February 01, 2006

• Trying to decide what would have more of an impact -- a shot of Cindy Sheehan in the gallery, or news reports of Cindy Sheehan being arrested. Maybe that's not important -- she's a symbol of loss, and by removing her, it's a denial that that loss even occurred. Which is the most terrible part, not that these people died for their country (whatever their personal or the country's motivations), but now that country refuses to acknowledge that they even did so. No pictures of flags on coffins, no pictures of sufferring mothers... Talk about a fucking waste.
• It makes me sick that the news agencies are reporting that she made a disturbance when all she did was wear a t-shirt. I hope she does sue on First Amendment grounds.
• Boy, this is just about the stupidest PR move in the history of stupid PR moves. Perhaps as a followup, they should hand out press photos of Bush eating a baby? If anyone in that place had a lick of sense, they'd have already arranged for Sheehan to have Secret Service protection. She shouldn't be getting cold feet in a stiff breeze, let along arrested. Christ in a sidecar, does no one understand this??
• Especially when one of the points of your speech is about ending partisan fighting and reaching across the aisle to one another. Good grief.
• And they cuffed her! Hells bells. Will *someone* send a copy of The Prince over to the White House, please? PLEASE???
• She knew what she was doing. Though I am in total agreement with the cause she represents, she is a terrible spokesfigure and a complete attention-whore who should be ditched by anyone serious about opposing Bush for the opportunist she is.
• Yeah, it was totally opportunist to capitalize so crassly on the death of her son like that. Sheesh, some people have no shame. Early reports said that she was trying to unfurl a banner from her seat, but those reports have since been debunked. Basically, she wore a t-shirt that was not illegal or obscene (depending on your definition, I suppose) and was thrown in chains because of it. You know, like those folks who got tossed from the Bush election rallies for wearing unapproved t-shirts. I wonder if Alito will get to weigh in on this?
• Sorry, briank, that came out a lot more acerbic than I intended. The whole thing just burns my ass like a three-foot flame.
• That's as may or may not be, and she certainly had no compunction sneaking in with that t-shirt under a hoodie. Nevertheless, ANY handling the situation with even a molecule of deftness would have been prefereable to giving the Democrats *another* martyring incident with Sheehan. Here's a thought: instead of having her arrested, why not have her take her place right in front, with her t-shirt on for all the world to see, and then Bush says: "I want to personally welcome Ms. Cindy Sheehan here tonight. Ms. Sheehan? Thank you for coming tonight, and I want to say to you that I'm very very sorry that your son lost his life in Iraq. I'm also glad that you wore that shirt, because as commander in chief during these contentious times, I want - no, I need - to remember that my decisions are not made in a vacuum, and that the US' presence in Iraq has real costs, not just to our country but to you, and all the mothers who've lost sons in the middle east, personally. I regret not having spoken to you when you visited my home last summer, and I want to extend to you now an invitation to come see me at yout earliest convenience so that we can talk about your concerns..." Ideally, she should have been defused long ago, during the all-moron campout in Texas. By snubbing her then, Bush made her a crystal for anti-war sentiment, and he continues to do so, every time she shows up.
• Yes, Fes, I agree, that would have been the savvy thing to do. But that would have required Bush thinking on his feet and talking off script, which I think is something even his supporters admit is not his strong suit. Oh, and humility. It would have required that too. ps--I don't blame her for sneaking it in under a hoodie. Do you think she'd have been allowed in otherwise, given what happened afterward? Stealth speech--get used to it.
• It's one of precepts of PR: how do you defuse a detractor? By enlisting their *aid*. If I was Bush, Cindy Sheehan would hold a high profile/low responsibility job in the department of Veteran's Affairs. Anyway, I'll shut up.
