[update: 2/2/06 for a thorough response to Glenn Greenwald’s long and disingenuous litany of conservative failings to “correct the record”—a record of Cindy Sheehan’s martyrdom that, incidentally, this post to which he linked doesn’t address, please see below, “Response to Glenn Greenwald.]
From the SF Chronicle:
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, given a ticket by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, to attend President Bush’s State of the Union address Tuesday evening, was arrested by Capitol police in the front row of the House gallery, reportedly for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war message in violation of House rules.
Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq while serving in the Army, gained national fame in August when she camped out near Bush’s Crawford, Texas, ranch unsuccessfully seeking a meeting with the president. Since then she has campaigned against the war and was arrested outside the White House in September.
Woolsey gave Sheehan her lone visitor’s pass for the speech earlier in the day at an anti-Bush event sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is co-chaired by Woolsey.
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Sheehan was charged with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor. She was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and was expected to be released on her own recognizance later.
Schneider told the Associated Press that Sheehan wore a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that the shirt was not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
“It stunned me because I didn’t know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it,’’ Woolsey said. “That’s especially so in the Capitol and in the House of Representatives, which is the people’s House.’’
Woolsey said she thought the shirt Sheehan was wearing was from Veterans for Peace. Referring to the number of Americans killed in Iraq, the shirt read, “2,245 and how many more?’’
Some other members were upset about Sheehan’s arrest. “I’m still trying to find out why the president’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. … It shows he still has a thin skin,’’ said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.
Two things here are worth highlighting: first, as Al Maviva is kind enough to point out (from a 1999 Daily News article, via Drudge):
A Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.
Dave Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats last Saturday when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said yesterday he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards.
Note, please, that this instance of Clinton-era t-shirt fascism [please note also that the story itself may be apochryphal] is not being introduced here in some sort of Hannityesque-type attempt to draw a rough equivalency between the two party’s equally dissent-crushing “gestapos,” to borrow Rep. Stark’s language of sweet partisan healing. Instead, Maviva mentions it to establish a follow-up point that seems quite apposite under the circumstances:
[…] the time manner place restrictions on free speech in legislative halls is frequently described as a limited forum or limited purpose forum.
[…] Legislatures generally have the ability to limit the topics of discussion and debate on the floor and in the gallery of their meeting places. If your local school board wants to discuss textbooks, they can expressly discriminate against you for attempting to voice your anti-abortion or pro-choice message – they can even tell you to shut up before you try to voice it, and have you removed for being a disorderly presence. They can greatly constrict your ability to speak out, usually in the interest of the smooth operation of government. The rationale works across government branches. Speech is speech is speech; doesn’t matter if it’s speech on a T-shirt, a poster board, or coming out of your mouth. If the legislature has the power to exclude in this arena based on viewpoint, it also has the power to include, determining at its discretion what is a permissible topic or manner of speech, such as tiny little flags, or elephant ties.
”So it appears,” as John Cole points out, “the Capitol Police were simply following the law against sloganeering/demonstrating in the Capitol […]”—which would mean that, a) Rep Lynn Woolsey, who, one imagines, routinely attends these functions, had no call whatever to be “stunned,” given that the law has clearly been put to prior use, and given that the rationale behind it seems to be fairly consistent across such non-open government forums. In fact, as a lawmaker herself, for her to say, “I didn’t know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it” speaks more to her ignorance of her own job than it does to fascism; and b) that Rep Pete Stark, in his zeal to tether the Evil Bushies to enforcers from Germany’s genocidal Nazi party, has managed to call the Capitol police—who hold no uniform partisan agenda, and as a group almost certainly represent a cross-section of political beliefs—Nazis.
Because, you see, it’s all about reaching across the aisle and raising the level of discourse. And of course, the soothing balm of healing
Interestingly, what the SF Chronicle doesn’t tell you (which, to be fair, is probably not deliberate, but nevertheless is germane to this latest instance of Chimpler’s jackbooted throat crushers “chilling dissent” because they “fear the conversation”), Florida’s Local 6 News does:
The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, “Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom.” Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.
[My emphasis]
Now, either the Bush Gestapo (incidentally, I like the modern Gestapo’s more laid back look of suits and ties; the shiny boots and hats always seemed so needlessly combative, I think) got its orders confused –quite possible, given that the whole operation is run by a Chimpy McChimpyChimp who likes to whip out his ChimpyMcChimpyShrimp and bump uglies with the Consitution)—or else the rule against sloganeering is enforced uniformly, and by the Capitol police, rather than a Right Wing Nazi army of dissent crushers WHO ARE AFRAID OF CINDY’S TRUTH.
Once again, here’s Al Maviva:
[…] the fact that two people with opposing views were ejected for the same activity—mere wearing of communicative T-shirts speaking out on the war—indicates a viewpoint neutrality that might even pass muster outside of the limited forum tests as non-viewpoint discriminatory, but merely restrictive of speech on a particular topic
[and I’ll add here that I can remember many instances of potentially disruptive behavior that involved the use of slogans and banners being enforced during staged political events under the rationale that they have as their sole purpose the intent to disrupt the proceedings and draw attention to themselves. Which, I suppose, would be the same principle behind removing somebody from, say, a Rolling Stones concert if he showed up with his own amp and guitar and decided, in the middle of the Stones’ performance of “Satisfaction,” to break into an Eagles ballad. Or maybe not.]
