my full support to Clark.

The relevant part of the interview, mostly quoted above, is here: 560KB WAV file, 3:23 runtime. Listen to the wording, the emphasis, the way the words are spoken.

Same Old Rush

Be hypocritical and deny it. Par for the course.

Limbaugh, who received far more sympathy than he ever gave, is showing clear signs that he is still going to be as crass, dumb and hypocritical as ever. Returning to the airwaves to what must be sky-high ratings (for now), Limbaugh made it clear that he does not see the fault of his ways. "I don't want anybody to get frightened about this, now. This has no impact on what you have come to know, love and respect here because I've not been phony here," he told his anxious listeners.

Everyone has been wondering how Limbaugh will handle his own drug addiction in light of his conservative politics. Would he change his opinions on drugs? Of course not. "Many people feel and think that when you go to a rehabilitation center for addiction or other things that the people turn you into a linguini-spined liberal, and that's not true," Rush assured his audience. "I was a drug addict from about 1996, 1995 or whatever, to just five weeks ago. The truth of the matter is I avoided the subject of drugs on this program for the precise reason that I was keeping a secret."

Uh huh. Right. Ahem. Mr. Limbaugh, what about:

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

Some hoped that Limbaugh, now publicly outed, would at least remain consistent to the truth and realize that treatment, not incarceration, was the more effective answer. But he has made it clear, in principle if not in details: his tough-on-addicts principles don't apply to him.

Note that he specifically mentioned a date from which he became addicted (95 or 96), and it seems to follow his prior remark on drugs (October 95), not concurrent with his addiction--so he claims. So will he end up try to somehow claim that a time difference between statement and illegal drug purchases was relevant? That it wasn't hypocritical because he made that remark before he was addicted? Or will he try to spin what he said before, or spin what he did in buying illegal drugs? Or will he try to maintain the tension and, eventually, never bring it up at all, just ignoring the whole issue?

He did say this much: "This is something I am not able to be as blunt and open about now as I'd like to be. That day will come and it will come soon." Meaning he's covering his ample behind until he can cut a deal or otherwise get off the hook.

You can be sure that he will find some rationalization for his not being jailed despite his public statement on the matter in 1995. And, in true Rush form, it will be hypocritical, untrue--and he'll undoubtedly find a way to make it insulting and denigrating to some group he doesn't approve of. You can bet on it.

Matrix Revolutions: Major Spoiler Review

With the number of visitors reading the Matrix: Reloaded Spoiler Review on this site numbering over 600 now--just for the past two weeks--it is finally time to release my spoiler review for Revolutions.

I would have done this much earlier, but for the past week and a half or so, as I've mentioned, the video project for the Arts Festival at my school has completely occupied my time. And this review took the better part of two days to write, being essentially a fifteen page essay (single-spaced). The review talks about everything, explains the movie step by step, and analyzes much of what is going on 'out of sight' of the movie. From the Oracle's maneuvering to the King Arthur reference, hopefully it's all there, with transcripts of relevant conversations and statements. I'm sure some family and frineds will call me nuts for doing this. I didn't intend it to get so involved, it just happened that way....

Anyway, enjoy.

Matrix Revolutions: Major Spoiler Review

Note: I just did a little proofreading and minor editing, and added a special comment area at the bottom. You can leave comments there or come back here when finished and leave comments in the usual blog style.

Another Note: The stats get calculated every 24 hours or so (can't control it, alas). But in the 3 or 4 hours since this review went up, it has gotten 20 hits. Yikes.

Stats Are Fun

Okay, it is a bit narcissistic. But partly that's what a blog is about, you have to admit. Seeing how many people are interested in what you have to say.

If you own your own web site--not just a spot on a free blog service, but your own domain with a web hosting service you pay for--then you can get the full spectrum of services, including full-featured web stats. If you can get something called "Awstats," then go for it, even if it means changing hosts; it is a very good stats package. It keeps track of how many visits, unique IP addresses, total hits, pages, bandwidth and other data on an hourly, daily and monthly basis. It keeps close track of exactly where your visitors are coming from, showing sites that link into yours, as well as how many hits come from search engines and even what the search terms were.

The stats made me aware of the fact that MacSurfer had linked to one of my stories and that some 8000 people dropped in over a two-day period last month (necessitating the removal of graphics that would have caused me to pass my bandwidth allotment--a handy warning there), and tells me this month that already 550 people have read my spoiler review for the second Matrix movie--meaning I should get right to work on the spoiler review for #3 this weekend, as promised. It also tells me that for the sixth straight month I remain Eyelid-Twitching Central (it all started from one of my first entries, where lacking much else to say at the time, I mentioned I had a twitch that day, and the attention has never ebbed), and, for some strange reason, my stories on Eudora 6 remain a strong draw.

Oh yeah, and 92 people have downloaded the Great Chicken Struggle movie starring my hamster. Without the MacSurfer draw, I can afford the bandwidth, though.

Other draws, in order: The Matrix: Revolutions non-spoiler review, an article on Crime and Foreigners in Japan, my famous Gyoza recipe, the Matrix: Reloaded non-spoiler review, and my article on the Yoshi Hattori incident.

