Capitol Hill Blue: Next Controversy: The John Bolton Debacle

Capitol Hill Blue: Next Controversy: The John Bolton Debacle\Next Controversy: The John Bolton Debacle
By LAWRENCE M. O'ROURKE
McClatchy Newspapers
May 26, 2005, 07:49
Email this article
Printer friendly page

With filibusters currently in disfavor, the Senate opened debate Wednesday on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.
Bolton, defended by Republicans as a tough, blunt reformer and derided by Democrats as an intemperate abuser of government intelligence analysts, appeared headed to confirmation as one of the nation's top diplomats.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., described Bolton as "a man of strong conviction" who would be effective as Bush's agent at the United Nations for reforming the international organization. "He's not a soft guy, no question about that."

Bolton, according to Senate Democrats, has become a beneficiary of the last-minute decision Monday by a bipartisan group of senators to drop filibusters against three of Bush's judicial nominees. The decision included an agreement by the senators to filibuster less.

"People are going to be reluctant" to filibuster to block a vote on Bolton, said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who has previously hinted at a filibuster and continued to insist Wednesday that he would try to block a vote on Bolton.

Shortly after the deal that opened the way to confirmation of three Bush judicial nominees and curtailed use of the filibuster, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., cleared the way for a Senate floor debate on Bolton when she withdrew a hold, a delaying device similar to the filibuster, on the nomination.

But Dodd and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said they would not seek to block Bolton's nomination through a filibuster.

South Park: Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes - TV Tome

South Park: Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes - TV Tome
Cartman bets Kyle $5 that you crap your pants when you die. The town is abuzz; the new Wall-Mart store is having its grand opening. The building is built on the space where Stark's Pond used to be. The doors open and inside we find Grandpa Marsh employed as the greeter and Jimmy help with the carts. There are bargains galore everywhere; Cartman is delighted that he can get 3 copies of "Timecop" for $18. Stan asks his dad why Wall-Mart is able to sell stuff so cheap, his dad says he doesn't know, but he knows he loves it. Later that night Randy Marsh has become obsessed with the store, he goes there late at night hoping to get him some bargains, but finds there are many other people there with the same idea. Kyle doesn't want to go to Wall-Mart but finds out that that Jim's Drug Story has to close down because it can't compete. Cartman, of course is on the side of Wall-Mart. The boys go to the town's Main Street, but find that it is all boarded up and looking much like a ghost town. Stan wants to tell his parents about what is happening to their town. When he returns home he finds his dad is wiped out after a marathon shopping at Wall-Mart. The citizens gather together to confront the manager and tell him they want him to close their store. The manager tells them that it is out of his hands, the store has taken over his life. He gives them a message to meet him out back in 5 minutes, but before that happens the manager commits suicide by hanging himself and as his last act, craps his pants, much to Cartman's delight, Kyle now owes him $5.

The whole town has agreed to not shop at Wall-Mart anymore; but the Marsh family goes to the store and find that everyone is still there doing their shopping. They try to come up with a plan to stop the evil that is the Wall-Mart store and Kyle tells them that it only takes self-control to stop shopping there. The town instead decides to burn the store down; but that doesn't stop the store from getting itself rebuilt. Kyle gets Stan and Kenny to accompany him to Arkansas so they can put a stop to the store. The store reaches out to Cartman, who accompanies the boys on their journey. Kyle knows that Cartman is only coming with them to try stopping their effort to get the store closed. They can't find help at corporate headquarters, but they find one of the founding executives at nearby bar. He tells them the corporation's history and tells them about the store's heart, which is located near the television section. The boys leave and the executive kills himself, and to Cartman's delight he craps his pants; Kyle now owes him $10.

The boys return to town, with the intention of destroying the stores heart and Cartman tries to stop them, much as Kyle knew he would. They battle the store's ever lowering bargains on their way to the television department. They finally make it there and they meet the store in one its many forms. Kyle and Stan look in a mirror at the back of the television department and see their own reflection. It is just possible that we (the consumer's desire) are responsible for making Wall-Mart such a success. The boys decide to break the mirror anyway and the store begins to implode. They all escape as the store craps itself as a last act. The townspeople decide to begin supporting Jim's Drug in earnest, until they make it too much of a success and the cycle repeats itself.

Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

Note- OFCOM
in the United Kingdom is (from their website)
"Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the
UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television,
radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services"
----------------------------------------------------------------
"http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1491990,00.html
Radio | Special report: Ofcom | Television
2.30pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

John Plunkett
Wednesday May 25, 2005

Clean-up TV campaigners seeking succour in Ofcom's new broadcasting
rules suffered an immediate blow today when the regulator gave the
all-clear to programmes about "sex with animals".
The comments by Richard Hooper, the Ofcom deputy chairman, came at the
unveiling of its long-awaited new broadcasting code and will have had
the regulator's spin doctors holding their heads in their hands.