Concludes Maviva:
So I’ll defend to the death your right to grow your white boy dreadlocks and march around in sloganed T-shirts and with signs on the Capitol steps, but your right to do that ends at the Capitol’s front door. Or the Supreme Court’s front door, for that matter. As much as I’d like to see Fred Phelps, Ralph Neas and Ralph Reed in a screaming and bloody Steel Cage Death Match (complete with folding chairs and strippers) on the floor of the House during a SOTU, it’s not appropriate, and giving people the right to stage political theater would invite further disorder into the shambles of a legislative process we now have. I know, I know, the very first thing Hitler did upon taking power was to throw a Jewish guy wearing an anti-Kristallnacht T-shirt out of the Reichstag…
As free as free speech is, there are—and always have been—certain contextual restrictions.
Were it up to me, I don’t think I’d be much bothered by the t-shirts. But as a general principle, following an established (if perhaps heavy-handed) protocol during a live televised State of the Union Address—which is not meant as a public forum for debate—doesn’t seem like an unreasonable venue in which to enforce such restrictions.
Whereas, Elaine Benes being forced to remove her Orioles’ cap while sitting in one of the Yankees’ owners’ boxes?—now we’re talking restriction of speech that is unconscionable…
****
update: Legendary for his ability to pluck cheekiness from serious sentiment, Max Sawicky quotes my liveblog suggestion that Mother Sheehan be cuffed to a radiator and given a plate of beans, and quips, “There’s a job awaiting JG in the public affairs office of the Ministry of Love.”
Sadly, no such opening exists for Max at the Ministry of Being Able to Get Beyond Your Own Sense of Risible Public Self-Righteousness in Order to Unearth a Chuckle from Your Perpetually Clamped Rectum.
****
More, from Patterico
****
Response to Glenn Greenwald*
Christ, Greenwald, I used to think you were seriously worth talking to, but your disingenuousness knows no bounds.
My original piece dealt with the fact that two diametrically opposed types of demonstrators were approached by the Capitol police and asked to leave—giving lie to the “Bush Gestapo” line, which was silly to begin with given that the Capitol police were in charge.
Last night, when a commenter left a note saying the Capitol police had apologized (and, it seems now, only provisionally), I left a reply, here.
You excerpt part of that reply but leave out its entire context, which was a long quote from the story referenced:
“While officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention,†the statement said.
Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer also apologized to the wife of a House Republican who was told to leave the chamber during Bush’s speech for wearing a shirt bearing words of support for U.S. troops.
Rep. Bill Young of Florida had condemned the treatment of his wife, Beverly. Young, who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on the House floor his wife was called “a demonstrator and a protester†for doing what Bush had asked of Americans: supporting U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq.
The Capitol Police statement said neither guest should have been confronted about her expressive T-shirt.
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken, effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol. The policy and procedures were too vague,†Gainer said. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
All the emphases I placed in the original comment, the preamble to which that I considered this a PR move by the Capitol police, one that was driven more by Young’s outrage than any compunction over St Cindy’s planned disruption of the SOTU.
I also cited the House rules.
And finally, I noted that I thought the rules stupid, but that I don’t get to decide the law or the rules.
As your update itself implies:
[…] When it was first posted last night, the AP article quoted above, on MSNBC, contained the quotes from the Capitol Police indicating that they “screwed up” and that “Sheehan didn’t violate any rules or laws.” At some point between last night and this morning, those sentences were deleted from the AP article.
…it is YOU—in your attempt to show just how un-self-correcting the right side of the blogosphere is—who has jumped to conclusions. The “screw-up” of the Capitol police seems to be that they enforced a rule that no one, in light of the publicity it has raised, is now happy that they enforced (most particularly Rep Young). Which leaves them scrambling, wildly, for a measured “apology.”
Here’s something else the Capitol Police Chief said:
“Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful,†Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.”
I depicted this as the spin of a Capitol police corp which doesn’t want to be seen as the organization that made a SOTU address a cause celebre as the venue for the “chilling of speech.” But Sheehan was there to be noticed. Her very point of being there, in fact, was to engage in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt.” This same is unlikely of Rep Young’s wife. But be that as it may.
You choose to take their risibly contorted (and consistently reconfigured) explanations from the Capitol police for their “screw up” (“we were correct in our wrongness, and for that we apologize: enforcing the rules is one thing, but enforcing the rules to the point of, y’know, enforcing them, is quite another. Context you see. Politics. Now, who how ‘bout them Steelers?”) at face value—something I very much doubt you would have done were these statements eminating from, say, the DoJ and concerning the NSA program. Again—your choice, but let’s not pretend to some kind of intellectual openness.
