Video: Monkey dishwasher

Apparently the monkeys were watching someone do the dishes for a few days, then started imitating him.



And for an added treat, click over, scroll down, and have a look at the guy who the monkeys were imitating. Where do I get my dishes? Read the rest of this post...

Supreme Court schedules health care reform oral arguments in March, decision expected end of June

Mike Sacks at HuffPo reports that the oral arguments will take place over 3 days at the end of June - this is the most important day:

The main event will be on Tuesday, March 27, when the Court will take up the constitutionality of the health care law's minimum coverage requirement. That provision, commonly called the individual mandate, requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Court has set aside two hours for argument over whether Congress' passage of the individual mandate exceeded the legislature's powers to regulate interstate commerce or lay and collect taxes under Article I of the Constitution.

Read the rest of this post...

Rick Perry confronted by 14 year old bisexual over gays in the military

It has been interesting to see how many GOP candidates have been confronted by gay (et. al.) voters over the past few weeks - I think we count Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Romney who have all had to face a gay voter face to face.  The latest was Perry.  And perhaps the most interesting aspect is that this doesn't appear coordinated.  These are just regular folks stepping forward and challenging presidential candidates.  I don't think it's ever happened to this degree. Read the rest of this post...

How "Obamacare" is helping small business - tax cuts, baby

Heritage.com:

With the economy still in a slump, small business owners like me are doing everything we can to keep our costs down. A particularly troublesome cost for my business is health insurance.

However, I recently learned there are tax credits in the new healthcare law specifically for small businesses that will help us pocket some extra cash.

In Michigan, 85.1 percent, or 126,300 small businesses were eligible for a credit in 2010; 39,600 small businesses qualified for the maximum tax credit that year.

Unfortunately, I saw a survey from Small Business Majority that said 57 percent of small business owners don't know about the credits. If more small employers took advantage of this opportunity to save money, there would be more cash circulating in our community.

More about the health care reform tax credit here. Read the rest of this post...

NYT: Romney likely paying 15 percent tax rate - the rest of you mere mortals probably pay 25 percent

It's good to be Romney. From the NYT:

Much information about Mr. Romney’s wealth is not known publicly. Federal law does not obligate him to disclose the precise details of his investments. He has declined to release his tax returns, and his campaign last week refused to say what tax rate he paid on his Bain earnings.

But since Mr. Romney’s payouts from Bain have come partly from the firm’s share of profits on its customers’ investments, that income probably qualifies for the 15 percent tax rate reserved for capital gains, rather than the 35 percent that wealthy taxpayers pay on ordinary income.

How much is Romney worth? A lot.

Mr. Romney is among the wealthiest candidates ever to run for president, with a family fortune that his campaign has estimated at $190 million to $250 million. In the years since he left Bain, much of his wealth has migrated into investments outside the company or into family trusts, including an additional $100 million set aside for his five sons.

But the family’s Bain holdings are still considerable: in his 2011 disclosure, Mr. Romney reported Bain assets between $12.4 million and $60.9 million, which provided between $1.5 million and $9.3 million in income. The blind trust for his wife, Ann, held at least another $10 million, generating income of at least $4.1 million. Because the campaign is required to provide only a minimum value for some Bain assets now held by Mrs. Romney, the total could be far more.

Read the rest of this post...

iPhone iOS 5.0 tip: Turn phone horizontal while in calendar

Bizarre.  And cool.  I was at the doctor's office, setting up my next allergy shot, when I accidentally turned my iphone sideways, and what do you know - I discovered a new trick with the calendar.  Check this out:

iPhone iOS 5.0 normal calendar view (vertical):

View when you turn the phone horizontal:

Very cool.  Who knew?

Read the rest of this post...

Disturbing video of, apparently, every North Korean crying hysterically over Dear Leader’s death

This week Europe lost Vaclav Havel, a leader who found the grandness of the palace in which he was expected to work so off-putting that he is said to have bought roller skates to get him down the long formal corridors more quickly. He is, for some, the embodiment of a wise principle that you should only entrust power to those who do not really want it. Tributes to Havel have been warm and respectful and many Czechs made their way to Wenceslas Square to light candles.

