host

What a pathetic excuse for a president. I mourn for the loss of our democracy ! Just how much can Bush "supporters" overlook ?

Willravel

I, for one, will be staring directly at him. I hope that my esp can convince him to choke on a pretzel. It worked last time.

FoolThemAll

This doesn't seem very noteworthy.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Bodyhammer86

I second that.

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

host

It's "noteworthy" in that you and FoolThemAll do not seem to see anything
here worth commenting about. You enable the destruction of the checks and
balances that formerly guaranteed the accountability to the people of the executive branch of the federal government.

Willravel

The reason this IS noteworthy is because it is excessive to an absurd degree. "Parade performers will have security escorts to the bathroom, and they've been ordered not to look directly at President Bush or make any sudden movements while passing the reviewing stand." So we put Bush in danger by LOOKING HIM IN THE EYE?! or GOING TO THE BATHROOM?! This is stupid. This is so far beyond stupid. It is wrong. Bush has just brought himself to the same level of a cocky, untalented celebrity.
Not to get off subject, but did you get my mp, host?

The_Dunedan

First of all, we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Important difference.

Second of all, this is total nonsense. It reminds me of the scene in "The King and I" where Ms. Leonowens is admonished that nobody's head, under ANY circumstances, can be higher than the King's head. The security of this event is nothing short of obscene, as is the cost of the thing; I don't recall the current figure, but it's somewhere in the region of 50,000,000 dollars! OUR TAX MONEY, taken from us by FORCE, is paying for this thing and we're not even allowed to LOOK at the man?

This is a man who is frightened for his life, and with good reason.

FoolThemAll

Assuming this is true, then I definitely don't see this as noteworthy. It may be excessive, but it's nothing to get worked up about. No one's going to suffer because of it.

Tangent: It reminds me of that scene in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back when Jay and Bob are on the set of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season. "If you look at Ben or Matt, you will be fired."

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

The_Dunedan

No, nobody is physically harmed. But what you have here is a situation in which a man who is SUPPOSED to be SERVING US is exalted above us, held so far above the heads of paeons like us that we are "forbidden to look upon his countenance." This is insane.

FoolThemAll

I find it unintentionally comical in that regard, and I think Jon Stewart will have a ball with it.

That's about it.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

irateplatypus

this is purely a security measure... don't let it become an inferiority complex issue. how in the world can you argue that security measures taken on a single day during a single parade at a time of high tension and security concerns is tantamount to disrupting constitutional checks and balances? you can't. at least not without making this fodder for the nonsense in tilted paranoia.

the secret service would only make such a guideline in response to reducing security threats. however much more resources deemed necesary in this inauguration over previous is money well-spent imho. the consequences of spending a few more million to ensure the safety of our commander-in-chief is peanuts compared to the chaos that would follow an assassination at this time in history.

and i thought you conspiracy nuts would welcome anything that would keep cheney out of the white house! ::

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

The_Dunedan

What are you expecting, a psychic assasination attempt?
You are choking...you are choking...you are choking...

This isn't about security, this is about the debasing and humiliating exercise of raw power. "You may not look upon the President, Lowly Citizen. Return to your work!"

RAGEAngel9

It's obvious they are afraid of super terrorists like Superman or Cyclops, who can shoot things out of their eyes.

Mephisto2

I don't see it as a big deal. It's just silly. More fuel for the fire that is burning up this man's credibility. No point in making something out of it.

It will just make more people laugh at him. Lots of good material here for SNL, Late Show, Daily Show etc. Maybe even that comedienne Ann Coulter might get a joke out of it.


Mr Mephisto

munchen

I thinks it just shows the general dislike of the administration(dislike to be kind) by the world and america. The fact that they think they need it says something initself. I find their reasoning a little flawed. "If I do things to make tons people want to kill me, the solution is to hire more security, not for example reevaluate my policies or stop doing what makes them want to kill me"

__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening

FoolThemAll

It's possible to do good things that make people want to kill you. And in those cases, the better answer is more security.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

MSD

If I was planning to go there, I would be mooning the presidential motorcade, hopefully with some fellow dissatisfied citizens to help. There's nothing like an immature display of disrespect to silently voice your discontent.

martinguerre

i wonder if they've made proper preparations in case of jedi attack.

otherwise...

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

ObieX

The problem with that is that these "single" days seem to be growing ever-more frequent and contiguous. I wonder how many barbed wire "free speach zones" they will have this time, and how far away from the actual event they will be.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

tecoyah

Why do I feel the tendrils of Fascism wrapping around my ankles.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Superbelt

Irate, we shouldn't suspend our rights for even a single day. Security measures be damned, it is our right to see the goddamned President. He is not better than us or more worthy than us. I would take pleasure at staring him down if I was one of the performers at the Innaug. I'd love to see anyone try and arrest and prosecute me for it too.

The President's innauguration is going to be special. There are plans for large scale protests at the innauguration that the President just won't be able to stop. The protesters are going to go in and be non-descript until Bush is coming past, then they will all turn their backs on him at a signal. Should be good.

Mephisto2

You know, everyone knows I don't like Bush.