You then point to the kind of genuflecting apology you expect to see from wingers as an example of what kind of response to your disingenuous framing of the entire incident does credit both to the conservative cause and the cause of good-faith debate. Which is to say, you grant a particular form of self-flagellation the dignity I’m not convinced it deserves, and from a position of righteousness you clearly have not earned. Your choice, of course, but let’s not pretend you aren’t selecting a particular form of “correction” to suit the needs of your thesis.
No offense, pal, but you’re off your nut. And in your attempts to misrepresent certain responses of particular conservatives, you YET AGAIN show yourself to be a debater with dubious scruples and one who readily engages in editorial omission without compunction so far as it pushes your argument forward.
That you decided to single me out twice without even attempting to make clear that my intitial post had little to do with Cindy Sheehan per se is yet another one of your long list of argumentative failings. I invite people to reread my post; I took pains to point out that the Drudge story could be apocryphal. I noted that the omission of the Young confrontation by the SF Chronicle was not necessarily intentional. And I noted, finally, that “Were it up to me, I don’t think I’d be much bothered by the t-shirts. But as a general principle, following an established (if perhaps heavy-handed) protocol during a live televised State of the Union Address—which is not meant as a public forum for debate—doesn’t seem like an unreasonable venue in which to enforce such restrictions.”
Hardly the work of a partisan hack afraid to self correct. But you keep coming after me, Glenn. Keep piling up the words to try to frame me as the cartoon you need me to be. For my part, I believe I’ll start ignoring you as someone who clearly lacks the intellectual honesty necessary for a fruitful engagement.
Ministry of Love? If that means what I think it means, I’d dump the old ball and chain and high tail it to DC for a job like that. Unless it involves Mother Sheehan, in which case I’d castrate myself with the severed lid of a tin can, just to be on the safe side.
But let’s say that Cameron Diaz gets hauled in. It’s legal to rape her now, right? Especially if you’re with the Ministry of Love.
tw: federal Damn, that thing is good. Your country needs you, Jeff.
Aren’t Sawicky and Cole fellow members of PJM? I’m pretty sure I read on Hog On Ice that you guys are contractually obligated not to disagree with each other. I SMELL LAWSUIT.
Also, FUCK THE CONSTITUTION.
WELCOME TO ALITO’S AMERIKKKA!!!
It is to laugh.
”…and when they came for my ‘I’m with Stupid’ t-shirt, there was no one left to speak for me.”
Jeff,
Do you wonder if he wasn’t trying to think of the Ministry of Truth? I mean between MiniPlen, MiniLuv, and MiniTru, it’s easy to see how he could just be pulling Orwell references from the blue without having actually paid too much attention to 1984 itself.
Oh wait, sorry, I forgot, meaning is constructed by the reader, so he’s not actually required to pay any attention to the book itself, right?
Right?
Because the whole point of the book has nothing to do with the way that shaping language is a way of shaping thought. Nope. No crimethink or doublespeak here. Nope.
BRD
TW: Those who use 1984 references would do well to actually pay attention to the book.
Was this a wet T-shirt? If it was, execution is in order. Same for the Eagles ballad, IMHO. Maybe even moreso.
Kinda off topic, but is anyone besides me just dying to know who the “peace mom’s” sugar daddy is? Jetting back and forth between California, Texas, Europe, Venezuela and D.C. can get kind of expensive–particularly if you have no job. It got reported last summer that her “spontaneous protesters” were being paid by moveon.org and Soros, but who’s paying her? I’d kill to see someone in the media ask her. I might even kick in with a donation myself, if it meant I’d get a peak at her tax return.
Is she not Code Pink’s bitch?
I hear Medea’s the Butch.
“I’m still trying to find out why the president’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. … It shows he still has a thin skin,’’ said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.
Then why don’t you just walk up and ask them, Fortney? After all, Congressman, YOU write the effing checks for the
president’s GestapoCapitol police. That is, if you’re not too busy leaving nasty messages on your constituents’ answering machines.Is it possible to be a charicature of a buffoon?
BRD:
According to Wikipedia, the Ministry of Love is:
As a 1984 reference to make his point (such as it is), Max Zawicky’s choice is appropriate.
So I think he must have read the book.
Kinda off topic, but is anyone besides me just dying to know who the “peace mom’s†sugar daddy is?
Isn’t it obvious? Karl Rove.
You can’t even email Woolsey without having a California address to complete the form you must fill out before being given access to her email.
Ho-hum.
Over at Cole’s, the libs are already making distinctions between Sheehan’s treatment, and the Congressman’s wife’s treatment. I wonder how far down this slope do they want to slide?
What if the “Big Naked Code-Pink Lesbian Biker Broads Against the War” wanted to come in and disrupt the speech? Would their rights be denied if someone said, “No”? Under what criteria does anyone have (or not have) the right to protest within the Capitol?
If anything goes, keep in mind that the house chamber can hold only so many people, so some peoples’ rights WILL be denied, based on sheer volume. If so, this must be corrected – the President should do SOTU speeches on the Mall in Washington, so every aggrieved group known to man would have a chance to disrupt the speech.
