Filming a water drop at 2000 frames per second

Thanks to reader Annita for sending this one in. It's totally unexpected, and totally cool.

Read the rest of this post...

Another Taliban leader said to be taken in Afghanistan

Anyone else miss the days when presidents talked tough but never seemed to catch anybody? Yeah, me neither. Read the rest of this post...

The week the wall came down

I've been going through old photos, in order to try to find some nice ones to enlarge to, finally, decorate my once-new condo. And I stumbled across several of my Berlin Wall photos that I took at the end of November, early December, 1989, only a few weeks after the wall metaphorically "fell."

I was in West Berlin on a congressional delegation. The wall was still in place, the East German guards were still there with their guns, but people on the western side were in a permanent state of party. Everyone was trying to chip off bits of the painted wall as souvenirs, which was much harder than you'd think. Imagine trying to chip a piece off a sidewalk with your hands. Fortunately, I found a big chunk of rebar sticking out of one section of the wall, at around 1 or 2 in the morning, with the help of an American friend I no longer remember (he was studying abroad in West Germany, and possibly Berlin itself, his name was Tom I think) we just bent that rebar back and forth for a good twenty minutes, until it got nice and hot, and finally snapped. It was a great souvenir.



As much as the wall "officially" fell in early November, that was when the guards were pretty much forced to open the borders, there was still a border between the two countries, East Germany and West Germany, and it was still patrolled by men with rather scary guns, there were still a good many Soviet troops on the other side, and while a downright jubilant scene, I remember it still being a little creepy, because it was just so out of control, and the East German troops didn't seem entirely clear what to do, if anything, at the crowds who were just ripping the down the border between the two countries. I think you had to be there, and you had to be of my generation, or older, that grew up with the constant presence and threat of the Soviet Union. A lot of people died along this wall, and it was equal parts exhilarating and scary, and even a bit spooky, being there.

Having said that, the guards were quite obliging for photos.



This last photo is funny, because I found almost the exact same photo that someone else took and posted on the Berlin Wall wikipedia page. Check out the photo below, and this photo on wikipedia, the spray paint is different, but if you look closely at the cement, it's the exact same hole in the wall in both photos. Weird.

Read the rest of this post...

US closes in on Google hackers, find ties to Chinese govt.

Seattle PI:

A freelance security consultant in his 30s wrote the part of the program that used a previously unknown security hole in the Internet Explorer Web browser to break into computers and insert the spyware, a researcher working for the U.S. government told the Financial Times. Chinese officials had special access to the work of the author, who posted pieces of the program to a hacking forum and described it as something he was "working on."

Read the rest of this post...

Conservatives, sounding a lot like Teabaggers, turn venomous on Scott Brown over his vote for Jobs bill

From Twitter we learn that conservatives around the country are under the mistaken impression that they elected a Newt Gingrich Republican in Massachusetts, a state that has gay marriage and universal health insurance. And now they think he's their Senator too. Newsflash, he's not:

it wasn't just the people of MA who put you where you are. Next time you vote like that I expect to be kissed first!

Well, I guess we worked our tails off to get another RINO elected. I'm so disappointed in Scott Brown

Hey, Massachusetts! How do you like Scott Specter?

You dont understand - We Americans Had Drawn A Line In The Sand With @scottbrownma - Its All Gone Now. #traitor

Michael Savage totally called it... @SCOTTBROWNMA sucks!

Congratulations to Comrade Scott "Marxist" Brown on Voting For Bolshevik Jobs Bill.

You're aiming for a 1 term seat eh? forgot, you can just run next time as a democrat.

Is being labeled "an independent thinker" more important than being labeled "a principled man"? Scott?

@ScottBrownMa is a phony. Votes for a bill to rip us off of more tax money. No wonder Ma voted for ya.

Brown's a PROGRESSIVE .. and will progressively turn all the conservatives against him. Such a disappointment.

All the work done to get @scottbrownma elected and this is how he returns the favor

Un-effing believable . Wow, I'm blown away you would vote for this?!? What was the payoff? Guess you're a 1 term guy. Fooled us

For Brown to cave so fast, I think we supported a loser.||NO we supported a FISCAL FRAUD not a HAWK

I thought your were a Fiscal Conservative. I like many across this nation donated to your campaign! Like Obama, YOU LIE!