General stats, by the way: average visitors per day this month: 310+ per day. 2050 or more of the 4670 visitors so far were repeat visits, as the hits came from 2620 unique IP addresses. The rate of increase in visitors is slowing, but the numbers continue to climb--on schedule for 5,500 visitors this month, far exceeding the optimistic hope of 4,000 monthly visitors by year's end.

Arts Festival

Well, the school had its Arts Festival yesterday, and it was amazing to see the talent so many of our students have. Not just your usual skits at the talent show--we have some serious composers, musicians, singers... One student, for example, played original piano compositions that were astounding. I was in back when another started singing "The Heart Must Go On," and I swore that I was listening to a recording of Celine Dion. Paintings by some of the students I honestly mistook for art that the live house had purchased, and there was a fantastic brass section that performed "In the Mood." Seven students made up a punk rock band, playing a popular Japanese song called "Train, Train" that had many of the students in the audience acting like groupies at a concert. And one of my former students, who I knew was talented, surprised me in showing an array of talents I never expected, from keyboard artist to trumpeter to half a dozen other talents.

Even a few teachers took the stage, including one that recited comic poetry and sang a great a cappella piece, and another who played solo electric guitar and composed a hilarious blues piece based on his classes. And my own contribution--a 17-minute video I edited from footage some students and I shot--went over very well, starting off the show.

Find below some photos of a few of the acts with the audience.

Conservative Lies #3

Lie #3: "Democrats are blocking Bush's judicial nominees."

You hear this one a lot. It just got smugly reiterated by Bush and made headlines, about how Democrats are using "ugly politics" in blocking his nominees. This just really ticked me off, considering how blatantly hypocritical it was; I was already drafting this article when Bush's outrageous statement was reported.

Somehow there's the idea out there that when Clinton was in office, the Republicans were quite cooperative and acted fairly, but now that Bush is in office, the Democrats are on a spree of blocking judicial nominees. Bush himself told fellow Republicans that "We have a vacancy crisis in America... There are too many seats that aren't filled with judges and therefore America hurts. America's not getting the justice it needs." Senator Leahy (D-VT) countered that vacancy rates in the judiciary have been lower than at any time in the Clinton administration.

Bush, in his usual pattern of taking the few minority and women nominees he makes and putting them in the spotlight as if he never heard of a white male before, told the press that "These three women are being denied a chance to serve on the bench because of ugly politics in the United States Senate," implying not only that Democrats are blocking his nominees, but also that they're blocking women, just like they blocked Miguel Estrada, a minority. "It's wrong and it's shameful, and it's hurting the system," he said.

The fact of the matter is, only four Bush nominees have been blocked, and those nominees (Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor and Miguel Estrada) have been staunch conservatives; Republicans regularly blocked Clinton nominees who were far less ideologues than these.

Bush claimed that as many as a third of all his nominations have been blocked, but he's lying--either that, or he must believe his name is Bill Clinton, who was the one who had at least 30% of his nominations--predominantly moderate--blocked by the GOP (Here's a conservative pundit who raved about how Clinton's 31% block rate on the court of appeals was "not a bad deal").

Democrats have blocked only two percent of Bush's. And just the most outrageously conservative, at a time when pretty much every judge nominated by Bush is as conservative as his administration can find. 98% of them have been passed. And yet Republicans are screaming about how Democrats are being unfair, even going to the extreme of scheduling a 30-hour marathon session just so they can stir up publicity to show how Democrats are filibustering nominees (the filibuster was the weapon of choice when the GOP was blocking fully 63 Clinton nominees).

As for GOP claims that Democrats are "racist," how about the fact that during the Clinton administration, Republicans blocked 35% of Clinton's nominees who were minorities, but only 14% of his white nominees. If anyone is racist, it is crystal clear that it is the Republicans.

But the big lie keeps on getting pushed front and center; the GOP technique is to take their own worst sins and claim that they belong to the other guys.

Finally

It's 3:42 in the a.m., and I'm finally about to get to sleep. I've been working on a 17-minute video for an Arts Festival held by my school. About 5 hours of digital video was filmed, and I had to run through it all with a fine-toothed comb to pick out the morsels that would eventually become the video. I also had to overcome some audio problems, and the inevitable editing nightmares (for example, when half a person's sentence is a must for editing in, but the other half is illegible, and it shows if you cut it in half).

I had to clear about 30 GB of hard disk space, mostly on an external drive, to make room for it. To edit the video, I've been using iMovie on my PowerBook G4 DVI--and that's the saving grace. After having stayed up until 3 or 4 in the morning every night this week, spending every spare moment after coming home to get this done, I am incredibly thankful that at least I had really easy, worry-free (not to mention cost-free) software to use.

And the video came out great, by the way.

Once that was finished, I turned on my browser and checked the news. Wrong choice for this time of night. The headline reads, "Bush: Stop 'Ugly Politics.'" The leader of the party which has mastered smears, lies, and dirty tricks--God, I have got to shut down or I will go on all night and get no sleep. I'll cover it later.

