Do the Purtians have anything better to do?

The Puritans have struck again! A bill has been introduced in the Missouri Senate by Senator Bartle that would basically establish a porn tax of 20% on adult themed business. It will probably pass because no one wants to risk voting against it and have the puritans and the religious wrong use it against them in the next election.

You can read the story below from the Kansas City channel. Hey Matt, take any contributions from the ultra right lately that you want to disclose?

Come on Matt, we both know what this is really about. You and your religious zealot buddies could not shut them down throught legal means, so you are trying to take the backdoor route to impose your beliefs on others. But you are doing it in an underhanded, I mean ultra conservative fashion. Did the consitution say freedom of speech for all or just for what you agree with Matt? Is that your agenda, tax into submission anything you don't agree with? How about a tax on chuch contributions for any church other than what you agree with or maybe tax any tv station or newspaper that is not your favorite or that does not kiss your ass? Smacks of censorship to me, especially when the local entity that oversees regulation of adult business such as strip clubs says it will force many of them to close and drastically reduce revenues. So it is pretty clear what your agenda is. Way to be a man and use a sneak attack Matt, you are a true american hero! Not!

Gotta go, have to go to the strip bar and then go buy some porn.

All at once now, Heil Matt!

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/4168136/detail.html

Rumsfeld offered to resign and we said no?

According to this article in my hometown KC star, our revered Secretary of Defense Donald "TheDon" Rumsfeld offered to resign and Bush turned him down? As I have said before, Rumsfeld actually has some good ideas of transforming the military, but he has overshadowed those ideas by not listening to his military guys, not planning anything and for being probably the worst public speaker since Quayle. This guy makes Bush look like a good speaker (face it Bush is a smart guy but not a great speaker like Reagan or Clinton was) .

Time to go Donnie, we need some fresh leadership at the five sided brain drain (A.K.A. the Pentagon) and someone who listens to the military guys more instead of just his cilivilain military wanna be buddies (Yeah we mean you Dick).

Read the story here:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10810618.htm?1c

Military chiefs on the spot?

Several military leaders were recently before the Senate Armed Services Committee to explain why many costs that should have been part of their budget request were apparently left out of the request only to be included in subsequent emergency supplemental spending requests. Apparently much of the $80 billion supplemental request is for items that should have been in the regular budget request. No! Budget games from the DOD? Say it ain't so! Dare we suggest that the fiscal masters of our time that brought us such budget behemoths but military lightweights such as the Seawolf Sub, The B-2 (Flying Turkey) bomber and the legendary Divads anti-aircraft weapon would try to disguise what they were really spending?

Before anyone suggests this is partisan politics, one of their critics is Sen. McCain of Arizona, so sit down and have another oxycontin there tubby.

Oh wait, never mind, Donald "The Don" Rumsfeld said it would be wrong to hide regular budget items in a emergency spending request to protect them from scrutiny. If you say its so Donnie boy then it must be. Not! One of the military chiefs basically says in the article that if these requests where in the regular budget (where they belong) then it would displace other things that are too important to us. Good fiscal logic there fellas, that makes a lot of sense.

I can't wait to hear one of the conservative drones defend this one. I am not against military spending, but lets cut the crap at be up front about it fellas.

You can read the story here, its from the LATimes via Yahoo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20050212/ap_on_re_us/democrats

Howard Dean to head Democratic party

Howard Dean will be the top dog in the Democratic Party, what a change from his flameout of the presidential race after his unravelling at the Iowa caucuses. Dean may be a good choice for the Dems, considering he is somewhat outspoken, a good fundraiser, and perhaps more in tune with the younger generation. Time will tell, but he has his work cut out for him.

However, the next election will probably not happen in the middle of a war either, so that will also be a factor.

