Molly Ivins: Check back in

[Dudley_DUright]

Seems like every year at the end of summer there's this sense of coming back from somewhere, whether we've gone anywhere or not. Whatever the summer pattern is -- a swim, the kids, a stroll --- it's as though we sort of blink and there's the world again, still there. Very much still there.

<snip>

Fortunately for us all, a boffo display of high comedy is being provided by our new ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Charm John Bolton. Many of us had high hopes for Bolton from the beginning, since what could be more rife with antic possibilities than appointing a tactless, rude, mean, angry, clumsy s.o.b. who ticks off everyone he deals with to be ambassador? Even better, make this mannerless churl ambassador to a world body that runs on endless delicatesse and ever-so-solicitous concern for the cultural sensitivities of absolutely everybody.

At first, this promising laff riot couldn't get off the ground. Bolton was such an obvious disaster as U.N. ambassador that even the Senate refused to confirm him, so Bush had to wait until Congress left town to make a "recess appointment," good only until a new Congress in January 2007. Meantime, Bolton is already tearing up the pea-patch.

Britain is leading a reform effort already endorsed by 175 other countries. Britain, which used to be our ally, has put forth a concise document containing a plan for reforming the U.N. and carrying forward with its goals to eradicate poverty. Bolton has proposed 750 changes in Britain's 36-page draft plan. One of his proposals is to delete the phrase "respect for nature" from a set of core values that supposedly unites the nations of the world: respect for human rights, freedom, equality, tolerance, multilateralism and respect for nature. The phrase "respect for nature" does not commit the U.S. to any legal or financial obligation. Bolton just doesn't like it.

I say, let's put it to a vote, a national referendum. Are we, the American people, in favor of "respect for nature" -- as long as it doesn't put any legal or financial obligations on us -- or not? Katrina?

more..

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19547

[phantom power]

1. Nothing short of taking these people out of power is sufficient.

They'll dash the entire country on the rocks before they ever change their minds, or admit they are wrong about anything.

[stellanoir]

2. "Mr. Charm Bolton"

Molly's among the best.

[leveymg]

3. Note: The US isn't bound in any legal or financial sense to the others,

either: including respect for human rights, freedom, equality, tolerance, and multilateralism.

Wonder why the Walrus was specifically bothered by reference to a non-binding respect for nature? Kyoto - of course!

[NMMNG]

4. Why stop at removing "respect for nature"?

You know he also wants to remove "human rights, freedom, equality, tolerance, multilateralism"...the whole kit and kaboodle. Because he and his cronies have no respect for anything or anyone other than those who will bend to their will (and donate large wads of cash).