Quarantining Dissent

[Makalakumu]

This is all speculation, opinion....sand pounding yet again. What are you going to do about it if you are so upset?

I am unfamiliar with the term sand pounding...sounds like something you do in kung fu.

As far as what to do...how about get arrested - refuse to obey a decree you don't belive in. How about putting on a pro-bush shirt, get into the front row at a pro-bush rally, then take it off revealing a different shirt underneath? How about voting for someone else? How about proposing a city ordinance which bans "free speech zones"? How about writing letters to the local paper? How about writing an opinion peice for the local paper? How about discuss this issue with your peers? How about discussing it with strangers on the internet? How about trying to convince others that your position is correct? How about trying to understand both sides of the issue?

Rest assured that the rest of my congregation is doing much more then just whining on the internet. There was a rally up here when Paul Wellstone was running. Dick Cheney himself came to hold a counter rally - complete with free speech zones. Guess where I was...

 

[michaeledward]

Wouldn't you think that all of the people who have chimed in on the side opposite yours would have some experience that is at least equal to yours? The argument bears consideration even by the most skeptical and the most idealogous. Just as your argument bears consideration.

You know, I don't think I agree. As rmcrobertson has pointed out, it was an old lady, well known in the community, wheel-chair bound.

Experience in security be damned. How about we employ a little common sense.

Paul is arguing that security of the President is the utmost importance, it should out weigh all other factors. Well, I don't know if that is true. The founders built into the constitution a line of succession. It has been used many times through the life of our nation.

Regardless of the safety concerns for George W. Bush, the President, the Presidency would go on ... Dick Cheney, Dennis Hasterat, Ted Stevens, Colin Powell, etc etc.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

OK, this is priceless. It has been years since I have been up late enough to see Letterman. But you gotta watch the clip. This article was taken from 'The Nation' web site, authored by Matt Bivens, I believe.

If you missed the footage of the 12-year-old Florida boy who sleepily shared a stage with George W. Bush, you can view it here (or read about it, and see some still photos from it, here).

It's very funny, which was why it made the "Late Show with David Letterman": While the President drones on from the podium, the young man standing a few feet behind him in khaki shorts, a black polo shirt and an orange baseball cap goes through some jaw-unhinging yawns (without covering his mouth because his hands are in his back pockets), lolls his head around to loosen up a stiff neck, claps and yawns, claps and checks his watch and yawns; and then, as things grow progressively more desperate for him, engages in must-stay-awake stretch exercises; takes a knee for a time; and ultimately seems to fall asleep while standing, only partially waking up when the applause starts again -- at which point he smiles sleepily and claps with everyone else.

Pretty amusing stuff, right?

Wrong!

There is no laughing at the President of the United States!

CNN the following morning picked up the Letterman footage, for fun, but then began to assert it had heard from the White House the footage was fake. Letterman responded in outrage; CNN then backpedaled, saying the footage was real -- and also now denying that it had ever heard from the White House. Letterman's website counters that "our source, a very good source, confirms the White House DID call CNN." Who to belive? Me, I'd say "Letterman" has the better ethics track record.

So what started out as a chuckle becomes yet another weird suggestion that no criticism of any kind, not even a 12-year-old's yawn, can slip unchallenged beneath the Bush-Cheney radar. The good news is that, rather than destroy this particular critic (who apparently had the good sense of proportion to have laughed uproariously when shown his own antics), the White House is chucking him under the chin and adopting him.

As The Washington Post reports today, "The White House, trying to get out in front of the Yawning Boy story, is now in charge of media access to the young man."

He's even going on "Letterman" tonight -- because as White House assistant press secretary Reed Dickens tells The Post, "He's a young person who strongly supports the president and is excited about getting a chance to talk about it."

As to the fun at the President's expense, Dickens adds, "We think it's all in good nature, very good-humored."

Sure, that's what they say now. But the boy's father -- Richard Crotty, the chairman of Orange County, Florida, and a major Bush fund-raiser -- was initially pretty uneasy. An Orlando Sentinel columnist who spoke with him reports dad was "more than a bit anxious about the incident":

"I accept full responsibility for that," Crotty told Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell. "His mother was out of town, and I let him stay up too late. I should have prepped him better." (To which Maxwell replies incredulously, "Prepped him? Come on, chairman. He's a 12-year-old, not Karl Rove.")

Letterman's take, meanwhile: "This whole thing just smells. Doesn't it smell a little bit?"

