A Cap Times editorial, June 15, 2006
OK, so Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Joe Wineke is not a metrosexual.
The former state senator representing rural Dane and Green counties maintains his reputation as a beer-and-brats kind of guy who has little time for fashion statements or the latest trend. Indeed, he would probably be a competitive candidate for a "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" makeover.
But Wineke has met the highest standard of sophistication better than any of those high-flying Democratic Party leaders in San Francisco, Miami or New York.
nder Wineke's leadership, Wisconsin Democrats are the only state party organization in the country that has taken an official stance against an anti-same-sex marriage amendment.
Wineke backed that stance up at the state Democratic Convention in La Crosse over the weekend, when the chairman personally introduced Mike Tate, the manager of the Fair Wisconsin campaign. Fair Wisconsin is spearheading the effort to defeat the attempt by legislators to amend the state constitution to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.
Tate predicts that when Wisconsin votes on the issue this fall, it will become the first state in the country to reject such an amendment.
The uncompromising position taken by Wineke and the Democratic Party which has not lost a presidential or U.S. Senate election in two decades and which now controls every significant statewide partisan office will certainly help.
Wineke's leadership on this issue is helping to put the amendment vote in the proper perspective. What is at stake here is not an issue of sex or sexuality; what is at issue is a basic question of fairness. And if there are still any doubters, Joe Wineke will be more than willing to explain it to them over a brat and a cool one.
Published: June 15, 2006
President Starts Recovery Program, Signs Bank, Rail and Industry Bills;
Wheat Growers Will Get $150,000,000
He Calls Recovery Act Most Sweeping Law in Nation's History
'Million Jobs' By Oct. 1
Assuming unprecedented peacetime control over the nation's economic life, President Roosevelt placed in operation today his sweeping program for recovery from the depression.
Within two hours he signed acts of Congress giving him control over industry, power to coordinate the railroads, and authority to start work on a $3,300,000,000 public works program, and then began the active administration of these and other major measures.
In signing the National Industrial Recovery Act the President declared that it was "the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress," and said that it "represents a supreme effort to stabilize for all time the many factors which make for the prosperity of the nation and the preservation of American standards."
Kaufert record contradicts his explanation
This from State Rep. Dean Kaufert, R-Neenah , explaining why he voted against bringing an ethics reform bill to the Assembly floor:I want to set the record straight. I supported SB1 and helped move it through the committee process so it could be considered for a floor vote. The Joint Finance Committee, which I chair, overwhelmingly approved SB1.
The bill faltered before the full Assembly, failing to get a majority vote. Several members took the unusual step of circumventing leadership and trying to force the bill to a vote on the floor.
Pulling motions, as we refer to them, are violations of the democratic process meant to embarrass the leadership. As a rule, I never support such backhanded attempts to thwart the process, even if it means voting against my own proposal.
Nice try. But then how would Kaufert explain his vote to violate the democratic process and "embarrass" his own leadrship by voting to pull a concealed weapons bill [2001 AB-675] from the Rules Committee? The record:
2-26-02. A. Rules suspended to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 75, Noes 24 Roll call.
That's the problem with having a record. You often meet yourself coming from the opposite direction.
Name: Rich Gallagher
Hometown: Fishkill, NY
Dear Eric,I thought about Ann Coulter while I was watching Mel Brooks on 60 Minutes on Sunday night. He had this to say about responding to a demagogue: "Hitler was part of this incredible idea that you could put Jews in concentration camps and kill them. And how do you get even? How do you get even with the man? How do you get even with him? There's only one way to get even. You have to bring him down with ridicule. Because if you stand on a soapbox and you match him with rhetoric, you're just as bad as he is. But if you can make people laugh at him, then you're one up on him. And it's been one of my lifelong jobs has been to make the world laugh at Adolf Hitler." Perhaps the rest of us should just shut up about Coulter and leave it to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to deal with her.
"When the person you choose to spend your life with is dying, the last thing you should ever, ever have to think about is whether you have enough legal documents to see them in the hospital," Tate told the crowd. "That's not how we treat people here in Wisconsin."
Click here for the rest.
The September 2005 e-mail reads: "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn't there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, 'I'd rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.' "
The sender adds, "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."
Here is the story - here is the email.
...but that neglects the relationship formed over time when children follow parents into a factory, when executives' and line workers' sons play on the same football team.
From an editorial in the NYTimes:
It comes as little surprise to anyone nowadays that the deep bonds between company and company town are only as strong as the former's share price, measured by fiscal quarters rather than generations. Still, there is something sad about the spurned affection of a community for its company, the way residents of Newton, Iowa, feel about Maytag.
As Monica Davey reported in The Times last week, Newton must bid farewell to the appliance maker that has defined it since Maytag was founded there in 1893. To a big-city native, it may sound quaint that Newton crowned a Maytag Queen or has washing machines in its history museum, but that neglects the relationship formed over time when children follow parents into a factory, when executives' and line workers' sons play on the same football team. It ignores how much pride people derive from their jobs, even unglamorous ones.
Maytag was bought by its rival Whirlpool in March, and 4,500 Maytag jobs will be lost as operations are merged, both at the headquarters and in factories in Newton and other towns. The cuts will be offset by 1,500 new positions for those willing to move to Whirlpool locations, especially in Michigan where the company is based. But Maytag the company is now gutted and replaced by the hollow marketing concept of Maytag the brand.
Shoppers probably won't notice, but Newton and the laid-off Maytag workers everywhere will feel a void. The economy is growing fast, but American workers are downbeat, and Maytag helps explain why. Jobs can be replaced, but the sense of safety and security cannot. The brand lives on, but the identity is gone.
Fitzgerald flunks 'live microphone' test
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson made a surprise visit Tuesday to the Joint Finance Committee, but she didn’t get quite the response she’s used to from legislators.
When she walked in the room, committee co-chairman Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) – in front of a live microphone – uttered a four-letter word that starts with “S” and is something you wouldn’t want to step in. His comment was broadcast over the Internet and on internal radios throughout the Capitol.
The committee was in the midst of discussing whether to trim more than $100,000 from the Supreme Court's $50 million two-year budget. A federal grant that pays for setting standards for court interpreters is expiring, and Abrahamson has asked the state to pick up those costs. Some committee members said the court should be able to find money to cover those costs within its existing budget.
Abrahamson’s presence heightened the tension over the issue, and the committee ended up taking no action on the matter Tuesday. It will likely consider what to do with the courts when it resumes its deliberations Thursday.
During Tuesday’s debate, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) asked to speak to Abrahamson since she was in the room. Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), the other committee co-chairman, denied that request because of the precedent it could set. Then, with a sheepish smile, he quickly added, “But we’re glad she’s here.”