ASK FOR YOUR MONEY BACK - I am sorry I promoted this traitor.

renegs on promise 2 B fiscal conservative after 1 meeting w/Reid I can't help being disappointed & nervous

DO NOT SUPPORT @SCOTTBROWNMA - ASK FOR YOUR MONEY BACK - I am sorry I promoted this...

The thing about @scottbrownma is that I knew teh betrayal would come. I just didn't think it would be so quick.

Was Right. Scott Brown Is Not A Conservative - Another Progressive RINO like McCain, Lindsey & Romney

@ScottBrownMa is another Evan Bayh only with a (R) after his name

Read the rest of this post...

Senate Dems. win on jobs bill, beating back filibuster with five GOP votes including Scott Brown

The Senate just took a vote to end the GOP filibuster of Senator Reid's jobs bill. There are "only" 59 Democratic Senators now. And, although Senator Lautenberg is absent because of his stomach cancer and Ben Nelson voted for the filibuster, the Democrats prevailed by a vote of 62 - 30. Kit Bond (MO), Susan Collins (ME), George Voinovich (OH) and Olympia Snowe (ME) voted with the Democrats. But the "big" news is that the new darling/savior of the GOP from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, just voted with Democrats. He announced his decision a short time ago, according to the Washington Post:

Democrats have sought to pressure Brown into backing the measure, pointing out that he captured the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D) seat by promising to be an independent voice. With Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) absent following his cancer diagnosis, Democrats need at least two Republican votes to reach the 60 necessary to move to final passage later this week, and so far no other GOP senator has announced plans to support the measure.

"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," Brown said in a statement issued by his office. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I will vote for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.

Wait. Scott Brown put his constituents ahead of Mitch McConnell? He's in big trouble now. Let's see how quickly the teabaggers and other right-wingers turn on their new golden boy. They're not too tolerant of compromise.

One last thing: Senator Ben Nelson voted with the Republicans. I guess no one promised him a Medicaid deal or $500,000 for campaign ads to get his vote. Read the rest of this post...

Max Blumenthal drives the CPACers crazy, sends Breitbart into frenzy

Several favorite parts of this video of our good buddy Max Blumenthal at the conservative CPAC conference, including one attendee talking about President Obama having "Hamas people in his cabinet... a former member of Hamas as one of his advisers... one of his czars." In fact, he appears to be referring to a guy who worked for an international conflict resolution organization - a rather highly esteemed one, at that - who met with Hamas as part of his crisis resolution work. He worked on the Obama campaign until he quit after an uproar or his having met with Hamas. That's the "cabinet member" who is a former Hamas official. Amazing.

And "white supremist"? The guy doesn't even know proper English.

Max is pretty amazing, check out how he handles the crowd - unflappable. He has a great back and forth with Andrew Breitbart, a Drudge protégé during the last few minutes. Breitbart can barely contain himself, Max is calm as usual, letting his victims hang themselves on camera.

Read the rest of this post...

Bayh says electing GOP Sen. Brown is 'part of cure' for Congress

What's the cure for stupid?

I almost wrote that Evan Bayh wasn't running for Senate again, so he could finally tell the truth. But he probably wants to run for the President, and he clearly thinks that blaming the gridlock on the Democrats help him, so a-Dem-bashing he will go. From AP:

Retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Monday that electing more lawmakers like new Republican Sen. Scott Brown may be the "ultimate cure" for partisan gridlock in Washington.

And here's my favorite quote. Note how Bayh manages to blame Democrats for the Republicans filibustering every single piece of major legislation:

He reiterated that Monday, saying the Senate used to be a more polite place. He said senators should be more open to compromise and rely on filibusters less to block legislation.

"Those on my side need to accept half a loaf when the alternative is nothing," he said.

Nicely played, twisting the knife in the Dems by blaming them for the GOP filibuster. Read the rest of this post...

Charlie Cook says Dems are going to lose the House

Nothing is written in stone, but this is not good. And it's something we had heard about weeks ago (we also hear that Mr. Cook isn't too hopeful on the Senate either, hopefully he'll be elucidating his thinking on that soon as well).

Political handicapper Charlie Cook said that it was "very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House" in an interview with National Journal late last week.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP leader Boehner flips out because Obama had temerity to offer a HCR proposal

Remember, if we breathe, the GOP will complain that we're breathing. It's what they do, it's how they play the game. Regardless of what the White House did, the Republicans would freak out in an effort to play refs (the American public) and to scare Dems into compromising even more. Boehner's latest? Flipping out that the President offered a proposal that included parts of the House and Senate health care reform bills.

