This is a collumn I wrote for my school paper about the inauguration...tell me what you think. Keep in mind that since the paper went out this morning (meaning it went to bed at 5 PM wednesday, and I barely made deadline), I had to write it earlier this week, before the inauguration, but put it in the past tense, so it'll sound a little awkward. Anyway, here it is:

FOUR MORE YEARS OF THIS?

Federal officers are patrolling the Capitol and the Washington Monument with assault rifles. Snipers are positioned on rooftops. Undercover police are positioned along Pennsylvania Avenue to “work the crowd”. In the city of Washington, DC, the world’s shining example of democracy, you aren’t allowed to stand on the same street as our glorious leader unless you bought a ticket. Ironic? You bet it is. This was the paradox presented to the American people at yesterday’s Presidential inauguration.

Now, I can understand wanting to be cautious. I mean, this guy is the leader of the free world, and there are people out there who want to hurt him (and the rest of the country, while they’re at it). But security at this year’s inauguration was out of control. The no-fly zone protecting DC from airplane attacks has been tripled; it now extends north all the way through Baltimore, and south into northern Virginia. Extensive road closures all over that part of DC presented a hassle for people who live and work there. The Smithsonian and Archives/National Memorial Metro stations were closed all day. Concrete barriers and armed guards surrounded the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, and other important sites. More than 40 federal agencies worked together to make sure that this is the tightest security ever seen at an inauguration. Only a select few groups have been permitted to assemble along the parade route, and those that could get there were subjected to restrictive rules about the size of their signs, items they could carry, and ways they could mount their signs or banners. Signs were not allowed to attached to poles or handles that could conceivably be used as weapons. International A.N.S.W.E.R (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) had banners rejected because they were too long. The Christian Defense Coalition was denied a permit for a march in which they planned to carry wooden crosses, on the grounds that the crosses could be used as weapons (conjuring up the comical image of a mob attacking the Presidential motorcade with oversized crucifixes).

The police presence is felt everywhere. DC police were placed approximately every 5-6 feet along the parade route. Sharpshooters stood their guard atop buildings. Special forces, wielding automatic weapons, could be seen everywhere. For many anti-Bush protestors, the increased police activity brought with it the constant threat of over-zealous crowd control methods and the kind police brutality that was seen at the International Monetary Fund protests in 2000 and 2002, or at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions last summer. Lawsuits are still pending after police surrounded protestors in Pershing Park at the 2002 IMF protests and arrested 400 without giving an order to disperse, and several protestors claim they were beaten and mistreated.

When did things change? When did Washington, DC, a city that symbolizes liberty and freedom everywhere, become a police state? When did armored vehicles and rooftop snipers, something once seen only in places like Cuba and China, become a central part of a ceremony that is supposed to celebrate democracy? Just who is President Bush afraid of? Even Tom Ridge, the mind behind that lovely color-coded chart, has said that “chatter” of terrorism threats has decreased. Is it really al-Qaeda that this administration fears? Or does President Bush want to avoid a repeat of the last inauguration, where protestors threw an egg at his limousine and held up signs with slogans such as “Hail to the Thief”?

President Carter, on his inauguration, walked the entire way to the White House. Why? Because he wanted to show that he trusted the American people, and that he wanted the American people to trust him. This is stunning in contrast to President Bush, whose interaction with the public has been extremely controlled.

Some might ask; in this age of terrorism and war, aren’t a few hassles a small price to pay for security? To answer this, I refer to the words of Benjamin Franklin, who said “Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.”

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 21, 2005

Answers

i think the faggot just wants to show that 'the threat of terrorism' isn't over yet...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 22, 2005.

Did you see the last inaugural? It was chaotic. I thought Bush was going to get it. We don't want bush to get shot because what is behind him is much worse. Anti, I think I am going to get booted off of KOBE. They cannot stand any opinion that opposes their pro zionist opinion. If you want to get booted study zionism and show those dummies that zionism does equal aparthied and nazism

-- Brasky (brasky@nozion.com), January 22, 2005.