Let me know what you think of the choice and read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20050212/ap_on_re_us/democrats

Walgreens looks pretty dumb in this case

You might want to check out this article, it reports on how GM has dropped Walgreens as a prescription provider for its health insurance plans because of a dispute over GM's requirement that drugs for chronic conditions be filled by mail order pharmacies that are usually considerably cheaper. You certainly can't blame GM for wanting to control drug prices however they can, especially with the huge number of retirees that GM provides health care coverage. Walgreens is understandably trying to protect their turf, but you would think they would realize that a big company like GM will have to do whatever they can control to rein in costs.

You can read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=4&u=/nm/20050211/bs_nm/autos_gm_walgreen_dc

More on social security

According to a recent poll from USA Today/CNN/Gallup, about 75% of middle income workers surveyed would be okay with limits on social security benefits payed to the wealthy being limited. According to the poll, a majority is against the president's plan for social security, although that does not mean much to me yet since we still do not have any real specifics.

Personally, I think you will probably see the following:
-Perhaps some form of privatization for a limited amount of social security money if it passes
-An increase from the current $90,000 limit on income subject to the tax
-Benefits paid out a little later in life, and perhaps the early retirement age also pushed back
-Perhaps some additional tax breaks of some kind to encourage people to save more, or more pressure on companies to offer 401k's or pensions.

Those are my thoughts, you can read the USA Today story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=716&e=21&u=/usatoday/20050209/ts_usatoday/polltapwealthyonsocialsecurity

Class action lawsuit limits

In what should be an interesting political battle, the Senate just passed a bill limiting class action lawsuits that conservatives have sought for probably a decade or more. I support some limits, anyone would have to admit that there have been some ridiculous damages awarded as of late. However, it was recently suggested that one of the main motivations of limiting them is to try and cut off the source of funding for the Democratic Party, which recevies some large donations from lawyers. If that is the case then its pretty sleazy politics, something you would not expect outside of Chicago decades ago.

From what I read, the bill will mainly shift many suits to federal courts instead of state courts, and that may be a good move since some lawsuit plantiffs go court shopping to find their best change of winning. It also would raise the standards to make a law suit a class action suit, something else that was probably necessary.

You can read the story here from AP via Yahoo here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_go_co/limiting_lawsuits

Think a dirty bomb can't happen?

If you think a dirty bomb can't happen here, then you won't like this story about a shipment of radioactive material sent from Russia to the US (where it was supposed to be received by Halliburton) but the container was mislabeled and sent to Boston instead of Texas (where it was supposed to go). The container was shipped in October, but not found until this month. What if terrorists seeking to build a dirty bomb had intercepted or somehow diverted the package (not impossible, they could hack in to the system or bribe someone at either end) and used it to build a dirty bomb? No one would have even known until after the bomb went off and Geiger counters starting going off. Kind of scary. It was not apparently Halliburtons fault, they notified the NRC as soon as the package was obviously missing. It looks like we can track a book order from Amazon but not a shipment of radioactive material, something that will probably change soon.

You can read about it here from the Seattle PI:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Missing%20Radioactive%20Material

Should the FAA have been ready for 9-11?

According to this story from the New York Times via Fromthewilderness.com, the FAA actually had more warnings about terrorists possibly hijacking a plane and using it as a bomb than we previously thought. Apparently the FAA had numerous warnings, including some that mentioned Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by name, but did not act on them. That is kind of scary, if we had that warning and then did nothing. That does not necessarily mean that we absolutely could have prevented that from happening, but you never know. Personally though, I believe that had the FAA rolled out the security precautions then that we know have, there would have been mammoth opposition from the public, arguing that they were being made to wait unnecessarily. Before you argue that point, you have to realize that the FAA would not have been able to disucss the exact threat with the public before it happened. Some things should have been changed along time ago, like prohibiting box cutters and anything else sharp, on airplanes.

You can read the story here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/021105_hijack_warnings.shtml

Hillary to get the Dem. nod for Pres in 2008?

According to an article in USA today, which you can click the link to read below, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the front runner to get the Democratic party nomination for President in 2008. Of course that is still a long ways off, it would be the first time a woman gets the nomition of either party for president if that holds true. As much as I hate to say it, I am still not certain that a woman can get elected president at this time. Don't get me wrong, I am not being sexist and I certainly would consider voting for a woman for president as much as I would anyone else if I like the canditate, but many people don't feel that same way.

