My Favorite Headlines: 02/22/06

Bush Out of Loop on Port Deal [NYT] [CBS]

"President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday."

Hmm...so, who was "approving" this deal? Who in the administration was approving this deal, and how did Bush not know about it? And wouldn't they then have to get Congressional approval after "approving" it? This totally doesn't add up, and someone is lying. My bet is on Bush, who was most likely told by Rove and "senior officials" to say that he didn't know about the deal until after. Purely my speculation, of course, but nonetheless, it fits. So if Bush says he didn't know about it until after it was "approved," then my question is, why is he so vehement about vetoing any Congressional attempt to block this terrible deal?

Mosque Attack Pushes Iraq Toward Civil War [Yahoo] [NYT]

"A powerful explosion shattered the golden dome of one of Iraq's most revered Shiite shrines this morning, setting off a day of almost unparalleled sectarian fury in cities and towns across Iraq as protesting mobs took to the streets to chant for revenge and set fire to dozens of Sunni mosques." and "Insurgents posing as police destroyed the golden dome of one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines Wednesday, setting off an unprecendented spasm of sectarian violence. Angry crowds thronged the streets, militiamen attacked Sunni mosques, and at least 19 people were killed."

I thought the insurgency was in its last throes? At least that's what they want you to think. Nope, they disguise themselves as police, and then bomb a holy site. I'm telling you that insurgency is dying out! Is it 2008 yet?

Budget Fictions

I rarely do this, because I don't like to just copy and paste, but this editorial from the NYT was just too good to pass up:

"When it comes to President Bush's new budget plan, what you don't know will hurt you."

"Mr. Bush's spending and taxing proposals are a mass of missing information. The cost of keeping the military in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't included. Neither, as it turns out, are the usual projections of the long-term effects of proposals to cut $183 billion from domestic programs other than entitlements."

"The administration's obfuscation is, however, being deciphered by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an independent watchdog organization. Specialists backtracked through tables of opaque data and deduced the following: Over five years, veterans' benefits would be cut 13 percent, or $10 billion. Despite all the political talk about energy research and alternate fuels, $4.4 billion would be cut from energy programs. Environmental spending, including for national parks, would be cut 22 percent, or $28 billion; housing, fuel, child care and nutrition programs for the poor and elderly would lose 13 percent, or $24 billion. Topping this surreal concoction is a 13 percent cut — $53 billion — in education and job programs by 2011."

"Political realists have already declared the budget dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. That's not enough. The administration's assault on domestic programs should stand as a permanent reminder of the folly of the $285 billion in additional upper-bracket tax cuts the president and the Republican-controlled Congress are aiming for across the next five years. Despite the budget fictions, the damage from the tax-cut mania will haunt future generations." [NYT]

Just take a look at what this budget is, a give-away to his rich corporate buddies and donors, and a screw-the-poor initiative. He comes to Milwaukee touting "alternative energy" and then with the other hand cuts support for it. $53 billion in cuts to education and job programs over the next five years! Has this man no soul? Or did he lose it in a game of poker when he was all coked up?

Veto?

"President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration's decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities."

"Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company's acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports."

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." [NYT]

Could this be the first veto from Bush??? He would really choose this issue as his first veto in office? Ok, so pretty much every Senator has come out against this idea. And how does the Administration respond? By calling it racism. David Sirota says that this is all about free trade, and that there is a deal in the works for a free trade agreement with the UAE:

"The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major U.S. security scandal with the same country we are simultaneously negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal."

What happened to "we won't negotiate with terrorists?"

No Safe Port

The rats are in charge of watching the cheese.

"Two Republican governors on Monday questioned a Bush administration decision allowing an Arab-owned company to operate six major U. S. ports, saying they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states."

"The deal -- which will affect the ports of New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- has triggered security concerns among some members of Congress and the public."

Bush has sold and turned over control of US Port Security to a company from the United Arab Emirates, or UAE. Great idea! Let's turn control of six of our most important, and largest ports to a foreign government with documented links to terrorism against our country. How many times did Bush use the term 9/11 in any of his recent speeches, and yet, he can't figure out that the UAE actually had a part in that attack?

"Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya by a Pakistani scientist." [Yahoo] [CNN] [WP] [NYDaily]

Just another way that Bush is making this country less safe.

MY Spring Starts Today

Well, the weather outside is frightful, but that doesn't dampen my spirits today. Whatever the forecast may be, MY spring starts today.

