In a move that seemed to sour recent cooperation between Democratic and Republican representatives, the Democrats caused the postponement of final voting on the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador.

Before they are willing to give an up or down vote, Senate Democrats demanded more information about Bolton while contending that Bush had stiff-armed the Senate about classified information on Bolton’s tenure, who is currently the State Department’s arms control chief.

The final Bolton vote now will not take place until at least June, after the Memorial Day recess. Today’s vote of 56-42 was just four votes shy of the 60 votes needed to move for an immediate final vote on Bolton’s confirmation.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was hoping that today’s vote would end nearly three months of delays and investigation. However, the vote now raises questions on President Bush’s ability to win confirmation of his more ideological appointees.

“John Bolton,” Frist said, “…certainly sounds like a filibuster. It quacks like a filibuster.”

However, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said that Democrats do not want to put off an up-or-down vote indefinately.

“We are willing to vote 10 minutes after we get back in session, if in fact they provide the information,” Biden said.

Today’s dramatic roll call demonstrated that most senators still seem to enjoy a bit of partisan confrontation, despite the recent compromise forged just days ago in a bitter dispute over judicial nominees. Frist said that the Bolton issue had soured the air of cooperation.

New legislation set to be presented before House committee Thursday would set new drug-testing policy for professional sports. The NFL, NBA, NHL, and Major League Baseball would have to test each of its athletes five times a year, with severe penalties for those who pop positive: Two year ban for a first offense and a lifetime ban for a second offense.

Representative Tom Davis, the Chairman of the Government Reform Committee which has held hearings on anabolic steroid use, along with Senator John McCain introduced the new bill, based on the Olympic model.

However, the NFL says it did not have the opportunity to comment on the new bill. Joe Browne, NFL spokesman, said Wednesday, “Unlike the Olympics, we play every year, not every four years.”

Paul Tagliabue, NFL Commissioner, said he hadn’t even seen the bill, but that the league is not planning to change its policy to avoid the new legislation.

A House Commerce and energy subcommittee approved changes to a different bill on Wednesday, which calls for two tests instead of just one per athlete per year. This bill, called the Drug Free Sports Act, was introduced last month by Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican who also chairs the subcommittee.

If that bill should pass, it would affect the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball. The Commerce Secretary would then be permitted to change the list of banned drugs per sport, and should a player prove that he didn’t know the substance was illegal, the penalties could be reduced.

Representative Edward Markey of Massachusettes, suggested an amendment to the Stearn’s bill that would have allowed a more lenient “three strikes” clause. The penalties would be half-season for a first offense, full-season suspension for a second, and lifetime ban for a third, and Stearn seemed to be accepting of this idea.

“Markey’s idea of ‘three strikes and you’re out’ is a good approach,” Stearns said. “We might want to have it vary, depending upon sports.”

Currently, the penalties for steriod use are a 10-day ban in Major League Baseball, four games in the NFL and five games in the NBA. The NHL doesn’t yet test its athletes, but that may be changing soon dependant upon the outcome of the House vote.

California’s Republican Duncan Hunter and other members of Congress Wednesay decided to drop a bill that would have limited the role of women in combat situations.

The provision, which was included in a defense spending bill, would have solidified a 1994 Pentagon policy that bans women from combat and combat related fields in the armed forces.

“This puts Congress in a position where we have enought time to evaluate a policy change and react to that policy change,” said Hunter, Republican Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Hunter’s new proposal allows the Pentagon to continue to decide what positions women can serve in as long as Congress is allowed a 60 day heads up.

Critics from both parties as well as the United States Army had expressed concern that the earlier provision would not only have caused confusion among commanders and soldiers, but would have also hurt recriutment and retainment of women as well as slowed the military’s ability to make battlefield staffing choices.

The only female veteran in Congress, Rep. Heather Wilson, along with bipartisan members of Congrees, was to offer an amendment that would have removed the provision from the bill altogether. However, she dropped her amendment once she spoke with Hunter.

“This was unnecessary and unhelpful,” Wilson said. “There will be no restrictions in statute for how the Army can assign women in the military.”