I had planned to go protest, but I was feeling kind of under the weather. I'm proud of the protestors though. They did a good job of raising a ruckus without hurting anybody. They seemed to have a strategy worked out beforehand; they congregated outside the "ticket-holder" entrances, where all the happy little Republicans could get onto the mall to see our glorious leader speak, and they started raising a ruckus so the Secret Service would shut down the entrance. They successfully prevented a whole big group of Republicans from taking their seats. Three anti-Bush protesters managed to obtain tickets beforehand. They waited until there was a pause in Bush's speech, and then got up and yelled "STOP THE WAR!". Made me proud.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 23, 2005.

The only type of local demonstrations we have in my sleepy little town is abortion protest. It is lame. I went to a site that really hates abortion and they even changed my mind by showing a video of it where the abortionist twists the baby's head off while yanking it out. Perhaps big posters of blown up body's(ours and thier's) could really make a change. As you know, The hunt for WMD has stopped. Is it worth it? After viewing our soldiers and civilians torn apart ask the question again.

-- Bill Brasky (brasky@nozion.com), January 23, 2005.

If you mean aborting a fetus that is halfway to term, then no, I am against it. But if you mean that morning after pill, then by all means, legalize it. No, I don't believe that "every sperm is sacred". A sperm is a single cell, just like an egg is. Nothing sacred about it. Twenty four hours after fetilization, it is still just a few cells. Still nothing to get teary-eyed over. But after a few months, once it has a heart, a brain, eyes...no. Then it is a child, and to kill it is murder.

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 23, 2005.

I like the morning after pill too. I call it the abortion saver pill. I don't know why the Christian leaders call this so bad. they say life starts at conception but it is humane to take a morning after pill. http://www.christiangallery.com/articles.html

-- Brasky (brasky@nozion.com), January 23, 2005.

its worse than that, the disease is spreading, ive seen a movie advertised lately called 'first daughter' (*puke *retch *huurrll
) now theyre going to try and make hollywood 'heroines' out of the bush sprogs. THis is worse than a sick joke. Its like the 'Emperors Clothes' in reverse. A semi retarded religous nutcase for a president, waging war on the world while they make movies out of utter horsehit based on him and his family that every sucker out there will swallow without question.

-- dd (doctor.De@th._), January 24, 2005.

Tell us what you really feel about Bush. Come on, don't hold back.

-- Juan (anoymous@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

I'm already out of middle school, Ako. I'll be old enough to vote in the 2006 elections. I'll be old enough to get drafted well before he leaves office, and that scares the hell out of me. I can see why that's not a big issue for you, because the army won't take retarded people, but it bothers me a little. So how about you shut the hell up unless you have something intelligent to say.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 02, 2005.

Anti

I can understand your fears. Hopefully the draft will not be reinstated. Even with the draft, the very wealthy and politically connected can always seem to find a way out if they choose. I was extremely worried about it in the late 60's when the Vietnam war was raging. (I didn't even like gym class.)

When I registered for the draft, they had gone to a lottery system. I held my breath as I looked for my birthdate in the newspapers. The higher the number the less chance of being called.

I got number 147. My next door neighbor got 32 and thought he was doomed. Fortunately, the war soon ended and they had only gotten up to calling the 2's. What a relief!

Thats the best I've done in any lottery since.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 02, 2005.

I see little punk ass bitches still rule the roost here. Anti is still the commie cunt he always has been.

-- It's ME again! (Gofuckyourself@nigger.com), February 04, 2005.

Welcome Back.

I don't know what you contibuted before, but thanks for the preview.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 05, 2005.

never in one place have i seen so much stupidity. u don't like bush u can move to france or canada u commie bitches.

-- screw off (whatabunchoffags@urmoms.com), February 07, 2005.

france is nice

i like france

and i like the people there

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 07, 2005.