I wonder where would the left draw the line?
TV (Harry)
JLS –
I see your point, but Jeff’s this language and semotics guy – he’s the person you’d assign to the next edition of the Newspeak dictionary. If Max wanted to argue that the Capitol Police were the Ministry of Love, that would make sense.
On the other hand, maybe it is entirely too possible to get wound up about an analogy.
BRD
We are the dead.
SB: much
ado about nothing
minor fundamental point:
You don’t get arrested for simply wearing a tee-shirt.
You get arrested for not leaving when told to by an officer of the law.
My brother always screwed this part up. We’d be out at a bar, the cops would say “leave” – I’d go with them and complain in the parking lot.
He’d stay and say “Why?” and get hauled off.
.
Here’s another reason to ban demonstrations in the capital: Our elected representatives must be allowed to vote without fear of physical violence.
If, for example, World-Bank-style protesters showed up for a vote on foreign aid, it’s highly likely that some representatives would feel compelled to vote in a certain way to ensure their own safety. Such protests and their corresponding police responses would also lead to regular riots in the capital itself, which, to put it mildly, would be very bad for the nation’s sense of how the political process should work.
Even non-violent proesters could be disruptive enough to intimidate some representatives into voting a certain way.
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Prowiz.
Fear the chuckling rectum!
“I like the modern Gestapo’s more laid back look of suits and ties.” -JG
Sure, but you have to admit that glossy black leather boots and harness look pretty sweet with a thong and a whip. I’m just sayin’.
But, Tweb, wouldn’t it be worth a little third-world politics to get a first-class social utopia? You can’t get an omelet…
Regards,
Oxygen-Deprived Kosmonaut
It’s Sawicky with an S. Say what you like, just spell my name right Gallstone, uh Goldstein.
Actually I quoted a longer passage, not just the lame bean joke (what with cheekiness and clenched rectum, I guess that passes (ha ha) as a theme here).
Re: the confusion about Ministry of Love, serves me right for trying a literary reference. Thank you JLS, I haven’t read 1984 since before 1984; my recollection is that the MoL dealt with persecution and physical abuse of innocent persons, the source of JG’s mirth in this admittedly minor case.
Yes, we are all Pajammahedin. It’s just that PJ is keeping me a secret. Can’t imagine why.
Please Lord, oh please, give her a year in bondage
Well, it’s too bad Zawicky couldn’t be bothered to read the rules of the House of Representatives…
Here’s what you quoted:<blockquote>Quoth Jeff Goldstein, Pajamaheddin champion of Freedom’s cause:
Sheehan removed from gallery. Charge? Who cares? Tried to unroll a banner. Being detained. My advice? Cuff her to a space heater and give her a plate of beans.<blockquote>All of a piece, Max. Remember, this was a live blogging exercise. I was taking in the information presented me and putting an experimental minimalist spin on it. Hence the title of the post. Ironically, the fact that I heard she’d been removed with no specific charges mentioned —then followed that with a “Who cares?”—was meant to play on the way progressives like you think of anti-freedom folk like me and my conservabrethren—even those who aren’t members of FIRE.
Predictably, you bit.
Anyway, Sorry if you found my bean joke lame—to me, the image of St Cindy on all fours licking clean a tin plate of ketchup-drenched navy beans while chained to a space heater was a funny one, if only for the visual it inspired (which to me recalled an early episode of “Happy Days” where a pre-leather-jacketed Fonzi spent Xmas alone in a garage, eating a can of baked beans)—but to each his own.
As to MoL—in true Orwellian fashion, you seem to have been able to redefine “innocent persons” to include those who break the law, then refuse to listen to police—an additional violation of law. Which, one presumes, is the precise kind of thinking that allows you to believe socialism is still a viable longterm economic system.
With a world so upside, Max, I’m surprised you wake each morning not yet dead from drowning.
“I’m still trying to find out why the president’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. … It shows he still has a thin skin,’’ said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.
According to the honorable Mr. Stark, the CAPITOL police work for the executive branch. So does the Secret Service work for the judicial branch? I’m so confused!!! Who the fuck do the park rangers work for??
Evidently D-Fremont must be a synonym for EIGHT INCH GAY COCK OF PORN!!
Doug,
FYI, Chavez paid for Cindy’s trip to Venezuela.
“I’m still trying to find out why the president’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. … It shows he still has a thin skin,’’ said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.
For the same reason Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson had to die.
And to potentially keep you from Alvin Bentley’s fate.
Fortney “Pete” Stark: putting the “wind” in “windbag” since 1973.
My God that made me cry.
Thanks for opening up that old wound Goldstein. You really are a monster.
Three little facts:
Initial newspaper reports that she ‘unfurled a banner’ were apparently wrong. So too could reports that she refused to cooperate w/the police by putting on a jacket to cover her T-shirt.
Did you know that she violated a law, or a Congressional rule? Either way, as you almost admit, it’s a dumb law.
You have never heard me say “socialism is still a viable longterm economic system.” “Viable longterm” makes no sense, and in any case I’m no socialist.