Is Ben crazy? (No more than usual...). Today, pitchers and catchers reported for spring training! It is one of the happiest days of the year, and marks the true beginning of spring. Sure, they practice in warm, sunny climes like Mesa, AZ, and Winter Haven, FL, but that means that better weather, and better days are on their way.

Hope springs eternal.

Cheney's Got A Gun

From David Letterman last night:

Top Ten Dick Cheney Excuses

10. "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm"

9. "Wanted to get the Iraq mess off the front page"

8. "Not enough Jim Beam"

7. "Trying to stop the spread of bird flu"

6. "I love to shoot people"

5. "Guy was making cracks about my lesbian daughter"

4. "I thought the guy was trying to go 'gay cowboy' on me"

3. "Excuse? I hit him, didn't I?"

2. "Until Democrats approve medicare reform, we have to make some tough choices for the elderly"

1. "Made a bet with Gretzky's wife"

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Cheney Shoots Fellow Hunter

"Vice President Dick Cheyney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets. Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was "alert and doing fine" in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property's owner." [Yahoo]

So, what information did this guy have on Cheney?

The Olympics Are Coming!

The Turin Olympic Games are here!!!!!!!!! (For those keeping score at home, these are the games of the XX Olympiad).

Here's part of the reason that I love the Olympics.

But, for 17 days, we all get to become experts in sports and activities that we may have never even heard of before. I mean, they can include Curling in the Winter Games, but Baseball isn't in the Summer Games?

No, seriously, I love the Olympics. U-S-A! U-S-A!

The Innocent Have Nothing to Hide

Thanx Xoff! The original is at Working for Change.

Errors - HELP!!!

Sorry that I haven't posted a lot in the last few days...I've been having a lot of trouble with my browser(s). I made the mistake of downloading IE 7 (Beta 2), which overwrote my IE 6.x. Now, I can't seem to view anything correctly, because any website with any kind of security doesn't allow you to use a beta browser, including Blogger. So, I've been trying to figure out how I can go back to my original browser, and in the meantime, I downloaded Firefox.

Does anyone have any recommendations for me? (PLEASE leave a comment!!!) It will probably be months before IE 7 is mainstream enough to be accepted by most/all websites. I do like Firefox, however!

Tax Hell

"President Bush had it exactly backwards in his speech Tuesday night when he exhorted lawmakers to keep cutting taxes. He noted that when the going gets tough, leaders are tempted to take stands that are crowd pleasing yet counterproductive, like championing protectionism in the face of global competition. Fair enough." "But then he warned that in today's uncertain times, lawmakers might even be tempted to do something as weak-kneed as "increasing taxes."

"We hope Congress will realize that extending the tax cuts would be an act of political cowardice, not courage. The country is already deep in debt, and the tax cuts are largely to blame. In the next two weeks, the administration expects to hit the nation's legal debt limit — $8,184,000,000,000 — and has told Congress it needs to vote to raise the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion, a 51 percent increase since 2001, when Mr. Bush took office. Congress must raise the limit or the government will default. But Congressional leaders are looking for ways to downplay the vote, precisely because it's a disgrace."

"Casting the tax cuts in stone now would be particularly craven because they don't expire for another three to five years. But Mr. Bush and his supporters in Congress are hot to act now. That is because the cuts they want to extend the most — special low tax rates for investment income — overwhelmingly enrich the rich and will be even harder to justify in the years to come, when, by all reasonable estimates, the country's financial outlook will have deteriorated further. The tax cutters are not being brave. They are afraid they won't get their way if they wait." [NYT]

Whatever happened to having a sane tax policy? How did Bush squander the surplus that Clinton left him? Why is nobody else asking him these questions? Wake up America, you may have to accept a bit of sacrifice, and have your tax bill go up by $2. These tax cuts were meant to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and they're doing a great job of it.

Hilarious or Ironic?

This has to be one of the funniest (ok, most ironic) headlines I have ever read:

"Bush to Say 'America Is Addicted to Oil' in Speech" or "Bush Will Urge End To Oil Addiction" [NYT] [Yahoo] [CNN]

"President Bush plans to tell Americans tonight that they must not retreat from challenges at home and abroad, that they make the economy of the United States the best in the world, but that they must break a national "addiction" to oil." And "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. ... The best way to break this addiction is through technology," Bush will say."

