EckerNet.Com

Oh sure the invention of the wheel was nice and all, but today is the anniversary of a much better invention….canned beer.

Canned beer makes its debut on this day in 1935. In partnership with the American Can Company, the Gottfried Krueger Brewing Company delivered 2,000 cans of Krueger's Finest Beer and Krueger's Cream Ale to faithful Krueger drinkers in Richmond, Virginia. Ninety-one percent of the drinkers approved of the canned beer, driving Krueger to give the green light to further production.

By the late 19th century, cans were instrumental in the mass distribution of foodstuffs, but it wasn't until 1909 that the American Can Company made its first attempt to can beer. This was unsuccessful, and the American Can Company would have to wait for the end of Prohibition in the United States before it tried again. Finally in 1933, after two years of research, American Can developed a can that was pressurized and had a special coating to prevent the fizzy beer from chemically reacting with the tin.

The concept of canned beer proved to be a hard sell, but Krueger's overcame its initial reservations and became the first brewer to sell canned beer in the United States. The response was overwhelming. Within three months, over 80 percent of distributors were
handling Krueger's canned beer, and Krueger's was eating into the market share of the "big three" national brewers–Anheuser-Busch, Pabst and Schlitz. Competitors soon followed suit, and by the end of 1935, over 200 million cans had been produced and sold.

The purchase of cans, unlike bottles, did not require the consumer to pay a deposit. Cans were also easier to stack, more durable and took less time to chill. As a result, their popularity continued to grow throughout the 1930s, and then exploded during World
War II, when U.S. brewers shipped millions of cans of beer to soldiers overseas. After the war, national brewing companies began to take advantage of the mass distribution that cans made possible, and were able to consolidate their power over the once-dominant local breweries, which could not control costs and operations as efficiently as their national counterparts.

Today, canned beer accounts for approximately half of the $20 billion U.S. beer industry. Not all of this
comes from the big national brewers: Recently, there has been renewed interest in canning from microbrewers and high-end beer-sellers, who are realizing that cans guarantee purity and taste by preventing light damage and oxidation.

Brought to you by the fine folks at the History Channel. 

Oh and it's also the anniversary of the beginning of the Boy Scouts….coincidence?? I think not.  As an avid beer lover and an Eagle Scout myself, I find myself obligated to celebrate both today.  I'm gonna go pitch a tent and then drink canned beer.

How can you pass up this classic?

I must confess something here.  I don't really give a shit about tonite State of the Union (SOTU) speech and probably won't even watch it.  And I have to admit, even as a conservative, part of my apathy is due to being disgruntled, if not outright hostile, with what we're likely to hear.

He's facing a Democratic Congress now (which he isn't free of fault for BTW), so at least part of his speech is probably going to be focused on things he thinks he can work with them on.  I'm willing to bet large amounts of cash immigration is one of those topics and he'll push his amnesty program again.  He'll make claims about border enforcement, but all you have to do is ask if the fence has been built yet.  You remember the fence? The one that was passed into law (not that laws matter) and only partially funded.  If he can't even throw up a few fence posts, who thinks he has any credibility when he talks about border enforcement?

He'll probably also hit health care, education, and welfare.  Those are some big Democratic topics.  I fully expect him to roll over on all three.

Certainly a large part of the speech will center on Iraq and his plan for "The Surge".  Now originally, I liked the idea and I admit I still do.  I just don't think Bush can accomplish it due to a rather severe case of political incompetence.  We saw hints of it in his first term, but it's blown up into an epidemic during his second term.

Sure the Democrats never liked him, but he also hasn't exactly gone out of his way to enlist the support of the public during either term.  And when he has it's been an awkward attempt at best.  And congressional Republicans appear quite fed up with the Charlie Brown (GOP) vs Lucy (Bush) game he's been playing with them since the beginning.  The most recent example being his decision not to push for the domestic wiretapping program, after Republicans spent months trying to defend it.

Now let me be clear, this isn't a wave of defeatism coming over me.  I say that because accusations of such seems to be getting rather popular lately.  I think the plan is a good one, and I understand/accept/believe that success in Iraq is crucial.  I'm just having serious doubts if Bush can pull up what is an admittedly very tough job.  The charisma he once had seemed to settle around being a folksy straight-talker who remained dedicated to his ideals no matter what the consequences.  I think the public has gotten a tad annoyed by this and have begun to regard it as incompetence rather than stubborness.  And his inability to work with enemies and his apparent delight in underhanding his allies have destroyed any working relationship with those around him.

So yeah, I'm not looking forward to the speech.  I probably won't watch it, and if I do, I'll definitely be adhering to the Official 2007 State of the Union Speech drinking game rules.  Hopefully I'll be sloshed before he even gets to immigration. 

