The Inaugural Parade

The 2005 Coronation of King George the Cowardly.

Well, our national trip down the Rabbithole of Alice in Wonderland was made complete with the Coronation of King George the Cowardly. As I watched the "parade", it was bizarre to say the least. There were vehicles moving in a V formation like the flying phalanx of ancient Sparta...there were Matrix like guys in dark sunglasses and long, black overcoats flanking the "Presidential limo", and at one point, there was a truck that came rolling along that had armed thugs hanging on the side that a friend watching the procession remarked to me, looked like the Mob, much like something you would see from the Al Capone era, when armed thugs would be festooning a vehicle's exterior, with their feet implanted on the running boards of the truck or car.

It looked less like a Presidential inauguration parade (I've never seen one of them), and more like Hitler's triumphant march into Poland or Paris. Actually, if some of the Men in Black had been sporting the traditional silver SS pins or Death's Head pins, the picture would have been complete....all Bushy would need would be a tiny little moustache (but perhaps, he cannot muster enough testosterone to generate one).

In another portion of the program, Hitler...er, uh, BUSHY, was addressing / commanding people from a large white podium, which was reminiscent of something you saw Il Duce (Mussolini) or Hitler do, in old film reels. His Effete Foppishness was. for all the world, an effeminate version of Big Brother re-enacted for all the world to see.

To say that the Inauguration Parade looked like the New World Order in all its "glory" would be to understate the matter.

As the tanks and troops marched down the road, even the commentators on ABC said it looked like something you would see in a Banana republic, at the direction of some dictator. As they say..."TRUE DAT".

Along the parade route, it was teeming with people, held behind great fences which, for some reason, looked like the fences at Auschwitz . And, we saw the police running along the fences, often spraying pepper spray into the eyes of these law abiding citizens whose only crime was exercising their right of free speech.

While our own citizens are starving, and troops don't have what they need, Marie Antoinette...er...Mrs. Bush, was prancing around in a solid white Oscar de la Renta that costs TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. Talk about letting them eat cake and fiddling while Rome burned...surely, their little pageant needs to reserve a rank in the history books as at least as outrageous as these. Estimates of forty to forty four MILLION dollars for this little debacle, are said to be low.

To me, it certainly adds up to a new definition of an obscene waste of money...but of course, the money is from "private" sources, which is the easy way of saying it oozes from the teats of the Pigopolists, each vying for the ability to muzzle in on the treasure trove which will be available to Bushy's toadies.

So, as Alex in Clockwork Orange might say in Nadsat, "Yes my little droogies, even the melodies of the Glorious Ludwig von....were soured by that scene. Bushy is a baddiwad chelloveck!".

During one scene, the "Presidential Limo" rolled through a tremendous cloud of smoke/fog, coming from a heating vent or something in the road. As it emerged eerily from the grey cloud, it looked like Dracula tooling around Transylvania, with his black coated, black sunglassed Familiars in attendance.

And so, the New Nightmare Begins.

~CodeWarriorz Thoughts

The New York Times > Washington > Heightened Security Turns Washington Into Quiet Scene

On this near-freezing day, the usual business of Washington came to a standstill, at least publicly. There was none of the buzz of Senate confirmation hearings, of parsing words on Social Security, of divisions between parties and ideologies. Instead, there was the carefully choreographed inauguration, timed to the minute, and order in the 100 blocks of Washington that had been blocked off to traffic for the swearing in and the daylong pomp that accompanied it.

On hand were 7,000 members of the armed forces, 6,000 federal, state and local enforcement personnel to protect and guard the president and his entourage.

The secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, said the security was "at the highest levels of any inauguration," CNN reported.

The tightened security set the background for a day of pageantry, lending it at times an air of tension and suspense. In the afternoon, the President and Mrs. Laura Bush led a parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, riding in a black limousine with tinted windows. At one point, their motorcade speeded up suddenly, with Secret Service agents walking alongside it breaking into a run for several yards, before slowing down again after rounding a corner. News agencies reported that, according to law enforcement officials, someone had thrown "a large piece of fruit" at the motorcade and security personnel acted out of caution, slowing down again when the danger seemed to pass.

The president and his wife disembarked from their limousine near the end of the route, emerging to walk the last block and a half, waving to cheering crowds.

With law enforcement officials present from as far away as Washington State, protestors still made their presence known, some more quietly than others.

By midafternoon, at least one person had been arrested in a scuffle with police. Lt. John Crawford, of Alexandria, Va., who was helping out public affairs in the D.C. metropolitan police, said that a skirmish between protesters and police at a security checkpoint at Seventh and D Streets resulted in one arrest.

He said that a group of protesters rushed the checkpoint, there was a scuffle, and an officer used pepper spray. He did not know how many protesters were involved or how many officers were on the scene. He said one officer was slightly injured with minor bruises during the scuffle.

Hundreds of thousands were expected to watch the all-day ceremonies, and many more on television, beginning with a church service attended by the Bush family at St. John's Episcopal Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House. But from the early morning hours, it was clear that the high level of security slowed down the arrival of many people, and perhaps kept some of them away, combined with the cold weather.

There were sharpshooters on building tops, police on horses, security airplanes overhead, strict checkpoints where people had to go through metal detectors and in some places, wall to wall officers that kept any protestors at bay. The White House was ringed with black anti-riot fences and dump trucks blocked key access points. But throughout the day, while the president's supporters dominated the scene, there were constant cries of boo and signs of protests of a president elected with 51 percent of the vote.

Before the swearing-in ceremony, as dignitaries were making their way to their seats, an image of Senator John Kerry, who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Bush, flashed on a jumbotron TV screen. His appearance drew applause and boos from the crowd. When the president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, was shown on the screen, his image drew much applause.

During the president's inaugural address, after he received the oath of office just before noon, Mr. Bush talked about 9/11 as "a day of fire" that changed America irrevocably.

"My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats," he said. "Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm."

Near the end of his address, protesters could be heard in the background, while his supporters tried to drown them out, but both could be heard to television audiences.

AxisofLogic/ United States

AxisofLogic/ United States United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inauguration Day 2005: imperial delusions and political reality
By Barry Grey and David North
Jan 20, 2005, 14:22

Email this article
Printer friendly page


20 January 2005
The following statement is also posted in PDF format.

The formal installation of the second-term administration of George W. Bush brings to power the most reactionary government in United States history. There is more than symbolic significance in the fact that the inauguration takes place against the backdrop of a virtual lockdown of the nation’s capital, the real purpose of which is to inspire fear and intimidate domestic political opposition, while, behind the police/military barricades, Bush’s corporate sponsors shamelessly indulge themselves at balls and parties.

It is necessary to make a sober evaluation of the prospects for Bush’s second term. This is a government which, under the mantra of the “war on terror,” seeks to promote a perpetual state of panic and hysteria. Such fear-mongering is the stock in trade of a deeply unstable and crisis-ridden regime.

On the very eve of Inauguration Day 2005, the airwaves were full of reports of a terrorist threat from a band of assassins who had crossed the border from Mexico and were targeting Boston—reports that, by the time of the evening news broadcasts, were being debunked as utterly groundless.

