Protesters the big "tease" in evening news, Public security suffocating and obscene for what amounts to a private event

Washington DC IMC | January 20, 2005

Security is the heart of a local NBC affiliate news story, and the only identifiable threat? Those among the nearly half of the voting public, and also among the non-voting and disenfranchised public, that do not support George Bush and care to come to town to show it.

Related: Inauguration Protests Dubbed Out By TV Networks?

According to NBC 4 and the Washington Post , the city has deputized 2,000 law enforcement officers from around the country, and the Coast Guard and shuffled extra assets to the Potomac. These are among many known and secret security measures taken in advance of what is "the most secure inauguration" ever. What for? Well they said there is "no specific threat," they don't even mention Al Qaeda, but then they're willing to go on about how all this will probably be used to mostly deal with the protesters. That belies the normal tag line one might get from a cop on the street, if you're part of a demonstration, and you hear anything from a cop besides a barked order, that is that "we're here for your protection" (as they block your way to be within sight and sound of the object of your dissent).

While the Partnership for Civil Justice argues up to the wire for the rights of the protesters, having already possible won bleacher space for ANSWER, and to the benefit of all of the general public, to have equitable access to the parade route the city begins to shut down streets in phases to create one of the largest security zones the city has ever seen before or since September 11, 2001. Metro will be shutting down two stations, there will be a series of designated access points and anyone approaching the site of the inauguration or the parade route will have to enter at them and be subject to security checks.

That said, most of the parade route and the inauguration site are special seated areas with chairs or bleachers available only to those who have spent tens or hundreds of dollars to private groups in support of the president. The inauguration is, ostensibly, a private event with massive unfettered private funding and a notable toll on public resources as well. The city is looking to recoup funding they've had to spend out a Homeland security budget on things not quite so related to homeland security.

One embarassment the city has managed to miss is the possible strike of hotel workers. Yesterday the members of the union that represents the venerable "army" of thousands of local workers who would support and pamper so many of the inaugural visitors voted in favor of a contract rather than strike over the inauguration.

Of those who can make it into the few public and free spaces, they will be prohibited from using typical and peaceful mechanisms with which to express their opinions (in support of, or to denounce, George Bush).

One tactic favored by some, to turn their back on the procession, thumbs its nose at the notion that the rules limit free speech but this tactic will only be noticed if it happens in large numbers and for even enough distribution it would require many participants to literally buy into giving the RNC money for access to the route. Others are planning an array of more colorful tactics. At the Counter-Inaugural convergence center puppets are being made and announcements are going out about marches and plans to take-over other sections of the city, making a kind of alternative "security" zone. Affinity groups are meeting and some voice hopes of serious, non-violent, but disruptive direct-action protesting the notion of a "mandate" from an election with only a 2.9 percent margin of victory and tens of millions of eligible voters still not finding the voting process viable, worthwhile or accessible.