Last Call

Scientists at MIT's Media Lab have used old school technology -- a camera and mirrors -- to capture and piece together a "super slo-mo" movie of a single photon pulse moving at the speed of light.

MIT’s Camera Culture Group whipped up a “virtual slow-motion camera” that is an array of 500 sensors each triggered at a trillionth-of-a second delay.

The assembly, which cost $250,000, was created using a streak camera, a rotating mirror, several other mirrors, a pulsing laser and a series of algorithms to stitch together the streak camera’s still, one dimensional snapshots of the photon moving down the bottle.

A streak camera has an aperture that’s just a narrow slit, as opposed to the wide, circular aperture found in most consumer and professional cameras.

Streak cameras have been around since the 1970s, when they were created to record the movement of particles. But they are based on the high-speed rotating drum cameras of the 1930s, which recorded transient phenomena by imprinting “streaks” of reflected light onto film, as streak camera company Hamamatsu explains.

Still, the use of computer technology and lasers that weren’t around in the 1930s has lead MIT to the eye-popping (literally) breakthrough of today.

“Such a camera may be useful in medical imaging, industrial or scientific use, and the future, even for consumer photography,” said Media Lab Associate Professor Ramesh Raskar in the video, “In medical imaging, now we can do ultrasound with light, because one we can analyze how light will scatter volumetrically within the body.”

Plus, it's pretty damn cool to watch in action.  The applications of this are pretty impressive, as the scientists explain.  I'm not sure how long it will take to get machines that can use this technology to image people and structures, but it'll happen in my lifetime for sure.

Very awesome.

Trump Dumps Chumps, Takes Lumps

The Ultimate Iowa Lightning Round Edition of the GOP Clown Car Debate Show has been shelved as The Donald takes the rodent on his head and goes home.

Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he will not moderate next month's GOP debate sponsored by Newsmax.

The reality televison show host's decision came after most Republican presidential candidates declined to participate in the debate, with only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum agreeing to appear.

Trump said in his statement that Republicans were reluctant to appear at the debate because he was unwilling to rule out an Independent bid for the presidency.

"It is very important to me that the right Republican candidate be chosen to defeat the failed and very destructive Obama administration, but if that Republican, in my opinion, is not the right candidate, I am not willing to give up my right to run as an Independent candidate," Trump said in a statement. "Therefore, so that there is no conflict of interest within the Republican Party, I have decided not to be the moderator of the Newsmax debate."

But Trump could continue to play a role in the coming primary battle, promising to name his choice for the GOP nomination.

"I am going to be announcing an endorsement in some time," Trump said to Fox Business.

They're all afraid that The Donald might run.  Hell, if I'm a GOP strategist, I'm terrified of a third-party Trump run.  It's a guaranteed Obama second-term.   They know it.  Trump's debate was something of a shakedown, the GOP called him on it, and now we'll see if Trump is willing to lose millions more of his own money in an independent run.

His ego is that big, but I don't know if his checkbook is.  But there's a reason why Team Obama wants as much GOP primary drama as possible.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

Hey look, in completely unsurprising news Dick Cheney wants to bomb Iran.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Monday that President Barack Obama should have ordered an “air strike” on Iran after they recently captured a U.S. drone.

Earlier on Monday, President Barack Obama had explained that U.S. officials asked Iran to return the RQ-170 Sentinel surveillance drone.

“The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it,” Cheney told CNN’s Erin Burnett. “You can do that from the air. You can do that with a quick air strike, and in effect make it impossible for them to benefit from having captured that drone.”

“I was told that the president had three options on his desk. He rejected all of them,” the former vice president added.

“They all involved sending somebody in to try to recover it, or if you can’t do that, admittedly that would be a difficult operation, you certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an air strike.”

And of course when we destroyed the drone by air, we'd also have to go in and make sure that the Iranians didn't get any intel out of the explosion, so we'd have to send in troops, and of course we'd need air power to cover the troops, and naval backup to support the air power, and by accidentally leveling a couple thousand square miles of Iran along with that drone as unavoidable collateral damage,  we'd be at war and stuff.  No big deal.