According to policy, women are not allowed in infantry, armor artilery or special forces units. However, as long as Congress is notified beforehand, armed services can open some positions to women in combat areas.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld openly opposed putting the new policy into law, convincing Hunter to compromise.

The overall bill, which sets the spending and defense policy for the next year, was on the Senate floor Wednesday, however a vote was not expected until Thursday.

Ransom Ware Coming To A Computer Near You.
Apparently computer users have something new to worry about in the form of what’s fast becoming known as “ransom ware.”

Hackers have found a way to lock up documents on your computer, then will demand money to hand over the key code. In one recent attack, an unidentified corporate customer of San Diego’s Websense Inc. found encrypted files including important spreadsheets, pictures and other documents along with a ransom note.

The note left an email address, and the attacker used that address to demand $200 for the digital key code to unlock the encrypted files.

Joe Stewart, a researcher at Chicago’s Lurhq Corp., studied the ransom ware. “This seems fully malicious,” he said. While he did manage to unlock the infected computer files without having to pay the ransom, there is a worry that future versions of this software will be more difficult to overcome. Hackers commonly learn not to repeat the mistakes of earlier versions when revising, and the evolution of the software becomes increasingly difficult to crack.Related source.Network Detection Intrusion(NIDS)

This just adds to the list of tiring and frustrating attacks that many internet users must face on a daily basis. Viruses, worms, spyware and phishing attacks now are just the tip of an ever-growing iceberg.

While the FBI thinks this is just an isolated scheme, there is no knowing how many people have been affected thus far. The latest cases have resulted from visiting vandalized internet websites using a vulnerable browser. The resulting lock of up to 15 kinds of files is heralded by a note. When the email address in that note is contacted, the hacker demands $200 for the key code which unlocks the newly encrypted files.

The site has been shut down, and there hasn’t been a widespread report of ransom ware. And because bank transactions are easily traced, the hacker’s greed could be his downfall.

“You’ve got to send the money somewhere,” Stewart said. “…It’s far easier to trace than an email account.”

A bill that would loosen the restrictions on stem cell research and funding was today critisized as being “morally troubling” by the White House.

This legislation, which is set to be debated later Tuesday, would overturn President Bush’s 2001 policy which allowed funding for only 78 embryonic stem cell lines that were in existance as of August 2001.

Sponsored by Delware Republican Mike Castle and Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette, this would allow for government funding of more than just the 78 by including embryonic cells from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics.

It is hoped, advocates say, that stem cell research will bring about breakthroughs in the treatment and prevention of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and some forms of cancer. Proponents also indicate that because the embryos used would be destroyed anyway that there is no abortion issue within this legislation.

Opponents, however, believe that the destruction of an embryo for its stem cells is nothing short of abortion and some claim it could lead to human cloning.

While the Castle-DeGette measure is not expected to garner enough votes to override a presidential veto, it is an important benchmark for changing Bush policies, especially among Republicans who don’t always feel the need to support Bush.

More than 100 new cell lines worldwide have been created since Bush’s 2001 decision, and proponents say those need further study in the search for cures.

Stem cells are cells that have not yet been “assigned” to certain parts of the body. They can transform into many other types of cells, which offers regenerative potential for damaged organs or tissue.

by: Strawberry
It can be done if you keep in mind several important issues.
“Breaking up is hard to do” is more than just baby boomer song lyrics – It’s a common reality for many in the dating world. Couples after couples still find that it’s the most awkward moment that they will ever have to encounter. Well if you think it “feels bad” to say “we’re over” think about how the person you are saying that to feels. Many people never really know why someone is breaking up with them and it’s those unanswered questions that have turned many into psychotic stalkers. So read on and learn how you can let go and help heal a broken heart at the same time. Oh and women, I suggest you keep reading love stories. This can help you too.

Well everything is wrong. Feelings have changed. Maybe you found someone else or maybe you realized the person you are dating just isn’t “it”. Either way you have to tell that person. Sure it’s easier to change your phone number, find a new group of friends or fake your own death but it’s not something you would want done to you. Rejection hurts, regardless of how well spoken it may be but telling the person why is better than not returning their phone calls. So be polite and courteous and explain the reason, if you can, as to why you feel the relationship isn’t going to work.

