Video: Cool digital carpet changes as you walk on it

It looks like this is truly digital, as in a projection.  Still, very cool.

Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich now attacking Romney for speaking French

As much as Romney plays the "Europe" card by suggesting that A) all of Europe is socialist (especially France, of course), and that b) Obama wants to make America just like Europe, then Romney deserves the attack.  You just can't play the "the other guy is too close to those 'crazy' Europeans" while you speak fluent French. Read the rest of this post...

More bad health news related to processed meats

How can it be wrong when they taste so right?

A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden. They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%. But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.

Like everything else, moderation is the key for good health. Earlier this week I had my favorite Full English Breakfast, but will have to hold off for a while before the next. Then again, I do look forward to eggs and Scrapple on my next visit to Philadelphia. Surely once a year is still OK. Read the rest of this post...

US troops are no 'favor' to Europe

How can I put this delicately? I will try:

The presence of the US military is not popular in Europe.

I was thus rather surprised to read in John's earlier post that the Washington Post is claiming that the planned reduction in the number of US troops in Europe is worrying Europeans. Here's what the Post had to say:

The reductions in Army forces, which have not been formally announced, are likely to concern European officials, who worry that the smaller American presence reflects a waning of interest in the decades-long U.S.-NATO partnership in Europe.

So what we have here is merely an assumption the reporter could easily have checked but didn't bother to. Presumably because he was sure it must be true. There must be a word for such behavior but it isn't 'reporting'.

I am pretty close to the British establishment. I was born into it after all. I know plenty of senior Tories and I have never met a single one express the opinion that the UK is in need of charitable assistance from the US.

The US established permanent military bases in Europe after World War II because they wanted to. The bases were created to serve the interests of the US and not those of Europe. By mutual consent, the US, Britain and the USSR had agreed on Germany as host for World War III and Germany was in no position to refuse.

The long term presence of large numbers of foreign troops is almost never popular. Why would anyone imagine it would be? US troops in particular have a reputation for engaging in obnoxious behavior knowing that their commanding officers will have little interest in disciplining them. 

Imagine for the sake of argument that Mexico suggested putting 10,000 troops on US soil. Would you expect US politicians to be enthusiastic about the prospect of a boost to the local economies or express satisfaction that they will help defend the US from Canada?

The US military is popular in the US in a way that the British military is not in the UK. This probably has something to do with the fact that the UK is no longer the hegemon it was in the 1910s when they used to hold the Empire days. To a large degree the US military is exempt from criticism. UK generals and admirals play absolutely no part in political debate whatsoever. A UK military officer would be cashiered for attempting any type of political lobbying, let alone the sort that Colin Powell engaged in to block gays in the military.

Knowing this, Europeans are not likely to start a conversation with a random American by telling them what we really think of the US military any more than an American is likely to tell jokes about the Royal family. This doesn't mean that Europeans believe the military to be the finest in the world and a force for compromised good. It certainly does not mean that we worry about Putin's tanks rolling across the Danube the minute Uncle Sam packs up and goes home.

So please, for your own sakes, cut the damn US military budget. Even if the US could afford to spend as much on militarism as the rest of the planet put together, it is just not healthy to do so. Read the rest of this post...

Stephen Colbert to enter GOP primary in South Carolina

And even weirder, my friend Trevor is Colbert's election lawyer.  It's bizarre how the world gets smaller as you get older. More from the NYT via Slate:

Stephen Colbert announced on his show Thursday night that he will campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in South Carolina or, as the New York Times rightfully puts it, "at least pretend to."

The late-night comedian said that he'll form an "exploratory committee for president of the United States of South Carolina." While it's too late for him to make his way onto the GOP ballot in his home state, that won't stop him from waging a write-in campaign that, among other things, will only ramp up his ongoing mockery of election finance laws that allow for the existence of so-called Super PACS.