In North Korea, the "Dear Leader" has also passed on and, by contrast, grief has been unrestrained. Watching these displays is unsettling. Personally, I am not sure which would be the more unnerving - that the grief was real or that it was coerced:



It is not yet clear what effect Kim Jong Il's passing will have on the North Korean threat to possibly go to war over South Korea's plans to put up three Christmas trees (seriously). Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich is imploding in Iowa

Public Policy Polling:

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Yikes. This is really bad news for the Gingrich campaign and a sign that as long as the early states have a chance to make a statement about who they want their party's nominee to be, that candidates still have to show up and do the work. It looks like the attacks on Gingrich from Paul and Romney have taken a toll in Iowa.

Now just watch for Gingrich to start falling in other early primary states and in national polls. If so, his status as frontrunner may be coming to a quick end.

Cross posted from AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field Read the rest of this post...

House GOP again holding 150m Americans hostage, demanding dangerous spending cuts during a Depression

We are in a Depression, according to Paul Krugman. And the extremists controlling the House GOP are still demanding even more immediate spending cuts, which is dangerous as hell during an economic crisis.

Decreased spending depresses the economy even more - just look at what happened in England after the conservative government massively cut spending - the economy collapsed and the budget deficit actually got worse.  Why?  Because when the economy collapses more people are unemployed, which lowers government tax revenue and increases government spending on unemployment and other related programs.  Revenue decreases, spending increases, budget deficit increases.

The House GOP's proposed additional spending cuts will hurt economic growth, and what's worse, the House GOP isn't done there. They also think the payroll tax holiday is a bad idea, and they think the unemployment benefits are too large.  According to a slew of mainstream economics, including those on Wall Street, the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefit extensions could be worth as much as 1.5 percentage points of GDP next quarter (meaning that without them, GDP might drop by 1.5 percentage points, which is huge in a depressed economy).  That's what the House GOP wants to get rid of, 1.5 percentage points of GDP.

Let me put this in terms folks can appreciate. A week before Christmas, House Republicans want to increase taxes on every single worker in America, and they want to cut further whatever meager income the unemployed are currently getting. And to top it off, they want to cut spending overall, which will further cut economic growth and increase unemployment even more.

Merry Christmas!

Brought to you by the Tea Party, another name for Gingrich/Armey. It's 1994 all over again.  And yet again, when Republicans are elected to national office, the crazies take over every time. Read the rest of this post...

My trip to Kosovo: They’re still thanking America. A lot.

Note from John: Mark is a good ex-pat friend of mine who has lived in Amsterdam for years now. Politically, he's a European lefty, far to the left of anyone I know in this country. That's just background to keep in mind when reading his post - I imagine some might think Mark is some right-wing "Amurika" type. He's not. And that's why I wanted him to write this post.
____________


Earlier this month I was off to yet another country to teach workshops on journalism and video reporting for young journalists. This time the destination was Kosovo, a name that doesn't often make headlines anymore, unless it's a story about corruption or a border dispute. I was curious about both the good and the bad, to see how things work in this infamous place that in the late 90's was such a major issue for American (and European) foreign policy, when NATO attacked in order to stop Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo (among other things).

If you arrive via land as I first did, entering from the south on a bus from Macedonia, one thing you'll notice is how often you see an American Flag. Never mind if the building is just a car dealership or a construction company, the typical Kosovar business along the road flies three unmistakable flags. One is to be expected though not as recognizable, the the official sky blue flag with the 6 yellow stars and outline of the country. The second has to do with the dominant ethnic group represented by the Albanian red flag with the double headed black eagle. The third is the most interesting one to me, the American flag. It doesn't mean there's an American working in this building, or that the business or owned by American company, there is no official tie-in to the US needed - it is just a way to show what country people feel an affinity towards. Plus, indeed, most everyone seems to have a cousin or a brother who works or studies in the US.

