Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Clueless As Ususal?

Well, I will jump on to the bandwagon here. Tripp and Mae have both posted about the potential sale of the port security to a state owned company of the United Arab Emirates.

I just want to add that now President Bush said he was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations. I think this is more frightening than the fact that this is happening at all. The president was unaware of a major national security issue until it was already approved by his administration? That is absolutely absurd. If anything, I think that is a major dereliction of duty on his part. It is HIS administration, shouldn't he know what is going on?

And, he is threatening to veto any legislation that would prevent the sale. This is the man who has never vetoed a bill in his entire tenure in office. He is going to veto a potential national security threat, but he will not use the veto pen to oppose immoral legislation. His priorities are seriously screwed up.

And for those right wingers throwing out their typical uncritical talking points, this is not a racial issue. I do not think the British Company in charge now should be. This is about cronyism. His buddies stand to benefit. For example Dave Sanborn. A cheif executive of DP World who has been appointed a Maritime Adminstrator. Proof is here and here.

I am not an alarmist, but the more I think about these frigtening people in power the more concerned I get. He has gone uncheck since his election and now that absolute power is beginning to corrupt absolutely and we all suffer.


[Update 4:23 pm -- I did a little digging and the last time Bush threatened a veto was when the Senate was working on the anti-torture amendment. This guy is just screwed up.]

Friday, February 17, 2006

Paying For The War II

I came across this article in today's Chicago Sun-Times.

Because of spending cuts in Bush's propsed budget up to 14,000 elderly in Chicago could loose supplemental food. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is slated to be eliminated. It is a relatively inexpensive program in governmental term, $107 million. It provides shelf stable food for low income elderly.

The government wants to shift the receipeints of this program to food stamps. That sounds good, except for the fact that those on the CSFP program may not qualify for food stamps. Or they may not have the means or ability to make it to stores. They may be just above the cut off, due to pensions or other income. Mr. Daugherty, the receipiant interviewed in the artlice, already gets $15/month in food stamps. But due to additional cuts that amount will be reduced to $5/month. That is right, he could loose $50/month of shelf stable foods and in return he get $5 to Jewel per month. I dare you, go to Jewel and feed yourself for a month on $5.

Budgets are moral documents. They should be written to ensure that the "least of these" are cared for. How can we expect those we are now occupying to trust us with their well being, if we can not even take care of our own. By caring for the poor, we can show the world that we are a human and humble country.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

In Honor Of The Olympics

You Are Hockey

Tough, athletic, and not afraid of a fight.
You don't mind putting your body on the line!


Thanks Jane

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Kong is King

Mae and I went to see King Kong last night.

It is one of the, if not the, most amazing movie I have ever seen. Peter Jackson is a master storyteller. There was not one unessential element to the entire movie. It was over 3 hours, and could not have been a minute shorter. I needed to go to the bathroom about 1/2 way through, but had to wait until it was over because evertime I thought there would be a lull, something new happened.

There were moments in the movie where I was so engrossed, I forgot to breathe. I have never been slack jawed until I saw this movie. There were parts that were simply unreal! Naomi Watts was fantastic as Anne Darrow. And Andy Serkis made Kong a beast of beauty. The eyes of Kong said so much more that anything I have seen. There was real love between Darrow and Kong. Believiable. Heartbreaking.

I laughed outloud during this film, that does not happen ofter. I cried during this film.

I recomend everyone go see it, if they have not. If you have, let me know what you thought.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Why I Love My Wife


Mae on the Phone, originally uploaded by CelticWander.

Because she sends me emails like this:

"hey...happy v-day! Yeah for celebrating with chocolate and flowers the brutal death of a martyr!"

I love you honey

Monday, February 13, 2006

Johari

Meggo Mae has a link to Joahri Window. I filled it out for her...please add your two cents to mine.

Thanks

Friday, February 10, 2006

Torture is a Moral Issue

Please join in endorsing this statement of faith leaders

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions hold dear. It degrades everyone involved --policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Torture and inhumane treatment have long been banned by U.S. treaty obligations, and are punishable by criminal statute. Recent developments, however, have created new uncertainties. By reaffirming the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture, the McCain amendment, now signed into law, is a step in the right direction. Yet its implementation remains unclear.

The President's signing statement, which he issued when he signed the McCain Amendment into law, implies that the President does not believe he is bound by the amendment in his role as commander in chief. The possibility remains open that inhumane methods of interrogation will continue.

Furthermore, in a troubling development, for the first time in our nation's history, legislation has now been signed into law that effectively permits evidence obtained by torture to be used in a court of law. The military tribunals that are trying some terrorist suspects are now expressly permitted to consider information obtained under coercive interrogation techniques, including degrading and inhumane techniques and torture.

We urge Congress and the President to remove all ambiguities by prohibiting:

* Exemptions from the human rights standards of international law for any arm of our government.

* The practice of extraordinary rendition, whereby suspects are apprehended and flown to countries that use torture as a means of interrogation.

* Any disconnection of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" from the ban against "torture" so as to permit inhumane interrogation.

* The existence of secret U.S. prisons around the world. Any denial of Red Cross access to detainees held by our government overseas.