But I honestly don't think people should make a nuisance of themselves at the inauguration or attempt political stunts. The guy won the election. Maybe it's unfortunate in many of our minds, but win it he did. As such, he's your leader and should at least be allowed to be inaugurated with dignity.

Mr Mephisto

Bookman

Don't we pay this guy's salary?

Superbelt

Well, if this story that performers can't look him in the eye is true... he isn't inaugurating himself with dignity...

I think this protest is classier than most. Noone is wearing a Bush Mask with a Nazi Uniform or displaying other vulgar or crude messages. They are doing it this way because he refuses to allow dissenting opinions to be around him (see. Free Speech Zones) After winning the election with 51% of the vote he believes he has a mandate and says he "I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it". What does that mean? More of the things that 49% of voting americans disagreed with like dismantling Social Security for instance. That alone is reason enough to not let up on him and make it evident to him that there are many americans who vehemently disagree with his policies.

Turning their backs is not making a nuisance. It is representing the large minority of americans who took part in the 2004 elections.

Mephisto2

Fair enough

Again, a fair comment.

True. But there are more Americans who disagree(d) with Kerry's policies.

I don't have anything against protests per se. I just think that

a) The inauguration is a ceremony where the "President of the United States" is inaugurated. Not just President Bush. He's just filling in the shoes for a while.

b) That such a protect will mark an unfortunate precedent. Forever after we'll have the losing party staging silly protests because their candidate lost

c) And finally, I think this is just descending to the level and standards of the rabid right; those who carried out the witch-hunt on Clinton, those who consistenly lie in the media (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly etc).


Protest all you like. It just seems a little... inappropriate and petty to me. I always felt the liberal left, the Democrats, were above such things.

But then again, I'm an outside observer and many will be annoyed at even these observations and opinions.


Mr Mephisto

Superbelt

Yeah, and no offense but you:
1) Don't have to worry that Social Security may not be there for you 40 years from now
2) Don't have to live in the Atlantic Northeast with acid rain, lakes and stream made lethally toxic with mercury and high pH levels, Emissions from industrial and utility complexes that made our water this way are scheduled to increase threefold as a result of Bush environmental policies
3) Don't have to pay for the deficits that Bush approved for the rest of your life.
Those are just three things off the top of my head, of hundreds, as of immediate importance to my own long term health.

You can sit back and think we should be couth, but, from my perspective we can't afford to not stay on his ass.
Especially at something like this, one of the few times he comes out of his protective shell and we can actually get in his face and show him we exist.

You live in a country where your Head of State actually has to answer to the people for what he does. Our Presidents can hide behind a press secretary who can pick and choose who to answer and give the runaround on any questions.

RangerDick

This seems to be a non-issue. It was my understanding that the majority of the funds for the inauguration ceremony are composed of private and corporate donations. Granted, there currently seems to be a good amount of debate over the legitimacy of whether DC will have to use funds which were originally earmarked for "homeland security" to provide security for the event.



Because the Democrats would never do something like that, right? Uh, wrong. Compare the Repub Nat'l Convention to the Democratic Nat'l Convention. The DNC is the one who set up the "caged protest areas". Both sides do it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0726-04.htm


I believe that there is a time and a place for everything. Protests have a purpose in the political process, but I wouldn't agree with a protest at any presidential inauguration, democrat or republican.

Superbelt

I never said the Dems didn't do it too. I was very disheartened to learn that they were engaging in the same despicable tactics.
Kerry though, in his own events (The Dem Convention was not his), allowed all protesters and hecklers in.

roachboy

i still remember bush jumping into his limo and speeding past thousands of protestors last investiture, followed by the television flatbed truck---every camera off, all networks having cut to commercial.
i also remember that the security then was marketed in much the same way as this one...

they did a version of the same thing last time out too in the splitting up of protestors--which was said to be about security, but seemed more accurately about enabling television coverage that maintainted the illusion of unanimity by not showing the protestors. it was a kind of stage blocking. it was a kind of triumph of the will.


i look at this security excess as being another unintentional allegory for the inward nature of this administration---on the order of making a near-nomansland out of the area around independence hall for a while after 9/11 (so you could look at the symbol of american democracy but could not get near it) or the covering of the guernica at the un before colin powell's security council dog and pony show in the run-up to bushwar...for all their concern about opinion management, this administration seems singularly good at creating such accidental symbols of what those who do not support them find most disturbing about them.

it must be some kind of repetition compulsion.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mephisto2

This is the same old "You're not American, so why do you care?" argument used against me by the right-wing Bush supporters on this board. At least I can claim to be criticised over the same thing by both sides now!

And anyway, nothing you mention above changes the basis of my argument. I'm not against you protesting. But expect it to be used against you in turn. No matter WHO wins, there will always be a loser. By supporting this kind of protest, you open up yourself and a potential Democract President to the same kind of thing

I never questioned the issues with which you take umbrage. I question the appropriateness of this particular forum (the inauguration) for expressing said protest.

Actually no. The Australian Head of State is the Governor General, appointed by Her Majesty, Queen Elisabeth II of Australia (also known as Queen Elisabeth II of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The Govenor General is not elected, but appointed by the Government. He (or she) can dismiss the elected Government; indeed, this has already happened in recent history prompting a constitutional crisis.