As you make your way around Prishtina, especially at night, people in bars and public places are extremely friendly and you'll surely get to talking with a stranger. In my case sometimes in the most unexpected moments, a friendly stranger would tell me how much he or she likes the United States, and how much "my" country helped them. It is an odd feeling, as I was only 18 at the time (1998), never been in the military, and no president has ever consulted me on military decisions. But it's also a very interesting feeling, I'm being complimented for my nationality; not something I really look for or expect, especially with such a recognizable nationality, American.

On my way through airport security leaving Kosovo, it is a slow day and I'm the only one in line. The guy handling carry-on items and the security scan looks at my passport and gives me a big smile. "How are you? Its nice to see you here! You know America supported us, and you're very welcome here. Where are you from?"  What followed was the longest and most pleasant conversation I've ever had with any airport security person ever. The guy hardly bothered looking at my stuff or the computer monitor, he was mostly busy being very complimentary and reminding me to come back to see more of his country.

Policy hawks and cynics will say, "of course they're thankful, we spent money, troops and resources on helping their country get started." Fair enough. But a few days before, as I sat in a taxi on a corner of Bill Clinton Boulevard in Prishtina, snapping a photo of the funny looking Bill Clinton statue, I noticed the whole place represented a rarity in today's world. I've worked in Afghanistan and I've felt neither loved nor hated based on my nationality - which is really all anyone could want. I've travelled throughout Asia and Europe and again, and never encountered a place where my nationality would actually earn me (undeserved) compliments. But even today, well over ten years since the Clinton Administration made Kosovo a foreign policy priority, when much of the world has forgotten to pay attention, Kosovars still have a lot of love for Americans.  Even if you're not a Clinton.

(Another note from John: I've been in two places over the past decade (or so) where I was beloved for being American - meaning, people came up to me and thanked me for what the US did during the war sixty years before: 1) Sicily; 2) Normandy. It was nice.)  Someone just posted a great comment to this post:

I'm teaching English in France right now, and I recently visited Normandy with my roommate's family, as I'm only a couple hours drive away from there. We went into a little café for lunch after visiting the beaches. The man who owned the place was really friendly and asked why we were visiting and all that. I told him that we were visiting the beaches and that one of my great grandpas landed there. A little old lady (probably in her eighties) heard me and came over with tears in her eyes, thanking me for what my country and family had done. It was a little weird, as I'd had nothing to do with it, but like John says, it was nice. And people say the French hate Americans.

Read the rest of this post...

Yes, the NDAA really does authorize indefinite detention for U.S. citizens

We noted here the news that — contrary to words from his actual mouth — President Obama would in fact sign the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act, the so-called "Indefinite Detention" bill) into law, and not veto it as once promised.

The clickage on our report was huge — people are obviously awake to just how big a deal, how dangerous to civil liberties, this law would be.

As a result, Obama's fierce defenders have started spreading myths about the NDAA in an obvious attempt to calm (and muddy) the roiling pre-election waters.

I therefore offer lawyer Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the bill itself. In a post entitled "Three myths about the detention bill" Greenwald refutes the pro-Obama assertions. His introduction states the situation precisely (my paragraphing, emphasis in original):

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today [Dec 16] has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday [Dec 15] that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.”

In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday)[.]

He then lists the three myths, along with his refutation. I invite you to read this excellently argued post. I present below just the myths themselves and the skeleton of Greenwald's refutation. If you find yourself in conversation with one of the aforementioned Obama Fierce Defenders, here's your reply:

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” ... It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention.

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force]

Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms ... (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms).

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, ... contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States”[.] ...

But the next section, Section 1022, ... specifically deals with a smaller category of people ... [T]he definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

Greenwald notes, as further evidence that the bill doesn't exempt American citizens or those captured in the U.S., that "amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected." That's telling; proof in my book as to how this deliberately vague section would be argued in court.

Yet another turning point in a rolling coup replete with turning points (I'll detail those sometime, in a much longer post.)

Barack Obama — Crossing Dem lines of conscience, Dem after Dem after Dem. Has your line been crossed yet?

Another stunning pre-election performance by Team Smarter Than You. (Note to Team: Chess is played in two dimensions — and mainly forward and back. If you aren't doing one, you're doing the other. Even I get that.)

[Update: Fixed chess ref; thanks.]

GP Read the rest of this post...