• At first blush, this looks really crass on the part of, at the very least, the Capitol building security staff. What I am curious about is whether invitees were notified of conditions for their presence in the chamber: was there a notice provided to all invitees that any item, banner, or clothing which contained text or slogans were proscribed during the event? I don't believe that, if she had been notified in advance of specific conditions of her invitation, the Capitol police overstepped their authority. For the purposes of the state of the union address, the Capitol chamber was not a public space -- it required an invitation to enter -- and because of this, it is not unreasonable to place conditions on those present. On the other hand, partisans against Bush will see this as another hallmark of an administration who tramples the constitution, and partisans in favor of Bush will see this as a justifiable removal from a not-publically-accessible event on the grounds of disruption and decorum. Of course, I think both of those ideas are mistaken. Both sides will juice this event for PR while the mainstream populace remains inured to the shrill bickering on both "sides" as well as the gradual erosion of our constitutional freedoms (of which this case is certainly NOT a hallmark -- warrantless wiretaps concern me far more than some stupid President's stupid staffmember removing some shrill demonstrator from an invitation-only event). Just as Fes said, Bush could've used this to his advantage if he had two non-paranoid brain cells to rub together, and until further details are known about the conditions of the invitation, I don't see this as a constitutional issue, either.
• What I am curious about is whether invitees were notified of conditions for their presence in the chamber I've been wondering about that too, chimaera. I'm also curious about the statement by Capitol police that she refused to cover up her shirt, when she says that she was never given the opportunity to do so. I'm still not sure how wearing a t-shirt is considered a protest, though. What's next - someone wearing a "some village in Texas has lost its idiot" shirt getting arrested while walking down the street because they didn't have a protest permit?
• In class, Mrs. Krabappel starts to tell the class about their homework assignment. Edna: Tonight's homework assignment is -- Bart: [exaggerated] Oh, man: is it hot in here. I'd better take off my sweater. Edna: [reading his T-shirt] "Down...with...[gasps] homework"?! [the class starts laughing] Don't look at it, children. [she stands in front of him] Milhouse: His shirt makes a good point. Nelson: I'm with the shirt: homework rots. Everyone: Down with homework! Down with homework! [they throw their books out the windows] [some kids try to suffocate Edna with chalk dust] [Ralph sits on the floor, eating paste] [some boys tip Edna's desk over, setting it alight] I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket... I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there... While I am against the war, I'm not a big fan of Sheehan. I find her to be disingenuous, even when talking to her allies.
• What part don't you people understand?! She was wearing a T-shirt!! Holy crap! Will no one think of the children?!?! Oh. Right. Another proud moment of this regime, no doubt.
• From here: Did you know that in 1971, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a "F--- the Draft" T-shirt into the courthouse? (Cohen v. California, you can look it up.) So now Alito's on the court for 45 minutes and your civil liberties are already going down the toilet. You were warned. And apparently Sheenan's shirt was not explicitly anti-Bush, but anti-war. The text was (allegedly): 2,245 Dead -- How Many More?. Okay, so that's implicitly anti-Bush, but still, it wasn't "Fuck the Chimp!" or anything like that.
• If it turns out that there was never any notice to those invited as to what they would or would not be allowed to wear or display at the address, it would be clear that the Capitol security team overstepped its bounds, and whichever person made the final call in the matter to remove Sheehan should be disciplined. But it's also I think a bit of a stretch to lay all the blame here on the administration, when the very culture of Washington is saturated with partisanism, and low- and middle-ranking functionaries want to kiss up to whomever is in power by voting party-line and stifling dissent. It is clear that this administration has an unprecedented level of paranoia and dissent-stifling within its ranks, but again I submit the following: Free speech "zones" outside of events is an abomination, and clearly unconstitutional. Removal of a person likely to cause a significant disruption inside an invitation-only event is bad form, and may be unconstitutional. If Sheehan were arrested outside the Capitol, I would scream "First Amendment Violation" at the top of my interweb lungs. But I have yet to hear facts from anyone who does not seem to have a stake in the matter as to whether she intentionally violated any conditions under which the invitation was made. For me, that's the crucial detail, whether she was unfurling a 50-foot anti-war banner or wearing a trucker cap that said "Cash, Grass, or Ass -- Nobody Rides for Free."
• Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., was [also] removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom." She was sitting about six rows from Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber. "They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, "Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, "We consider that a protest.' I said, "Then you are an idiot."'
• Well, in the interest of fairness, I just learned that apparently the wife of a Republican congressman wearing a pro-war t-shirt was also asked to leave. And it still bugs me. Because neither of them should be asked to leave. Plus, they could have cut between one and the other, count-pointer-count style. That's good TV.