A noble goal to be sure...but, what has Bush done except the OPPOSITE of this statement??? Isn't that the "junk science" that Bush has been touting for the last five years?

All the more reason why we should be a wary audience for the State of the Union tonight.

Excerpt: "When President Bush gives his State of the Union address tonight, expect to hear a renewed call for setting the administration's first-term tax cuts in concrete, combined with warnings that letting the cuts expire would retard economic growth. Nothing could be further from the truth."

"As proof of tax cuts' ability to spur the economy, Mr. Bush generally cites productivity growth, job creation and the rise in personal income. Productivity has indeed been stellar, and supply-siders claim that is because tax cuts have led to investment, which led to higher productivity. But business investment has been flat for five years. Meanwhile, the benefits of productivity growth have been concentrated among the wealthy. So tax cuts haven't unleashed investment, but they have contributed to inequality."

Breaking: Concealed Weapons Veto Override Falls Short

Score one for common sense:

"The state Assembly today came up short in its attempt to override Gov. Jim Doyle’s veto of a measure that would have allowed residents to carry concealed weapons. The 64-to-32 vote was a boost to Doyle, who mustered enough support from fellow Democrats to fend off a veto override on the measure for a second time. All Republicans voted for the override; they were joined by Democratic Reps. Barbara Gronemus of Whitehall, Mary Hubler of Rice Lake, Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids and Amy Sue Vruwink of Milladore." [JSOnline]

The United States of Discord

Tonight, Bush will stand before the nation at 8 PM CST and tell us that he has no new ideas on how to fix the problems that face this once-great nation.

Yes, that's right...we will hear the exact same rhetoric that we've been hearing since the 2004 election season began. We will hear about making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. We will hear about the state of health care, and how we must dismantle Medicare/Medicaid because it is a social program and too expensive. We will hear about Social Security, and how his private accounts will do nothing to create long-term solvency. We will hear that the war in Iraq will go on forever, and more of our brave service men and women will go on dying and being maimed for a pack of lies.

Topics that Bush will cover, and links:

Here's what Xoff thinks about what Bush will say on Healthcare.
Jeff Hall has a hilarious (and sadly true) cartoon.
The Amtal Rule on Healthcare: We're broke!
The Center for American Progress: What Bush Will Say, What You Should Know. They have great reviews on such topics as:
-Alternative Energy
-Warrantless Domestic Spying
-Making Tax Cuts Permanent
-Katrina Reconstruction
-Healthcare and HSA

Virtual Confirmation

By a vote of 72-25, the Senate voted to cloture today, virtually assuring that Samuel Alito will receive confirmation to the Supreme Court tomorrow.

"Some Democrats and at least one Republican who voted to end debate are certain to oppose the nominee in the actual confirmation vote on Tuesday. But since only a simple majority is required for confirmation, Samuel Alito could be a member of the Supreme Court by Tuesday afternoon." [NYT]

"In the end, only 24 of the chamber's 44 Democrats went along with the filibuster, a maneuver allowed under Senate rules to block a vote by extending debate indefinitely. It was also supported by the chamber's lone independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont." [CNN]

"Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement. In 1982, the year after Mr. Alito first joined the Reagan administration, that movement was little more than the handful of legal scholars who gathered at Yale for the first meeting of the Federalist Society, a newly formed conservative legal group. Judge Alito's ascent to join Chief Justice Roberts on the court "would have been beyond our best expectations," said Spencer Abraham, one of the society's founders, a former secretary of energy under President Bush and now the chairman of the Committee for Justice, one of many conservative organizations set up to support judicial nominees." [NYT]

So, here we are...ready to give another Bush nominee a free pass to a LIFETIME appointment. The jury is still out on Roberts, but while he was accomplished, Alito is anything but. He has proven himself to be an ideologue. Then you've got Senators like Herb Kohl. You sir, are a tool. You leave me breathless with disappointment. Even if you vote against confirmation tomorrow, you are still a complete disappointment.

Score another rubber-stamp victory for Bush.

If Not Now, When?

Show some backbone!

While John Kerry (yes, that very same John Kerry) tried to rally the dems to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito, 4 TRAITORS to the cause put a severe damper on the fire.