The experimental minima . . . manimaliz . . . minimalization is over my head. It sounds deep. I’m more a classical person. William S. Burroughs. That sort of thing.
Luckily for democracy, a heroic photographer caught the Gestapo hauling Cindy off with maximum violence. Note the look of agony and abject horror on the grieving mother’s face as the goons twist her arms out of their sockets.
Link.
So there!
How can anybody argue with scintillating logic like that?
Almost as brilliant as “I know you are, but what am I?”
What is of primary importance in this tiff is what that Greenwald genius thinks of it.
Cordially…
Apparently not.
If you think that it’s dumb, don’t whine, write your congresscritter and get it changed. Until then, she broke the rule/law, refused to cooperate, and was arrested. Sainthood does not confer a “get out of jail free card.
Did you know that she violated a law, or a Congressional rule? Either way, as you almost admit, it’s a dumb law.
Well—that’s the end of that chapter.
I’m not whining. I don’t much care about Congress rules. Sheehan can take it too; she’s been through much worse. My point in the first place was the contrast between bloviations about freedom from the podium and yanking people out of the gallery for T-shirt messaging that violates some stupid and obnoxious law or rule, topped off by JG posing as a mock O’Brien, “This way to Room 101, yuk yuk.”
Max:
The criticism of the President regarding FISA was that, if the law was inappropriate or didn’t fit, then the President should have tried to change the law, but meanwhile, was duty-bound to abide by it.
Yet, b/c the law regarding this aspect is “dumb,” ergo it should be ignored?
Are you suggesting that enforcement of laws is to be left to officials’ judgement on their dumbness? Or is it merely that it depends on the politics of the violator?
Hypothetical:
Let’s assume Congressman Burton (R-IN, since Pete Stark gets his full line) had given a guest pass to say, whatever Bubba ho was in the queue at the time of the State of the Union and just for giggles let’s say whe was wearing a garment emblazoned with “I swallowed.”
I think our free speechers would have another point of view about that chain of events, but that’s just me.
L.O.,
Your line of reasoning in no way reflects any of the arguments that Jeff has made. FISA does not apply to the President’s actions in the NSA program. In much the same way, antitrust laws don’t apply to Sheehan’s actions. Get it?
Error. Disengage.
There is no argument here. There is only emotive slurring, and the inability to get or make jokes.
The thread’s already 50% wasted.
tw: close
Yes.
Lurking O.—Of course not. But we can certainly judge dumbness of laws or rules if we like.
BoZ is mostly right, though, so I bid you gentlemen adieu.
That’s the sort of thinking that gets folks locked up.
The government has the absolute right to impose rules of order in it’s deliberative chambers. Would you liked to have seen President Clinton, while addressing a Joint Session of Congress, as well as the nation, being confronted with a gallery full of T-shirts with blowjob references? There’s a good reason that didn’t happen. It’s the same reason Mother Sheehan got herself brutalized by the Capitol Gestapo.
Some of us still at least respect the office, if not the guy who holds it.
One little fact is all that’s necessary, Max: I was LIVEBLOGGING. So sure, certain aspects of the report could turn out to be wrong. Or they could turn out to be right. Neither of which changes what I knew at the time. Nor the impetus for the joke.
And why doesn’t “viable longterm” make sense to you? I wrote it to mean something along the lines of “capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable in the long term, in this case, as an economic system.”
I’m confused at your confusion. And bemused at your bemusement.
Finally, what I think about the law doesn’t matter with regard to its enforcement being termed a Gestapo tactic by evil Bushies, when it fact it was the Capitol police enforcing House rules.
You really should quit while you’re…well, not so obviously behind, Max.
If your point to contrast “bloviations about freedom from the podium and yanking people out of the gallery for T-shirt messaging that violates some stupid and obnoxious law or rule,” that’s quite a silly point—the person “bloviating” having nothing whatever to do with the “yanking” or the “stupid and obnoxious law or rule.
Unless of course your target of you pointedly whimsical observation was the Capitol police and not the freedom-crushing George Bush (or me, another notorious hater who contributes to F.I.R.E. to hide the guilt over his secret totalitarian streak).
The 33rd word is “peaceably” and that suggests within reasonable rules. The no demontrations rule is not too different than the rules at any assembly.
Dammit, Jeff, haven’t you figgered it out yet?
NOTHING EVER HAPPENED EVER ANYWHERE BEFORE WHAT GEORGE BUSH JUST DID THAT WE’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT!
gawd, what part of this is so for you to grasp?
I just blew Diet Coke all out my damn nose.
No worries, Max –
Jeff cackled like a nitrous huffing hyena during the Macy’s Day Parade when he liveblogged a runaway balloon which nearly killed a girl in a wheelchair.
All Jeff and PJM had to do to make the liveblogging a blogosphere worthy event was to crossreference current NYC weather data with historical Macy’s Day Parade information, and look at livefeeds from the onsite NBC cameras in a booth and monitor both over-the air broadcasts to make sure that his liveblogged reactions were appropriate.
And do that all for like $1.75 or whatever else PJM pays.