In the depths of the Great Depression, when American society was reeling under the impact of bank failures, factory closures and dust storms sweeping the plains, Franklin Roosevelt declared in his 1933 inaugural address that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror...” That was a period when the American ruling class still believed that it had rational answers to its problems.

The present government assumes office with the hope that it can somehow evade its mounting global and domestic problems precisely by spreading “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Its attempt to keep the population in a state of perpetual panic testifies to the fact that, behind the bombast and saber-rattling, it can see no rational way out of the contradictions that bedevil it.

With the 2004 election—in Bush’s words, his “moment of accountability”—out of the way, the circle of conspirators who determine policy—Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.—are already implementing plans to expand the war in the Middle East and dismantle whatever remains of the social and democratic gains achieved by the American working class in a century of struggle.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed in his latest New Yorker article, plans for war against Iran are already well advanced, and up to ten countries in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia have been targeted for operations by Pentagon-run assassination squads. These operations, carried out in defiance of international law and the principle of national sovereignty, embody a level of global lawlessness whose closest parallel is the record of German imperialist subversion and conquest under Hitler’s Nazi regime.

According to Hersh, these plans include the participation of US special forces in terrorist groups and their activities—raising the likelihood of another terrorist attack being used to provide the casus belli for new military adventures, whether in Iran or elsewhere. Such methods of provocation and conspiracy are the essential modus operandi of a government that rejects any form of democratic accountability—either to Congress or the people.

The Pentagon responded by attacking Hersh, without addressing the substance of his revelations. Bush, in an interview with NBC News, did not deny Hersh’s claim that the US already has military forces on the ground in Iran, and said his administration was not ruling out any options in its policy toward the country.

This expansion of American aggression overseas can only have the most catastrophic and bloody consequences. In its insane drive for global hegemony through force of arms, American imperialism will inevitably set off a chain reaction of diplomatic, economic and military countermeasures by its great power rivals in Europe, Russia and Asia, bringing the world once again to the brink of a military holocaust.

The staggering costs for implementing the imperial aims of the American oligarchy abroad are to be placed squarely on the shoulders of working people at home. There will be no let-up in the fear-mongering and lies churned out to justify the “war on terror,” and the police-state measures implemented in its name.

The second Bush administration is preparing to accelerate the process of stacking the courts with arch-reactionaries who will rubber-stamp any and all measures to shred the Constitution and destroy democratic rights. Clarence Thomas, a stalwart of the fascistic faction on the US Supreme Court, is considered a likely candidate to replace the soon-to-retire William Rehnquist as chief justice.

The administration is pushing proposals to begin the dismantling of all government-backed economic safeguards, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. With its call for tax “reform,” it is targeting the graduated income tax in favor of regressive tax structures that will shift the burden even more decisively from big business and the rich onto the working people. Bush’s demand for “tort reform” is the spearhead of a campaign to free corporations from any accountability for the socially destructive consequences of their insatiable profit drive and remove all legal restrictions on the accumulation of personal wealth.

The Democratic Party, which paved the way for Bush’s reelection by repudiating the anti-war sentiment of Democratic voters and refusing to provide a serious alternative to the anti-working-class policies of the Republicans, will offer no real resistance to a second Bush administration. It has already signaled its readiness to fall into line by supplying the necessary votes to confirm his major cabinet appointees, including officials, such as Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales, who would figure prominently as defendants in a future war crimes trial, and Michael Chertoff, a central architect of the police-state measures employed after 9/11.

The second Bush administration is determined to utilize the next four years to radically and irrevocably restructure American society in line with the foreign and domestic requirements of the financial oligarchy whose interests it serves. The reckless and headlong character of its policies is portrayed by the media, and misinterpreted by those who are taken in by its propaganda, as a sign of unassailable strength.

How is it to be explained that the Bush White House reacts to the disastrous results of its invasion of Iraq, launched on the basis of claims declared by its own weapons inspector to have been false, and provoking ever greater popular opposition within the US, by preparing to widen the war? What accounts for its determination to pursue domestic policies flagrantly favoring the rich in the teeth of overwhelming opposition within the US population?

The fundamental answer is that this is a government of permanent crisis. It rests on a narrow and unstable social base and reflects the position of a ruling elite that is driven by mounting economic contradictions for which it has no rational solution. It exemplifies the aphorism: weak governments take strong measures.

There is an objective logic and rational explanation for the deeply reactionary and disoriented nature of the Bush administration. The turn by American capitalism to the use of military force as its primary instrument of foreign policy—summed up in the Bush doctrine of preventive war—is ultimately a reflection of the economic decline of the United States and its loss of industrial and financial hegemony. A desperate ruling elite seeks to reverse its declining world position, or at least retard the rate of decline, through provocation and military violence.

The indices of this decline are stark and undeniable—above all, the massive and growing indebtedness of American capitalism, expressed in record budget, trade and balance of payments deficits. The precipitous decline of the US dollar on world currency markets, and the emergence of the euro as a rival world reserve currency, are far more credible indications of the objective position of American capitalism in the world economy than the Pentagon’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Even in purely electoral terms, the position of the Bush administration is anything but secure. Despite the cowardice and incompetence of the campaign of John Kerry, Bush was reelected by a narrow margin—the smallest margin of victory for an incumbent president in modern American history.

The media’s own opinion polls belie Bush’s claims that the election gave him a mandate for his foreign and domestic policies. Bush’s approval ratings, hovering between 48 percent and 51 percent, are the lowest of any reelected president in the run-up to his inauguration for more than a century. A solid and growing majority thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, and a majority opposes Bush’s plans to partially privatize Social Security and “reform” the tax code.

Those who take as given another four years of Bush should consider the fate of the second Nixon administration. Nixon was likewise reelected in the midst of an unpopular war, on the basis of an appeal to backward and confused popular sentiments. If anything, his position at the time of his 1973 inauguration was more secure than that of Bush. Nixon was reelected with a landslide majority in both popular and Electoral College votes. More fundamentally, the underlying crisis of American capitalism—the US was still the world’s largest creditor nation—was far less advanced 32 years ago than today.

Yet in less than two years, Nixon was driven out of office, under conditions of a massive eruption of anti-war protest and social battles by the working class.

A new mass movement of social struggle and political opposition will emerge out of the bloody wreckage of US military adventures abroad and the unprecedented assault on living conditions and democratic rights at home. The conditions that produced, two years ago next month, the largest international demonstrations against war in world history, have not disappeared. They have intensified.

No one can credibly claim that there is mass support for Bush’s policies of war and social reaction. The fate of this administration is not yet decided. It will be determined by the political character of the popular movement that emerges against it.

This movement must be consciously and politically prepared, and this preparation must begin now. A campaign must be developed to fight this administration, based not on the electoral calculations of the Democratic Party for 2008, but rather on a systematic effort to politically clarify the growing ranks of workers, students and others who will be propelled into struggle.