Bush and the GOP Slap Down Soldiers Again

Republicans have always claimed to be the friends of the military, but that appears to only mean that they like big weapons systems and starting medium-sized wars for political gain for themselves and financial gain for the corporations they pay off. As retired General Wesley Clark said not long ago, "Republicans like weapons systems; Democrats like the soldiers." As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the administration has proven this animosity for the soldier by cutting their pay, their benefits, even money for their kid's education that was supposed to be supplied, while chintzing on their supplies at the same time they hand out non-competitive billion-dollar contracts to Cheney's firm. And that's just for starters. I also recently reported on how any soldier who dares criticize the Bush administration publicly is prosecuted.

One thing is clear, and that is that this administration, led by a silver-spoon draft-dodger who went AWOL from the Guard, and filled with Chickenhawks who shirked their duty while demanding that others serve in their place--this administration misses no chance to short-change and slap down the very men and women who fight and die for them, while all the time monopolizing, cashing in on, and taking advantage of the honor and glory that belongs to those soldiers, and not to this cowardly and sickeningly smug mockery of a leadership.

The most recent example: after reluctantly approving Bush's usurious demand for $87 billion to support his debacles in the Middle East, Democrats tried to give a small measure of support to the soldier in the field--$80 million, a drop in the bucket by comparison--that would pay federal employees who are reservists for any pay cut they suffer when mobilized. That would help 23,000 reservists, 14,000 of them now active, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would help them to stay afloat financially, keep them from having to take out mortgages in order to pay the bills, enable them to keep paying their kids' tuition.

Guess what? Bush and the GOP slapped them down yet again. The same people who publicly encourage states, local governments, and corporations to take the action of helping out with soldiers' pay (200 companies and 50 state and local governments do that), are themselves unwilling to spend a fraction of what they overpay Halliburton in order to help the common soldier make ends meet while serving far longer than anyone expected.

I guess that $80 million is earmarked for another corporate payoff. After all, they've contributed so heavily to Bush's $200 million war chest for the election. How much did reservists contribute? Not enough, apparently.

That's The Ticket

In the United States, speed traps are usually cops on motorcycles or in patrol cars, hiding around a corner or behind bushes or other cover--usually a one-man operation. In Japan, they work in teams. I was able to observe one in action today, not too far from a station I use.

Here's how it works: one cop, in this case, shown in the photo at top, finds a spot--usually behind signposts and/or telephone poles--and sets up shop. The radar detector goes out front, and the policeman, working with the control gear out of a metal suitcase, hides crouching on a chair behind his cover. He is in radio contact with a team of fellow officers about two blocks away. The team is located strategically so that a speeder cannot turn off somewhere or otherwise get by. A motorcycle cop stands ready to pursue anyone who tries to get away.

The cop in the chair detects someone going too fast. His gear displays the speed, and it radios the signal to the first guy's counterpart (see bottom photo, guy sitting on a similar chair). The team gets a warning shout over radio from the guy up front, telling them that a speeder has just passed by. The team dispatches a pair of policemen--one regular cop, and one motorcycle cop--into the street to flag down the driver, and pull them into a nearby parking area (I caught the tail end of this in the photo at middle right). The driver is then taken to a folding table with chairs set up where seated officers get their information, give them a lecture, and write out the citations.

In the times I have seen this setup, I have noted that it is never in a place where speeding might be a problem. I know of many streets--a few right in front of police stations, no less--where the hazards are great: speeding cars, blind corners, pedestrians crossing at all places, the works--and there is never a speed trap or even an officer on patrol. In the places where they could do the most good. Instead, the traps are set up on long, wide straightaways with absurdly low speed limits. The street pictured here is a wide (for Japan) two-lane boulevard with little foot traffic (it's an industrial area). I walked its length and maybe saw one or two pedestrians in total. Very little cross traffic. In other words, probably the place one would least have to worry about accidents happening.

And the speed limit is 40 kph, or 25 mph. This kind of street would be at least a 45 mph (70 kph) zone in the U.S. For the type of street it is, the speed limit is ridiculous. And so, naturally, everyone speeds. I believe that this is called "shooting fish in a barrel."

The few other times I have witnessed speed traps in Japan, they have always been like this. Not for safety, not for public service. But for the sole purpose of writing out tickets. If this were a sometimes thing, like in the U.S., it wouldn't be so bad. But from what I have witnessed, traffic cops never give out tickets for the purpose of safety. Just for revenue. And that's completely wrong. These police should be at the dangerous locations, making the streets safer. I covered this in a previous entry, "Seasonal Fair-Weather Daylight Enforcers," though I did not have artwork on the speed traps at the time. But the criticism still stands. It is almost emblematic of Japanese police, traffic or otherwise, to make more of a show than to actually keep the peace. They can do much better than this.

The Great Chicken Struggle

Some time ago, I went to Costco and, among other things, bought some of their rotisserie chicken--five legs and thighs, yum. The legs and thighs are still connected when you get them. After finishing a few of them for lunch and saving the rest for dinner, I started to throw the bones and scraps in the trash--and then realized that Mocha, my hamster, might enjoy chewing on the meat left on the bones. So I placed a leg-and-thigh bone scrap in front of her cage and opened the door. Mocha, sniffing some form of food, obligingly came out to enjoy the payoff. She was definitely interested in this particular morsel.