However, MY head of State is the President of Ireland, as I remain an Irish citizen. She is elected by popular vote. Her constitutional powers are noteworthy, but tend to be ceremonial in nature. Her actions are usually taken under the advice of the Government, except where she can refer certain legislation (which she and her legal advisors may believe have potential to be considered unconsitutional) to the Council of State, a august body of statespeople and legal experts who can review the bill in question. This is to avoid said bills (and acts) subsequently being challenged in the Supreme Court of Ireland.

Anyway, I digress...


Agreed. And this is farcical.

Who could imagine George W Bush hosting a press conference like Tony Blair does? Unrehershed, spontaneous, untimed and unaided. He knows the main correspondents personally and answers their questions by name. He often spends longer than planned fielding these questoins and he has no press secretaries to shield him. Now, THAT'S a Statesman.

Mr Mephisto

ObieX

Isn't she also considered the Queen of Canada as well? Or was that changed at some point?

Anyway, that back-turning protest seems to be a good idea. Any inclination of a sign or naughty t-shirt and you're shuffled off to someplace else miles away. This way seems much easier and imo much stronger that some sign saying "down with Bush" or something like that.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

splck

Canada has the same setup that Mr M mentioned. The Queen, Governor General and all.

__________________
nice line eh?

Superbelt

Meph, I am not criticising you because you care. I just don't think that you grasp the full gravity of Bush's second term. At least not from my perspective and the perspective of those who will take part in this back-turning protest. I am in no way saying that your opinion is worth less than mine or that you shouldn't be a part of the conversation. Just that my experiences and proximity, I believe, changes our perception.

Thanks for clarifying about Australia, but I really did mean more the open form of government that England has. I really wish we had the accountability that Blair is forced to uphold.

Btw, the power that the British Crown still has over Australia, Canada and the ceremonial power in Britain is appalling. It sucks that someone gets to continue to make major decisions like that that affect an entire country just on account of birth. Why do the people of Australia put up with it or even see it as a positive thing?

fibber

Clinton's 2nd inauguration cost $29.6 million. Just Flamebait.

-fibber

jimbob

Surely the measure is for the security of the performers as much as for the president. What do you think those sharp shooters would do if one of the performers gave Mr Bush a long sideways glance and then moved suddenly? A dead baton thrower would mess up the whole thing, don't you think?

Not insane at all, not for the exhaltation of the president, just a sensible measure to allow the security forces to be able to identify more easily those who mean harm.

powerclown

Because you have an active fantasy life?

The_Dunedan

Once again: are you expecting a psychic attack? I mean, I know Miss Cleo is annoying as hell, but this is abit much, don't you think?
If you really think that a person as well-trained and professional as a Secret Service sniper is gonna "jump the gun" like that, you're insulting the hell out of these people. They're specifically trained to identify and neutralize concrete, actual threats: not angry protestors.

RangerDick

Therein lies the conundrum. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world were lemony gumdrops fall from the sky, and happy furry fuzzy bunnies bounce from carrot patch to carrot patch all the live long day. A person with nefarious intentions is not going to be wearing a sign around his neck that says, "Hey, check me out, I'm a real, concrete threat!!!".

Given the circumstances, I don't think that taking heightened security measures to mitigate risk during this extremely visible and historical event is unreasonable. That said, I have a hard time believing that people are being instructed to "not look at the President." There seems to be alot of overreaction to this claim. It appears that the bandwagon Bush-haters have swallowed this bit hook, line, and sinker without applying the same standards of skepticism that they apply to everything else (i.e. - the threat of Al Qaeda). If it does turn out to be true that people can't look at Bush during the inauguration, then I will be the first to gleefully join in the ridicule.

Willravel

Happy furry fuzzy bunnies DO bounce from carrot patch to carrot patch all the live long day. And therein lies the problem. People think that it is unrealistic to simply expect the expected.

This doesn't mitigate risk. As for swallowing hook, line, and sinker, we are not alone in this. Who swallowed WMDs and links from al Qaeda and Iraq again?

The_Dunedan

RD:

It's simple. If I'm an S-S sniper, and I'm looking through my 6-25x Svwarowski riflescope, and I see;

1: A baton-twirler staring at the President: Don't shoot.

2: A protestor yelling at the President: Don't shoot.

3: Someone reaching inside their jacket, while staring intently at the President and bulling through the crowd: Safety Off, Take up the slack, Hold....
3a: Above-mentioned someone taking a pistol out of his jacket: Exhale and fire.

4: A long black object, perhaps with a glint of light above it, in a location where I know none of my fellow agents are stationed: Centre my crosshair on the glint, exhale and fire.

5: Man with a rifle: Centre my crosshair on his chest, exhale and fire.

It's really fairly simple. With the 9-24x scopes the Secret Service uses, you can just about read a watch from 300 meters; threats can be easily identified based upon what they've got in their hands.

Additionally: "they've been ordered not to look directly at President Bush". Just in case you "have a hard time believing that people are being instructed to "not look at the President."