The fight must be undertaken to imbue the opposition to Bush with a new, socialist political orientation, one that addresses the underlying source of war and reaction—the capitalist profit system itself. It must bring together the currents of opposition to American imperialism that are growing all over the world, and link the struggle against war with the defense of democratic rights and the fight for economic and social equality.

https://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/bush-j20.shtml

Billionaires for Bush Re-Coronation Inaugural Ball

Billionaires for Bush Re-Coronation Inaugural Ball

MercuryNews.com | 01/20/2005 | Stanford protesters rally against Bush

MercuryNews.com | 01/20/2005 | Stanford protesters rally against BushStanford protesters rally against Bush

EVENT OPPOSES THURSDAY'S INAUGURATION

By Julie Patel

Mercury News


When a speaker at a noontime inauguration protest at Stanford University barked into a microphone ``He is not our president!''from behind dozens of cheering demonstrators, a lone voice drawled, ``That's right, baby: I'm your king!''

It was ``King George'' -- a member of the school's Neo Con Artists club -- donning a mask of George W. Bush, cowboy boots and a gun, royally primped up in a king's costume complete with a red velvet cape and a jewel-dotted crown. A graduate student and Stanford employee, the `King' kept his identity under wraps.

The Neo Con Artists' satirical ``Coronation'' ceremony was a part of an otherwise mellow protest at Stanford's White Plaza Thursday. The event generally focused more on strategies to fight the Bush administration's agenda than on bashing Bush -- though there was some of that, too.

``Bush does not believe in global warming...yeah,'' said one of the speakers, Colin Miller, as several students chuckled wryly. Miller, a sophomore and member of Students for a Sustainable Stanford, lamented that the United States was on a short list of countries -- including Liechtenstein and Monaco -- that haven't ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which will take affect next month and require countries that have signed on to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

``What are we doing hanging out with Liechtenstein and Monaco? I don't mean to diss them but I mean, they're small,'' he said.

