quote:Largely forgotten in the wake of Sept. 11 is what happened Sept. 5, when President and Mrs. George W. Bush hosted their first state dinner. The evening was capped with a fireworks display kept secret from the public until the last minute because the White House feared citizens would gather to watch and deemed that "a security concern." Although taxpayers were sent the six-figure tab, they were prevented from enjoying the show.
This is important because it demonstrates that the Bushes' willingness to co-opt public festivities as private entertainment predates the terrorists' attacks. So when they refuse to let the people who pay for lavish White House Christmas decorations see them; when they restrict the National Christmas tree lighting ceremony to invited guests and let the public view only from a guarded pen; as they bar from the White House all tourists except photogenic schoolchildren, it is fair to recall their prewar preference for keeping the unbidden at bay.
Bush defends such extreme precaution by saying he is acting on the advice of the Secret Service, which is like a principal saying, "On the advice of students, we will no longer assign homework." Of course the Secret Service wants the White House closed, along with the streets around it and the skies above. The more isolated the president, the easier their job. That is an inadequate reason for the White House doors to close on an open society.
Tourists in the White House pose a nonexistent threat statistically. Tens of millions have passed through the state rooms for 200 years without incident. Moreover, the risk was greater before Sept. 11, when terrorists were operating freely. Now, thousands of them are under arrest, their network is disrupted and Americans are on alert.
The argument that old rules don't apply because the world became new on Sept. 11 is specious. Terrorists using airplanes as bombs is novel, but it's merely a new twist on an old story. It was a new world when the hoplites learned to charge in formation. Life changed forever with the invention of gunpowder and TNT and the H-bomb and germ warfare. History is, in large part, the story of aggression's innovation. Truncating freedom cannot stop or turn back hostility's advancement.
Requiring, for instance, that every prospective visitor submit a Social Security number beforehand for a background check would do nothing but create a time-consuming hassle for law-abiding Americans: Foreigners can't be tracked through Social Security numbers, and criminals use bogus ID.
Shutting Americans out of the White House is a stunning presidential rebuke, particularly in light of recent events. In 1994, when a gunman began firing at the White House from Pennsylvania Avenue, he wasn't subdued by the Secret Service but by three citizens. Tragedy was averted in December when Americans on a flight from Paris overpowered a terrorist trying to ignite explosives in his shoes. The U.S. Capitol may well be standing today not because of Jersey barriers or metal detectors or armed guards but because Americans aboard an airplane bound to destroy it died thwarting that mission.
In his inaugural address, Bush pledged to make "the determined choice of trust over cynicism." Americans have proven worthy of that. President, heed thyself.
posted
I don't mind added security and I don't even mind things like the White House being closed for security reasons. I do mind the idea that there are six-figure festivities going on on a regular basis and that those things are being charged to the public while not so much as being shared by the public let alone being agreed on by the public.
It puts one in mind of the kingdoms of the middle ages where royalty and invited dignitaries enjoyed the best of life while the hoi polloi where kept on the other side of the gate...
posted
Who was it that put up those concrete barricades along the street in front of the White House? I forget...
Really, I don't see that any of this is 'new' even to this president. Access has always been restricted. Seems I recall W's gone on a lot of public outings, too. I remember the X-Mas shopping trip. It's not as though he's locked in the White House.
I think it's highly spurious to suggest that a State Dinner is a 'public' function. Joe Smith certainly couldn't walk off the street in his jeans and T-shirt and get in.
quote: Requiring, for instance, that every prospective visitor submit a Social Security number beforehand for a background check would do nothing but create a time-consuming hassle for law-abiding Americans
Hmm... background checks are time-consuming hassles for law-abiding americans. I'll remember that one when the gun debate rears its ugly head again. (just kidding, let's not open that box again so soon).
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Who was it that put up those concrete barricades along the street in front of the White House? I forget...
Horrible arguement to make, Rob, especially since that had nothing to do with restricting access to the White House. Tours continued ... people just couldn't drive past.
quote:Seems I recall W's gone on a lot of public outings, too ... It's not as though he's locked in the White House.
Uh, I'd like for you to read the article. It's specificly about NO TOURS, not about W's travel schedule!
quote:Hmm... background checks are time-consuming hassles for law-abiding americans.
Unreasonable background checks ARE time-consuming hassles. These people don't want to buy a gun, they want to tour a building they've paid for. There are no problems with submitting to searches, removing shoes, walking through X-Rays and the rest. You need to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is not.
posted
Ah, you're right. (Damn.) If we're just talking about tours (although I don't think that State Dinner qualifies as a tour, do you?), then that's different.
Still, as a person who has no desire to be in the white house unless I'm residing in it, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
quote:You need to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is not.
I say I AM.
Law-abiding, paid for the building. Law-abiding, paid for the gun. Not planning on doing anything illegal in/with either. What's the difference?