I also wonder if that is really the direction that the Democratic party wants to go, given that you would think they would want a less liberal instead of more liberal candidate, and the republicans would have plenty of ammo to use against her as well. I guess time will tell.

Here is the link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=716&e=21&u=/usatoday/20050210/ts_usatoday/notthe1stbutmaybe1stwithrealchance

Bush submits record $2.5 trillion dollar budget

President Bush submitted his budget plan, a request for spending of approximately $2.5 trillion dollars. It requested more money for defense, although a smaller increase than first proposed a few months ago, and featured cuts for many other non defenese programs (remember that in budget terms, what is called a cut in spending usually means less of an increase, not necessarily less money overall). In some cases in this budget the spending actually is cut, but not it in all cases.

The so called cuts in other areas should make for a lively budget battle, along with the fact that the budget omitted any funding for the investment accounts in social security or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Who would have thought, budget games in Washington? Not like that is anything new there for either party, but in my opinion that should either be in the 2006 or 2007 budget, there should be no way that it can be left out of either. But they, that kind of thinking is probably why we have a mutli trillion dollar debt.

The budget will, of course, boost the deficit and debt considerably. Hard to believe just a few years ago we were talking about a budget surplus. Yeah, don't count on Limbaugh or Hannity bringing that up. Of course its not all Bush's fault, I have said many a time that presidents get more blame and more credit than they really deserve. But this budget is huge, and it looks like we are making tons of sacrifices at home to pay for the "war against terror". But I guess they had to do that in WWII didn't they? Oh yeah, we were attacked in that war, not exactly the same thing is it (but I would bet money that one of the conservative talk drones will bring that fact up sometime in the next few weeks).

You can read the story here from the Washington Post via Yahoo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=716&e=16&u=/washpost/20050207/ts_washpost/a3319_2005feb6

They found the missing nickels!

In what had to be one of the most bizarre crimes in recent years, a truckload of nickels was stolen after leaving the Federal Reserve Bank in New Jersey. Police found the truck but minus the driver or the nickels. 3 million nickels were missing, prompting us to ask "What would anybody do with 3 million nickels, take five bucks worth to the bank each week to avoid suspicion (different banks of course). Well, now they found the nickels in a backyard in Miami-Dade county Florida buried in the ground. They never found the driver, but they did find some dope growing in the yard where they found the nickels. So I guess someone is going to jail.

You can read this story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20050204/lo_wplg/2569638

It looks like Palestinian Leaders are serious

After a recent move by Paletsitinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to fire some of his top security officials following a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli settlements, it appears the Palestinians are serious about eliminiating cross border raids on Isreal. Yassir Arafat certainly did nothing to stop them during his tenure, and something needed to happen. Kudos to Abbas for realizing the wave of terrorist attacks, usually on unmilitary targets, was not going to ever win the Palestinians their own home land.

You can read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

What if there is a war in Korea

South Korea just updated their war plan regarding a North Korean invasion, something worth discussing considering North Korea's recent announcement that it has nukes. According to the report, the US would deploy up to 690,000 troops to come to the aid of the South Korean's. The US currently has an infantry division and some Marines there (along with a Air Force wing) and there is a Marine division, if I recall correctly, along with other forces in Okinawa. However, if the North Koreans invaded while we were still fighting Iraq, we would have a very difficult time getting enough troops over there quickly enough to save South Korea. The US strategy in South Korea recently changed to a plan of moving most US troops away from the DMZ and other near border areas to areas farther south. That is a good plan considering that with the North Korean's enourmous advantage in artillery, I am not sure any troops there would survive the initial barrage of artillery. The North also has a massive air defense network as well, which would make for a big battle with US and South Korean air force units. However, if the North was stupid enough to attack (and with their lunatic of a leader anything is possible), world opinion would be almost univerally against the North Koreans. One thing is for sure: Even if no nukes are involved (which is by no means certain since North Korea apparently now has them), the loss of life involved would be truly massive.