Protesters dressed in everything from khakis and ties to tie-dyed shirts and long, billowing skirts held signs reading ``Send Bush twins to Iraq'' and ``Every child left behind.'' Some sat on the outskirts of the protest on bikes, others munched on sandwiches and wraps.

```What we need to be talking about is not moving our politics to the left, right or center, we need to be moving our country forward,'' said Stanford Democrats' president Marie Jonas, a sophomore studying political science. ``We have an obligation to ourselves, our future and those less fortunate in this society to stay involved.''

There weren't many Republicans at White Plaza around lunchtime but Roger Bradley, a computer programmer, said he supports Bush on most issues.

``I really like the tax breaks,'' he said. ``I'm not crazy about what's going on in Iraq but that's not the entire presidency.''

Protesters target Bush inauguration. 21/01/2005. ABC News Online

Protesters target Bush inauguration. 21/01/2005. ABC News Online
"House of Bush turns inauguration day into a crowning moment for reign of King George
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
20 January 2005


This is the 55th inauguration day in US history, and in the Cornwell household at least it could not be more special. Our son's high school has been selected to take part in the parade after the President is sworn in. He will be marching in the school's colour guard, carrying the flag of the District of Colombia. A handsome blue uniform has been lovingly pressed, shiny military dress shoes are ready for action. This is his big day.

It is George W Bush's big day as well. An inauguration is this nation's equivalent of a coronation, a four-yearly, utterly American mix of reverent idealism, crass commercialism, noisy protest and ruthless networking. Didn't they get rid of a real King George 229 years ago? Indeed, but few historians would dispute that the office of president is more monarchical than ever. Increasingly, it is a battleground for competing dynasties. Once there were the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. Today it is the House of Bush, and who knows, the House of Clinton. In 2008, the election could pit the brother of the present incumbent against the wife of his predecessor.

But that is to get ahead of the story. The heart of today's proceedings is the address Mr Bush will deliver immediately after he takes the oath of office at noon. Its themes are already known, a ringing commitment of America's mission to spread democracy and liberty across the world, and to build an "ownership society" of enterprise and prosperity at home. He is an iconoclast, whose ambition is to enter history as one of the great transformational presidents. His first term was shaped by the terrorist attacks of September 2001. If he has his way the second will be dominated by domestic initiatives: social security reform, an overhaul of the tax code, and an effort to stamp out excesses of tort legislation.

Some inaugural addresses have been memorable; Lincoln's second in 1865 as the Civil War was ending ("with malice towards none, with charity for all") is regarded as the greatest of all. Then there was Franklin Roosevelt's 1933 call to arms in the depths of the Depression - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" - and JFK's stirring call in 1961: "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Most have been undistinguished. "Sonorous nonsense" was how H L Mencken described Warren Harding's effort in 1921. (It would be unfair this morning to recall another Mencken prophesy, that "on some great and glorious day ... the White House will be adorned by a downright moron".)

The rule is, the shorter the speech the better. In 1845, William Harrison droned on for an hour and three quarters in the bitter cold. He caught pneumonia and died a month later. This president will not make that mistake.

But his constraints are obvious. Even his excellent speechwriter Michael Gerson, so fluent in uplifting religious imagery, will find it hard to summon up a call to national unity, when almost 50 per cent of the population can barely tolerate the ground Mr Bush walks on.

So on to the fun part. The official theme is "Celebrating Freedom, and Honouring Service", but the emphasis is on celebration. At a cost of $40m plus (£21m), this inauguration is the most expensive ever. Footing the bill will be the usual suspects: wealthy Bush cronies, drug and energy companies. They will be rewarded for their contributions (up to $250,000 apiece) by candlelit dinners with George and Laura, dozens of tickets to tonight's nine official inaugural balls - and of course discreet political favours down the line). Such is the American way.

But is the lavish spending not out of place when south Asia has been overwhelmed by the deadliest natural disaster of modern times, when the US itself is up to its neck in debt, and American lives and treasure are being squandered in a bloody war? After all, in 1945, FDR (admittedly so ill he would be dead in less than three months) held his fourth inaugural in the White House, offering guests a cold chicken salad. In 1917 Woodrow Wilson decreed there would be no parties, on the grounds that jollifications were inappropriate when most of the world (though not yet the US) was at war.

Not so, insists the Bush administration, which has made a point of presenting citizens with tax cuts, not demands for sacrifice, as it wages war. Of the nine balls only one, the "Commander-in-Chief" ball reserved for service personnel, is free. For the others, tickets run at $400 upwards.

But if freedom is this inauguration's leitmotiv, the capital of the land of liberty is under unprecedented lockdown. Security around presidents has been tight before: in 1861, on the eve of the Civil War, Pinkerton guards (forerunners of the Secret Service) protected Lincoln as his train passed through Baltimore, a hotbed of secessionism.

But if America was then even more divided than today, in the mid-19th century there was no tradition of suicide bombers. Today, nothing is left to chance. Some 20,000 officers are being deployed. Anti-aircraft batteries stand guard, and Coast Guard gunboats patrol the Potomac. The latest scare (although authorities admit there is no sign of a terrorist threat) is that al- Qa'ida will use limousines filled with gas canisters as bombs.

Certainly, there will be no repeat of 1953, when the newly inaugurated Dwight Eisenhower was lassoed during the parade by a stuntman cowboy called Montie Montana. Ike knew what was going to happen, but an irritated Secret Service did not. This year, the rope would bounce off the bullet-proof glass screen protecting the presidential viewing box, while Montie would be wrestled to the ground by security men. Democrats may have left town to drown their sorrows, but thousands of protesters have arrived, even thoughwould-be egg throwers will not get within a quarter-mile of the White House."

William A. Cook: The Bush Inauguration as Mock Epic Fertility Rite

William A. Cook: The Bush Inauguration as Mock Epic Fertility Rite
EXCELLENT!
"Today America inaugurates a newly elected President, a ceremony that traditionally celebrates the promise of our Democracy, recognition of the people's right to consent to be governed by a person they selected and fulfillment of the promise of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. How ironic, then, this immanent inauguration of the Lord of Misrule, this comic fool who struts his hour on the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!

What pray tell is there to celebrate? Why spend forty million dollars to recognize a man whose efforts to date have been to undermine our democracy, not to strengthen the pillars on which it rests; to carve the nation into the haves and the have nots, not to build bridges of support to aid all our citizens; to sever alliances with the nations of the world, not to forge agreements that bind us as one to better conditions for all; to make America a pariah among nations, not loved for its rational policies but feared for its erratic, unpredictable actions that threaten stability in the world; and, perhaps worst of all, to turn America from a nation revered by many because of its compassion for others and its perceived desire to bring the significance of individual rights to all to one that supports oppression and occupation, torture, and disdain for human rights.

What has this administration brought us but disrespect, dishonor and despair?

Disrespect for our democracy as it has become the lackey of corporate powers and religious zealots; dishonor as a people, seen now as manikins manipulated by money and ministers before all the nations of the earth; and despair resulting from our inability as individuals to prevent the wanton slaughter wrought by our weapons of mass destruction on all the helpless in the mid-east? What, then, is this inauguration but a mock-epic fittingly tuned to the roots from which it sprang: a fertility rite conducted by a druid priest ceremoniously inducting Bush into office ensuring that the few will reap a rich harvest from the many who bow obsequiously before his altar.

I'm afraid I do not hear rising above the processional lofty anthems signaling the ascendancy of a worthy man with compassionate ideals to the position of "most powerful man on earth." I hear instead the marching drums and shrill patter of the fife leading the congregation of believers in "Onward Christian Soldiers" as they assemble for the final battle Christ has promised them if they are to attain everlasting glory. But I hear as well the distant wail of children blinded and burned by our depleted uranium, and those crushed beneath the rubble of our precision bombing, and those caught in the savagery of "green parrots," tantalizing toys created by our weapons merchants to dismember and maim innocent children, and those caught by chance in the crowds as Israel hurls missiles at men it has judged worthy of death but not worthy of a trial, a decidedly democratic way of celebrating the rite that brings Bush to the presidency of a purportedly Christian nation. "All those who take the sword will perish by the sword," (Matt. 26: 52) appears to be a forgotten admonition, as forgotten as the words of the Psalmist by the Jews: "O Lord, if I have done this, if there is injustice on my hands, if I have rendered evil to him who was at peace with me, or, without cause, have plundered him who was no enemy, let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul; let him trample my life to the ground and lay my honor in the dust." (Psalm 7: 3-5).