A couple month ago I wrote about some of the various potential GOP presidential candidates, and things have changes a good deal since then.  Right now the clear front-runners appear to be John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.  I have to admit I'm a bit confused about that.  Conservatives have bitched for awhile about RINO (Republican In Name Only) and 2006 certainly seemed to be a reflection of that. 

So why are three RINOs leading the pack now?  And yes three, McCain and Giuliani are well known RINOs….well, actually McCain is, Rudy is a fully fledged liberal.  Despite his recent gains in polls I think Romney is peaking at the moment.  He's flip-flopped on alot of issues, most notably abortion.  Just a year ago he was listed as one of the top ten RINOs by Human Events.  And back before "Reagan" was just a label Republicans wear on for public opinion points, Romney was dismissive of Reagan and his beliefs.  

Is this three-pack of misfits going to be what us conservatives have to choose from in 2008?? I think not.  I think the field is ripe for a second or even third tier candidate to emerge from the shadows and take the lead.  And I'm not the only one.  So who??  Well I have some thoughts on that. 

Tancredo…I wish I could say otherwise but I think we can count out Tancredo in 2008.  His campaign continues to not generate traction despite his better name recognition that most of the other 2nd and 3rd tier candidates.  If I had to guess people still consider him simply a single issue congressman. 

Thompson…ok, the former leader of the cheeseheads is not a horrible candidate in his own right, but his rather extensive links to President Bush might be more of a liability than ever before.  As evidence of that, may I see a show of hands of conservatives who have been happy with Bush's second term?? ….uh, you in the back….the Antique Plumbing Convention is next door….yes, so nobody else?? Ok then.

Gingrich…he seemed dedicated to remaining a threat in the wings.  He's declared he will only run as a last resort.  So my guess is he'll keep himself just alive enough to force the RINOs to the right…at least until after the nomination.  Whether he would entertain the offer of a VP slot for one of the RINOs is an interesting thought though.

Huckabee…eh, nothing to say here….because that's exactly what Huckabee has done so far.  

Brownback…ok except for immigration, he's fairly conservative.  That alone is enough to make him stand out in this field.  However, charisma is just not his thing.  And he has a knack for making the wrong political move.  So while his platform may be palatable, the person behind it probably is not.

Hunter…this former Army ranger fought in Vietnam and his son fought in Iraq, which cancels out ANY chickenhawk argument libs can make against him.  That plus his chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee gives him credibility on foreign policy.  He's the only candidate, besides Tancredo, that would rule out citizenship for illegal aliens.  Probably the one negative I could dig up on him would be that he's not a free trader.  He's definitely got a protectionist streak against him.  But I think that would actually play pretty well with the general public.  Especially considering that he has quite a bit of charisma to his credit.  

I think Hunter is probably the most likely candidate to break from the back of the pack and take over the lead.  And this belief isn't without some support, as Hunter just recently took first in a straw poll in Maricopa County, Arizona's most populous county.  It's worth noting that Romney was second, Gingrich was third and McCain was fourth (in his own state).  Looks like the more conservative candidates are leading amongst those that are informed enough to know the differences.

I think the question is not whether Hunter possesses the credentials necessary to take the nomination, it's whether he can generate name recognition fast enough to take advantage of those credentials.  Even as we speak candidates such as McCain and Romney are signing up advisers, financiers and other important staffers.  Time is running out and let's hope that Hunter can generate the traction he'll need in time.

Ok this is a perfect example of why I hate the old media.  Earlier I came upon an article about some little known provisions in Bill H.R. 1 (Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007) pushed by Speaker Pelosi.  The article is a listing of provisions that we should be concerned about or that perhaps the public did not know about.

Well, the article is long on editorial commentary, but short on quotation and raw data.  I for one would prefer you just point out the passages I should be concerned about, perhaps then boil them down into layman's terms.  Whatever, I'm not the bigtime political columnist with a cushy office at a nationally distributed periodical.  Perhaps I needed to attend journalism school to "see the big picture".  

But here's a suggestion, if you're just going to editorialize, how about also providing the necessary data so that people can figure out what the hell you are blathering about.  Sure I have the bill number, but anyone that has looked at legislative bills before knows that is hardly enough.  How about you provide the section number when ranting about Watch List Redress or whatever?  Damn sure you had it in your notes.  You list an apparently sanitized version of the section heading…why not also use the section number.  We're talking 5 characters, for example "s.432"

Yes, I know I should simply just trust the "editorial process" but I think there are reams of evidence demonstrating that the "editorial process" isn't worth the paper the editor wipes his ass with in the restroom.

Otherwise for several of these supposed provisions, I can't find any mention of them in the actual bill.  Which leads me to believe that the author is full of shit and the entire article should be thrown underneath a very harsh unshaded light bulb.