In order to make the move legal, Colbert announced that he'd hand control of his own Super PAC over to fellow Comedy Central star Jon Stewart. A Super PAC can't officially coordinate with the candidate it's supporting, an ambiguous technicality that the two highlighted with this exchange.

Colbert: "From now on, I will have to talk about my plans on my TV show."

Stewart: "I don't even know when it's on."

Read the rest of this post...

Mormons feel misunderstood? Then maybe they should stop the gay-bashing.

A series of articles today on Mitt Romney and the Mormons. The first, from Buzzfeed, documents how Romney is running (or at least hiding) his Mormon faith on the campaign trail. The second, a new poll from PEW, shows that Mormons feel discriminated against and misunderstood.

Misunderstood, sure. As the PEW poll shows, only half of Americans think Mormons are Christians. And while some would like to cast this as "discrimination," it's the right of Christians in America to decide who is and isn't a member of their own faith. But take the point a step further. Some people feel Mormonism is a cult. Is that bigoted or discriminatory of them? Some people also feel that Scientology is a cult (Scientologists consider themselves members of a religion). Is it also bigoted and discriminatory to think that Scientology is a cult? I suspect far fewer people would defend Scientology, or condemn those who consider it a cult. Is there a difference between judging Mormons and judging Scientologists?

Putting that discussion aside for a moment, Mormons probably do face animosity in America today, but I suspect that some of it doesn't come from the historic persecution that Mormons feel they have always faced. Some of the animosity comes from the Mormon's own actions. To wit, the Mormons dropped $20 million to get Prop 8 passed in California, revoking the right to marry for gay couples in that state. Should gay people not be angry that the Mormons have spent tens of millions of dollars over the past twenty years, in state after state, in a systematic effort to stop us from gaining our civil rights?

I didn't know much of anything about the Mormons until I got involved in gay rights advocacy. Then I noticed their name popping up time and again, reaching a culmination in their abominable support for Prop 8, which quite literally took rights away from millions of gay people. And to add salt to the wound, Prop 8 was going down until the Mormons stepped in and saved the day.

There's a reason that some people have issues with Mormons. It's because the Mormons have issues with us. The day the Mormon church stops being one of the largest purveyors of hate and bigotry in America today is the day the Mormons earn the right to complain about how they're treated by their own victims.

Calling yourself a religion is not a get-out-of-jail free card to exonerate you from your own hateful actions.

PS And I didn't even get to what the Mormons are still doing to Jews, and did do to African-Americans. Read the rest of this post...

"Why won’t progressives fight for federal judges?"

In the wake of this discussion of progressives and their non-existent (or dysfunctional) relationship with the federal court system, I'm pointed via email to this article discussing the same issue.

In it, University of Georgia law professor Sonja West asks: "Why won’t progressives fight for federal judges?" and launches into an interesting examination.

First, the problem (my emphasis):

The lack of concern about or willingness to fight for judicial nominees by one party is a serious weakness in our current political system. If one side cares intensely about the courts and the other side doesn’t, what you get is a long-term bias in one direction. This growing imbalance shouldn’t just worry progressives. It should alarm anyone who believes a range of voices on the courts is essential.

Yet Democrats have a nagging blind spot for fully comprehending that when it comes to advancing the issues they care about, judges aren’t just important but indispensible. If disillusioned Democrats are wondering whether it matters whether President Obama gets a second term, they should look no further than the aging faces of the nine justices at the Supreme Court. And the thousands of demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street need to understand that many of the very things they’re protesting against are the direct consequences of decades spent by progressives deprioritzing judicial appointments.

That last statement is both powerful and true. To paraphrase:

OWS protesters need to understand that much of what they're protesting against are caused by several decades [at least 30 years] of progressives not caring enough about judicial appointments.

We're doing it to ourselves. Progressives are getting the country we're getting because of our choices — not as individuals, for the most part, but certainly as a group, a "coalition." When the Right builds a media outlet to get its message out (Fox News, say), it allows that outlet to operate at a loss for as long as it takes. Why? Because the Right is on a mission.

