McChenyism

I agree with you on the subject of censorship. I did not see anything about Cheney on NBC or ABC. However, when I flipped over to BBC they showed the piece you were talking about. And there was an interesting discussion with Dan Rather and he talked about how the major affiliates are 'urged' to show only certain pieces.
I feel like it is the press right to ask questions. However, what needs to be told is how specific was the information. Condaleza (sp?) Rice stated yesterday that there was no way to fortell that they were gonna use airliners as missles on the WTC. However, they knew that a large number of Muslims were in the country and taking flying lessons.
As for Bush, I agree with you. I think he has handled the situation as well as can be expect but he is still doing a lot of sneaky under the table type things while our attention is elsewhere. It has recently came up on the radar that they are trying to add an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Luckily, Mass. is getting ready to pass an amendment to their constitution that would negate that. I am not sure of the specific of the wording, however if Mass. passes before Congress, Mass. will have the right to challenge the amendment to the Constitution.
You might know this better than me but has there ever been a time or is there any way when the Congress passed and amendment to the Constitution, for it to be 'revoke' by the population since the Congress is only a representation of the people?
Keep up the post on your adventures! I love reading them and am finally glad to see what a really Tasmanian Devil looks like.

My understanding of the process is that it must pass by a "super-majority" of 66% in both houses of Congress and then it must be ratified by 75% of the states in order for an amendment to the Constitution to be made. I think it also has to be done over a certain time period. It would seem, from the "off-world" perspective of a Canadian that this makes it VERY difficult (as it should be) for things to be added to such an important document as the Constitution. I would suggest that this "defence of marriage" amendment would not get through all of that mumbo-jumbo. Although I think many states would lean towards the protectionist leaning of this matter, I think many would leave well enough alone and NOT enshrine something like this in the Constitution.

Michael Moore (the filmmaker and author) had some interesting words on this in his Commonwealth Club speach. The audio is available from the Commonwealth Club website.

For the last year I've been looking at the Bush Administration with my hands covering my eyes, peering nervously between my fingers, mentally wondering, "Is it over yet?"

While I'm no fan of Bush (in nearly every fashion you can think of), I'm playing Satan's buddy and thinking that this same sort of question was asked in a post-Pearl Harbor situation as well wasn't it?

I think that we've not been told the entire story, and if we were, we'd see the media as being really idiotic (well, moreso than usual). If all the intelligence we can get is something as vague as "Terrorists might fly planes into buildings" then what do we realistically do? Evacuate all buildings taller than 10 stories and anal probe everyone at the airports?

I personally think that this situation is just something to drum up controversy now that we're "comfortable" again. If this is all the democrats can come up with, they really need to do some more research.

We're back in London after a great three weeks in southern Africa. Happy to hear that you are (finally) 'twigging' on Bush. Remember my trying to warn you on Christmas Eve 2000? XO JMP