Yes, and what's wrong with that? Those bills were already watered down in order to get conservative support. Now we're supposed to water them down again, before the Republicans even offer their own proposal? Classic GOP move. Constantly get us to negotiate with ourselves, while they offer nothing.

Not to mention, many of the proposals Obama is talking about poll very highly with the public. So the GOP is going to need to explain why they're against a proposal that includes banning pre-existing conditions, holding insurance premium increases to a reasonable rate, etc.

I hope the White House sets up the bipartisan meeting on Thursday anyway. Get the room ready, set out the chairs, then sit and wait while the cameras are running, waiting for the GOP to show up or not. It will make great TV. Read the rest of this post...

Public option more popular than Senate HCR plan in key states

In key states of Senate Dems, public option more popular than Senate health care plan:

A batch of state polls by the non-partisan Research 2000 shows that in multiple states represented by key Dem Senators who will have to decide whether to support reconciliation, the public option polls far better than the Senate bill does, often by lopsided margins.

Here’s a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls:

* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.

* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.

* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.

* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.

* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.

* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.

Read the rest of this post...

Is the GOP health care bill online yet?

No.

White House officials have already begun urging Republicans to post their bills on line as well – a clever tactic by the White House, because Republicans ideas for reform were spread across several pieces of legislation, or fell far short of the Democrats’ goal of insuring 31 million uninsured Americans. The main House Republican proposal, for instance, would only cover 3 million more Americans.

H/t Taegan. Read the rest of this post...

Doctors want hot dogs redesigned

This is a fascinating article. It's the way 60 minutes used to be, like two decades ago. You'd watch one guy and think "he's right." Then you'd watch the other guy and think "he's right." I really enjoy articles that challenge your underlying beliefs. I heard about this, that doctors wanted to force the redesign of hot dogs to make them safer for kids, and thought "this is ridiculous." Now, not so much.

"The most common cause of death for kids aged roughly 1 to 5 is choking...

Hot dogs are a prime offender, accounting for 17 percent of food-related asphyxiations in children under the age of 10, according to one study.

"If you were to take the best engineers in the world and asked them to design a perfect plug for a child's airway, you couldn't do better than a hot dog," Smith said. "It's the right size, right shape. It's compressible so it wedges itself in. When they're in that tight [it's] almost impossible, even with the correct training and the correct equipment, to get out. When it's wedged in tightly, that child is going to die."

Other high-risk foods include hard candy, peanuts and nuts, even peanut butter.

The article warns about small candies as well. And if you think about it, they're exactly the size of small things you'd normally keep out of your kids' hands, lest they choke. As for peanut butter, I remember the only time in my life I actually choked on food for real - meaning, total stoppage of air, couldn't even breathe enough to cough or hack, just utter horrifying silence - was while eating a Snickers in undergrad. Somehow got a piece of the ooey gooey candy lodged in my wind pipe. Couldn't breathe, couldn't even make a sound. I remember frantically trying to get the attention of the people I was walking with, because when you're really choking, you're silent. My two friends, upon realizing I was desperately grabbing for my throat, immediately started screaming "he's choking, he's choking," while not giving me the Heimlich. Fortunately, some guy came running from across the street and went to work on me.

Choking for real, not coughing choking, but silent choking, is a pretty horrifying thing. And a very small kid can't walk over and hit you in the arm to let you know he's about to die. Read the rest of this post...

Details of the President's new health care reform proposal

ThinkProgress compares House, Senate and Obama proposals.

WH says if GOP filibusters, they'll do HCR in Reconciliation.

Ambinder's take.

At first blush, I hear from health care policy experts that it's pretty good. More from the White House Web site. You read the summary of the proposal here.

It seems the President's proposal still includes the excise tax on "high cost" insurance plans, and while upping the threshold and delaying implementation, it now applies the tax to every plan, individual plans as well (I'm told this meets the unions' concerns, but not sure how everyone now feels about it). It's not clear how this is going to work in practice, and whether it's going to end up hurting people who work for themselves - the annual limit of $10,200 is only $850 a month (meaning, if you pay more than $850 a month, they tax the plan). With my current rate increases, I'll be paying that in 3 to 5 years. And with almost no prescription drug coverage, my plan is hardly Cadillac.