However, I did not expect her to do what she did next. You see, I expected that she would chew off whatever she wanted, then, as normal, scurry back into her cage and stash the booty. Mocha, it turns out, was feeling much more ambitious that day. You see, she decided to bring the entire leg-and-thigh bone back into her cage and then stash it. Which of course would be problematic, because the bone was longer than she was, not to mention bent in the middle at the joint, and she had to carry it, in her mouth, up the side of her cage to the door.

Meanwhile, I was in the living room, and became aware of her valiant efforts when I heard repeated knocking noises and went to investigate. She had already spent several minutes trying to get the whole thing back in her cage, and after I watched her for a few minutes, I decided to get this on film. My video camera being at school, I used the video feature on my digital camera. The results are available in a link below. Needless to say, she was absolutely hilarious. Completely unfazed by the enormity of her project, and seemingly clueless as to depth and size perception, she nonetheless doggedly continued her great struggle with the chicken bone. At one point, she fell over backwards and, with the rather large chicken bone clamped into her jaws, was unable to right herself. She was not about to let go of that bone, though. So instead of letting go, righting herself, and trying again, she spent about 45 seconds on her back, furiously waving all four paws in the air, trying to turn herself over while pinned by a chicken leg. She was finally able to do so, and set back to her main task. The whole event lasted more than fifteen minutes. This was one determined hamster.

The fun did not stop when, to my amazement, she actually succeeded in getting the whole thing in her cage. You see, she likes to stuff food into her habitrail tubes. You know those commercials for moving companies that have a pair of idiot movers trying to bring a sofa through a door the wrong way? You know, whump! Hmm. Try again. Whump. That didn't work. One more time. Whump! Hmm. Maybe it'll work now. Whump! Well, that's what Mocha was like. Completely oblivious the the fact that a 6-inch-long bone could not fit perpendicularly into a two-inch tube, she nonetheless spent about five minutes trying to do exactly that, until it dawned on her tiny hamster brain that maybe by getting it in end-first, it would fit. Eureka!! It worked!

So enjoy "The Great Chicken Struggle," it's hilarious. Perry Como has even been added. View it in small (2MB), medium (8MB), or large (15MB) sizes. The files are QuickTime movies (so QT is needed to view them. If you have trouble viewing the larger two on your browser, then download them directly to disk, it may work better that way.

Bank Note

I went to the bank today to transfer some money and to get traveler's checks. I wanted to transfer 2 million yen from my account at a Japanese bank to my account at an American bank here in Tokyo. When I asked for the cash at the first bank, they caught me off guard--I've never been handed wrapped stacks of bank notes before.

Pictured is what they gave me, two stacks of one hundred 10,000 yen notes (each one being worth roughly $91 by today's rates), quite a hefty amount--about $18,000 in all. A little nerve-wracking to carry around town, though in Tokyo there's really very little worry. It was just fun to get stacks like that, frankly.

The traveler's checks, by the way, are for my trip home in a month. Took the opportunity to pay off the remainder of my airplane ticket. I get almost a whole month off at the end of the year, this time from December 8th to the first Monday in January (the 5th, I believe). I will try to keep mobile with the blog.

Big Mac

Wow. This story is really quite impressive. It gives details on the Power Mac G5 supercomputer cluster formed by people at Virginia Tech. They bought 1,100 of the new G5 Macs, connected them in a massive cluster, and, within just a few weeks, writing their own software, were able to create from them the world's third-largest supercomputer, at just a fraction of the cost of a supercomputer of similar size and power.

Shows what's possible to do at the grass roots--and what potential Macs have, their power and ease of use, in the face of all the nay-saying criticism about them.

Mocha

I find that I have been remiss in covering one of the themes of this site--Mocha, the hamster, pictured above in her nest. Now well past middle age (hamsters commonly live only a few years), Mocha is still going strong, running in her little wheel, enjoying her running-ball excursions about the apartment, and so on. Also responsible about food--she always has more than she needs, and never overeats--she has taken to stuffing whatever food she doesn't immediately chow down on and stores it in her habitrail tubes. So much so that, when she travels through the tubes, she makes a very loud crunching and grating sound as she bulldozes past all the sunflower seeds, stale bread bits and other hamster food as she goes.

This Must End

In case you feel that today's security measures are necessary and do not unduly harm any innocent, especially without need, I would refer you to the story of this Canadian citizen, who, merely by passing through the United States, stopping briefly in New York to change planes on his way home, was subjected to an ordeal of nightmarish proportions.

I would warn you that you may not be able to stomach this story. I would still suggest you read it, however. There is still much that is not known about the reasons behind his illegal detention, imprisonment and torture. Why was this software engineer, father of two, with not even a spot on his criminal record, taken from the airport and detained? Why was he questioned without a lawyer--in fact, through his entire ordeal, only allowed to call someone once, only allowed a single brief visit with an attorney that gained him no representation? Why was he shackled and chained, injected against his will with a substance that was never identified to him, repeatedly strip-searched, and made to sign documents he was not allowed to read?