Happens all the time.



Also, I guess without the soul, Dick Cheney has lost some weight.

Woman Beheaded For Practicing Witchcraft

I really thought even these guys were better than this.  I was wrong.

(CNN) -- A woman was beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing witchcraft and sorcery, the kingdom's Interior Ministry said, prompting Amnesty International to call for a halt in executions there.

Amina bint Abdel Halim Nassar was executed Monday for having "committed the practice of witchcraft and sorcery," according to an Interior Ministry statement. Nassar was investigated before her arrest and was "convicted of what she was accused of based on the law," the statement said. Her beheading took place in the Qariyat province of the region of Al-Jawf, the ministry said.

In a statement issued late Monday, the human rights group called the execution "deeply shocking" and said it "highlights the urgent need for a halt in executions in Saudi Arabia."

"While we don't know the details of the acts which the authorities accused Amina of committing, the charge of sorcery has often been used in Saudi Arabia to punish people, generally after unfair trials, for exercising their right to freedom of speech or religion," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's interim director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme.

She was supposedly selling potions for around $400 a bottle.  Due process is a joke, so any evidence could be fabricated or misplaced as they find convenient.  Regardless, a woman died and nobody is quite sure why.  Maybe all she did was show her face, or speak her mind.  We'll never know.  A search found books about sorcery and talismans, but any chance she had to explain is gone.  For all we know she collected or inherited some of those scary books.

Selfish? I Don't Think So!

I don't have kids, but I have spent most of my adult life taking care of someone's children ranging from live-in caretaker to weekend help.  I have seen moms run themselves into exhaustion thinking it was the only way to take care of their families.  Moms face incredible pressure to make everything run smoothly, even if it means they get no personal time or pleasure that is theirs alone.

That expectation has to stop.  So does teaching women that if you dare take time for yourself it is coming at the direct expense of someone else "more worthy" of the efforts.  The key is balance, not to overreact or throw a wrench in the works.  Every person is entitled to pursuit of happiness, and with a little planning everyone can benefit.  Please take heart from the snippet below, and click here to read the entire article.

I'm not judging moms that can do it all with little-to-no downtime. They are my heroes! I'm just not built that way. I did not acquire the selfless motherhood gene. I think my mom got it but failed to pass it onto me. Instead, I informed my husband, children, friends and family (anyone that pretended to listen) that I was changing my life (and by default theirs). I didn't have it all figured out in the beginning. I didn't know what type of self-care I really needed. I had to learn what boundary-setting meant and all of the rules of engagement when applying boundaries to people who prefer things to be as they were. I had to discover my voice and learn to value hearing myself think.

In the beginning, my husband supported me with gifts to the day spa and weekly consistent "Me Time." The consistent time alone allowed me to plan opportunities to include my self-care in the family schedule. (Yes, my self-care was on the same schedule with soccer.) What I discovered was that I became consistent at honoring me, my interests, completing the books that I wanted to read, getting my exercise in and learning so much more about the "Me" in Mommy. My family was the direct benefactor of me taking time to reflex, refuel and renew consistently.

I know that some people who read this article might think -- this sounds selfish. What about your family, you might ask? What about their needs? What about quality time with them? Well, first I have to admit that I am selfish and I have accepted this choice because it has made me the type of mother that has taught my children that balance is defined as "a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc."

Before self-care I had zero balance and I was tired, overwhelmed and exhausted most days. My family now has an opportunity to interact with a mom that is more connected, engaging, fulfilled and who has healthy outlets for stress. A survey for Mother's Day 2011 from Clinton Cards supports my feelings. Of the top 10 most-requested gifts, six of the 10 items involved self-care. Mothers are requesting a good nap, someone else to make dinner and clean up afterward, quality time with the family or significant other, and simply hearing their children write them a thoughtful note and say, "Thanks, Mom!"

It can be done. It should be done. And those who expect Mom/wife to carry the burden of making the machine run smooth, instead of flowers give the gift of attention and an overdue break.