When the Left builds a media outlet (Air America, say), it forces that outlet to turn a profit or go under. Why? Because the Left is out to lunch.

And that's especially true when the subject is the courts. As I wrote earlier:

While the Federalist Society Right, with its corp-first ideology, has been fighting a 30-year battle to pack the U.S. court system with cronies and fellow radicals (my phrase again), the left has been going on long champagne lunches, enjoying the fruits of our national postwar wealth, and assuming this will always be their daddy's USA. It won't.

Where would we be today if Air America were allowed to run free? And where would we be if we fought for good judges and against bad ones with the same fervor (and skill) as our opponents?

Back to West's article. Where I see complacency, West sees a lack of good prioritization:

What modern Democrats crave instead are legislative victories—health care, immigration reform, social support systems, and environmental protections. And that leaves little left over in the political capital checking account to spend on judges. Democrats, of course, aren’t going to kick a liberal court out of bed for eating crackers, but they don’t want to push for one at the expense of other matters. In the first two years of the Obama Administration alone, the President and Congress could have appointed a slew of new federal judges, but they chose to work on other things. These other things, while important, came at the expense of judges.

Could well be true. The article is good — it reads well and makes the case. It also details some of the (many) losses caused by only caring about Supreme Court nominations. Please check it out.

I'll just add that this is not a problem that defies solution. Unlike electoral politics and the problem of taking over the Senate or the House (or the Democratic party), controlling the courts can be achieved by controlling a very small number of pressure points (I count three).

I'll offer more detail shortly; it's not rocket science to design this as an "op" or a project. This is incredibly important, and one side of the solution (playing on defense) requires just one determined person.

Playing to win; wouldn't it be nice to move the ball the other way for a change? We might even score some points of our own. Stay tuned.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Federal Reserve transcripts show extreme cluelessness

It's a wonder anyone on the board who was so far off still has a job at the Federal Reserve. Even worse, how is Tim Geithner running the US Treasury and how is Ben Bernanke still the Fed president? This wasn't a small miss, but a massive miss.

The problem is that they were all ordinary, mainstream thinkers so of course they dismissed analysis from outsiders who questioned the building problems. The Fed board is much too insulated from the real world. If nothing else, these transcripts from 2006 show that we need to also reform the Fed, to allow more outside thinking. They were falling over themselves to congratulate Alan Greenspan on his way out and completely missed the crisis that was coming. As we saw after 9/11, how badly does one have to screw up in Washington to lose a job? LA Times:

"We believe that, absent some large, negative shock to perceptions about employment and earned income, the effects of the expected cooling in housing prices are going to be modest," said Timothy F. Geithner, the current Treasury secretary, who then was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. When Geithner was finished, Bernanke asked, to a round of laughter, "Anything to report on co-op prices in Manhattan?" "As in many cases, I am not sure what you can take from the anecdote, but I guess some people say that you see a little of the froth dissipating," Geithner replied. "But I don't think the adjustment is acute.

Yeah, that's a funny one. Too bad the joke was on the rest of the country. Read the rest of this post...

Is SOPA author a copyright violator? Yes

Oh oh. I hate when this happens and wonderful people like GOP Congressman Lamar Smith, author of the SOPA bill, are caught violating laws that they're promoting. Vice.com:

I decided to check that everything on Lamar's official campaign website was copyright-cleared and on the level. Lamar is using several stock images on his site, two of which I tracked back to the same photographic agency. I contacted the agency to make sure he was paying to use them, but was told that it's very difficult for them to actually check to see if someone has permission to use their images. (Great news, copyright violators!) However, seeing as they're both from the same agency and are unwatermarked, it seems fairly likely that he is the only person on the entire internet who is actually paying to use a stock image (and he'd be an idiot not to). So I took a look back at an archived, pre-SOPA version of his site.

And this is the background image Lamar was using. I managed to track that picture back to DJ Schulte, the photographer who took it.

