January 16, 2005

• You should disguise your sign, Bruise... Seriously, if you have some outrageous anti-Bush sign, you may not make it within a 1,000 yards of Bush... You should take a tip from Bond, James Bond... and cover your sign with a Bush Cheney '04 one... Then, when you're sure you will be within sight of the fucko' rip it off and show your REAL sign in absolute glory... hopefully, he'll see it... and you won't get arrested...
• Keep a pair of nail clippers in your back pocket. They work wonders on those plastic handcuffs.
• But, Debaser - won't a Bush/Chaney sign make him a target for the protesters who are letting their signs all hang out? And, Bruise, do you know if they're setting up "protest zones?" If they do, you may find yourself out in some area of DC you'd never want to visit. Check with the organizers to see what the deal is. You might want to chuck the sign and go around mumbling "Hell, no, we won't go!" or something.
• Good luck with all that -- I'm sure that your protest will make a difference. /snark But seriously -- why bother? President Bush (and his staff, and the media, and everyone else) already KNOW that he is not loved by all. So what will this protest accomplish?
• To me, the inauguration is a celebration of the democratic process in the United States. Our electors have successfully followed procedure and chosen a new president. It may be silly and overdone, but it is a celebration of the process. I do not find it to be a suitable place to protest Bush, unless your protest involves some claim that he did not legitimately win the election. While that may have been appropriate in 2001, I am not so sure that it is appropriate now. Understand that I not remotely an admirer of the president. I just feel that a protest should bear some relation to the activity going on. I think that protesting everything diminishes the power of protests of specific things or events.
• I agree with both above- the inaguration is a ceremony and not something to be protested. Also why anyone who is protest-minded would wait til then is beyond me- when the White House is surrounded day and night by protestors, as it was during Vietnam (or so movies tell me), maybe people will start to take notice. If you have one day in DC, see the Lincoln, Jefferson, Vietnam etc memorials.
• hogwash. george w. bush is a fucking war criminal! given the rarity of his "public" appearances... protest whenever possible, i say. and good on you, bruise, for exercising your 1st amendment rights.
• If the protest area gets too crowded and you can't get in, try to not make it look like you are protesting the protest-area instead of the innaguration.
• I wonder what ten air horns let loose during the oath of office would do, even a mile away.
• The time for action was last year, during the election campaign.
• Gotta agree with rocket88. Whats your goal for the protest, other than showing you hate Bush?
• Being an American.
• Yeah keep quiet! That's much more effective!
• I have to agree with the everybody who questions if this is the best time to go to your first protest. I'm not saying don't, I'm not saying you can't, but I think protesting the democratic election of somebody (no matter who) gives out the wrong message. What, exactly, are you protesting against? It's a pragmatic point - it dilutes the power of protest. Protests can genuinely have an effect, sometimes on government, but more often on the sway of public opinion. A good protest should have a clear target, a simple message and be conducted in a manner to get the non-protesting public on your side. I don't think that's the case here. Frankly, it looks more like you're protesting against the 51% of the electorate who voted for him than against the man himself. Which, you know, is all well and good, but you're going to need some of those people to change their minds next time round, and alienating them ain't the way to do that. That said, if you're determined to go, good luck to you, and forget about the sign. Awkward, cumbersome, and means you most likely will be stopped before you get there (yay for freedom of movement). And nobody reads them. Seriously. People filter them out, news cameras don't linger on them long enough for any to be read, and they can actually make protests look smaller on camera by hiding the people standing behind them. What you want is chants and songs. Put some effort into thinking up funny, powerful and non-obscene (so they can get broadcast) bastardisations of popular tunes, print up some lyric sheets and hand them out. Try to get a bit of a sing-song going. Makes for a much more pleasant atmosphere, stops the protestors from looking like joyless whiners, and actually stands a chance of getting broadcast and paid attention to. Oh, and wrap up warm.
• FWIW, I'll be here. If you have any other questions about DC, feel free to email. Oh, and I would advise against the sign as well in this case.
• From secretservice.gov:

  Prohibited Items: As a security precaution, the following items will be prohibited from all Inaugural event sites and locations: firearms, ammunition, explosives, weapons of any kind, aerosols, supports for signs and placards, packages, coolers, thermal or glass containers, backpacks, bags exceeding size restrictions (8”x6”x4”), laser pointers, animals other than helper/guide dogs, structures, bicycles and any other items determined to be a potential safety hazard. With respect to signs and placards, items should be made of cardboard, poster board or cloth and have dimensions no greater than three (3) feet in width, 20 feet in length and one-quarter (1/4) inch in thickness.