* We also call for an independent investigation of the severe human rights abuses at U.S. installations like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed? Let America abolish torture now --without exceptions.

Click here to sign your endorsement

ok...i give

Entish
Entish


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Our First Advert

The Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler had just posted an ad on craigslist. Check it out, here.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Paying For The War

Well, our esteemed leader has come out with a new budget. Cutting programs and funding he said were essential last week in his State of the Union Address.

He wants to make tax cuts permanent for those who make more in a year than most of us will in 10. He wants to cut funding in the education 1/3 of the targted programs are in education). Raise military spending so his administration can focus the nation’s resources on our highest priority — protecting our citizens and our homeland.

He also wants to cut social security benefits. Didn't he learn from last year? Most importantly he wants to take a way the widow/er benefit of $225, for those who lost a spouse in war. Because "eliminating it is not going to cause an appreciable financial hardship to a survivor." Even though, that $225 will help pay for a burial plot, or headstone, or vault. It is an amount that has not been raised since 1951.

Also, here is the real zinger...wounded soldiers are getting billed for missing or damaged body armor. 1st Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook IV got a bill for $700 for body armor that got cut off him after being blown up by and IED. He was preparing for discharge when approached for the missing armor, and has been threatened with extended service time, if he does not pay.

You gotta love it. There are those who are for this war, but do not want to sacrifice a hair on their head to help it. And there are those of us who are against the war willing to pay higher taxes if it means getting our folks out of harms way sooner and safer. If it means educating the kids, so that our safety as a nation will be protected, by intellectually curious people. There are those who are for the war, but want cuts made in domestic spending to pay for the war. And there are those of us who cry when we find out the assistance guaranteed the soldiers widows/ers is being taken from them.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

I'm It

Tripp tagged me:

4 Jobs You've Had In Your Life:

A character at Chuck E Chese
A summer school teacher/child minder
A carpenter in the scene shop in college
A stagehand in the performing arts center in college

4 Movies You Could Watch Over and Over:

Serenity
The Fisher King
Trainspotting
The Commitments

4 Places You Have Lived:

Springfield, IL
Decatur, IL
Chicago, IL
That is it

4 TV Shows You Love To Watch:

Mythbusters
My Name is Earl
WWE RAW
WWE Smackdown

4 Places You Have Been On Vacation:

London
Grand Canyon
McGregor, IA
Disney (both)

4 Websites You Visit Daily:

Tripp
Cliff
Daily Kos
Crooks and Liars

4 of Your Favorite Foods:

Pizza
Hot Dog w/Mac and Cheese
Ice Cream
Pastas

4 Places You Would Rather Be Right Now:

Hiking the Appalachian Trail w/Mae
Napping
Learning SCUBA
In the middle of nowhere, out west.

4 Bloggers You Are Tagging

Meggo Mae
Devon
Dr. Astro
Larry

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Pre-1776 Mentality

This is a diary posted by Sen. Russ Feingold:

I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

The President and his administration continue their spin and media blitz in attempts to defend the fact that they broke, and continue to break, the law. Their weak and shifting justifications for doing so continue. The latest from the President seems to be that basically the FISA law, passed in 1978, is out of date [ed. The president's statement is about 3/4 down the page --jt]. His decision that he can apparently disregard "old law" fits the pattern with the President and his administration. He's decided to disregard a statute (FISA) and the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) by continuing to wiretap Americans' phone calls and emails without the required warrant, while at the same time claiming powers of the presidency that do not exist. (Perhaps he feels the Constitution is too "old," as well.) This administration reacts to any questions about spying on American citizens by saying that those of us who stand up for our rights and freedoms are somehow living in a "pre-September 11th, 2001 world."

In fact, the President is living in a pre-1776 world.

Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America and fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.

Many of you saw this week's story in the Washington Post on the exchange Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and I had during his confirmation hearing in January of last year. Mr. Gonzales misled me and the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath about whether the President could spy on Americans without a warrant. (Many of you blogged about it when the story first broke and I thank you for getting the word out.) That exchange is extremely telling about the depths to which this administration will go to grab power. I look forward to a little more honesty from the Attorney General when he testifies about the spying program before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.

I don't have to tell you how important this issue is. It gets to the core of what we as a country are all about. We all agree that we must defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. Why does this President feel we must sacrifice our freedoms to fight terrorism? This is a gut check moment for members of Congress. Do we sacrifice our liberty? Do we bow to those who try to use security issues for political gain? Do we stand and applaud when the President places himself above the law? Or, do we say enough?

Stop the power grab, stop the politics, stop breaking the law.

It's time to stand up - not to cheer, but to fight back.

Good Think He Didn't Mean It

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. [snip]...other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." --George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/31/06.

"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." --Knight Ridder Washington Bureau

Here is another Gem from the NY Times:

"The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports."

These are the people who are to do the research to reduce our dependency by 75%.

I will not add commentary, as this speaks for its self. Also, my mom reads this and I may say some not nice words. What else did he not mean literally? Typical doulblespeak. Just like the Health Savings Accounts. The people that this is supposed to help do not have enough money to put into a savings account. Trust me, I would be one if I did not have insurance through my job.