Wait. I agree with background checks for criminal records. They shouldn't let crooks in the white house... we've had enough there already. (don't get mad.. I'm including Nixon).
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Still, as a person who has no desire to be in the white house unless I'm residing in it, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
::shrug:: People like to take tours of famous buildings. You're right in that the White House tour is nothing special (been on it), but some people like to go see the Christmas gifts or what not.
quote:Law-abiding, paid for the building. Law-abiding, paid for the gun. Not planning on doing anything illegal in/with either. What's the difference?
The difference is that an entire Federal agency is devoted to keeping that building and its occupants safe. Someone who comes to the White House is completely controlled by the Secret Service at all times. Handguns are privately owned -- one way of preventing them from being used in an illegal manner is background checks, etc. Certainly not neccessary for White House tours, where any visitor will be screened for any weapons or devices before they enter (and as tough as the scans were the last time I was through, I'm sure they'll be a lot more stringent when the House reopens).
posted
I took a tour of the White House about a week before September 11th.
My fiance and I were in D.C. for a wedding. We had a day or so before the wedding event and had orderd tickets with the help of my soon to be brother-in-law who is one of the fitness trainers for Congress.
Anyway the tour was cool enough...cleary all fit for public consumtion. But it was nice to be there. Considering how wide open the White House and the office of president used to the public (for a time, the White House was open to the public for a 'after the inagural' gathering and Andrew Jackson actually had to move the punch bowl out on the lawn to get the mass of people out...then replace a whole lot of furniture...and Lincoln had a set time to meet with people who lined up while he was dealing with a rebellion), it's kind of hard to see it as 'the people's house' any more.
It occures to me that the 'people' are not part of the equation and have been replaced by 'privilege'. At some point, saftey and security other concerns have arrogated the role of the people in various institutions and special interests have moved in.
Anyway, we got back and the next day my mom calls and wakes me up and the towers are on fire. Then we think, oi, not only were we among the last groups in the White House, but we were flying a day or two before the 11th and if could have been us.
[ February 05, 2002, 21:30: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I went on a tour of Graceland, and boy, the security there was intense. You haven't seen a man uneasy until he's been well frisked by an Elvis impersonator who smells like tuna.
The Government has always spent far too much money on everything it has ever done. Why is it a suprise to find that they spend thousands of dollars of Our money on christmas lights, too?
It's the same to me as the Army brass spending $15,000 on a fucking hammer, or the Navy blowing eight grand on a pair of aviator goggles.
This is a government that has spend over thirty thousand dollars funding a study measuring how fast ketchup flows out of different shaped bottlenecks.
In the case of the hammer and the aviator goggles, I think everybody knows that that money is going into black ops of some sort. We just don't talk about it.
In the case of the thirty thousand dollar ketchup study, I think we all know that some filthy punk probably conned the Government into it somehow.
In the case of the fireworks display mentioned in the article, I think we all know the truth as well: Bush liked the pretty lights. They go BOOM!
quote:Originally posted by thoughtcriminal84: The Government has always spent far too much money on everything it has ever done. Why is it a suprise to find that they spend thousands of dollars of Our money on christmas lights, too?
It's the same to me as the Army brass spending $15,000 on a fucking hammer, or the Navy blowing eight grand on a pair of aviator goggles.
This is a government that has spend over thirty thousand dollars funding a study measuring how fast ketchup flows out of different shaped bottlenecks.
In the case of the hammer and the aviator goggles, I think everybody knows that that money is going into black ops of some sort. We just don't talk about it.
I've always heard people say that the "military spends thousands of dollars on [insert rediculously cheap item here] unecessarily." as if it were absolute infallable truth. To be honest, I doubt that the government would spend that much on a hammer and risk some accountant or interested citizen say "Hey, wait a second, hammers doen't sell for that much at Home Depot!"
As far as using it for secret purposes, such as a "black op," that as well is hard to verify. Until somebody provides me with some hard evidence, like a paper trail, then it is all speculation. Hell, for all we know its being used benevolently.
-------------------- Move .sig!!
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
According to one of my teachers, that sort of thing comes about from a high-ranking person picking up a hammer or whatever and saying "Get us 500 hammers exactly like this.", and it's taken literally, so millions of dollars are spent making hammers exactly like that one, down to micrometer measurements and such.
I don't know if it's true, but it's one theory, anyway.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The trick to getting price-inflation past the government is technobabble... some contractors are masters of it. The Gov. employees are way more willing to pay for things that SOUND expensive.
It's not a "hammer," it's a "Low-frequency multi purpose impact stimulator Model HY-600."
I am skilled at creating Variable-trajectory organo/synthesized manually-launched airborne vehicles.
Also at making paper planes.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(just kidding, let's not open that box again so soon).![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(don't get mad.. I'm including Nixon).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
