These stories have nothing to do with each other, except that they do. The six-year campaign to get Certain People put in charge of all those alphabetic agencies in Washington is bearing fruit.

The first we will call the "Mom Said No--Let's Go Ask Daddy" amendment. It affects power companies [coughlikeEnronmaybe?cough] ability to overrule state regulators and put massive power transmission lines wherever the fuck they want.

The second is under the Department of Won't Anyone Think Of The Children? and would give the FCC, that bastion of civil liberties 'n' free speech 'n' all, authority to regulate content of cable and other off-air providers just like they now do with over-the-air (broadcast) radio and TV. The regulations, we are told, would be to regulate violent programming. The FCC has been "studying" this question for three years, it seems, and by sheer coincidence released their report --discovering that they not only have this right but that it "does not conflict with the First Amendment" --a week after the Virginia Tech shootings. Sheer coincidence, we tell ya.

I have the strange feeling there may be more stories like this pop up, if not today then next week or next month. Maybe when there's a lot of coverage of meaningless shit like Presidential debates going on, or coverage of Important Issues like the war. Who pays a lot of attention to these little rulings from bureaucrats?

You all know the answer to that one....

As to the FCC issue, the story cited doesn't even raise the slippery slope question--once the Central Government, or any government for that matter, is given the right to control content to "regulate violence" the door is open to them regulating anything the fuck else they want. As a further clue, let's look at who is for and against this particular report:

For: The Parents Television Council, founded by conservative activist L Brent Bozell, lauded the commission: "The FCC has taken its public interest obligation seriously in addressing the issue and offering a broad range of solutions," said the group's president, Tim Winter, in a statement.

Against: The American Civil Liberties Union also weighed in with criticism: "There are some things the government does well, but deciding what is aired and when on television is not one of them," legislative director Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU's Washington office said in a statement.

Alas that the ACLU doesn't raise the slippery-slope question either, although admittedly they might have and just not been quoted here. But just note that the one thing the FCC could unquestionably do, like reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or enforce rules against media consolidation, is nowhere discussed. Because that would be "big gubmint cuntrol!!!" ooh evil boo hiss.

And anybody who thinks this is "just a TV thing and I, sniff sniff, am too enlightened and wise to watch TV and everybody else should give it up too"....sorry. Get real. This. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen. The vast majority of people are still going to watch TV for most of their home entertainment, and, alas, information.

They're going to let their kids watch it too, which of course is the real underlying problem here. But I don't see Brent Bozell joining the campaign to make kids stop watching TV. He doesn't want that. He wants them to watch it, but just watch Brent Bozell Approved TV. And of course once that's all thats on, that's all Mom and Dad and even kid-free people will be watching either.

Hello All FoxNews All The Time, goodbye Bill Moyers on PBS, The Sopranos or Deadwood on HBO, and probably reruns of "I Dream Of Jeannie" on TVLand, because that promotes belief in Arab superstitions and men living with scantily-clad women they're not married to.