But most importantly, and least explained, is why he was not sent back to Canada, his country of citizenship, as was his right under international law. Why was he instead chained and shackled, flown to Jordan, thrown blindfolded into the back of a truck, repeatedly beaten, and then driven to Syria, the country his family had fled when he was a teenager? The American government claimed the reason he was sent there was classified; but what possible reason, classified or otherwise, could they have had to send him to an unfriendly country, against international law, to be inhumanly tortured for almost a year?

There is now a call in Canada for an inquiry into this hideous miscarriage of justice, but you can count on the fact that the Bush administration will never reveal their reasons. The American media is practically silent on the matter. More information can be found at in the Canadian media or through Amnesty International Canada.

As long as the American people allow the government to perform such ruthless acts, without any fear of consequences of any kind, without any sort of public oversight, they will simply multiply and flourish. How far will you allow it? Until people you know personally are treated in this manner? Is this the United States you know? Is this the government you want?

Do not forget that if you are an American, and you remain silent on actions your government takes such as this, then you are complicit in and responsible for such things. The actions taken by my government in this case are inexcusable. We know that police-state barbarities are being committed in our names, but we are too fearful to stand up and do anything about it. That must stop. Refer this story to people that you know. Tell family and friends of it. Contact your representatives; make clear that you do not support these actions, that there must be an investigation, that the powers given to the government through the Patriot Act are far too strict, and Patriot II must never be allowed to pass. Ashcroft has to leave office, and the Bush administration must be voted out.

The case of Mr. Arar is not an isolated one. This has gone too far. Make it stop.

The Matrix: Revolutions (Non-Spoiler Review)

Note: For those who are looking for a detailed look at Revolutions, you can see my
Matrix Revolutions: Major Spoiler Review.

---

I just finished watching the film tonight. If I had felt more up to it, and didn't mind being all the way in to Shinjuku (an hour from home) at 11:00 pm in the pouring rain, I could have seen Keanu Reeves and the Wachowski brothers at the Milano-za in Kabukicho last night for the premier. But frankly, even if I had been feeling better and had not had so much work to do, I probably would not have gone--too much effort. Good enough to see it tonight.

I was quite surprised to see that the theater was relatively empty--maybe 1/10 of all seats were filled. Of course, it was a 6:30 show on a weekday, and the same film was showing on two other screens, those shows having started within an hour before this one--still, I expected huge crowds (which is why I bought the tickets two weeks early). Go figure.

By the way, when I say "non-spoiler" for this review, I do not mean that there are no details here; I presume that you have seen the previews, and so you know a few things. If you have not seen the previews and want no information about those specifics at all, then stop reading here.

Okay, the movie. Overall impressions: good and bad. The good is that the movie is long on action and special effects. If you thought that Reloaded was too short on action, you're in for a treat here. The battle for Zion goes on for a long time, is filmed beautifully, and barely gives you time to breathe. The fight between Neo and Smith is similarly well done--almost overdone, in fact, with huge rain-driven water impact bubbles formed by their collision, and almost Wile E. Coyote-like craters formed by impacts. No shortage of action in this film. So much so, in fact, that you won't realize until after you leave the theater that they did not use the trademark Matrix "bullet-time" shot (where the action freezes and the camera pans around) even once. Hmm.

The bad: don't expect much in the way of definitive answers. Why does the Oracle look different? How was Neo able to blast the sentinels (the squid-like robots) at the end of the last film? What does Agent Smith really want? Well, the Brothers Wachowski don't exactly tell you as much as they hint at it, suggest it, or even riddle it in a way. I do not think I am giving anything away by telling you--the Oracle made a choice and this is part of the price. (Huh?) Neo is still somehow connected to the Matrix. (Uh... how?) Smith wants--well, haven't you figured that out by now? Not me. You just gotta figure he wants to control everything, or destroy it or something. Not made tremendously clear. See? You still don't know much more than you did before you started this paragraph--and that's kind of how you feel coming out of the film. Like too many loose ends were left for you to figure out. Yes, it's sometimes good to leave some things open so the viewer can imagine what happens. But in Revolutions, there's way too much that is not answered directly, and you get the feeling that the Wachowskis just weren't really able to figure the answers, so they fobbed that job off on you. Open-ended, but not very satisfying.

The film begins where we left off, with Neo and Smith/Bane out cold, and the Hammer (the hovercraft that rescued our heroes) looking for the Logos, Niobe's ship, disabled by the EMP blast Smith/Bane set off. And it is here, right at the start, that the film takes a kind of left turn into philosophical exposition, primarily discussing love and what we do for it. Don't worry, that doesn't give anything away, certainly no surprises, and might help you focus on a relevant point that comes in later on. Neo is trapped where he is, and Morpheus, Trinity, and Seraph (on loan from the Oracle) have to go see the Merovingian to free him. Of course they get Neo out, he sees the Oracle, and the story is set.