Delay and Reform the High-Cost Plan Excise Tax.
Part of the reason for high and rising insurance costs is that insurers have little incentive to lower their premiums. The Senate bill includes a tax on high-cost health insurance plans. CBO has estimated that this policy will reduce premiums as well as contribute to long-run deficit reduction. The President’s Proposal changes the effective date of the Senate policy from 2013 to 2018 to provide additional transition time for high-cost plans to become more efficient. It also raises the amount of premiums that are exempt from the assessment from $8,500 for singles to $10,200 and from $23,000 for families to $27,500 and indexes these amounts for subsequent years at general inflation plus 1 percent. To the degree that health costs rise unexpectedly quickly between now and 2018, the initial threshold would be adjusted upwards automatically. To ensure that the tax affects firms equitably, the President’s Proposal reforms it by including an adjustment for firms whose health costs are higher due to the age or gender of their workers, and by no longer counting dental and vision benefits as potentially taxable benefits. The President’s Proposal maintains the Senate bill’s permanent adjustment in favor of high-risk occupations such as “first responders.”

There's a lot of wiggle room in the way this is written, such as, if they curtail cost sufficiently, then perhaps I won't end up paying more than $850 a month. Read the rest of this post...

Presidential leadership matters

I'm getting so tired of having to write the same post over and over again. It's as if George Washington and his buddies got together only yesterday to create the United States, so we didn't have any history to base anything on. The president of the United States matters. He is not a figure head. And in spite of the Constitution saying that Congress legislates and the President executes, it doesn't really work 100% the way it's written on paper.

To wit. A new study showing that when the President picks a position, the opposition party is more likely to oppose it. Well yes, that's called politics in a democracy. If we lived in a one-party state, there might be a way around the whole Democrat vs Republican thing. But actually, even then, there was still politics and factions and backstabbing within the Soviet Union and other dictatorships. You just can't get around it.

I just don't see how it's useful to look at studies that speak the obvious. As for the issue of whether Presidents should get involved at all in legislation (it's horrifying we're even having this discussion), what do you think would happen if we removed the President from the equation? If Barack Obama was nowhere to be found, does anyone really believe that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would get any more votes for health care reform, climate change, immigration or anything else in the Democratic agenda? Partisanship would still rule the day because the Republicans want to win back the Congress and the White House, and the best way to do that, they think, is to stymie the Democrats' agenda at every turn.

Your choice is to accept the fact that your political opponents will try to undercut your agenda, and figure out how to lead and win in that environment, or you can quit and take up knitting, like Evan Bayh. Some presidents, like George Bush and Ronald Reagan, relished a legislative challenge in the heat of partisanship. And they did pretty well for themselves, if not always the country. Read the rest of this post...

Lieberman to sponsor DADT repeal. Key for success is including it in Def. authorization.

Just posted this at AMERICAblog Gay.

We'd been hearing for months that Senator Lieberman, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, would be the prime sponsor of the Senate bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Today, the NY Daily News reports that Lieberman is going to introduce the legislation. Given the Senate's gridlock, the best hope for success is for the Senate Armed Services Committee to include the repeal language in the must-pass Department of Defense authorization bill. The President has a role in this process because the Pentagon sends its policy recommendations to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. It would be a very clear indication that the White House wants the repeal included in the Defense authorization bill if Obama makes that DADT repeal recommendation.

During the recent Senate hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Lieberman and the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Carl Levin, discussed that strategy:

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I appreciate that.

And, look, then the final, obviously, is that it’s up to us in the Congress and in the Senate. We’ve got to – we’ve got to get 60 votes to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell, or else it will remain in effect. Thank you.

SEN. LEVIN: Unless there’s a provision inside the Defense authorization bill; that goes to the floor, which would then require an amendment to strike it from the bill; in which case the 60-vote rule would be turning the other way. In fact –

SEN. LIEBERMAN: It is – (inaudible) – knowledge, but it is with great appreciation that I accept the higher wisdom – (laughter) – of the chairman of our committee.

SEN. LEVIN: (Laughs, laughter.)

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I think that’s a great way to go.

SEN. LEVIN: That’s on the record, everybody. (Laughter.)

I actually agree with Lieberman on something. That is a great way to go. The Senate Democrats could actually make the process work to their advantage on this one.