No, I'm afraid this inauguration is not a celebration for me or for half the nation who voted against this Cabal, whose ruthless and un-Christian actions hurl America backward in time and morality to barbarous days when might made right and life was reserved only for those willing and capable of killing. No, I'm afraid the righteous must do the celebrating even as they attend his coronation as Emperor of Fools. Let them celebrate his morality that proclaims salvation for the yet to be born while he mutilates children in kindergartens with misplaced missiles; decries terrorist acts of wanton slaughter even as he and Sharon, his puppeteer, terrorizes innocent civilians with crippling and deadly missiles hurled into crowded streets and apartment buildings; feigns outrage at suicide bombers but demands his minions torture and kill prisoners, then, shamelessly denies that he is responsible; admonishes the nations of the world for permitting the UN to be ridiculed by rogue nations that defy their resolutions while he supports, nay encourages, Israel to terrorize the indigenous population of the land they have stolen despite having mocked the UN by defying more than 155 Resolutions; brazenly condescends to Israeli demolition of homes, thousands of them, in full violation of human rights and international law; lures the compliant citizenry of the US into a devastating, illegal and immoral invasion of another state by lying to the people, time and time again, compounded by his lying that he had not lied; and, most ironically, ridicules the evangelical Christian community, those most devoted to his cause, by hypocritically declaring that he is a messenger of God, indeed, on a mission from God since he receives messages from Him, when, in fact, he is but a deluded fool responsive to myths believed as reality. Zealots, unfortunately, succumb to imposed literalism as a salve to suppress ignorance, and that in turn allows the most insidious evil to escape scrutiny.

These pseudo-Christians, these end-timers, dominionists, Zionist evangelicals raise their collective hands in swaying unison proclaiming passionately their belief in Jesus, damning disbelievers who threaten their institution of marriage with civil unions and their pro-life commandment with a woman's right to choose, believing erroneously that Jesus preached these truths. He did not. "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful," (Luke 6:36) that is what He said; "As you wish that men would do to you, do you to them," (Luke 6:31) that is what He said; "So also my heavenly Father will do to you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart," (Matt: 18:35) that is what He said; "Judge not, that you be not judged," (Matt: 7:1) that is what He said; "This I command to you to love one another," (John 15: 16-17) that is what He said; "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven," (Matt: 5: 43-45) that is what He said; "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another," (John 13:33-35) that is what He said. These are the words of the Christ, not "Kill, Kill!" Where is the NEW Testament in the rants of the ministers of war? Why do they resort to the wrathful, malicious, judgmental G-d of the OLD Testament? Let that G-d judge His chosen people; let Jesus open salvation to all in mercy and forgiveness. Enough of vengeance and retaliation; bring back the sun of Christ's spirit. "

CBS News | Bush: Voters Ratified Iraq Policy | January 17, 2005�20:30:01

CBS News | Bush: Voters Ratified Iraq Policy | January 17, 2005�20:30:01Bush: Voters Ratified Iraq Policy

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2005



Cleric Kidnapped In Mosul


President Bush enters St. John's Church on Sunday. (Photo: AP)



"I am more patient than some."
President Bush


Election Stories:
• The Latest
• Will U.S. Go 3-For-3?
• Overseas Iraqis To Vote
• Conservative Concern
• Bin Laden Urges Boycott

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interactives:
• Fallujah Facts
• Urban Warfare
• Daily Photos
• Fallen Heroes
• New Government
• Hostages Held

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps:
•Launching The Siege
•The Postwar Insurgency

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video Archives:
•Fallujah Fight
•War Anniversary
•Saddam Capture, Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timeline:
•Shutting Down Saddam








(CBS/AP) President Bush says his re-election proves Americans agree with his decision to invade Iraq, and that as a result, there's no need to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes made in planning for the war, or its aftermath

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post for Sunday's editions. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

In the interview, conducted Friday aboard Air Force One, Mr. Bush set no schedule for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army.

He urged Americans to be patient as Iraq moves toward creating a democratic nation in place of a dictatorship.

"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy ... I am more patient than some."

The president declined to endorse outgoing secretary of State Colin Powell's prediction that U.S. troop strength in Iraq could be reduced by the end of the year.

"The sooner the Iraqis are ... better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said.

Rather than propose an expansion of the National Guard and regular army, the president said, "What we're going to do is make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the reserves closely dovetail with active army units, so that the pressure ... is eased."

Mr. Bush said he was pleased with the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, blamed for the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. "I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be," he said.

Asked why bin Laden was not been captured yet, the president responded, "Because he's hiding."

He acknowledged that U.S. standing has diminished in the eyes of some countries and said he has asked Condoleezza Rice, his nominee to replace Powell, to launch a diplomacy campaign that "explains our motives and explains our intentions."

Capitol Hill Blue: Paying Inauguaral Bills Buys Access to Bush

Paying Inauguaral Bills Buys Access to Bush
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jan 20, 2005, 06:11
Email this article
Printer friendly page

American companies with deep pockets and an even deeper interest in what goes on in Washington are footing most of the expected $40 million bill for President Bush's inaugural bash.
Security costs aside, the president has said no taxpayer money will be involved in financing the lavish festivities celebrating his second inauguration this week, including a parade, candlelight dinners and nine inaugural balls.

Instead, the financial services industry, energy companies, automakers, drug giants, tobacco companies and wealthy individuals are picking up the tab, and getting a chance to rub shoulders with the politically powerful.

Major donors have contributed $24.9 million already, according to the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which lists them on its Web site at www.inaugural05.com.

Many giving to the inaugural celebrations have big issues on the boil in Washington, ranging from whether a portion of Social Security retirement contributions are privatized to renewed efforts to pass an energy bill that may open new areas to oil exploration.

Many givers also saw their executives and employees contributing to the Bush re-election campaign, and say this spending is as normal as voting in a democracy. While laws govern what individuals can give to a campaign, there are no limits on inaugural gifts from individuals or corporations, other than those imposed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee itself.

"Political participation by companies and associations in the U.S. is a normal course of business," said Lauren Kerr, media advisor at Exxon Mobil Corp., when asked why the company had given $250,000 -- the top amount the committee accepts.

Some companies acknowledge that financing parties is a good way to join the festivities and gain access to a broad range of U.S. policymakers who will be there. Corporations also gave heavily to the first inauguration of Democrat Bill Clinton, but controversy over sponsorship curbed 1997's festivities.

"It does give us an opportunity to interact with those that are in the government, those that are in the administration, those that are in the Congress, and those that are in the judiciary, and policymakers that are involved with the process in Washington," said Mike Moran, a spokesman for Ford Motor Co., another $250,000 donor.

Those who gave the top amount are receiving tickets to most inaugural events, plus lunch with Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. So far, 52 companies and individuals have chipped in $250,000, organizers say.

Donors of $100,000 get tickets to the swearing-in ceremony, parade and balls.

Energy companies such as ExxonMobil are watching the energy bill that stalled in the previous Congress; Republicans say they will make it a priority again in the new session. Other energy companies who gave $250,000 to the inauguration include ChevronTexaco and Occidental Petroleum .

The financial services industry, a likely beneficiary of private social security accounts, is also represented. Goldman Sachs Group, J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley all gave $100,000.

Automakers like Ford are affected by a vast array of regulatory and policy issues in Washington, not least of all rising pension costs. The Bush administration last week proposed that companies with traditional pensions fund them better and pay higher premiums to insure them.

Ford employees also gave the Bush 2004 campaign $72,440, says the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks donations. The automaker will throw its own party on Thursday at the Philips Collection art gallery. Members of Congress, cabinet level members and some members of the judiciary have been invited.

Rival express deliverers, FedEx Corp. and UPS Inc. , each donated $250,000 to the inaugural committee. UPS says it has given generously to inaugurals before and spokesman David Bolger said the company is showing a bipartisan spirit.