Running Scared

Another chart for you this morning, this one from Gallup:



Yep, after the banks all but destroyed our economy, America's distrust of Big Business is now back to 2007 pre-crisis levels, and fear of Big Government is back to near all time highs of the Clinton impeachment circus days. The post 9/11 recession and the collapse of Enron was far more damaging to the credibility of Big Business than the multi-trillion dollar credit swaps disaster that has us heading into year four of a prolonged middle-class depression.

Gosh, what's different about where people get their news today than it was back then?

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

Media Matters catches FOX News in yet another "oops" moment that just happens to make the President look bad with this unemployment chart.



Check that last entry for November. It's marked 8.6%, but it's physically charted at the 9.0% level, strongly intimating that President Obama has done nothing for unemployment. Stupid reality and its liberal bias!

Showing that drop in unemployment correctly on that chart would you know, intimate that President Obama is actually doing something about lowering unemployment, and in the world of FOX's strict anti-Obama propaganda policies, we simply make a mistake.

PS, it's not the first time even this month that FOX News's graphics department has "made a mistake" and called last month's unemployment 9% when it was really 8.6%.



And expect it to keep happening. There's an election coming.

StupidiNews! Oops Edition

The Marine Corps sent Purple Heart ornaments to folks who lost family members in the war.  A letter was written to the soldier as well.  An immediate apology and full acceptance of blame came in response to families who called. Out of 9,000 that were sent out, only about 1,500 were sent to the wrong families.  There isn't much else to say, all involved surely feel terrible.

Amazon is getting some really bad press after a move so bold you have to respect it even if it's evil.  If you went into a local bookstore and scanned a book and then purchased it at Amazon, you got 5% off.  It's dirty pool but it is inevitable that this war must happen.  Online shopping and retail stores have been fairly civil until now.  While "distasteful" according to the author of the article, it will eventually produce results the customers want and therefore will be successful.  The article also points out bookstores are lousy, inefficient and offer little outside of atmosphere.  That's mostly true, but I'm one of those people who likes to browse and flip through pages, and I can see the conflict between bare bones efficiency and the experience of wandering and the guilty pleasure of wandering the aisles and skimming with wild abandon.

Missouri discovers that at least seven prisoners were able to successfully collect unemployment benefits.  One guy tried and failed, which led to a new process that ran a check against prisoners.  Several inmates were successful, but will now have to pay the money back.  The total is estimated at $14,000.  They came thisclose to getting away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.

Last Call

Good news, America!  House Republicans have passed an extension to the payroll tax cut!  They just have a few, teensy-weensy things they want in exchange.

In a private conversation Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid again warned House Speaker John Boehner that his bill remains dead on arrival in the Senate. In particular, Democrats and the White House oppose a number of GOP-backed provisions: a measure forcing the Obama administration to expedite its decision about whether to green light construction the Keystone XL pipeline; out-year spending caps that could further reduce funding to key federal programs; and other restrictions including one that would allow states to drug test unemployment applicants.

The GOP bill also includes a steep increase in Medicare costs for middle class and upper class beneficiaries to help offset the cost of the payroll holiday. Per the Associated Press, it would “rais[e] premiums for ‘high-income’ Medicare beneficiaries, now defined as those making $85,000 and above for individuals, or $170,000 for families.”

Some would pay as much as several hundred dollars a month additional for Medicare outpatient and prescription coverage. Millions who don’t consider themselves wealthy would also end up paying more. 

Just the top 5 percent of Medicare recipients currently pay higher premiums, a change that took effect a few years ago. The new GOP proposal would expand that over time to include the highest-earning one-fourth of seniors.

The White House issued an official veto threat Tuesday afternoon. But Republicans are insisting on going through the motions. 

The bill also has a number of other poison pills, it would also gut health care reform, specifically federal subsidies to states for setting up insurance exchanges and for funding preventative care, force all unemployment benefits applicants to get their GED, would require all children to have Social Security numbers in order for their parents to qualify for federal income tax credits for kids and would even deregulate boilers and incinerators...and cut up to 40 weeks in unemployment benefits.