Although Mr Hooper was at pains to point out that the new regulations
will not give carte blanche to broadcasters, he said certain offensive
material would be OK as long as it was shown at the right time and
with suitable warnings.

"[What about] a programme about sex with animals? Yes, it's
potentially possible. It all comes down to context," he said.

The new code, which will apply across all TV and radio networks,
allows broadcasters to "transmit challenging material, even that which
may be considered offensive by some, provided it is editorially
justified and the audience given appropriate information".

Mr Hooper's comments recalled Channel 4 bestiality documentary, Animal
Passions, which featured a man who admitted have sex with his pony and
a woman who had sex with her dog.

Although it was cleared by Ofcom last year, it generated 75 complaints
from viewers who said it "normalised bestiality" and could encourage
copycat behaviour."

police state

Capitol Hill Blue: Police State

Police State
By DAN K. THOMASSON
May 24, 2005, 07:12
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Some really scary things are happening around here these days.
Congress has become a place of great incivility and rancor, which threaten to undermine any hope of legislative remedy to a myriad of problems, from Social Security to soaring health-care costs to immigration to a steadily crumbling manufacturing base once the envy of the world.

But perhaps the most frightening prospect for Americans is an unfettered national police force with the sole discretion to determine who can be investigated as a potential terrorist. That's the impact of little-known proposals to greatly expand the powers of the FBI, permitting its agents to seize business records without a warrant and to track the mail of those in terrorist inquiries without regard to Postal Service concerns.

Because the government can label almost any group or individual a terrorist threat, the potential for abuse by not having to show probable cause is enormous, prompting civil libertarians to correctly speculate about who will guard against the guardians. Up until now the answer was the Constitution as interpreted by the judiciary. But it is clear that sidestepping any such restriction is the real and present danger of the post-9-11 era.

A wise man, the late Sen. John Williams of Delaware, once counseled that any proposed legislation should be regarded in the light of its worst potential consequence, particularly when it came to laws that enhance the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the government at the expense of civil rights. This is most likely to occur in times of national stress, when the Constitution is always vulnerable to assault _ i.e., the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The scenario Williams warned about runs something like this.

You are innocently standing on a street corner waiting to cross when you are approached by a complete stranger who politely, but in a low voice, asks directions to a certain address or area. You, of course, are utterly unaware that the person is under surveillance in a terrorist investigation. You respond in a friendly manner. And although the exchange takes only a few seconds, it is enough to make those following the suspect curious about you. You are identified and a background check reveals that you or your spouse has a relative of Middle Eastern extraction or that you recently traveled to a Middle Eastern country or that you contributed to a charity bazaar sponsored by a church or group under suspicion of passing money through to a terrorist cause.

Suddenly, you are caught in a major inquiry, your personal business records are seized and your mail is tracked. It doesn't take long for your friends and neighbors to learn that you are being investigated, and the result of that is predictable. You and your family are shunned. Your business begins to dwindle and before the nightmare has ended, which can take months, your life is in shambles. The truth never catches up with the fiction and the bureau, which has difficulty in saying the word "sorry," leaves you high and dry, twisting slowly in the wind.

Think it can't happen that way? Well, it does all the time. Ask the lawyer in Oregon whom the FBI misidentified as having taken part in the terrorist bombing of the Spanish railway. Ask any number of persons since Sept. 11, 2001, arrested and detained for months without charges or counsel before they were released.

If that isn't enough to satisfy you about the inadvisability of these proposals, think back to the Cold War days when the most casual acquaintance with a group or person on J. Edgar Hoover's anti-communist watch list could land one in water hot enough to make life miserable for a long time _ maybe even put him or her on one of the infamous blacklists.

If you weren't around in those times, read about them. One thing you will learn quickly is that the sole determination of who or what had communist inclinations belonged to the FBI. Even then, however, Congress was smart enough not to rescind the checks and balances that protect our civil liberties. Federal law-enforcement officers outside the FBI have complained of late about the bureau's penchant for seizing jurisdiction over almost any crime by relating it to terrorism.

Both of these over-reactive proposals are as fearsome as the threat of another al Qaeda attack, for they accomplish the same thing: the intrusion on and disruption of the rights of Americans. Like portions of the Patriot Act, which are rightly being challenged by conservatives as well as liberals, they are medicine worse than the cancer.