But UPS and FedEx have strong interests in trade, security and regulatory policies, like new shipping routes, overseas competition and the overhaul of the U.S. Postal Service.

Even companies that have been sued by the federal government are donating to the Bush inaugural. Altria Group Inc., the parent company of tobacco giant Philip Morris, is a $250,000 donor. It also gave the Bush 2004 campaign nearly $39,000, the Center for Responsive Politics said.


American companies with deep pockets and an even deeper interest in what goes on in Washington are footing most of the expected $40 million bill for President Bush's inaugural bash.
Security costs aside, the president has said no taxpayer money will be involved in financing the lavish festivities celebrating his second inauguration this week, including a parade, candlelight dinners and nine inaugural balls.
Instead, the financial services industry, energy companies, automakers, drug giants, tobacco companies and wealthy individuals are picking up the tab, and getting a chance to rub shoulders with the politically powerful.
Major donors have contributed $24.9 million already, according to the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which lists them on its Web site at www.inaugural05.com.
Many giving to the inaugural celebrations have big issues on the boil in Washington, ranging from whether a portion of Social Security retirement contributions are privatized to renewed efforts to pass an energy bill that may open new areas to oil exploration.
Many givers also saw their executives and employees contributing to the Bush re-election campaign, and say this spending is as normal as voting in a democracy. While laws govern what individuals can give to a campaign, there are no limits on inaugural gifts from individuals or corporations, other than those imposed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee itself.
'Political participation by companies and associations in the U.S. is a normal course of business,' said Lauren Kerr, media advisor at Exxon Mobil Corp., when asked why the company had given $25"

Led by Cheney, Imus in the Morning became Brit ... [Media Matters for America]

Led by Cheney, Imus in the Morning became Brit ... [Media Matters for America]
Led by Cheney, Imus in the Morning became Brit Hume fan club

On the January 20 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus and Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman joined Vice President Dick Cheney in heaping praise on FOX News host, managing editor, and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume. When asked by Imus, "Do you watch the news at night?" Cheney responded, "I sometimes watch another network [besides MSNBC]. No, I'm a fan of Brit Hume's show. I think Brit does a good job." Imus then declared, "I actually like Brit Hume." Later in the program, Fineman stated that Hume is a "terrific journalist" who has been "great at ABC and great at FOX."

Cheney's praise for Hume is unsurprising, given that Hume is a regular promoter of Cheney and the Bush administration. But it is unclear why Imus and Fineman have such respect for Hume as a journalist, given his long history of distortions and outright falsehoods and his reliable attacks on Democrats, which Media Matters for America has documented:

Hume defended Cheney with lie about Kerry weapons-system cuts
Hume defended Rumsfeld's falsehood as "quite thoughtful," "pretty reasonable"
Led by Hume, FOX "All-Stars" agreed on falsehoods about Social Security
Barnes, Hume, and Limbaugh agree on a lie: "Bush had said that there was not an imminent threat"
As evidence mounts of GOP connection to anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vets, Hume and [former Republican presidential candidate Bob] Dole deny the obvious
Hume on Kerry: "He'd have to clear everything" with [French President] Jacques Chirac
FOX's Brit Hume spins for Bush

In the "What the Hell is He Talking about Department"....

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World
"Vice President Dick Cheney voiced concern Thursday that Israel may decide to act first against Iran to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear threat.

"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said in an interview aired on MSNBC on the day that George W. Bush was sworn into office for his second term as president.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Cheney said."

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!Hey now,

Michael, I just read 17 pretty good reasons why I shouldn't slit my wrists. I want to say thank you man. This country has been done a great service by you and those like you (Stern, Franken and the like) who are not afraid to buck-up to the right wingers.

I was a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. I was on the USS Peleliu 15th MEU (Marines) when we were attacked. We were in port in Darwin Australia and the moment I found out I knew our lives would never be the same. We, literally, immediately steamed over to East Timor dropped off food (SOP for the WestPac cruise we were on) and hauled ass to Pakistan. That is when I realized I was in an incompetently lead country.

We sat off the coast of Pasni, Pakistan for months. Now, I'm sure that they had plenty of special ops guys over there (I watched many of them fly off the boat to, I think, combat). But, it wasn't until Thanksgiving day that we sent a large force of Marines over there (I remember because the ones that went (I didn't go, I was an avionics guy) were pissed because they didn't get to eat that day). Now, why is it that we waited knowing fully well that Taliban, al Qaeda and bin Laden were over there basically mooning us not unlike the Scots in Braveheart.

I am so mad at this country for sending our guys (My contract was complete in June of 02) to the wrong war. I have so many friends over there right now. I saw an email that was pretty popular going around towards the beginning of the war. It was titled "How did you sleep last night." Well, a real good buddy of mine was in that email sleeping in the shitty dirt over there. This guy was on the Peleliu with me. He is a great guy and I can't imagine him hurting a thing that wasn't bothering him. Do the people not think about people like him when they are voting? I have people at work constantly talking about how we need to be over there. These are people like me, in their mid-20's. Of course they never volunteered, of course, "they would if they had to."

I just wanted to tell you a piece of my experience with this administration. Oh yea, the VA hospitals suck. Thanks for fighting the good fight. You are a true American and we could use a few more people with pull to be half the man you are.

Thanks,
O.G.
[city omitted], AZ

Missiles deployed for inauguration

Missiles deployed for inauguration
The military has deployed anti-aircraft missiles within range of the Capitol as part of security enhancements for tomorrow's presidential inauguration.
The missile deployment comes even though the FBI and Homeland Security Department concluded in a recent threat assessment that there is no credible information showing that terrorists have targeted inaugural events.

Army Avenger missile systems, a Humvee-mounted version of the Stinger anti-aircraft missile, were deployed in the weekend at several locations in the Washington area, including the northern tip of Bolling Air Force Base in Southeast.

"It is a NORAD deployment," said Army Maj. Maria Quon, a spokeswoman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the joint U.S.-Canadian defense system developed during the Cold War.

Maj. Quon said that in addition to the Avengers, military and security agencies have deployed F-16, F-15 and support aircraft and radar and communications systems.
The combat jets are flying round-the-clock patrols to deal with any aircraft threats to tomorrow's ceremonies. Additionally, the Air Force is flying E-3 airborne warning and control aircraft that are conducting surveillance missions and would help guide interceptor jets to targets.

The Avengers and other weapons are part of an "interagency multilayered air defense of the national capital region," Maj. Quon said. She declined to comment on the locations of the weapons and equipment.
However, past deployments included Fort Lesley J. McNair in Southwest and the grounds of the Pentagon.

The Stinger missiles could be used against any aircraft that attempts to attack or strays into restricted airspace over the Washington area.
A seven-page Jan. 11 threat assessment concluded that "at this time, there is no credible information indicating that domestic or international terrorist groups are targeting the inauguration."

US President plans ceremony fit for a king

US President plans ceremony fit for a king

Emperor sworn in surrounded by deserted streets

AlterNet: MediaCulture: Will the Inaugural Protests Be Covered?

By Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org. Posted January 18, 2005.

Some of us are old enough to remember that bright day in January 1977 when Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter got out of their limo and strolled down Pennsylvania Ave. to the White House. We remember it now with nostalgia because that more hopeful American moment is long gone. Now we have elections deemed "brief accountability moments" and a garrison state to insure the trains of social order run on time.

Homeland security?

Homeland insecurity is more like it, as new state of the art police state tactics are introduced to protect the president from protesters who plan to try to give his administration as hard a time as they can.

This year's re-inauguration promises to be more fun and games and who knows what repressive tactics will be introduced if somehow the event turns into a street fight or worse. Will there be another Chicago or Tiananmen Square or just mass arrests like at the RNC in New York?

The FBI uses a sports metaphor to describe its overkill approach even as it waves a stick bigger than any Teddy Roosevelt carried. They can't wait to test out their souped up contain and control strategies. The testosterone is pumping among the G-Men. They want to engage.

Reports The Washington Post:

"This is the Super Bowl for us," said FBI Supervisory Special Agent James W. Rice II. "Everyone on every team is dressed up and playing in the game. And the bench is very, very deep."