"I mean, it just seems all just a little too tidy, just a little too neat. And now, the guy, the kid in Florida -- and his old man -- was really upset in the beginning. ... Well, now everybody down there loves it. Everybody couldn't be happier; everybody thought it was hilarious. So you see, it's just a little too tidy. Stuff like this never ends happily, certainly not happily for me. I was waiting for the lawsuit, I was waiting to be arrested, I was waiting to be beaten to a pulp, and now, oh ... we couldn't be happier."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Top Ten Reasons For Wrestling That Little Old Lady To The Ground:

10. She was really Al Gore, and might've been hiding a Hanging Chad.
9. Geritol is the Basque word for, "plastique."
8. Letterman's heart surgery was a cover-up for the implantation of a Liberal Control Device (LCD). They're everywhere.
7. George saw, "Day of the Jackal," and you can make all SORTS a' **** from aluminum tubing.
6. National Security demands overrode Discount Tuesdays at Ross'.
5. There was an unsubstantiated rumor that she'd been in the Texas ANG.
4. Two words---A-Rod.
3. Kenpo doesn't include ground-fighting.
2. She wasn't wrestled down. She was ducking Condoleeza's front teeth.

And the Number One reason For Wrestling That Little Old lady To the Ground:

1. We can WIN the war in Vietnam!!!

 

[loki09789]

"Paul is arguing that security of the President is the utmost importance, it should out weigh all other factors."

This has not been my point, nor my opinion through this discussion. My point has been that I am looking at the practice of 'free speech zones' and considering whether it is politically motivated or if it is a security measure and I am saying that I see it as a security measure. Maybe a poorly chosen practice when you consider the public perception, but a security SOP none the less.

If others want to disagree or say that I am not exercising common sense, fine. Don't forget that it was local cops who moved the granny, not Secret Service or the POTUS.

I don't see too much 'open' consideration of security theories - or knowledge of protective services job descriptions/sciences, delegations of responsibility above, at and below the Secret Service Protective assigned authority or crisis command and control. I feel that your versions of 'common sense' on this are not concretely convincing either. Oh well.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Free speech zones?"

"Security concerns?"

"Crisis command and control?"

Really, nothing I could say could possibly make the point clearer.

 

[michaeledward]

This has not been my point, nor my opinion through this discussion. My point has been that I am looking at the practice of 'free speech zones' and considering whether it is politically motivated or if it is a security measure and I am saying that I see it as a security measure. Maybe a poorly chosen practice when you consider the public perception, but a security SOP none the less.

If others want to disagree or say that I am not exercising common sense, fine. Don't forget that it was local cops who moved the granny, not Secret Service or the POTUS.

I don't see too much 'open' consideration of security theories - or knowledge of protective services job descriptions/sciences, delegations of responsibility above, at and below the Secret Service Protective assigned authority or crisis command and control. I feel that your versions of 'common sense' on this are not concretely convincing either. Oh well.

Ok ... I'm sorry if I mis-characterized your opinion.

I think I have to agree with you, that for safety sake, there must be such a thing as a 'Free Speech Zone'. I think that zone should be defined by the boundaries of the United States of America. I am guaranteed the existence of that zone by the First Amendment to the constitution.

Any infringement on the right to express the Freedom of Speech should be rallied against by all citizens who wish to uphold the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States swears an oath to defend that right Against All Enemies.

Paul, I don't know what your position on the second amendement is, but many who defend that amendment do so with a furor that is unmatched in the defense of this first amendment discussion.

And while you continue to point out that it was the Nashua Police Department that arrested Betty, (and she was actually detained in the Hudson Police Departement), do you believe that the Local PD took that action without the guidence of the Secret Service?

There was an interesting letter in the local paper today basically putting forth your same argument. For the next couple of days, you can find it at the link below. The author states that she was at the "Ground Round Parking Lot". This location is approximately 1.1 miles away from where the President was speaking (at an invitation only event, by the way). At best, the Presidential motorcade might have chosen that direction to continue to Boston. Again, the author does not mention that the Police had asked Betty to move twice, and twice she complied.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040403/OPINION02/204030306/-1/opinion

From a safety point of view, let me say this. The President is perhaps the most well protected man on the planet. The Secret Service is the best organization of its kind in the world. The citizens lining the roadway pose little threat that these professionals can't handle. But could there be something else at work?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I think you are being unfair. Personally, I TRUST Bush, Ashcroft et al with my civil liberties...is there a Smiley for explosive laughter?