Republicans call this "compromise."  President Obama calls it "dead on arrival."  The GOP threw their own poop at the wall and called it a bill, because the Senate has already tied the bill to the budget shutdown measure on the docket for Friday, meaning the GOP had already lost (hence all the crazy stuff including the unicorn and the new Lamborghini in the driveway.)

We'll see what happens the rest of this week, but time's getting a mite short at this point, just three days left until things get ugly.

When The Abyss Keeps Staring Back At You, Everything's An Abyss

First, the actual story, and it's an important one:  As part of UN Human Rights Day this weekend, Occupy movement protesters made "Occupy the Voting Booth" a top priority, and today Attorney General Eric Holder will give a major speech on voting rights at the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library in Texas.  Ari Berman:

Holder’s speech could not come at a more critical time. Over the last year we’ve witnessed an unprecedented GOP war on voting, with a dozen Republican governors and state legislators passing laws to restrict voter registration drives, require birth certificates to register to vote, curtail early voting, mandate government-issued photo IDs to cast a ballot and disenfranchise ex-felons who’ve served their time. The Brennan Center for Justice has estimated that “these new laws could make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012,” and notes that “these new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities.”

The story of GOP voter suppression continues to be the major headline in 2011 and that will continue into 2012.  If there is one demonstrable difference between the two parties, it's that Democrats want as many eligible people to be registered to vote as possible, and that the Republicans want to restrict voting to as few people as possible.  Period.

The wingers immediately come up with nonsense like this to attack that truth.

The Democrats will use their constituent organizations to whip up a frenzy of opposition to “voter suppression,” while DOJ launches, or threatens to launch, legal challenges to selected state statutes. This will energize the Democrats’ base by pretending that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters. It also may succeed in increasing the illegal votes that Democrats rely on at the margins of close elections.

Democrats want felons to vote, because an overwhelming majority of them will vote Democratic. They want illegal aliens to vote for the same reason. And they want loyal Democrats to vote more than once where they are able to do so. Where there is no voter security, these abuses will increase. So, either through legal rulings or through intimidation, the Democrats want to disable the states from protecting the integrity of the ballot box. It appears that Obama’s politicized Department of Justice will be in the forefront of this effort.

This is such rabid idiocy as to deserve open scorn.  John Hinderaker here is openly accusing the President, the Attorney General, and the Democratic Party of massive voter fraud, and he has no proof whatsoever, he just assumes it to be true because it has to be, else how did we end up with a black President?  What is true is that Republicans tend to win in general elections when turnout is low, and Republicans want to keep turnout as low as possible among the poor and working class, those of us who don't have the luxury of being able to take time off to vote on a Tuesday and miss work.

If you disenfranchise the poor and urban voters, you affect Democratic voter turnout.  It really is that simple, and that's why Republicans want to make it as difficult as possible, so they win.  Instead of admitting that, we get that it must be "the politicized Obama Justice Department orchestrating massive voter fraud!"

Which one makes more sense to you, Republicans going out of their way to add hurdles to voting in multiple states so that they can lower turnout among the poor and college students by needlessly passing Voter ID laws that wouldn't actually prevent voter fraud but would actually prevent eligible people from voting, or Hinderaker's ACORN BLARGLE BLOOGITY BLOO BLAH here?

The fact is, the reason Hinderaker doesn't have proof of his insane accusations is that the "voter fraud" that Republicans are fighting doesn't exist.  In his eyes, the only fraud out there is poor people, minorities, young people, and the elderly being allowed to vote for Democrats.

And Republicans are making every effort to "correct" that fraud in state after state.

Million Dollar (Cry) Baby

As a GOP one percenter, how much would you pay to get rid of Newt Gingrich if you were convinced his nomination as the Republican candidate for President guaranteed a second term for President Obama?



If you're Michael Savage, the particular price tag for putting Mitt back in his crib is a cool million bucks of his own filthy lucre as he announced on his radio show his intent to buy off Gingrich.

“Newt Gingrich is unelectable,” Savage continued in his screed. “Mitt Romney is the only candidiate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama…therefore, I am offering Newt Gingrich $1 million dollars to drop out of the presidential race for the sake of the nation.”