And whaddya know? Looks like someone forgot to credit him.

Oh the humanity. Go here to sign up and help identify other pro-SOPA hypocrites. Read the rest of this post...

Robert Reich on the allure of Ron Paul - it’s the pot

Robert Reich:

No other Republican candidate has come nearly as close to winning over young voters – and the GOP desperately needs young voters. The median age of registered Republicans is rising faster than the median age of America.

The Republican right thinks Paul’s views on the economy are responsible for this fire among the young. Yesterday evening, on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program, I squared off with Larry and the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore. Both are convinced young people are attracted by Paul’s strict adherence to the views of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and Paul’s desire to move America back to the gold standard.

Baloney. The young are flocking to Ron Paul because he wants to slice military spending, bring our troops home, stop government from spying on American citizens, and legalize pot.

Read the rest of this post...

Two of remaining four Army brigades to leave Europe

The Europeans are concerned, but seriously, why do we still need that many troops in Europe? The Soviets are gone, and the Russians aren't invading any time soon. Wash Post:

The Obama administration has decided to remove two of the four U.S. Army brigades remaining in Europe as part of a broader effort to cut $487 billion from the Pentagon’s budget over the next decade, said senior U.S. officials.

The reductions in Army forces, which have not been formally announced, are likely to concern European officials, who worry that the smaller American presence reflects a waning of interest in the decades-long U.S.-NATO partnership in Europe.

The article notes that this translates to a decrease of 10k to 15k soldiers. The Post says we have 80,000 troops overall in Europe, including the other branches of the military, and the Army times says 40,000 of those troops are soldiers (i.e., Army), most of them in Germany. Positioning them in Germany made sense when we had an East Germany to worry about - but the DDR reunified with West Germany in 1990.  That was over twenty years ago.  Perhaps it's time. Read the rest of this post...

Arab League admits Syria not going according to plan

Let's hope that more civilian deaths were not part of the plan. How much more do they need to see before they implement sanctions against Syria? Sanctions by the US would have little impact due to the already limited connections but Arab League sanctions would certainly be felt in Syria. The Guardian:

The Arab League chief has cast further doubt on the delegation his organisation has sent to monitor the crisis in Syria, describing ongoing violence as "very worrisome" and saying the mission was not going to plan. Nabil al-Arabi's comments on Thursday come a day after the Cairo-based organisation said it would not send more monitors to Syria until the violence was under control – a tacit admission that the monitors' month-long mission has done nothing to stop it. One observer on Wednesday broke ranks from the much-criticised mission, describing it as a "farce" that was "serving the regime's interests". Reports emerged on Thursday that another 11 observers also wanted to walk away. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the aggrieved group had witnessed security forces shooting at demonstrators in the northern city of Deir al-Zour – an attack that reportedly killed 19 people on Tuesday.

Read the rest of this post...

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood set to win 45% of parliament

This is exactly why the US started to reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood. They've been on the outside looking in for so many years, so now they're going to have to develop actual policies, which ought to be interesting. Even more interesting will be how the US and the Brotherhood interact and what the relationship might accomplish. The US has dumped billions of dollars per year into Egypt for decades and that money had a clear influence in politics. It never trickled down (surprise, surprise) but many at the top did well with the cash. The Guardian:

It's a triumph that's been 84 years in the making and, despite a concerted effort by all involved to stay humble and on-message during their movement's finest hour, few members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood can hide their exhilaration. "These elections are a historic milestone for us and they are a historic milestone for Egypt," said Amr Darrag, secretary general of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party in Giza. "We've not had such free elections since 1952, so it's a great moment for the nation," he said. "The Egyptian people really intend to seize this moment and secure the position for Egypt that it so clearly deserves." The FJP will be the largest force in the country's new parliament when it opens for business on 23 January, almost exactly a year on from the beginning of the revolution that would eventually topple the Brotherhood's tormentor-in-chief, Hosni Mubarak.

Read the rest of this post...