Be polite. I can’t stress that enough. The slightest comment that can be taken as harsh criticism will only lead you to having to deal with this person for months and months on end and their anger. So, if the relationship is moving in a wrong direction or you are no longer attracted to them – tell them. Don’t give them some “I’m in a different place in my life right now” line, it’s retarded and the person will see right through it.

Breaking up, I feel, is easier if you agree on some key issues.

~ Such as, will the friendship remain? It can. There’s no reason for it not to unless the reason you are leaving the person is because they have been physically or mentally or even sexually abusive to you. Is sexually abusive even a reason to leave someone? I mean the person is trying to make sex interesting and you choose to walk out on them? What nerve! Anyway as I was saying, if you had a great friendship before hand then I don’t see what positive outcome you can have by ending it completely.

~ How will we be friends? This is an important one. Set a guideline. Are you going to be best buddies? Just a shoulder to cry on? Just another friend to have a beer with? If you want to keep the friendship you have to decide on what scale to keep it on. Does friendship mean just being civil whenever you see one another or do you want to take it a step up and communicate on a regular basis? Discuss it and if you don’t want any sort of friendship then this would be the time to say it.

~ Will you keep the same friends? Sure, you can still hang with the same group of people if you both choose to and if you don’t – then don’t. But that’s your decision to make either collectively or separately. BUT, whatever you do don’t put your friends in the middle. They didn’t date the person so why should they have to choose which friendship to end because you decided to end a relationship.

~ How long until the significant other comes around? If you choose to keep the friendship then respect it and the fact that you dated this person for whatever amount of time. So before you bring along Mr. Right or Miss. Hottypants to the next get together discuss it. This doesn’t mean ASK! You are no longer attached to your ex so don’t ask “Can I bring … to the club?” instead say “I wanted you to know that I am bringing … to the club.” Let your ex decide whether or not they can deal with seeing you with someone else. As harsh as this may sound, it’s not your problem and your dating activities with your new love should not revolve around your old one.

Well my little heart breaker, now you’ve learned some guidelines for letting that once so wonderful person go BUT what if you’re on the other side of it? How will you handle the rejection? Hmmm, well I think you need a few do’s and don’t yourself. So make sure you come back soon to read them.

Apparently the US Army concocted a tale of heroism around the death of Corporal Pat Tillman in order to “foster a sense of patriotism” across the country.

The Army Ranger’s parents, who were interviewed by The Washington Post, feel that the Bush administration and the United States Army lied about the circumstances surrounding his untimely death in Afghanistan. “It was a sign of disrespect…The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting,” Tillman’s mother, Mary, told the Post.

The young pro-football star was killed by his own men in Afghanistan, apparently mistaken for an enemy. Tillman’s father, Patrick Tillman Sr., believes that there should have been a homicide investigation into his son’s death.

It wasn’t until after a public memorial service that the Tillmans were told the truth about how their son died, a truth which would have horrified and infuriated a country so caught up in what some have called “a war that should never have been.”

The Army calls the false reporting “early mistakes” and has apologized for the reports.

The Unites States Government’s tenuous position on the side of good against evil took another battering today at the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into the Un Food for Oil Programme.
The British Independent politician George Galloway was called before the committee led by the panel’s chairman Sen. Norm Coleman to explain the alleged assertion that Galloway had been awarded rights to buy oil from Iraq because of his opinions about Iraq.More..
An inetersting perspective on this is the way the US media handled Galloways Interrogation.
The senators start throwing the accusations at him and he not only deflects them fairly well, he starts throwing back the accusations he has, culminating with the comment “I was right, the US was wrong”… then CNN thought it was boring enough they needed to go to commercial. MSNBC and FOX News both thought they were more interesting so they put him in a muted side box and started talking amongst themselves. CSPAN2 is showing senators walk around the floor during a break in another hearing and it’s not streaming on their site. BBC is the only station I see covering it gavel to gavel. It is a rather heated exchange going on between Mr. Galloway and the senators. I guess the US stations want to edit it to show later and make whoever they want to look bad.