Savage added that Gingrich “will come off badly compared to Obama” in the debates and he would “look like nothing more than what he is: a fat, old, white man. If Newt Gingrich really loves this country as much as he says he does, if he really wants what is best for America, he will set his ego aside, call me, and accept my offer. His continued candidacy spells nothing but ruin for conservatives, Republicans and all true American patriots. One million dollars in exchange for preserving the nation, Newt. I say take the money and don’t run.”

Yeah Mike, because the condescending blue blood former CEO with the charisma of a frozen Vienna sausage who made a fortune buying companies in order to lay thousands of people off will look so much better against President Obama in the general than Newt Gingrich.

Savage should take that million and buy himself a clue with all the added features.

Don't Bite The Hand That... Well, You Know

Okay, the title made me laugh.  But this is a serious story for a few reasons.  Normally, I wouldn't dive into a married couple's issue like this but since they went public I figure it's all up for grabs.

A former top Alabama official who campaigned against gay marriage in his failed bid for governor has donated sperm to several lesbian couples in New Zealand while doing earthquake-recovery work, according to The New Zealand Herald. His wife described the news as "the utmost of betrayal."

Bill Johnson, 52, who describes himself as a conservative Christian, used an online alias to meet women wanting to get pregnant, the paper says. He said he could not have biological children with his wife, Kathy, who had a hysterectomy before they married in 2004. She has three children from a previous relationship.

There's a lot more going on. His wife didn't know he was doing this, and he says he believes she knew he would continue donating. It's hard to imagine a miscommunication like that, but I digress. His wife is pissed and doesn't even pretend to be flexible on the matter.

"My heart is broken. I told Bill when I talked to him this morning after receiving your call that I simply can't talk. I can't even breathe.

"I have no idea what life holds for us in the coming days."

"He knows I am shocked and deeply hurt and even angry. It's not something a wife ever wants to experience. It's very personal and very tragic and we'll have to work through this as a family.

"I just can't believe this could be true. I don't believe he would put the reputation he has earned at risk by acting in such an irresponsible, selfish manner."

Well now, wait a minute now. Someone with that stance probably didn't misunderstand or fail to clarify her feelings on the subject. You don't do something like this without the full consent of your spouse, period. He has opened their family up to legal, ethical and financial peril and it sounds like he at the very least pushed the boundaries of what is preferred from donor parents. It's actually a cool thing to do, when your own partner is comfortable with it and has been in on the process. It's a really crappy thing to blindside someone with and then ask how they feel. They feel lied to and violated, and the fact that (hopefully) happy healthy babies are now with parents who really want them won't diminish the betrayal.

Now knowing what the future holds says enough.  Happy babies, lying jackass, I'm so conflicted about how to tag this one.

Tis The Season To Be Thoughtful

Holidays.  Christmas cheer.  Dinner with family and friends.  These are all things to look forward to, and most of us get into the holiday season with an exhausted good cheer that carries us through, even events we don't enjoy.  Not to be a Scrooge, but now is also the time to realize holidays aren't pleasant for everyone, and we may be causing someone grief through well-intended actions.  A few articles have come out about this, giving tips on dealing with loneliness and how much families can vary in how they celebrate Christmas.

People may be down for several reasaons.  The economy has taken some of the joy out of shopping.  Not everyone has a family nearby, or a family at all.  They may be marking the "first" of everything after losing a loved one.  Christmas has a way of making one think about their family, and not every family situation is pleasant to think about.  If you miss someone, you seem to miss them extra during this entire season.

What to do? How to help?  There likely isn't a lot to do, just be mindful that someone who doesn't do backflips over Rudolph decorations or nativity scenes isn't a "Scrooge" and shouldn't be pressured to fit in or fake it.  When extending invitations, let everyone be welcome but nobody be pressured.  If you are one of the people who suffers from holiday doldrums, consider volunteering.  It is a great thing, it makes you feel great, and it's also a reminder that the magic of the season still worked and something good came out of it.  For those who are grieving, reaching out to a nursing home or church program can build new and better memories to associate with the holidays.