Actually, what I find remarkable in this discussion isn't the political difference. That's to be expected. It's the extraordinary convolutions some are going through to justify this nonsense...lotsa acronyms, pseudo-technical language, casuistry, hypotheticals, etc....and just as remarkable, all from the same people who constantly accuse the likes of me of being too abstract, too theoretical, too impractical, too fancy-pants disconnected from the real world.

Which is why I keep bringing up the embarassing plain reality: this is cops dragging an old lady in a wheelchair off to jail, so that the Prez didn't have to Feel Bad about her protest, or risk the slightest embarassment when she showed up on the evening news.

It is in fact an absolutely-shameful thing to have done, and its justification is a beautiful example of intellectual bankruptcy.

Usually I do not have the motives that other posters keep attributing based on their fantasy. But in this case...this is wrong, and those who make excuses for it should be ashamed of themselves.

Call me old-fashioned; I don't care WHAT the political message is, and I don't give a damn how much some wealthy and powerful man feels embarassed or might feel embarassed.

It is wrong to have the cops haul some old lady off to jail simply for protest, and I don't give a damn who she's protesting against or what her cause is. If somebody can't see that...well, shame on them.

 

[MisterMike]

1. She wasn't hauled off just for protest.
2. Are old men still subject to the law or can they ignore it too?
3. What about younger women?

Is there a clause for a 49 year old non smoking male making under 35,000?

 

[michaeledward]

Exercising your right to free speech can be a painful stretch

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published: Sunday, Apr. 4, 2004[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fascism is alive and well in New Hampshire.

Today (March 25), I, along with approximately 50 other Bush protesters, gathered near the New Hampshire Community Technical College-Nashua on Amherst Street. I arrived on the school site around 11:15 a.m. to voice my overwhelming distaste for Bush, who was due to arrive at noon ­- at taxpayers’ expense - prior to a campaign fund-raiser in Boston. (This is what the president does to defray dipping into his considerable war chest on his million-dollar campaign fund-raising outings.)

Several policemen approached the early protesters demanding that we move off the so-called “private property” of the school. I politely told the police that the school was not a private school, and as taxpayers and citizens we had a right to voice dissent to Bush’s forthcoming visit. They told us that the Secret Service demanded that we get off the property. I never saw a Secret Service agent, only Nashua policeman and several Nashua detectives. Words fired back and forth and we all moved peacefully across the side street from the school. Gradually, more activists arrived - union workers, peace people, lots of former Dean supporters, Kucinich youngsters, Kerry people, Bushwhackers, etc. Thirty minutes later we were told to move from the side street to the area across Amherst Street in front of the 7-Eleven/Citgo station or in front of the Fleet Bank. Again, we politely addressed our rights to peaceful assembling but were told we had to move or be arrested. We were told that the Secret Service had the right to demand that an area up to one mile be cleared, if necessary.

Dutifully and peacefully we all moved. Several print media press and cameras were present.

After about an hour or so of standing in the 7-Eleven/Fleet Bank area, the police demanded that we stand 20 feet away from the sidewalk. Naturally, there was not an area 20 feet away to move to. We would then be inside the 7-Eleven or the bank. Then they instructed us to move to the far side corner of Fleet Bank area. Howard Morse of Amherst and Valerie Farrell of Merrimack stood their ground and refused to move. They were arrested and taken to the police station. We all booed the arrests and continued to gather peacefully.

Shortly afterward, Betty Hall of Brookline, a former state representative, refused to move for the second time. She was sitting on her walking cane that has a seat attachment. Two policeman picked her up on her cane seat and took her to a patrol car. We all yelled in support of Betty and chanted police brutality for arresting an elderly woman. Betty is 83 years young and a consummate inspiration to us all.

The police then roped off the area where we could stand with glaring yellow plastic tape inscribed with “Nashua Police Crime Scene.” One policeman jokingly said they were fresh out of tape saying “Protest Scene.” Naturally, the only crime I could see was the blatant injustices that were occurring in our midst as I envisioned living in a totalitarian state.

During this time, the most surreal thing occurred. The normally robust and busy Amherst Street looked like a still shot out of a science fiction movie - not a car was in sight except police vehicles. Overhead in the sky was a military helicopter. A fellow protester jokingly told us not to make any sudden moves or we might be shot down by a Blackhawk helicopter. It was as if time stood still. For nearly 15 minutes,

Amherst Street was barren. Suddenly there was a flash of light approaching from the south - Bush’s motorcade of 17 cars all at taxpayers expense.