But Jeff’s good with that because Jeff is all about the snuff films.
Sort of like Nick Cages in 8mm.
And Sidney Sheldon’s Bloodline.
It’s his own private 1984.
.
So, now that the Capitol Police have apologized to Sheehan for her unwarranted arrest, can we assume that socialism is still a viable longterm economic system?
Pure PR move by the Capitol police. But you spin it however you want:
Those are my emphases.
Both violated the rules. Whether or not the Capitol police were overzealous in their enforcement is another question entirely. And none of it redounds to a Bush Gestapo.
As to whether or not socialism is still a viable longterm economic project…well, that’s your department.
I really don’t know how to respond to that statement, but if he kept a straight face is it too late to nominate him for an Oscar?
If Bill Young’s wife called the cops idiots, she needs to be introduced to “the little people.”
Shame on her, and shame on the police chief. He has fueled a Cindy lawsuit. Years ago I was denied service in a restaurant because I was not wearing a tie and refused to wear the house loaner. Their decision, my response, no law broken.
Next year Cindy can show up at the SOTU wearing a dress made up only of dogtags embossed with the names of the dead soldiers. One name per tag.
Sure, it’ll clink a lot.
And Cindy will be underneath the dress, not Shannon Elizabeth.
But at least it won’t be a t-shirt.
Theoretically then I could follow Cindy around with an electronic jammer that scrambled electronic recordings in cameras. Would that be permissable free speach?
I promised to leave but JG asked me a question, and it is my life’s mission to instruct the world in political economy. “viable longterm” is redundant (hence the pairing of the words makes no sense) in reference to an economic system because a system can’t be viable for a month. If it’s viable, it is durable. If it is not durable, it is not viable.
Sire! The pedants are revolting!
So because it’s redundant it makes no sense?
Oddly enough, the 6,347,890,456th repetition of “Bush Lied!™” is also redundant.
Hmmm. I may have just found a way to agree with Minuscule Max.
I think we may have a great big logical fallacy on our hands here.
Or fogical lallacy?
Cognitive falafal
Fear the falafal?
What a bunch of neonazis. You want to put people in jail because you don’t like what their clothing says?
BTW, you’re all wrong. Today the Capitol Police apologized to Ms. Sheehan and dropped all charges.
You want to put people in jail because you don’t like what their clothing says?
What else would you suggest? Put ‘em in stocks and hurl rotten tomatoes at ‘em? Re-charging their genitals? In case you haven’t heard, our cornucopia of dissent-stifling techniques is almost empty thanks to librul judges and the inexplicable popularity of quaint notions like “civil rights”. It’s a win-win, anyway, since we get our rocks off repressing dissent and Cindy gets to extend her 15-minutes by, oh, about 3.1416 seconds. So lighten up and throw us a frickin’ bone, dude.
Yeah, well we haven’t apologized for shit, pissant. Never will.
Apologies issued to both women, charges against Cindy Sheehan dropped.
“Just wearing a T-shirt IS NOT UNLAWFUL,†Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but NEITHER WOMAN WAS DOING SO.”
And just what is the Police Chief’s view on proper protocol here? He makes that clear:
“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts,†Gainer’s statement said.
Ouch. All this has got to hurt, doesn’t it, Jeff Goldstein?
Dress codes are not at all unusual at formal occasions. I suppose Cindy’s freedom of speach was limited because she was denied the opportunity to take the microphone?
Hey, my freedom is limited because I am not allowed to write checks on Bill Gates’ account. Anyone who claims that Cindy’s freedom of speach has been suppressed is 4 beers short of a 6-pack.
But it hurts so gooooood.
The House Gallery is private property, no one has a right to be seated there, it is strictly a priviledge. You can be thrown out at any time, for any reason, it is solely the discretion of the Capitol Police, who work for Congress. The sad thing here is seeing the police being scapegoated by the spineless asswipes in Congress to try to save face for a piece of shit media whore like Sheehan.
And anybody who can try to argue that Cindy fucking Sheehan wearing an anti-war tee shirt to the State of the Union Address is not trying to draw attention to themselves is completely retarded. Do you have to wear a helmet indoors too, Herman, or just when you go outside to play?
I know the following is irrelevant to the issues raised in this thread, but then again so is Jeff’s analysis.
Enjoy
So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It’s vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
But a roving wiretap means—it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he’d do? He’d get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he’d start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on—roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren’t available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn’t make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn’t use a tool that we’re using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.
The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what’s called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.
Hurts Pete Stark a little more, Herman.
We all know how the President considers the Capitol Hill Police to be his official posse of repression.
Right?
All HEIL the mighty ditch witch! Onward with the French-kissing old wise Chavez! Please continue the Presidential stalking! We must aid Code Pink in their funding of terrorists! Harry Belafonte for president!
My good buddy Cleve witnessed the craziness in Crawford. We haven’t been able to get him enough flea powder yet.
I know the following is irrelevant to the issues raised in this thread, but
then again so is Jeff’s analysis.