• I'd probably protest voting fraud (in general) and not the inauguration itself. Or I'd have an insanely inflammatory sign like, "Where's the tsunami where you really need one?" Then again, inflammatory and tsunamis don't mix.
• Bicycles are a safety hazard? What if you're wearing a helmet?
• Another thought - check out the events around the Republican meeting in New York last year for an idea of how the police are likely to treat you. Can you take care of yourself - ie. can you keep your temper when arrested for no good reason, shoved, mishandled, stuck in a bus and then locked in an asbestos/other mixed carcinogens containing cage for upwards of 24 hours or more. Because, if you can't, then you are a menace to yourself. Washington DC cops (and cops everywhere, realistically) don't have a high opinion of civil liberties and an individual's right to not have the crap beaten out of them.
• The inauguration wouldn't be the best time to protest if it were a small, humble affair, toned down in light of the times we live in. Where a simple swearing in would have sufficed, we instead get Mardi Gras from the new "Let them eat cake" crowd to celebrate a "mandate" on a margin so razor thin you can see through it. That being said, any protest of this debasement of the greatness that once was the United States of America should be a tasteful, tactful one that will bring some semblance of dignity to the proceedings that the celebrants lack. In other words, the "Turn Your Back on Bush" thing would probably be the best way to go. It's dignified and it makes a stronger statement than any sign or massive disruption ever would.
• I have to agree with drjimmy. We could have learned something from the Ukraïne, anyway. Plus doesn't protesting still imply you're buying into the innauguration crap?
• I heard on the radio that there are lots of people planning on protesting by being along the parade route and turning their backs when Bush rolls by. By not obviously looking like protesters, they won't be corraled into the "free speech" zones.
• Why protest the innauguration? Because it's $40 million of our goddamn money, with some fucking "service" theme. Because they're taking my cash to throw a gloating party. Because 51% is not a mandate. Because someone has to have some backbone when the pussies say "why bother protesting, everything's already decided." Because the President's uses of power have been illegitimate, and in America we have both the right and responsibility to stand out in rebellion against illegitimate power. Those are some pretty good reasons to protest, no matter what the fair-weather Democrats here say.
• The $40 million comes from private donations. And 51% *is* a mandate in the American political system. Throw in multiple politiacal parties and you can have a mandate with much less.
• The $40 million comes from private donations. True, but the District of Columbia still has to foot the bill for almost $12 million in security which they're not very happy about. That money could be better spent in the District. Like on a shiny new baseball stadium. /snarkylocalfilter
• Rocket- "That's not an argument, that's just contradiction." 51% is not a mandate, historically speaking. Especially not for a second-term president. And 51% of the Senate (sligthly more in the House, due to Texas redistricting) is not a mandate either. Even if the $40 million is from private donors (I haven't seen the figures) it is going to require a huge expendature from the public trust in order to secure the area. During a fucking war. And you still have a slew of immoral, illegal and illegitimate actions carried out on behalf of this administration. I'm not a wingnut, just someone who believes in my right to assemble, my right to free speech, my right to be secure in my person against unwarranted searches and seizures... There is a time for pragmatism, and there is a time for symbolism and idealism. As the innauguration is a symbolic event, I can think of few times better to protest against what the presidency has come to stand for under this administration. But perhaps you're too busy with your tea and crumpets.
• SWARM and 51% is definitely not a mandate when there is so much statistical evidence that the vote really went the other way
• Strumpets, maybe... First of all, I should point out that I'm a Canadian. As such, my protesting against an American president would be kind of pointless, no matter how much I despise him (and I do). But here's what I've always thought about protests: A bunch of hippie types and anarchists descend on some event and, while the hippies sing songs and chant, the anarchists put bandanas over their faces and go off looking for barricades to kick down. Now, I have no problem with hippies - they're cool people (the anarchists, not so much) and the whole thing is a healthy release for their anger and frustration. But it accomplishes very little. In this case, I think, it actually works against the cause. The average American (the fence-sitter who normally votes Democrat but likes Bush's approach to terrorism) seeing this on TV thinks to himself: "What a bunch of fucking morons. If they represent the Left/Democrats I'm never voting for them again!!!" The left becomes symbolized as a bunch of chanting sore losers who can't accept that their guy lost so they're going to march in the streets and whine about it. I think this is the wrong tactic. If you really want the Democratic party to win anything again you need to redefine your image as a group of intelligent, honest, hard working people who really do have the best interests of Mr. Average American at heart. And having the character to accept this loss and direct your energy to the next contest is a good way to start.
• Rocket- Perhaps that's because your country got their independence through a very polite time of crumpet negotiation. And perhaps that's because you've never actually been to a demonstration. Just conjecture, but since I have been and can tell you that there are just as many middle-class middle-aged "establishment" types out there as hippies and anarchists, the view that it's all just wingnuts is flawed from the outset. Because of that, more rational people should be encouraged to protest, instead of relinquishing this powerful tool and wallowing in apathy and inaction. Protests have taken the form, here, of everything from the Boston Tea Party to the Haymarket Riots to the WTO Seattle protests. The biggest difference was that once upon a time, the media was pro-protest (having essentially arranged the Tea Party) and is now conservative in its approach to change and radicalism (there is still the argument to be made for it having liberal values, but I believe those values are held second to financial concerns). It should be held that there is nothing more American than to fight against injustice, and to stand proudly against authority for the values you believe in. That's what the protest represents- true America.
• Because of that, more rational people should be encouraged to protest, instead of relinquishing this powerful tool and wallowing in apathy and inaction. I'm not advocating apathy and inaction...just *different* action. Action that may not be as cathartic, but stands more chance of achieving the goal. I'm talking about political action, within the system, to educate and inform the electorate about why it's in their best interest to vote these guys out next time around. Protests won't do that. I have no issue with fighting for what you believe in. It's admirable. But protesting the inauguration is like Yankee fans protesting the Red Sox victory parade. It's a sore loser tactic, and there's nothing admirable about a sore loser.
• It's a sore loser tactic I dunno, I agree with the political action statement, but I think I disagree here. This is the most corrupt, secretive, and inept administration since U.S. Grant, and they basically don't interact with the public ever for any reason. Hell they barely have press conferences with the bastard. This one chance to publicly show disagreement and get some ink around it seems like a good thing. I'm petebest, and I approve this message. I also approve of hot chicks, but there weren't any in the message. Sorry.
• Damn!!!