Upon seeing the motorcade, the emotional venom I possessed for Bush spilled forward. I started yelling “Down with Bush, Impeach Bush, Bush lied-Soldiers died, Liar- liar pants on fire, Draft dodger, Bush is a weapon of mass destruction, etc.” - any despicable political phrase I could think of. Everyone around me was yelling as well.

I lost my voice and still continued to screech out words I could barely comprehend. My angst and, of course, my blood pressure was at a boiling point. Never have I disliked anyone so much in my life. Never had I felt so violated.

After the motorcade disappeared to the far side of the school and out of sight, we all hugged one another and disbanded.

Tonight, I watched several local news telecasts and saw no footage of the protesters at the vocational school. One news telecast did report that three protesters were arrested, but showed footage of the stockpile of snow plows at the Route 3 tollbooths in preparation for Bush’s visit. Bush’s visit was well-covered on the inside of the school, as was his photo op with a 9/11 widow. Once again, our voices of dissent were silenced.

I’m exhausted, but thought I had better write the details of a day in the life of an activist before having a glass of wine and going to sleep, deeply troubled over fascism’s encroachment.

Gloria Henry is a Nashua resident.

[/font]

 

[rmcrobertson]

I continue to post on this thread because I am absolutely astonished by the doublethink.

OK, MM, what exactly had she done? Show up? I notice they don't seem to be hauling, say, the average anti-abortion protester away, for all that movement's overt connections to violence.

It is absolutely astonishing to see that writers who so often wave the flag, and go off about the Left's denial of civil liberties, find dragging protesters off to jail and curtailing free speech raises absolutely no problems for them. As for why it matters that this one was elderly...a) it exposes that whole silly set of claims about, "security," for the nonsense that it is; b) it illustrates that the whole pseudo-conservative line I keep reading about "common sense," goes right out the window when the writer dislikes the politics of the one exercising their rights; c) it illustrates just why a shameful argument is shameful; d) it suggests that NO act, no matter how loony, on the part of the Bush government will be opposed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I always thought the reason so many have so often given so much, and many many times given all, was so that we the people could have the freedoms to speak, express, protest, disent and debate.

Seems that over the last few years, too many people are too willing to throw those rights away...all in the name of 'security'.

And, its good to know that even though guns and knives still get onto planes, terrorism is alive and well, violent crimes are contants in the news....that the US is being protected against the true! source of evil...

Old Women.

First was that upity woman who wouldn't give up her seat all those years ago....and now, yet another old woman who wouldn't give up her seat.

I'm glad to know that the largest threats to the US aren't Osama bin-boohy, the Hells Angels, the Colimbian Cartel or any of hundreds of similar dangers.

Its Aunt Frita and her knitting needles.

It could be all out war if the Bingo brigade gets between those valient defenders of freedom......and the last jelly at Tim Hortons.....

Armagedon! I'd say call out the National Guard, but I believe they are all busy pushing the frontiers of the Imperium forward.

:rofl:

Now...back to seriousness for 1 second....
W don't read the newspaper. Neither did Slick. They depend on their advisors for the informational summaries they use for their decisions.

What happens when those summaries omit important information, either through accident or malice? What happens when that information is wrong?

Oh wait....we do know.
9/11....Afgahnistan....Iraq....and those WMD that were just here a moment ago.....

Unlike a certain upserper-in-chief.... I aint laughing at that.

 

[loki09789]

"...After about an hour or so of standing in the 7-Eleven/Fleet Bank area, the police demanded that we stand 20 feet away from the sidewalk. Naturally, there was not an area 20 feet away to move to. We would then be inside the 7-Eleven or the bank. Then they instructed us to move to the far side corner of Fleet Bank area. Howard Morse of Amherst and Valerie Farrell of Merrimack stood their ground and refused to move. They were arrested and taken to the police station. We all booed the arrests and continued to gather peacefully.

Shortly afterward, Betty Hall of Brookline, a former state representative, refused to move for the second time. She was sitting on her walking cane that has a seat attachment. Two policeman picked her up on her cane seat and took her to a patrol car. We all yelled in support of Betty and chanted police brutality for arresting an elderly woman. Betty is 83 years young and a consummate inspiration to us all.