From that point on, it's pretty simple. Neo and Trinity go one way, and everyone else goes the other. Each storyline is pretty single-minded, almost relentlessly so. The action, while beautifully filmed, is almost comic-book in style, going to extremes. Machines and characters get banged up and damaged so ruthlessly it is hard to accept that they still function; sometimes it feels like a demolition derby. An unbelievably cool demolition derby.

Philosophy still had quite a part to play here. We get the themes of choice and control coming back, discussed and acted out in various ways, with love now thrown into the mix more than before. What would we give? How far would we go? What did we choose, and do we realize it?

After the first and second film, you came out feeling like you really learned new things about the story and the characters, that there were twists and turns and revelations and surprises. Not so much in Revolutions. It's like they ran out of clever ideas, and so just ran the story and the characters out to their conclusion. You do find out a thing or two about what was going on that you didn't know before, but none of it comes as much of a surprise or a twist. Even the ending is a bit inconclusive; you get a fair understanding of what happens in the world, but what might happen next, and even the ultimate fate of a character or two, is not spelled out exactly. You'd almost think that they were leaving things open for a possible future sequel or maybe a TV series (I won't say how casting would work), if the producer had not made it painfully clear that this was it for the Matrix, no more.

The first Matrix film was the best, partly for its innovation and mind-blowing revelations. It's a hard choice between second and third place, but all told, I think I came out feeling better about the Reloaded sequel than I did about Revolutions. A lot of that may have to do with the revelations and surprises in Reloaded that were missing from Revolutions; a lot may have to do with the interesting possibilities that Reloaded left open, but Revolutions did not.

Revolutions is still a great film, no doubt about it--I will see it again, maybe even a few times. It just had a few hard acts to follow. I would have preferred the Wachowskis taking a bit more trouble to lay out their world for us. Still, it is all right as far as wrapping up the series goes, and more than all right as far as being entertained goes.

Note: a spoiler review, nothing held back, is on its way, in a few days. It will be linked to here as well as from a new entry. Keep your eyes open.

The GOP Outraged at... What, the Decency of Democrats?

Republicans are in outrage against the Democrats because of a memo leaked to the press. The memo, almost certainly stolen by the Republicans then leaked so they could act indignant about it, essentially talks about exposing the lies Bush has told about Iraq. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that it was a draft memo, and not an official one; it "was not approved nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else."

The GOP, however, will not so easily give up an opportunity to smear their political opponents. Republican Senator John Kyl said, "it is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would actually try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war, even apparently reaching conclusions before investigations have been performed."

How's that for hypocrisy? With the GOP repeatedly politicizing 9/11 and the Iraq war, they're enraged because the Democrats have a draft memo that suggests they demonstrate how Bush is lying during an election year? How dare they! The fact of the matter is, this memo is about as innocuous as it can possibly be. Among other things, it says that it wants to find "new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials," to get "Democratic 'additional views'" attached to reports, and to reveal "the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war." Those bastards.

The memo also states that they will "launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority" (emphasis mine). The memo suggests politicization only after all efforts to cooperate have been exhausted! And the Republicans are furious about this? The GOP standardly politicizes issues before even trying to cooperate.

The Republicans have also politicized just about everything under the sun they can for their benefit, especially matters of national tragedy, intelligence, and war. Remember the leak of the CIA operative's name? Remember when the GOP used a photo of Bush on 9/11 for campaign fundraising? How they held a seminar on how to use the "war on terrorism" to their benefit? There are countless examples of crass politicization by the GOP, any one of which make the current unofficial memo look like a positive thing.

I suppose it should not be surprising; the GOP is, hands down, the reigning master of dirty tricks and mudslinging politics.

Here is the text of the memo:

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.

Weather and the Movies (I Ramble)

One day to the Matrix... and so of course it starts pouring rain and I start to catch a cold. Ah well. Busy day tomorrow.

If you live in Japan, by the way, and want to keep track of the weather, I suggest you visit the TBS Weather web site. The link just there is to one frame of the page, avoiding the ad links and allowing for reliable re-loads of the page. That particular site is best because (a) it is in English or Japanese (the link is to the English version), and (b) there are many options, including an animated 6-hour forecast of precipitation, as well as typhoon tracking.

I've been spending time tonight both working on tests to give students tomorrow, and to break the monotony, watching the new Futurama DVDs I had delivered from Amazon. It is actually not very expensive to have them shipped from the U.S., if you get the boxed sets--three, four, or even ten DVDs count as one for shipping purposes if they're boxed. So I got the second season of Futurama--not only an excellent series (cancelled, of course), but the commentary (included with every single episode) is fantastic. Matt Groening, David X. Cohen, and John Di Maggio (Bender), Billy West (Fry, the Professor, Zoidberg, etc.), and various directors and writers all join in. They are more than just a little entertaining, explaining unused concepts, story backgrounds, details concerning the animation process, details to watch for, and quite a few amusing anecdotes. Futurama and Friends are the only two series I am buying in their entirety--and with Friends, that's quite an investment. At least they aren't vastly overpriced like the Star Trek and X-Files DVD sets.