The Laws Of Unintended Consequences

TPM's Brian Beutler explores the Republican argument against health care reforms Medicaid expansion provision.  Conservatives argue that by declaring that states expand the coverage of Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line, adding millions of people to the program, the federal government is using its financial power to coerce the states to do what Congress wants.

The problem with that argument as Beutler points out is that basically that's what the Hyde Amendment does: a favorite federal provision of conservatives that they want to strengthen to prevent any state from using federal money, such as health care reform funding, to subsidize any insurance plan that would cover abortion or to include those plans in state insurance exchanges.

“When it has suited social conservatives, they’re all for coercion,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University, where she’s also the chair of the Department of Health Policy.

The plaintiffs will ask the Supreme Court to rule narrowly that the Medicaid expansion is an unconstitutional use of Congress powers to tax and spend. If the court follows suit, though, it will invite a flood of challenges to other statutes, many of which conservatives adore, but all of which rely on Congress’ power to impose conditions on money they provide to states.

“It opens a tremendous Pandora’s box of other spending clause statutes that might be considered coercive with no clear limiting principles,” Rosenbaum said. “At what point does something become a coercion.”

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who has been monitoring the health care lawsuits very closely runs through some of these: “Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and national security programs and No Child Left Behind and all kinds of other programs.”

The list is long. It includes requirements that universities receiving federal funds allow the military to recruit on their campuses. And, both Jost and Rosenbaum note, if conservatives get their way, it will also include a stronger version of the so-called Hyde Amendment, which severely restricts the use of federal funds to provide abortions.

“The House of Representatives has been fashioning a very different kind of Hyde amendment … restrictions say that no federal funds go to the insurance program if that coverage offers more than the [federal] minimum for abortions,” Rosenbaum said.

What are the implications here? Several states that help provide abortion coverage with their own funds would have to pare back that funding or drop out of Medicaid. That’s a federal power conservatives are happy to exercise — but one they’d stand to lose if they get their way in the Supreme Court next year.

“If the states were to prevail on the issue of expansion, then the [abortion] mandate would presumably fall,” Rosenbaum said.

On the other hand, if winning the coercion battle meant losing on the Hyde Amendment but also the end of Title IX and the Civil Rights Act, I'm betting Republicans would be more than happy to take that outcome.  I'd have to say they're well aware of the potential tradeoff here.

Iron Flagpole In A Velvet Railgun

My views on Jennifer Rubin, Hackzilla are well-documented at this point, but Jon Chait does that best job yet that I've seen of dismantling her so completely that she's probably not aware at all of the missing bolts.  He discovers that there's actually something that Jennifer Rubin will defend more than Israel, if that's even possible:  Mitt Romney.

If you’re not in on the joke, allow me to explain. Rubin holds extremely right-wing views on Israel, and is highly prone to inflammatory and false charges. Gingrich’s comments on Palestinian nationality fit snugly within Rubin’s worldview – if anything, they are a bit too staid for her taste. Yet here she is denouncing him for his excessive anti-Palestinian bluster! If Gingrich simply quoted Rubin, I wonder if Rubin would denounce him for it.

Aside from demonstrating just how far Rubin is willing to follow the cause of advocating for her candidate of choice, it sheds some light on a controversy that arose last week over the term “Israel-firster,” a term of derision used by some left-wing critics to describe Israel hawks. The term implies that certain Americans, American Jews, place the interests of Israel above those of their own country. Rubin’s reaction to the Gingrich-Palestinian controversy offers a neat refutation of the charge. You can’t find a more passionate Israel hawk than Rubin. She is faced with a choice between her loyalty to the Republican Party and her loyalty to Israeli nationalism. And she sides with the former, clearly showing that her loyalty to the GOP – and, by extension, America – sits above her fidelity to Israel.

You've heard of an iron fist in a velvet glove.  In this case, it was an iron flagpole loaded into a velvet railgun and fired through Jennifer Rubin's front door, and I'm not sure it made any noise greater than a whisper.  If Chait were any drier, you'd have to keep rare manuscripts in him.

Well played, man.  Well played indeed.