The police then roped off the area where we could stand with glaring yellow plastic tape inscribed with “Nashua Police Crime Scene.” One policeman jokingly said they were fresh out of tape saying “Protest Scene.” Naturally, the only crime I could see was the blatant injustices that were occurring in our midst as I envisioned living in a totalitarian state.

During this time, the most surreal thing occurred. The normally robust and busy Amherst Street looked like a still shot out of a science fiction movie - not a car was in sight except police vehicles. Overhead in the sky was a military helicopter. A fellow protester jokingly told us not to make any sudden moves or we might be shot down by a Blackhawk helicopter. It was as if time stood still. For nearly 15 minutes,

Amherst Street was barren. Suddenly there was a flash of light approaching from the south - Bush’s motorcade of 17 cars all at taxpayers expense.

Upon seeing the motorcade, the emotional venom I possessed for Bush spilled forward. I started yelling “Down with Bush, Impeach Bush, Bush lied-Soldiers died, Liar- liar pants on fire, Draft dodger, Bush is a weapon of mass destruction, etc.” - any despicable political phrase I could think of. Everyone around me was yelling as well.

I lost my voice and still continued to screech out words I could barely comprehend. My angst and, of course, my blood pressure was at a boiling point. Never have I disliked anyone so much in my life. Never had I felt so violated.

After the motorcade disappeared to the far side of the school and out of sight, we all hugged one another and disbanded."

So the cops, in accordance with maintaining a safety zone for a motorcade, moved a crowd, and as the motorcade either moved or was anticipated to move through an area continued to move the crowd back. The crowd was getting lippy - using political protest as a justification to refuse compliance and frustration for having to move again when a former state rep - use to being recognized and treated with some form of preference decided to make a stand and was arrested. Based on this, the author of the article decides to responded with 'emotional venom for Bush....' using 'despicible political phrases' with the rest of the crowd shouting around him.... mob mentallity?

From a security point of view, this sounds like a biased presentation from an emotionally upset person who already had a problem with the POTUS and found convenient excuse to lump one more log on the 'f*** Bush' fire because he didn't like having to move. He even resorted to inflammatory statements - not because of political values, or reform or raising awareness but emotional venom - the same person who will end up voting his 'moral values.' What would be the next step, throwing things? Sitting in the road to prove a point?

It doesn't sound like the motorcade was coasting while Bush was giving the princess wave with his head out of the sun roof. It does sound like it was a motorcade trying to get from point A to point B with minimal interference. Was there any mention of 'pro-Bush' demonstrators getting preferencial treatment... no, just a single persons emotional account.

This was a MOTORCADE on the roll. THe basic SOP of a motorcade with a principle is that you do not stop. If the local police, in support of the security team, was ensuring this so be it.

 

[MisterMike]

I continue to post on this thread because I am absolutely astonished by the doublethink.

OK, MM, what exactly had she done? Show up? I notice they don't seem to be hauling, say, the average anti-abortion protester away, for all that movement's overt connections to violence.

I think she was encroaching on an unaproved zone. What's good for the goose is good for the gooses, right?

Oh, don't they have the same type of zones for the abortion protestors as well. Funny how we now have to lump in these political left-wing fanatics with the anti-abortion activists as they are obviously just as violent from the crap they spout off. (Not to mention the car tipping, broken windows, riots and other vandalous activities as seen from "protestors")

By the way, I'd argue the same point for the guy in the NRA tee-shirt shouting at the edge of the lawn about the continuation of our infringed gun rights under President Bush. Care to take on my questions now? Since you argued so fervishly to defend an old woman (read: left-wing nutjob), I guess you could explain why younger men being arrested would not get you so huffed up.

 

[michaeledward]

Care to take on my questions now? Since you argued so fervishly to defend an old woman (read: left-wing nutjob), I guess you could explain why younger men being arrested would not get you so huffed up.

I am just as upset about the other two people who were arrested. And had I been in town, I too probably would have been arrested. Seems to me, before Bush, Cheney & Ashcroft, this country had a First Amendment to the Constitution. As I recall, it said something about
* Freedom of Speech
* Peaceable Assembly
* Petition the Government for Redress of Grievences

All of these things were denied. Call it security if you will, but that is not what was going on.

FYI - there were no reports of Pro-Bush supporters in the paper, although I did mention a writer to the paper who claimed that security trumped free speech.