All that in contrast with, for example, the commentary by the Zuckers and Croft for the "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" series--despite how funny their movies can be, they suck at commentary, some of the worst I've heard. I just had to stop listening after a while. Surprisingly, Mel Brooks was the same for Blazing Saddles. Very unfunny commentary. Strange.

Maddening Irony

Believe it or not, Linda Tripp is involved in a lawsuit over privacy, and, in an irony of injustice, she's the one getting an award--$595,000, to be specific. Yes, you heard right. The same woman whose claim to fame was her proud and illegal tape recording of highly private and personal phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Her motives were far from honorable--she was being directed by book publisher and veteran GOP dirty tricks master Lucianne Goldberg, undoubtedly with dollar signs in her eyes at a prospective book deal--not to mention the personal and political motivations as well.

So despite the fact that this woman committed what is perhaps the most famous (or infamous) violation of another person's privacy in the past fifty years or so, she's the one getting paid--because someone leaked the fact that she was arrested but never charged for a crime she may have committed as a minor. Yeah. I'm sure that leak just ruined her whole life. I am absolutely certain that that leak about her past--which no one in the world remembers and most never even heard of--is the reason why people would not want to hire her in the future. Not because she is known for her felonious betrayal for base purposes. Of course not.

Isn't the damage this woman did to Lewinsky, the president, and the country as a whole enough? But wait, there's more--she somehow weaseled out a perk to the deal, in the form of three retroactive glowing reports on her performance at the DoD, where she was employed as she apparently spent a lot of time working sordid details out of Lewinsky. These evaluations will lead to greater retirement benefits. Yes, good work, Linda, for faking friendship, stabbing said friend in the back, and derailing the nation's politics in one of the most toxic and wasteful dirty tricks campaigns in recent memory.

She cries poverty, saying that her legal bills hit half a million dollars, but gets little sympathy for that--she did, after all, commit far more than the two felonies she was charged with, and was eventually let off scot free. Her fault, no victim she. She was indicted and prosecution began, but she got off on technicalities as the prosecutor finally dropped the case. She also, bizarrely enough, was given, as a gift by an anonymous admirer, $30,000 so she could get extensive plastic surgery and afford a celebrity stylist.

This is one person who most definitely deserves no reward at all.

Strong Mac Future

Here's where it pays off to be a late adopter. Not that I wouldn't want to snap up a dual 2GHz PowerMac G5 right this moment; it's simply not time yet for me to get another desktop. I have that particular goodie slated for next year sometime. But that schedule might help me quite a bit. After languishing in up-to-1.4GHz G4 heck for quite some time, the 2GHz G5 was a big jump--but a bigger jump (in GHz, though maybe not percentages) is just around the corner. Apple has reportedly just acquired 3GHz PPC 980 chips to play with, and the next big processor jump is due within a year--one of the biggest, quickest turnovers in processor speed for some time. That'll be the one I go for. By then, one might hope the G5 will have the major kinks worked out, though there might be some problems going from the 970 to the 980.

Apple seems to be speeding up in general. People were surprised enough when the iMac went G4, but the iBook? Now people are talking about the iMac going G5 in the near future (that's a time-sensitive link)--maybe even January, maybe even a 1.8 GHz G5 chip. Yikes. This suggests that Apple is more willing to replace generations of chips more quickly than in the past--meaning faster Macs sooner, but also disappointed users as their recently-purchased marvels getting outdated even faster.

I've grown quite used to this myself. Seven years ago, I bought a just-released 120MHz Power Mac 6300, only four months before the 200MHz Power Mac 6400 model was released--for a lower price. And my present 800MHz 15-inch Powerbook G4--which cost me $3,200 last year--is nice and all, but today a 1.33 GHz 17-inch model is available for $200 less. Obsolescence is the norm, you just have to live with it.

As for Macs in general, people are beginning to see more and more reason to buy. While desktop sales have, in the G4 days, been waning, the G5s promise to snatch back much of that market share--like Mac laptops have done, shooting up to a 7% market share recently. People are beginning to see that Macs are cheaper--laptops immediately, and desktops in the long run. Mac speed is also getting favorable press, as several institutions are now choosing G5s to link together in supercomputer clusters, including 1,100 G5 Macs in a supercluster at Virginia Tech which will become the world's 3rd-fastest supercomputer when finished.

Panther is also contributing to Mac success, getting rave reviews in the press. Even IT developers, notoriously disdainful of Macs, seem to starting to like it as Panther allows for easier interoperability with Windows networks, and developers see more to attract as well. And as Microsoft gets even tighter with its limitations in the name of security while proving porous in actual security itself, and as it hikes licensing fees and threatens to force large buyers to pay even more under new payment schemes, the Mac OS, based on UNIX, and requiring less maintenance and training, is beginning to look better and better.

Time will tell.

Ahead of the Game

Nice to know I'm ahead of the curve on some things. Just now, journalists are beginning to call what is happening in Iraq a "guerilla" war; a CNN reporter just said that there is no denying it now, and Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo has brought it up.

I commented on it just over two months ago.