Over the past few weeks, we've seen poll after poll after poll showing strong support for allowing gays to serve in the military. Even the Cheneys support repeal. This has become one of those issues that transcends politics for the American people. It's a no-brainer. The President has said that he wants the law repealed. He can help make it happen this year. We've reached a point where failure to do so will reflect poorly on the President. The political risk comes from not delivering. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

On Thursday, the President is hosting the bipartisan health care summit, because, as we've been told, bipartisanship is the most important thing in DC these days. (But, Republicans could care less about bipartisanship or health care reform, which does complicate things.) At 10:00 AM today, the President's proposed health care bill will be posted on the White House website. That will set the stage for the discussion's this week -- and will generate endless commentary.

Obama is giving a speech to the nation's governors this morning. They're in town for the National Governors Association winter meeting. Later today, he's having a one-on-one with Governor Schwarzenegger in the Oval Office. Looks like Arnold the only governor who's getting that individual face time with President.

The Senate returns today. The first order of business is the jobs bill. Expect Republicans to filibuster the jobs bill, even though many of them already support key provisions of the bill. Now, if the Senate Democrats had a spine among them, they'd really make a big deal out of this and force the Republicans to defend their filibuster. It's a jobs bill. That's a winning issue for Democrats, but too many Democrats in the Senate have forgotten how to win. We need to hear the names of the GOPers who are choosing partisan politics over results. And, we need to hear those names over and over this week.

So, it's going to be an interesting week here in Washington. Let's get started.... Read the rest of this post...

British police arrest another photographer under anti-terror laws

So taking photographs is somehow suspicious and then asking for your rights makes you even more suspicious. Interesting. The photographer did a great job staying calm and asking questions. Of course, by asking questions about his rights, that somehow made him even more suspicious. He was later released after being held for eight hours. The Guardian:

Patefield asked if the officer had any "reasonable, articulable suspicion" to justify him giving his details.

She replied: "I believe your behaviour was quite suspicious in the manner in which you were taking photographs in the town centre … I'm suspicious in why you were taking those pictures.

"I'm an officer of the law, and I'm requiring you, because I believe your behaviour to be of a suspicious nature, and of possibly antisocial [nature] … I can take your details just to ascertain that everything is OK."

Patefield and his friend maintained that they did not want to disclose their details. They were stopped a third and final time when returning to their car. This time the officer was accompanied by an acting sergeant. "Under law, fine, we can ask for your details – we've got no powers," he said. "However, due to the fact that we believe you were involved in antisocial behaviour, ie taking photographs … then we do have a power under [the Police Reform Act] to ask for your name and address, and for you to provide it. If you don't, then you may be arrested."

Read the rest of this post...

UK poll: overwhelming majority still unhappy with bank regulation and pay

It would be interesting to see a similar poll done in the US. Outside of Wall Street, Congress and the White House economic team, does anyone really think that bankers have been treated fairly? The Democrats bark a little and the GOP send love notes while they woo the bankers over to the even safer side of mild regulation. It's as if the world didn't lose trillions of dollars. If only individuals mattered compared to the deep pockets of the financial industry. (Deep into everyone else's pocket, that is.) Why would voters take the political systems seriously when such wrongs have been propped up and allowed to prosper like this?

Do politicians in Western democracies care at all about voters?

A YouGov poll reveals the extent of public anger at City excess. It finds that 76% of people would support a cap on bonuses, that 59% support windfall taxes on bankers' bonuses, and that 60% want the tax to be extended to those working in hedge funds and ­private equity houses.

There was also support for other forms of regulation, with most supporting a levy on financial transactions (a Tobin tax). Almost seven out of 10 wanted retail and investment banking separated. Three out of four people said they did not think banks had changed and were still not being properly regulated.

"The economic arguments for taming the dominance of the finance sector are overwhelming. The social and moral arguments are incontrovertible," said Neal Lawson, chairman of Compass, the Labour campaign group that commissioned the poll.

Read the rest of this post...

Interesting new study on rehabilitation for stroke patients

Music is often used to help patients in various other ways, but this is cool. BBC:

Teaching stroke patients to sing "rewires" their brains, helping them recover their speech, say scientists.

By singing, patients use a different area of the brain from the area involved in speech.

If a person's "speech centre" is damaged by a stroke, they can learn to use their "singing centre" instead.

Read the rest of this post...