It looks like the Gub’ment is finally starting to listen to the Americans who don’t want their privacy invaded under the guise of homeland security. Check it out
The US House of Representatives passed a measure curtailing the federal government’s access to library and book shop records by a 238-187 vote on Wednesday.
US Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) sponsored an amendment to the House Justice Subcommittee appropriations bill. The amendment prevents the US Department of Justice (DoJ) from using appropriated funds to obtain library patrons’ and book shoppers’ records without a search warrant, a practice previously allowed under Section 215 of the so-called “Patriot” Act.
That makes me proud to be an American.
I have absolutely no experience in this arena, but here's my prediction for the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election. Kerry wins both popular vote and electoral vote. Popular vote will be around 51% nation-wide for Kerry, with Bush at 48% and the various third parties bringing in the last 1%. (I doubt that Nader will muster 0.5% nation-wide.) The electoral college will send Kerry to the White House with 306 votes and Bush will wrap up the remaining 232.
The breakdown of states will be (from west to east) Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, The District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all going to Kerry, earning him 306 electoral votes. Bush will end up with Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado (sigh), New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota Nebraska, Kansas, Okalahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina, earning him 232 electoral votes.
That's it. I have no idea if I'll be right, but this is what my gut is telling me.
While watching the first football game of the 2004 season (yippie!), I came to the conclusion that Al Michaels is, without a doubt, a Bushie. It went a little back and fourth between New England and Indianapolis throughout the game and in the fourth quarter, the Colts turned over the ball on a fumble by Edgerrin James on one yard line (a drive that was started by Indy intercepting Tom Brady) and then this exchange happened:
Miachels: What a wacky series.
Madden: That was what you call a flip-flop.
(Pause)
Michaels: You're in... you're in... you're in the right state for that. (The game was at the Patriots, who play in Massachusetts.)
Now taken alone, it might not be that bad, but I remember a game earlier in the preseason while Michaels and Madden were in St. Louis, they mentioned that Bush had been campaigning near by and Michaels said something (I can't remember the exact quote right now) that seemed quite suspect (my roommate and I said almost simultaneously, "Did he just say what I think he just said?").
Sigh.
I already find Madden practically unwatchable, but now I'm not sure I want to watch Monday Night games because I don't want to hear Michaels discuss his infatuation with Dubya. How annoying.
Update: After some soul searching (and internet searching), I am reminded what happened on the preseason Monday Night Football game. The game was Kansas City at St. Louis (both Missouri teams) and they showed a couple shots of Dubya tossin' the ball around with some of the players. Then they talked about Missouri's electoral college votes and showed a graphic of a poll with Bush leading Kerry. Now... that's all fine and dandy, but why the hell is that bein' shown on a Monday Night Football game? It's not even remotely related. Weird, right? (On a related note, it seems that Mr. Alan Michaels has given the maximum
$2,000 contribution to Dubya... so there's no doubt he's a Bushie.)
A couple months ago the right went after
MoveOn.org, because a couple of folks who submitted ads to their
Bush in 30 Seconds campaign used images of Hilter. Fast forward to June 2004 for, and with their boy Bush
slumping in the polls, the right has decided it's time to start invoking the Nazis in their attacks on liberals.
One week after right-wing radio host Michael Savage compared progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros to Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, TV and radio host Bill O'Reilly compared both author/documentarian Michael Moore and radio host Al Franken to Goebbels. O'Reilly also likened a group of Hollywood celebrities who attended a recent premier of Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, to the Nazi faithful. In the process, O'Reilly falsely accused Franken of lying.
From the June 10 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." All right? "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."
And that's what Stuart Smalley [O'Reilly regularly refers to Franken as Stuart Smalley, a character Franken created on Saturday Night Live], and Michael Moore and all of these guys do. They just run around.
Maybe Bill O'Reilly was just confused about what story he was talking about... maybe he really wanted to talk about Vice President Dick Cheney's continued insistance that Saddam had some sort of ties to the al-Qaida.
ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.
The vice president on Monday offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.
"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."
Considering the fact that there is
evidence to the contrary, you have to assume that Cheney is just working off a page in Goebbels handbook. And to that extent, I have to assume that when O'Reilly viciously slandered
Franken and
Moore, what he really meant to be doing was point out, in a civilized matter, that the Vice President made a mistake when he claimed that connection existed.
Music for America has an
MP3 recording of
Al Franken's response to Bush's 2004 State of the Union address. It's definitely worth checking out, as it's good for some laughs.
On a related note, Slate's Tim Noah takes the time to point out this omission from the address:
[I]n President Bush's State of the Union address, the words "cleaner" and "healthier" were never uttered, and the word "safer" was spoken only in the context of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Here are some other words and phrases that did not appear in the speech: "environment," "pollution," "natural resources," "global warming," "clean air," "clean water," and "Clear Skies," which is what Bush calls his main initiative on air pollution. The word "conservation" appeared once in a plea to pass the energy bill, which takes various steps to encourage more oil drilling.
No big surpirse there.
Update: One more thing... the same-sex marriage issue. Bush spoke this issue at some detail:
I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
Here's the part that tweaks me. First, it was offensive when Bush glibly used the adjective "activist" while describing the judges who've made
recent rulings clearing the way for same-sex couples to marry -- decisions that were made on constitutional grounds, no less. I can't believe such a blantant attack made its way into the SOTU. Second, I think its alarming that Bush is basically advocating a constitutional amdendment that
limits the civil rights of United States citizens. I find the concept of a constitutional amendment to remove rights from myself, and my fellows, extremely distasteful. I would hope that other Americans feel the same. It is not for the state to decide whom I should love, it is for my heart, and while my heart has decided that I love a woman (and a
wonderful woman, at that), I don't think the state should be allowed to tell me that I can't love another man. And should I choose that course, I think it's only fair that I receive the same benefits for my dedication to my partner, and my partner's dedication to me, whether my partner is has two X chromosones, or an X and a Y.
And frankly, I don't care if its called "marriage" or "civil union," but if we want a fair soceity, then those rights given by the state should be shared, whatever the label.