Enjoy
I enjoyed speculating whether the irrelevance of Jeff’s post to the issues raised in this thread emanated and penumbranated from his sorry-ass inability to circle the globe, counterclockwise, at speeds approaching the speed of light, thus turning back the hands of time and allowing him the hindsight to finetune his post to the future comments on said post (not to mention rescue Lois Lane) or if he just didn’t give a fig in paradise about relevance.
77 words. I still bow to the master of the compound sentence. I’m not worthy…
2006 ANNUAL SOTU BUSH LIE-OFF!!
http://spaces.msn.com/risingsons/blog/cns!1FF898EC70F0ED78!888.entry
Can he Beat last year?
Let me know all the latest Bush lies here!
What is of primary importance in this tiff is what that Greenwald genius thinks of it.
Cordially…
Posted by Rick | permalink
on 02/01 at 05:25 PM
Jeebus Christmas, I was being sarcastic! Roll a doughnut by me, and see what I don’t give for that mediocre dullard’s (worst kind) opinions.
Cordially…
Ya know… DC District Court case cited by Glenn Greenwald is NOT that long and addresses many of these comment made here of the case law (I’ll be Kind here an not imply any intentional purpose to Mis-state these principles) but much of what I’ve read here is just plain *wrong.*
This case covers this Capitol venue and *Pulic/Non-Public forum* rules which may apply, the Capitol Police’s own regulations and statutes and the issues about what does/does not constitute a legitmate government interest not so overly broad as to be unconsitutional in prohibiting actual *speech* (in that case it was a pulic prayer). This case equally relevant to the SOTU incident.
…Which has what to do with Bush’s Gestapo.
Again, my point—which was a follow-up point drawn out by a misrepresentation of my initial post in the first place—is that good faith and consistency were in evidence, not NAZI BUSHITE FASCISM.
Sneer, act bemused, and change the subject if you’d like. But I’m not interested.
You see Karen, Jeff is not interested in addressing, let alone reading a case that addresses his many comments to the effect that Sheehan was breaking the law and her removal was justified. He’s really only interested in the liberal persecution of the president, the real threat democracy.
[ed note – Lawstsoul has never met me. So it doesn’t know what I am or am not “interested in” doing. Similarly, it itself seems uninterested in statements made by the Capitol police and others to the effect that NOT ONLY SHEEHAN but YOUNG AS WELL (this isn’t difficult to divine, by the way; just read the post) were “guilty” of breaking established protocol—even law, if we make the leap that the content of the shirts MATTERS to those in the position to see it. Lawstsoul seems also not to be interested that I find the protocols dubious, but nevertheless respect them as they have traditionally been utilized for reasons raised by many of the commenters here.
Instead, Lawstsoul is here to turn my own post into his/her own strawman—making the assertion that all I’m interested in is “liberal persecution of the president, the real threat to democracy.” Which is not the case. I have nary a problem with liberalism, properly understood. And the threat to democracy posed by self-styled progressive liberalism only affects the president incidentally, because he happens to be at the epicenter of its remarkable anti-liberal agenda.
But fear not. Jeff is also not so easily put off by bemused suggestions that he is (quite quaintly, and in a style best suited to the Hannitys of the world) interested only in partisan cheerleading, or that his arguments are mere beards for such. In fact, he finds such cheap rhetorical attempts to shame and silence him laughable, but not unsurprising coming from commenters like Lawstsoul, who seem to show up here ONLY WHEN THEY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY A GLOAT OR A GOTCHA]
So, Karen, if I had to give you any advice at all, it would be this: judging me by the pronouncement of uber partisans like lawstsoul who try to pass themselves off as bemused spectators to the pure partisan bickering of others would be a mistake.
In fact, since he shows up only at times he finds most opportunistic, and craps on me on my dime, perhaps it’s time for me to send him on his way.]
Jeff, your points suck and so do you. Suck on that sweet bipartisanship.
“Whether or not the Capitol police were overzealous in their enforcement is another question entirely.”
Jeff is a wanker. And so are the morons who posted here in support of him.
Better a wanker than a smelly pirate hooker. And so’s your mom.
Jeff,
You try much too hard to match your intellect with that of Glenn Greenwald. In your response to his post on Cindy Sheehan you come across as angry, wounded, frustrated and totally out-of-your-league – sort of like Mr. Potter from “It’s A Wonderful Life”.
Guys like Glenn eat guys like you for lunch. Go ahead, try to argue facts and law with him. I can’t wait to see you go down time and time again for you have only your right-wing idealogy to back your position and not truth, logic and the law.
“You try much too hard to match your intellect with that of Glenn Greenwald. In your response to his post on Cindy Sheehan you come across as angry, wounded, frustrated and totally out-of-your-league – sort of like Mr. Potter from “It’s A Wonderful Lifeâ€Â.
Guys like Glenn eat guys like you for lunch. Go ahead, try to argue facts and law with him. I can’t wait to see you go down time and time again for you have only your right-wing idealogy to back your position and not truth, logic and the law.”
Hmmmmm…..