"The three Democrats who have said they will vote for Judge Alito are Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. And a fourth, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said today after meeting again with the nominee that he is "leaning in favor" of him and does not want a filibuster." [NYT]

41 votes are needed to sustain a filibuster, but if Conrad defects to the dark side, then that would put the republicans at 60, which would be enough to force a vote. Harry Reid has come out against Alito, but also against a filibuster. I have to agree with Kerry on this one, if not now, when? We can't afford to worry about some other upcoming battle to use the filibuster. We need to use it now. If Alito gets onto the court, he could turn this country back to a time when rights were just words, not actions. Didn't we install Harry Reid as Senate Minority Leader so that he could help us stand up and fight, to give us a voice? That voice is drowned out, lost in the wilderness. Dems are afraid of the political cost of such a battle, and what it might do to November election prospects. I think the American people might just respect their tenacity and willingness to stand their ground. Then again, with the press against them, that's a mighty mountain to climb.

For extra reading, try "Senators in Need of a Spine" from the NYT. "Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead. It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination."

"Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote. A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court."

Well said...

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

"Now the Lorbeckis, like small-business owners across the nation, struggle each year with double-digit increases in health insurance premiums for their full-time workers. Spending thousands of dollars each month to insure their employees is the right thing to do, Patti Lorbecki said. So it irks her to see a big company such as Wal-Mart fall short in doing the same, forcing some of its employees and their families to get health care through government programs."

"I certainly want to pay for our employees' health care benefits, but I'll be darned if I have to pay for Wal-Mart's, too," said Lorbecki. "Why should small-business people have to foot the bill for someone who is making millions and millions in profit?" she asked." [JSOnline]

There's been much ado made in the news these past few weeks about Wal-Mart and it's health insurance/benefits offerings for it's employees. I'll be upfront, I have not shopped at Wal-Mart in a very long time, and I refuse to do so in the future. I believe that Wal-Mart embodies all that is going wrong with big business in America today. From what I understand, the "average" Wal-Mart employee makes approximately $10/hour, or under $21,000/year. They purport that 86% of their employees have insurance...but that includes insurance obtained by spouses and those on Medicare and Medicaid.

Many media outlets keep spreading the false claims that "Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers." Maryland just took a big step forward by passing a bill requiring large firms like Wal-Mart to pay their fair share, or 8% of their payroll on employee health insurance, or they must pay the difference into Maryland's health care program for the poor. [MediaMatters]

Here's the Wal-Mart Benefits Memo: My favorite paragraph:
"Wal-Mart’s healthcare benefit is one of the most pressing reputation issues we face because well-funded, well-organized critics, as well as state government officials, are carefully scrutinizing Wal-Mart’s offering. Moreover, our offering is vulnerable to at least some of their criticisms, especially with regard to the affordability of coverage and Associates’ reliance on Medicaid."

So, what do we do about it? Will State laws or increased regulation force them to pay more for their employees wages and well-being? No. I believe the only answer is to convince others to stop shopping there...hit them where it hurts, and force them to listen to what these "well-organized critics" are actually saying about employee benefits.

Quotable Doyle

"The bill does not create a single job, help a single Wisconsin citizen afford health care or improve schools for a single Wisconsin child. The Legislature should spend more time trying to get jobs into our communities instead of more guns." -Gov. Jim Doyle on the Concealed Carry Weapons law, which he vetoed on Friday.

Drinking Liberally on Television

For any that may have missed it, here is the clip (Quicktime Required) of Drinking Liberally on TMJ-4, this past Tuesday night.

Overall, I thought they did an alright job on the segment. They didn't paint us as loonies or anything, and tried to tell people who we are.

I second Scott in saying a big THANK YOU to Club Garibaldi. We couldn't have done it without your wonderful hospitality!

Special thanks to Scott and Scott!

Home Brewing

Tomorrow, I will embark on a new chapter in my life, brewing my own beer.

I got a kit from my parents for Christmas, complete with everything necessary to make my own beer, from the House of Homebrew. They gave me a kit to make an Irish Stout, my favorite style of beer. (Is there a bad kind of beer???)

Basically, what I have to do it boil everything together for an hour, then cool it down. Once at about 80 degrees, I have to put it in the "Ale Pails" that came with the kit, and let it ferment with the yeast for a week. Then, next Sunday, I will siphon the beer from the pails into bottles, and that will then sit and age/bottle-condition for 4 weeks before it is ready to consume. It will make 5 gallons of beer, or roughly 2 cases. The only thing I need yet are some sturdy bottles, since bottle caps and the bottle capper came with the kit.

If anyone out there has any advice or tips, they are most welcome. This is something that I've wanted to try for a long time, and I can't wait to see how the stout turns out!