It's all part of the War On Language that Republicans have been fighting for the past few decades, trying to alter perception in their favor by promoting some ways of talking about things, and attacking others.

Taking Responsibility

Today, a Chinook helicopter was transporting as many as three dozen troops from the lines of battle--or perhaps I should say, the lines of "post-mission-accomplished-peacekeeping"--for some much needed R&R. Many of these guys signed up for weekend duty, not for the long haul halfway around the world while their families go without, their bank accounts wither, and God knows if their jobs will be there when they get back. Over the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, a missile struck the helicopter, and it went down. Thirteen of the men died. Another twenty were injured. Iraqi citizens rushed in on the flash point, shouting anti-American slogans, some grabbing souvenirs.

Maybe Bush will find some way of telling us how this is a good sign. Frankly, I kind of doubt it. Okay, it's cool that people up north like us, that schools are opening and that people have electricity. Fine. That doesn't erase the deaths, the injuries, the cost in blood and money.

To this day, 374 Americans and 51 British troops have died in Iraq. A total of 258 coalition forces have died since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier with the flight suit photo-op. (This site does a good accounting of the casualties in Iraq.)

Republicans are trying to tell us that we shouldn't complain, that if we criticize, then we are saying that we want to cut and run. Sorry, but that's bull. Others say that by disparaging the president we are helping our enemies, so we should tone it down. That's even more dangerous bull. This president has claimed that this is his responsibility. Well, responsibility doesn't mean that you just say you're responsible and then everybody admires you for it. What it means is that when you screw up, you take a hit for it. People remember it. People lose trust in you.

The fact is, this president has to be held to account for what he's done. Just because we are where we are, that we have no choice but to stay, that we have to support our troops--does not mean that Bush should be allowed to draw a bye on this one. He screwed up. And we're paying for it. In blood. In escalated terrorist activity. In regional instability. In worldwide scorn. In billions of dollars badly needed at home.

The answer is not to cut and run. The answer is to not have such a dangerously incompetent fool in office. Even if it were necessary to go into Baghdad and take out Hussein, there were better ways of doing it. Getting the facts straight. Garnering support from our allies. Building a real coalition, not the fiction of one despite however many scathing denials come from this failed administration. Having a plan of action and a sound exit strategy. Having sharp vision, not blinded by political gamesmanship. In other words, doing the job right.

Bush never did that. He initially said he would go without the permission of Congress, even laid out legal arguments. Then he said he didn't need international support. Then he went to the U.N., but as he asked for help he also chided and insulted them. Then as he claimed U.N. authority as a reason to go in, he flushed out the weapons inspectors, who were just starting to make progress--to hell with the facts, he had a war and it was on a schedule and he didn't want our troops sitting there waiting too long. And even up to the post-war PR celebrations, he still had no post-war plan, no exit strategy.

This war was not even planned as a war. It was planned as a domestic political campaign. And today, 13 Americans who should have been in Des Moines, Iowa, or wherever, barbecuing, watching their kids grow, making love, living their lives, instead died as their helicopter crashed before jubilant Iraqis. And this president says we have to consider this all as part of a good thing. That it was somehow necessary. That he had good reasons to do it to us.

Many of us were against it from the start, and many trusted the president to do what he knew was right. All of us were betrayed as the man used--no, abused the government for unjust means, for unjust reasons. Taking responsibility means you pay the price for your actions. He was responsible for this. And we are responsible for him and what he has done.

So we stay in Iraq and do the best that we can. We support the troops. And next November, we go and we vote, and if we take our responsibilities seriously, we do anything but to re-elect this unfaithful, irresponsible man to the office he never really earned.


Edit: Updated numbers. Make that 15 men dead in the crash. 376 Americans killed to date.

The Republican War to Control Perception

In trying to make stick the false claim of a "liberal media" (when in fact a majority of editors and publishers, who control the way news is presented, are conservative), those on the right wing are attempting to control the perception of media to their benefit. Similarly, when press reports don't go their way, presidents try to change perception of the media by mounting efforts to challenge how they are represented (like Bush has with his recent "things are going super in Iraq, really" campaign), again to their political benefit.

But now, the Republican party is not just content to alter perception--this political party wants a direct hand in an artistic representation of history, in the form of the upcoming mini-series, "The Reagans." Pressure is mounting from the party to represent Reagan the way they want him represented; they have not only asked to view it beforehand, but they say that if it doesn't meet with their approval, they want the network to run a banner under the picture every 10 minutes claiming the series is not accurate (despite the fact that this is drama, not a documentary, and so that it is not fully accurate is a given)--and the GOP will try to buy air time during the series to run rebuttal ads.

The gist is presented here, but a simple Google News search for "The Reagans" will demonstrate the all-out offensive by the conservative media to do more than just alter perception about this series.

The major advance in this war on perception was set, quite appropriately, in the days of Reagan, and surged more than a decade ago with offensives on the language, such as the senior Bush trying to make "liberal" a dirty word, or Newt Gingrich's memo to Republicans on how to use language as a weapon.

There is an effort to control the way we see and process information; it is a political effort--and it is most decidedly not liberal.