And they think that signs and posters (or old people with canes, mothers with baby strollers, or some guy with a thermos of coffee) pose a significant danger to them?

Again… quite the commentary on the state of affairs.

According to Atlantic Magazine, Bush has set the record for:
- holding the fewest press conferences of any modern president;
- staging the highest percentage of his press conferences in front of troops.

Ah, Leni, where are you now…

That was charmingly naive, coming from someone who discusses the minutae of incindiary weapons and whatnot. How does one inflict mass casualties with a cardboard sign? Even the Anarchist’s Cookbook doesn’t explain that one.

Ironically, though, shoes are not prohibited. That would indicate that your hypothesis is incorrect. Its a rather flimsy one anyway — best to put it out of its misery.

You could just admit the existence of crowd control, you know. It is practiced in many venues besides conservative events, so there is little partisan shame in its existence. Invoking terrorism as an explanation and insisting on its validity only harms your credibility.

Well, back in ‘89 or so Bush Sr. visited my hometown and my faithful Republican father secured tickets from the local party office. I vividly recall a man holding up a sign — something about English-Irish relations — for a few moments before being whisked away by the suits. He wasn’t disruptive, other than perhaps obstructing the view of the people immediately behind him. But he was interfering in a PR event and its carefully-constructed image.

The curtailing of expression has been practiced for some time now — only now Terror is invoked to justify increasing heavy-handedness. Many swallow that easy excuse without pausing for critical examination.

Interesting, comparing the fourty-million dollar security team that locked down Washington today to the small procession of security people that were used during the thrown speech.

I agree that while you couldn’t have walked into the gallery with an “Anti-Clarkson” sign, you could have stood outside with one, and not been bothered. In Washington today, only Bush supporters were allowed anywhere near any of the places that Bush would pass through. Two thousand police officers were bused in from various cities, because WASHINGTON didn’t have enough officers to deal with the massive security requirements.

Ottawa has only ever been that heavily fortified once, a few months back when Bush visited.

Yes, you’re correct, in fact Halifax also had extensive security deployed a few months ago when a foreign leader visited, now…if I could just remember who that was…..oh yeah, that was also Bush.

Oh, 1997. You mean during the boom years, when the economy was bursting, the US was in peacetime, and the budget deficit curtailed?

Very poor example. The people criticizing the cost (which is not the point of this thread, I might add) are upset about the State of the Union in which the celebration was held.

Yes, it brings those festive Soviet parades to mind. Rank upon rank of vehicles that served no other purpose than parading, as there was no money to maintain the equipment for military use. It was all a matter of keeping up appearances.

Those sorts would certainly have approved of the security arrangements, too.

Uh…yeah…whatever. All teary-eyed and nostalgic for Stalin again?

“Uh…yeah…whatever. All teary-eyed and nostalgic for Stalin again?”

That’s a few times this week now. Okay, IrC, I will start using the [humour] and [irony] tags again.

>Correction to comment #17:

>The 1997 inauguration actually cost $29.7 million

What part of “I just read a claim that Clinton’s 1993 inauguration was $33M, which supposedly adjusts to more than $40M in current dollars.” was unclear?

I understand you have provided real numbers for 1997; what puzzles me is why you advertise them as a correction to post #17 which mentions the numbers for 1993.

As I wrote, a claim. If the author confused “raised” with “spent”, then it’s entirely probable the 1993 inauguration cost $25M.

There has been much excessive security in the past few years at political events in the US to prevent protest. Perhaps the powers in charge are intolerant of dissent; perhaps they don’t care to deal with another “Battle in Seattle” display of conduct; or perhaps some other reasons are at stake.