• Jinx! Techsmith! Seriously, though, WTF? Unless there was an explicit "no printed tees" rule in the invitation, as chimaera says, I don't see where either of these people should have been ousted. Is even referencing the war considered protest, regardless of statement of support? And even if there was such a rule, I think it's a bad one. I wanna see Orrin Hatch wearing his Clay Aiken concert tee with pride.
• Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., was [also] removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom." Defending what freedom, exactly?
• Freedom to wear t-shirts, silly!
• I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? This has been running through my head all night. It was eerie to read the article this morning and know someone else was thinking the same thing. The reason Bush couldn't have made the speech about realizing his decisions aren't made in a vacuum is that his desicions are made in a vacuum, the one that the administration has created by surrounding the President with yes-men. That said, Mrs. Sheehan, or at least the people who invited her, should have known that her presence alone would have been a much more effective statement. Everybody knows who she is. That said, there was no good reason she and Mrs. Young couldn't have been treated with civility by the guards.
• ...the wife of a Republican congressman wearing a pro-war t-shirt was also asked to leave. Young was merely asked to leave; Sheehan was actually charged with a crime. I bet Young could have stayed if not for the Sheehan incident.
• Defending what freedom, exactly? Ding! Tell him what he's won, Bob!
• Learning from Dear Leader
• Young was merely asked to leave; Sheehan was actually charged with a crime. To be fair, she wasn't arrested for wearing the shirt, she was arrested for refusing to comply with security's request/demand that she not wear it in the gallery. Maybe Ms. Young didn't refuse as adamantly as Ms. Sheehan?
• /note to self: don't choose shirts with any graphic, witty, obscene, obscure or political message or image when packing for next USA vacation
• Secret Service Agent: "So, who is this "stupid" you purport to be with? And why does the arrow point right, hmm? Just what are you trying to say here? That it's stupid to be on the right? Is that it? Well, we'll see about that, mister!"
• "We Screwed Up," say top Capitol Police Officials. Sheehan didn't break the law. Fes was right. I'm not wearing any pants. Film at eleven.
• They sure did screw up, and far from having a chilling effect on t-shirt displays, they have practically thrown the door open for future such events, and maybe in 07, Sheehan will be back with a nice day-glo shirt with next year's running total. The person who made the final call on removing Sheehan and Young from the chamber deserves at the very least a demotion.
• Someone in Washington admitted they screwed up? Is the Earth turning backwards now? Did we get transported to Bizarro World? It makes a nice change, anyway.
• Someone in Washington admitted they screwed up? Someone "not associated with the current corrupt regime" admitted they screwed up. Totally different.
• Incidentally, is it just me? When the President says "terrorists," he pronounces it "tourists?" Oh, the implications, if he's even occasionally articulate.
• Yeah, he does do that. It's nothing to go nucular about, though.
• Sooooo... Capitol cops screwed up, but Chimpy still gets a benefit from that mistake. Business as usual. Yay.
• Seems to me that Bush, in once again having Sheehan made into a martyr and subsequently having the charge of petty tyrant levelled against him, hardly benefitted from this. A pyrrhic victory at best.
• Hey! He's just trying to put food on his family!
• She now needs to sue them for unlawful restraint.
• U.S. Capitol Police Chief Gainer claimed that, "The policy and procedures were too vague," but they seem pretty clear to me (my emphasis):

  A 1946 law prohibits demonstrations within any of the Capitol buildings. But a subsequent U.S. Capitol Police Board regulation clarified "demonstration activity" to include "parading, picketing, speechmaking, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other expressive conduct ... but does not include merely wearing Tee-shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message."

  If I'm reading this correctly, in May 2002 the U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals found the regulation to be unconsitutional. (Brazenly cross-posted from MetaFilter.)
• Lawsuit! Lawsuit! Fes - get in there and lawyer up!
• I'm no lawyer! Not that there's anything wrong with that.
• I believe there's some legal precedent - Winchell vs. Mahoney... the Charlie McCarthy hearings...
• "You see, one day Charlie McCarthy looked at Howdy Doody's hair and saw red."
• Heh. Yes, I want to keep The Underpants Monster!
• You say that now, but then the sock laundry piles up. . .
• loveliest of socks the plaid ones now require soaping and a miracle somehow to keep 'em all from shrinking since they're wool and our sock hamper's overfull among such sights we'd linger longer but unwashed sock threads, they just grow stronger