DougR:

if we're safe it's because the Bush administration enacted policies that make us so? If you believe this, you're a victim of propaganda. Bush's massive tax cuts are leaving the government in a shortfall from which it will be impossible to deal with escalation of risk. The FBI screwed up on his watch, and the 9/11 tragedy happened on his watch. Since then, apart from a few speeches and appointing Ridge to a new, ill-defined position in "homeland security" (sound like Apartheid rhetoric, anyone?) what has the administration done to make me safer?

The fact is, the vast majority of us are safe simply because terrorists can only attack a relative few at a time. Those that may, potentially, be targets of suicide attacks are not materially safer now than they were on 9/11. Look at Israel. Will Bush ever have security as high as it is in Israel, with machine gun toting soldiers at many streetcorners? Not likely! Yet Israel is massively vulnerable to suicide attacks, just as we are.

What is most amusing is how every time Bush is being criticized for anything (Enron, Arctic drilling, etc) Cheney comes out and says "we have evidence that we are at higher risk for attack right now and need to concentrate on security." But even newspapers that uncritically print headlines like "Dirty Bomb Attack May Be Imminent" admit, buried somewhere in the body of the article, that there is NO EVIDENCE for this. It's all a smokescreen, folks!

The administration is now deciding whether to help "bail out" Amtrak, a company and a mode of transport they do not subsidise a tenth as much as they do roads and cars, which are less safe. They have even suggested that it might be more efficient for people to fly instead of take the train. ooh, that sounds safe!

Sorry for the thread drift. As to Charlie Daniels, this is not censorship. As many have said, the event is highly structured, and people are told what to play and what to say. You don't call it censorship when actors read those cheesy intros on the Oscars! They're actors hired to say certain things, and if they want to express their individuality with a quick poem they can find another venue for that! In the same way, if i book a show on "Legends of Puerto Rico" into my venue, and the performers ask if it's okay if they do Cuban songs instead, I might say no. I'm not censoring them, I just contracted for a certian thing and they're not providing the service I contracted for. Charlie, like Bush, is just an opportunist, using these examples of "censorship" to move product.