In short, cite your sources.  Pretty please, with fucking sugar on top.  It's a basic journalistic concept.  I'm sure you can find it in the notes you bought from your TA during your upscale journalistic schooling.

[Editor's Note : This post written by Kevin in an extreme fit of frustration, which resulted in the following damages]

• one shattered screen
  
• 2 interns
• one real-time experiment on the aerodynamics of a keyboard
• minor structural damage to several load-bearing columns
• 4 minor fires (fire department response not required)
• 72 FCC violations
• 103 OSHA violations
• 1 national security violation

[The editor would like to ask that the old media please follow his recommendations....he has a gun.  Thank you for your cooperation.]

In order to bring the Statue of Liberty more in line with our nation's long standing immigration policies, the Bush administration announced today that the inscription on the Statue of Liberty will be changed to the following:

bring us your drug cartels, human traffickers, drug pushers and violent gangs!

While public commentary is allowed, the administration points out that it will probably regard it with the same disdain with which it views any other opposing views on immigration, no matter how logical or well-supported.

Therefore, for their convenience, they recommend you simply send your letters to

Lorton Landfill
10001 Furnace Road
Lorton, VA 22079.

Michael Illions gets the credit for this one, and you should visit his post here for the full story.

In short, here it is.  US soldier in Iraq sends the following email to a business in the US 

From: SGT Jason Hess
Sent: Tue Jan 16 3:25

Do you ship to APO address? I’m in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.

Gets this response back…

From: contact@discount-mats.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback: from discount-mats.com

SGT Hess,
We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.

Bargain Suppliers
Discount-Mats.com

You send your reponses to…

414-736-8394
contact@discount-mats.com

Here is their mailing address:

Bargain Suppliers
3259 S.106th Street
West Allis, WI 53227

Story confirmed here. 

Enjoy….and be civil.

Probably the funniest Michael Moore parody I've ever seen….

[H/T to Hawkins for finding the vid]

The infamous Kennedy vs The Machine of the '06 election has reinvented itself as Truth vs The Machine.  At least some of the same staff has hung around and I'm sure the rest of them are just hiding out in corners that haven't been dusted out yet.  Same excellent commentary, but now with a broader topic.

Go and check them out!

Ok honest question….is there ANYTHING that the UN has done lately that hasn't….

….allowed hack dictators to further their reign of terror…

Has North Korean leader Kim Jong Il subverted the United Nations Development Program, the $4 billion agency that is the U.N.’s main development arm, and possibly stolen tens of millions of dollars of hard currency in the process?

According to a top official of the U.S. State Department - using findings made by the U.N.’s own auditors - the answer appears to be a disturbing yes, so far as UNDP programs in North Korea itself are concerned.

….or been a model of corruption…

And just as disturbingly, the U.N. aid agency bureaucracy has kept the scamming a secret since at least 1999 — while the North Korean dictator and his regime were ramping up their illegal nuclear weapons program and making highly publicized tests of intermediate range ballistic missiles.

Malloch Brown took over the UNDP in July 1999, and stayed in his post even after August 2005, when he also became chief of staff for then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who at the time was reeling under the effects of the Oil for Food scandal.

….or been a prime example of rampant anti-semitism….

For decades, the Security Council has also participated in singling out Israel by passing one-sided resolutions charging Israel with sole responsibility for human rights violations, violence and deportations. On the other hand, Palestinian and other Arab violations and involvement with such incidents are rarely criticized, or even noted by the Council. 

Several UN committees and divisions of the Secretariat, which primarily serve the interests of the Arab nations that encouraged their creation in the 1970s, are also extremely critical of Israel. Among these are the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat, the Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices in the Territories, and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Israeli officials have termed these committees "propaganda instruments" of the PLO.

….or turned into an orgy of rape allegations…

The case has highlighted the apparently rampant sexual exploitation of Congolese girls and women by the UN’s 11,000 peacekeepers and 1,000 civilians at a time when the UN is facing many problems, including the Iraqi “oil-for-food” scandal and accusations of sexual harassment by senior UN staff in Geneva and New York.

…or turned into a complete Grade-A clusterfuck…

The government of Sudan and militias have acted together in committing widespread atrocities in Darfur that should be prosecuted by an international war crimes tribunal, but the violent acts do not amount to genocide, a U.N. commission has said.

Yet we're supposed to subjugate our sovereignty to an organization that can't even manage itself and it's own affairs?

I wonder if I can write off whatever portion of my taxes go to the UN as a business loss, because if this isn't a failed venture I don't know what is.  Can we please finally list the UN with things such as the League of Nations, a flat earth, liberalism, boy/girl bands, and soccer as concepts that sounded good on paper, but fail miserably when exposed to the light of reality??