Are you suggesting some sort of Trend here? Too funny…
What? Might I be suggesting that citizenme may have unresolved sexual orientation issues? That he/she/possibly-it may be severely conflicted, perhaps to the point of confused gender orientation?
No, I’m not that smart. My 14-year-old mind just naturally extracts such content, much as 2,000 uranium processing centrifuges located at hardened facilities inside Iran might separate a sufficient amount of U-238 in a year’s time to produce a few Allah bombs. Or is it U-235? And 200 centrifuges? They don’t teach physics in 9th grade.
I don’t know how exactly to break this to you, citizme, but you come across as a Greenwald fanboy. And I’m not talking about someone who admires him for his intellect. I mean, like, posters hanging in the room and cocktail napkin saved from when you bought him a sex on the beach shooter-type “admiration.”
My response to Greenwald was direct: he misrepresented both my post and my follow-up. And anyone who looked at the facts and who wasn’t suffering from an intellectual crush could see that. Sadly, you seem to own the complete set of Greenwald trading cards (in mint condition, natch), and a Greenwald action figure with the special subpoena grip.
As for my attempt to “match my intellect with that of Glenn Greenwald”—well, let’s just say that it is he who keeps linking me, and that, though I don’t list law school among my academic credentials, I’m comfortable enough with my own achievements in the world of the academy that I don’t sweat Mr Greenwald. But hey, if suggesting that I tremble in fear before him gets your li’l nubbin’ juiced, have at it.
Of course, what I’m not certain of is the strength of your intellect (I have but one comment to go on, and frankly, it read rather clunkily, even as an ad hominem); but I will say that your conclusion, in absence of any evidence, that I have only my “right-wing idealogy to back” my position—“and not truth, logic and the law”—speaks to one citizme who hasn’t done its homework.
I was accused of many things when I was teaching full time, but being one who was unable to marshal logic, or grapple with “truth” (in its many philosophical incarnations) were never among them.
As for the law—well, I have no training. But I’ll try my best to keep up just the same.
Jeff!
Who needs formal legal training when you’ve got Big Al!
He’s a cornucopia of snipped precedents and outright legal fantasy.
tongueboy and Jeff Goldstein,
“Sexual orientation issues, fanboy, sex-on-the-beach shooter-type ‘admiration’?”
Yes, I get it. You’re saying I’m gay.
And that’s where you want to take this.
Personally I don’t.
“Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful,†Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.”
“But Sheehan was there to be noticed. Her very point of being there, in fact, was to engage in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt.†This same is unlikely of Rep Young’s wife. But be that as it may.”
What were the specific actions that Cindy Sheehan engaged in to draw attention to the shirt? There were none. According to you, it’s just her mere presence. You cannot say with any certainty that Sheehan’s whole point of being there was to “engage in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt.” She did not engage in any. If that was her intent or not, she, in fact, did nothing to draw attention to the shirt. The police have said so.
And tell us why the same is unlikely with Rep Young’s wife? Did you know her intent as well?
If you wish to respond, that’s great. If not, go on and continue to call me gay. I don’t have any issues with homosexuals.
Fanboys are gay? Sex on the beach shooters, too? Hunh! Who knew! I didn’t even know your gender, in point of fact. But if you want to leap to playing the victimized identity politics card, have at it. Gives you that extra fillip of self-righteousness.
Anyway, to answer your (rather silly) questions: First, let me address this:
Actually, according to me, her mere presence was meant to draw attention to itself. It was a type of sit-in / meta-attendance moment made for media-consumption that may or may not have escalated into something more sensational. I don’t know.
And as I mentioned in my original post AND my follow-up, I’m not bothered by the t-shirt thing. But I don’t make the rules, or dictate the tradition of the protocol. So this whole discussion is way off original course.
Nevertheless, my extended and subsequent point is—beyond being able to divine Sheehan’s intent (which you’re quite right, I can’t; but that doesn’t prevent me from taking an educated guess, which I have, basing it on her past protest ploys and the conditions of her being at the SOTU in the first place: escorted to the hall by the staff of one anti-war congressperson, given the ticket by another)—is that I CAN reasonably believe, even without the whole scenario having played itself out (thanks to preemptive action taken by the Capitol police), that Rep Young’s wife was less likely to try to disrupt the SOTU address by drawing attention to herself or her t-shirt than was Ms Sheehan. Similarly, she was less likely to be the object of press attention for either her presence or her attire.
That is my OPINION. But it is an opinion that has as its basis an entire set of previous actions and behaviors and intentions and motivations.
“The House Gallery is private property”
and yet the maker of this statement accuses others of being “completely retarded”. project much?
Yes, I get it. You’re saying I’m gay.
And that’s where you want to take this.
Personally I don’t.
Oh-my-gaawwd. Simple words can’t describe. The intellectual fragmentation. And incoherence. And whiny emoting. But satire can. Fellating earnestness.
[…] you guys don’t get it, but I tend to think that you’re engaged in a fundamentally dishonest operation. But let me spell it out. As a right-wing blog, you are allied with other people on the […]
here…
[…]Compare and contrast (UPDATED) | protein wisdom[…]…