You can read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=5&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_as/koreas_defense_guidelines

Bush submits massive budget request for DOD

President Bush submitted his budget recently, including a request for just over $419 billion dollars for the Department of Defense. That request is an increase of just under 5% from what they recieved this year (not including emergency spending requests). The entire budget request is in the neighborhood of $2.5 trilliion (damn, that's a pricey neighborhood). The big defense budget request comes as now surprise to me, considering Republicans are usually hawks (and I even lean that way somewhat) and the war in Iraq has casued ammunition, supplies and even some equipment to be used up at a rapid rate. The controvery has been over most of the rest of the budget being cut at the expense of the Defense budget. Bush's plans call for the defense budget to increase (partly due to inflation) to just over $500 billion by FY 2011.
The budget includes some money for increased pay and benefits for our troops (sorely needed) as well as expanding the military by a moderate number of troops. What the budget does not include is the $80 billion expected to be requested to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq that will be requested seperately. It also includes no funding to begin the privitization of Social Security, although that may not be a big deal since there is no guarantee that Congress and the Pres. will come to an agreement in time for next fiscal year.

You can read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_defense

Unionized Canadian Walmart to Close!

Walmart announced they are going to close a store in Canada that has successfully unionized its employees. According to walmart they are closing the store because of the union's demands. I am not really shocked by that, especially considering I managed in the discount retail field for almost a decade. I know unions have helped some industries, particularly manufacturing, they also can reduce a company's ability to compete and make a profit. From what I have seen and read, unions often stifle competitiveness and innovation, and often add even more bureaucracy to a workplace. In the discount field especially, they extra money it would cost would seriously impact Walmart's profits and make it much harder for them to be the low price leader that they have based their existence on. I also have felt that if you run a company properly and treat your workers well, they should have no need for a union. Word has it that some unions in the US have also helped fund this, which makes it sound suspiciously like they are going after Walmart in Canada since they have had almost no luck against them here.

You can read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1270&ncid=1270&e=2&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_canada

Congress boosting indeceny fines?

Apparently feeling pressure from the puritans back home, congress is now moving to raise indecenty fines imposed by the Federal Censorship (whoops, I meant to say Communication) Commission. You can read about it by clicking the link below, the story is on Yahoo from AP.
The max fine would go to $500,000 per occurance. Too bad they can't have fines like that for bad reality tv, but if that were the case all the networks would be bankrupt. I personally think fines that large are at times excessive, especially when the law regarding obscenity is very vague, and when broadcasters have asked for clearer direction (even going so far as to ask if they aired something specific would it be ok) from the FCC and received absolutely no help at all. Yikes!

Read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=716&e=7&u=/ap/20050203/ap_on_go_co/congress_indecency

This is getting absurd

If you saw the now infamous commercial from Godaddy.com during the superbowl, you may be in the same boat as me, wondering how anyone could possibly be offended by that. But amazingly, some were. Rumor has it those same people also wear a blindfold in the shower so they can't see themselves naked, but that has not been confirmed.

After the commerical aired once, the NFL execs panicked and asked Fox not to show a second time as had been scheduled. Hopefully godaddy.com will now sue the NFL for doing this, that is what they deserve, and might be why the league is sometimes referred to as the No Fun League.

Click here to read about it:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1357&e=10&u=/ap/20050208/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_super_bowl_ad_pulled&sid=95745805

Should we be more worried about North Korea?

With all of the attention paid to Iraq (and with the large amount of money and military resources being diverted there), are we not paying enough attention to North Korea? North Korea now admits that they have nukes, no great shock there, and make it sound like they won't give them up. The gov't is trying to get them to negotiate them away, not sure if that will happen or not. I, for one, am concerned that a country controlled by a brutal and not overly rational dictator now has nukes.

Click the link to read the story from Reuters via Yahoo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=11&u=/nm/20050210/ts_nm/korea_north_talks_dc