A bit later tonight, I may post the thoughts of John Dean, from his new book 'Worse than Watergate' - a comparison between Nixon & Bush II. There was a couple of paragraphs that graphically describe his point of view on this issue.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

This is the text from pages 64 & 65 of John W. Dean's 'Worse than Watergate" --- so far I have found it an interesting read. Any spelling errors are mine.

As part of its image control, the Bush II administration has embraced a truly malevoent Nixonian tactic to deal with public dissent. Aside from selecting only venues that Bush and Cheney can control and manipulate the setting (potted plants here and floodlights there) and audience (please take off your neckties, gentlemen, and look casual standing behind the president), there is always the problem of getting to and from such protected venues. Bush and Cheney take extreme measures to avoid being confronted with public protest, just as Nixon did.

Nixon's intolerance became evident, for me, when traveling with him. All the antiwar demonstrators were remvoed from the route of his motorcade, and when on one occasion a few chanting protesters made their way to a location near his hotel, Nixon angrily ordered the Secret Service to remove them. Similarly, Nixon one day happened to look out a window of the White House second-floor residence and noticed a single silent demonstrator across Pennsylvania Avenue, carrying an 'End The War' sign in Lafayette Park. Nixon ordered the Secret Service to remove the man. By late 1972, I appreciated that these were not isolated incidents by rather part of a widespread use of illegal tactics and ploys by White House advance men and the Secret service to keep demonstrators out of the president's sight (and the view of news cameras). These activities were fraught with civil rights and criminal implications, but the president simply did not care. This systematic denial of First Amendment rights was about to explode into its own scandal, when the Watergate cover-up imploded, preempting and burying everything else. Still, civil lawsuits made very unpleasant headlines, and the practice was investigated, and reported on, by the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (the Senate Watergate Committee), which expressed its dim views about White House operations blocking "undesireables" from attending Nixon rallies by using "cowboys" who "let things happen" if the Secret Service or local police failed to remove demonstrators. As I recall, the civil suits were settled by paying off the copmlaining parties with campaign funds.

When traveling the United States, Bush also uses his advance men and the Secret Service to remove demonstrators from his sight - nothwithstanding the stink raised and lawsuits filed during Watergate, and its obvious illegality. Bush's White House has revived this unconstitutional practice by claiming, as did the Nixon White House, that it is necessary for presidential protection*. Bush has pushed it so far that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuite (in late September 2003) alleging that the Secret Service has on not less than seventeen occasions, from California to New Mexico, Missouri, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, forced groups and individuals into what are euphemistically called "free speech areas," which are always located blocks from a Bush or Cheney motorcade or speaking venue. In addition, under the pretext of presidential protection, demonstrators are being arrested, and even prosecuted, by Bush under an arcane federal law adopted to hide demonstrators from Nixon. This is the criminalization of dissent.

*This was a bogus claim during the Nixon years, and it remains bogus. Those likely to create presidential-protection problems do everything they can to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Sign-carrying demonstrators are no more dangerous than brass bands that greet presidents, if not less so, because demonstrators typically must have a permit, requiring valid identification.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Bush has pushed it so far that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuite (in late September 2003) alleging that the Secret Service has on not less than seventeen occasions, from California to New Mexico, Missouri, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, forced groups and individuals into what are euphemistically called "free speech areas," which are always located blocks from a Bush or Cheney motorcade or speaking venue

Now that is interesting because I don't think I have ever read anything about these suits in the papers or seen anything about them on TV.

 

[8253]

politics politics politics

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, I get it. We now have to protect, "motorcade exclusion zones." And it's perfectly OK to haul old ladies off, if we don't like their presence or their politics.

These arguments are shameful, and an extraordinary exposure of intellectual bankruptcy--up there with Scalia. Doesn't matter what the violation of free speech, the Bill of Rights, American tradition or for that matter common sense and traditional manners (gee, when I grew up in the Fifties, elderly people were deferred to no matter what...guess times have changed, and morals and courtesy have declined among these young folks), ya don't like their politics, screw 'em.

Kids, free speech is defended to guarantee everybody's rights to say what is unpopular. Americans USED to understand that; what's up with the trashing of traditional values?

I continue to be astonished by the doublethink, the proliferation of pseudo-expert militaristic terminology, and the deployment of "knowledgeable," acronyms and abbreviations.


To quote Robert Heinlein, "profanity was too weak."

It's bushwa.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bush is only doing what Nixon did.