"The agents and officers at the swearing-in and along the parade route will have access to the latest tools. Every piece of technology that exists will be a part of this," said Rice, who oversees the National Capital Response Squad.

Underscore that line "Every technology that exists."

But this is more than a boys-with-toys-chasing-the-militant-black-bloc-around-Dupont-Circle moment. It could be a turning point in the history of the republic since the "Sun King," as Marc Crispin Miller calls GWB, has already made clear that in his mind at least the election gave him a mandate to do whatever he wants to do.

Full Stop.

Not surprisingly, the protesters will be out in force as they were in 2000. Back then, the press barely took notice of the biggest inaugural protest in American history. Writer Dennis Loy Johnson wrote a must-read little book called The Big Chill on "The great unreported story of the Bush Inauguration Protests ... " (Melville House).

The protests were ignored, he charges. "There seemed to be a determined and almost paternalistic effort by the media to soothe and assure the populace that everything was fine, that the democracy was running smoothly (as if that was the obligation of either print or broadcast journalists) that there was, in any case no dissent except from the usual suspects ... "

That was then. That event signaled a new media paradigm for marginalizing dissenters.

Last year, the 's ombudsman Michael Getler investigated complaints that the Post had been downplaying protests and minimizing their numbers. He concluded that the complaints were valid. And it was done as a matter of policy. The paper carried a mini-mea culpa about its prewar coverage. And then it was back to news business as usual.

So here we go again as David Admin wrote on RedefeatBush.com on Jan. 15:


"The Post's coverage of the counter-inaugural in today's paper uses only 5 of its 1822 words to describe why anyone might wish to protest the inauguration of George W. Bush – 'Ohio is a battle cry.' The rest trivializes the motivation of the protesters. An intelligent reader who wishes to discern the answer cannot grasp why they are protesting. The only possibility the Post offers is that they do so to be cool.

"We look forward with great anticipation to the Post's ridicule of the Bush inaugural itself, since surely the pomposity of that event will engender a similar level of jocularity and arrogance on its part."


The blog at Democrats.com anticipates the worse: "the protests will be large but will be subject to a media blackout."

Some protesters fear the lack of coverage may be their own fault, that it is they who are turning off the press. Here is a comment by someone called "citizen" on the DC Indymedia site:

"How can we expect to be taken seriously without good typography ... please I implore you, consult a trained professional graphic designer when creating any printed materials, particularly those that are to be seen by the press."

I wish that our media decided what to cover on the basis of typography. There is more going in here. The Washington Post works in the bubble of the Beltway. It shares the values and logic of those in power. To them, protesters come from a different country, perhaps even a different planet, and as such have no claim on legitimacy or their attention.

So as media critics pounce on the Bush administration for subsidizing the likes of conservative pseudo journalist Armstrong Williams to get its spin into the media, they ignore the way that our media has allowed itself to be co-opted. Many don't need to be bought. They are already on board, fully deferential to the administration as has been seen over and over again.

Their stance reminds me of a ditty about journalists often cited in the media in the UK. I am not sure who wrote it.

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist

Thank God, the British Journalist

Seeing what the chap will do for free

There's no occasion to."

No wonder many protesters don't feel they can't trust the press corps (or is it corpse?). Activists feel they have taken sides even as they mask their agendas with the claims of objectivity. (Liberal Media, my a – )

In an age of information dominance, they are the ones being dominated when they are not just getting along by going along. Far too many in the corporate media world in the words of Sen. Robert Byrd, "have bought it hook, line and sinker."

Here is an example of how the reporters from the Post seek guidance from the administration. As we know, the GOP and the administration spends a great deal of time, with help from pollsters like Frank Luntz, in shaping the language used to popularize its agenda. We saw it clearly in the war when terms like "Iraqi Freedom" were on their lips every other second.

Now as the administration promotes the privatization of Social Security, they depoliticize the issue by repeatedly referencing "personal savings accounts" and avoiding unpopular words like "private." Recently Post reporters spoke to President Bush about this directly. This revealing exchange item in which a Post reporter explains that they have been arguing with the RNC over the proper language to use on the Democratic Underground site:

WP Reveals that WH Propaganda Includes Pressuring Newspapers

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been –

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this. Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

Someone on the site then comments: "What was that? We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this. Why the hell would the WP bother arguing with the administration about the language they choose to use? ... They start winning the issue when they get to frame the issue. Here we go again."

This type of negotiating may be one reason why one of Washington's great reporters no longer can stomach working for newspapers like the Times or the Post. He doesn't ask the administration how to word things. Seymour Hersh is breaking stories all by himself for the New Yorker magazine.

His latest – out this week – discloses that a new war may be brewing. Reuters reports: "The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

Here we go again – again.

So if media outlets can't or won't cover a major war in the making, is it any surprise that they won't cover the political war at home, right in their own backyard?

UPDATE

Post Ombudsman Michael Getler reveals that The Washington Post Co. is among the more than 100 companies that have donated between $100,000 and $250,000 in support of President Bush's $40 million-dollar inaugural gala. The Post has given $100,000, Getler reports, saying that the company wanted to ensure that it would have enough tickets to events such as the inaugural balls. He continues: "Readers who wrote to me said they viewed this as inconsistent with the role of a hard-nosed news organization. I would say they have a good point. "

News Dissector Danny Schechter is the "blogger in chief" at MediaChannel.org and directed WMD(Weapons of Mass Deception) a film about the media coverage of the Iraq war. (www.wmdthefilm.com) WMD opens at the Village East in New York City Feb. 4.

AlterNet: MediaCulture: Will the Inaugural Protests Be Covered?

AlterNet: MediaCulture: Will the Inaugural Protests Be Covered?
From Mediachannel.org

"Some of us are old enough to remember that bright day in January 1977 when Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter got out of their limo and strolled down Pennsylvania Ave. to the White House. We remember it now with nostalgia because that more hopeful American moment is long gone. Now we have elections deemed "brief accountability moments" and a garrison state to insure the trains of social order run on time.

Homeland security?

Homeland insecurity is more like it, as new state of the art police state tactics are introduced to protect the president from protesters who plan to try to give his administration as hard a time as they can.

This year's re-inauguration promises to be more fun and games and who knows what repressive tactics will be introduced if somehow the event turns into a street fight or worse. Will there be another Chicago or Tiananmen Square or just mass arrests like at the RNC in New York?

The FBI uses a sports metaphor to describe its overkill approach even as it waves a stick bigger than any Teddy Roosevelt carried. They can't wait to test out their souped up contain and control strategies. The testosterone is pumping among the G-Men. They want to engage.

Reports The Washington Post:

"This is the Super Bowl for us," said FBI Supervisory Special Agent James W. Rice II. "Everyone on every team is dressed up and playing in the game. And the bench is very, very deep."

"The agents and officers at the swearing-in and along the parade route will have access to the latest tools. Every piece of technology that exists will be a part of this," said Rice, who oversees the National Capital Response Squad.

Underscore that line "Every technology that exists."

But this is more than a boys-with-toys-chasing-the-militant-black-bloc-around-Dupont-Circle moment. It could be a turning point in the history of the republic since the "Sun King," as Marc Crispin Miller calls GWB, has already made clear that in his mind at least the election gave him a mandate to do whatever he wants to do.

Full Stop.

Not surprisingly, the protesters will be out in force as they were in 2000. Back then, the press barely took notice of the biggest inaugural protest in American history. Writer Dennis Loy Johnson wrote a must-read little book called The Big Chill on "The great unreported story of the Bush Inauguration Protests ... " (Melville House).

The protests were ignored, he charges. "There seemed to be a determined and almost paternalistic effort by the media to soothe and assure the populace that everything was fine, that the democracy was running smoothly (as if that was the obligation of either print or broadcast journalists) that there was, in any case no dissent except from the usual suspects ... "

That was then. That event signaled a new media paradigm for marginalizing dissenters.

Last year, the 's ombudsman Michael Getler investigated complaints that the Post had been downplaying protests and minimizing their numbers. He concluded that the complaints were valid. And it was done as a matter of policy. The paper carried a mini-mea culpa about its prewar coverage. And then it was back to news business as usual.

So here we go again as David Admin wrote on RedefeatBush.com on Jan. 15:


"The Post's coverage of the counter-inaugural in today's paper uses only 5 of its 1822 words to describe why anyone might wish to protest the inauguration of George W. Bush – 'Ohio is a battle cry.' The rest trivializes the motivation of the protesters. An intelligent reader who wishes to discern the answer cannot grasp why they are protesting. The only possibility the Post offers is that they do so to be cool.

"We look forward with great anticipation to the Post's ridicule of the Bush inaugural itself, since surely the pomposity of that event will engender a similar level of jocularity and arrogance on its part."


The blog at Democrats.com anticipates the worse: "the protests will be large but will be subject to a media blackout."

Some protesters fear the lack of coverage may be their own fault, that it is they who are turning off the press. Here is a comment by someone called "citizen" on the DC Indymedia site:

"How can we expect to be taken seriously without good typography ... please I implore you, consult a trained professional graphic designer when creating any printed materials, particularly those that are to be seen by the press."

I wish that our media decided what to cover on the basis of typography. There is more going in here. The Washington Post works in the bubble of the Beltway. It shares the values and logic of those in power. To them, protesters come from a different country, perhaps even a different planet, and as such have no claim on legitimacy or their attention.

So as media critics pounce on the Bush administration for subsidizing the likes of conservative pseudo journalist Armstrong Williams to get its spin into the media, they ignore the way that our media has allowed itself to be co-opted. Many don't need to be bought. They are already on board, fully deferential to the administration as has been seen over and over again.

Their stance reminds me of a ditty about journalists often cited in the media in the UK. I am not sure who wrote it.

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist

Thank God, the British Journalist

Seeing what the chap will do for free

There's no occasion to."

No wonder many protesters don't feel they can't trust the press corps (or is it corpse?). Activists feel they have taken sides even as they mask their agendas with the claims of objectivity. (Liberal Media, my a – )

In an age of information dominance, they are the ones being dominated when they are not just getting along by going along. Far too many in the corporate media world in the words of Sen. Robert Byrd, "have bought it hook, line and sinker."

Here is an example of how the reporters from the Post seek guidance from the administration. As we know, the GOP and the administration spends a great deal of time, with help from pollsters like Frank Luntz, in shaping the language used to popularize its agenda. We saw it clearly in the war when terms like "Iraqi Freedom" were on their lips every other second.

Now as the administration promotes the privatization of Social Security, they depoliticize the issue by repeatedly referencing "personal savings accounts" and avoiding unpopular words like "private." Recently Post reporters spoke to President Bush about this directly. This revealing exchange item in which a Post reporter explains that they have been arguing with the RNC over the proper language to use on the Democratic Underground site:

WP Reveals that WH Propaganda Includes Pressuring Newspapers

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been –

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this. Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

Someone on the site then comments: "What was that? We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this. Why the hell would the WP bother arguing with the administration about the language they choose to use? ... They start winning the issue when they get to frame the issue. Here we go again."

This type of negotiating may be one reason why one of Washington's great reporters no longer can stomach working for newspapers like the Times or the Post. He doesn't ask the administration how to word things. Seymour Hersh is breaking stories all by himself for the New Yorker magazine.

His latest – out this week – discloses that a new war may be brewing. Reuters reports: "The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

Here we go again – again.

So if media outlets can't or won't cover a major war in the making, is it any surprise that they won't cover the political war at home, right in their own backyard?

UPDATE

Post Ombudsman Michael Getler reveals that The Washington Post Co. is among the more than 100 companies that have donated between $100,000 and $250,000 in support of President Bush's $40 million-dollar inaugural gala. The Post has given $100,000, Getler reports, saying that the company wanted to ensure that it would have enough tickets to events such as the inaugural balls. He continues: "Readers who wrote to me said they viewed this as inconsistent with the role of a hard-nosed news organization. I would say they have a good point. "

News Dissector Danny Schechter is the "blogger in chief" at MediaChannel.org and directed WMD(Weapons of Mass Deception) a film about the media coverage of the Iraq war. (www.wmdthefilm.com) WMD opens at the Village East in New York City Feb. 4."

World Screen News - Home

World Screen News - Home: "Email this article to a friend Print this article

Judge Allows Jackson to Make Televised Statement
LOS ANGELES, January 20: The judge in Michael Jackson's child molestation case has allowed the singer to speak on the record to Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera so that he can respond to an ABC Primetime report that included grand jury testimony from his teen accuser.
According to wire reports, the judge has okayed the statement Jackson gave to Rivera. Fox News, however, has reportedly not yet decided when and how the material will be aired.
Jackson was allowed to make the statement in order to respond to the Primetime Live special on ABC last week that managed to obtain transcripts from Jackson's accuser's grand jury testimony. Jackson has been indicted on 10 counts of child molestation and conspiracy stemming from accusations leveled against him by a now 15-year-old cancer survivor. The alleged victim appeared with Jackson in Martin Bashir's 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson."

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Top News Article | Reuters.com: "By Gideon Long
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi militants said on Thursday they would fight for 'months and years' to free their country from U.S.-led occupation as their nemesis President Bush was inaugurated in Washington for a second term.
Hours before Bush was sworn in, a group led by al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi released an audio tape urging Islamists to prepare for a lengthy holy war.
The group, which has staged most of the deadliest suicide attacks in Iraq in the run-up to elections on Jan. 30, said it was crushing the morale of 'tyrant' America. "

US News Article | Reuters.com

US News Article | Reuters.comBy Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Flag-draped coffins and anti-war chants competed with pomp and circumstance on Thursday at the inauguration of President Bush along the snow-dusted, barricaded streets of central Washington.

As the president was sworn in for a second term amid the tightest security in inaugural history, protesters chanted "Hell no, we won't go! We won't go for Texaco" and other anti-war slogans. They carried hundreds of mock coffins along 16th Street, a downtown thoroughfare leading to the White House, to remind Americans of the mounting casualties in Iraq.

While some protesters played drums, others held signs such as "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam," "Down with King George," and "Your taxes at work killing." Other placards called for electoral reform, gay rights, abortion rights and the use of renewable energy.

Jamie Dennis, a 22-year-old contractor from Silver Spring, Maryland, said it was important for people come out and protest Bush's policies. "This is showing that he doesn't have as much political capital as he claims," he said.

Demonstrations were mostly peaceful during the first inauguration since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Police sealed off 100 blocks around the White House and parade route, barring all traffic except official security and police cars.

In one case, police scuffled with about 30 anarchists about two streets away from the inaugural parade route, using pepper spray and batons to disperse the group. Some black-clad anarchists also traded insults with Bush supporters, many in fur coats. Others threw snowballs at police.

"Right wing scum, your time has come," read a banner at a march of about 200 anarchists heading toward Pennsylvania Avenue, where the inaugural parade was scheduled in the afternoon.

'DIE-IN' AND METAL DETECTORS

Just outside the White House grounds, 17 protesters staged a "die-in." After shouting a chant of "Stop the killing, stop the war," they dropped to the pavement one by one as one of them began reading a list of those killed in Iraq.

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Judge Denies Inauguration Protests Suit

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Judge Denies Inauguration Protests Suit: "Judge Denies Inauguration Protests Suit

Wednesday January 19, 2005 12:01 AM
AP Photo CAP105
By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge ruled Tuesday against a group of protesters who claimed they are being unfairly excluded from major portions of President Bush's inaugural parade route.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said the National Park Service has satisfied its obligation to allow demonstrators with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition access to several locations along Pennsylvania Avenue on Thursday, including a large plaza with space for up to 10,000 protesters.
The lawsuit claimed the park service illegally blocked protesters and the general public from access to vast portions of Pennsylvania Avenue reserved solely for ticketed guests approved by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
``It's clear the plaintiffs did not get the space they wanted, but they did get nine designated areas,'' Friedman said.
Friedman also denied a challenge to Secret Service restrictions that ban all signs from being affixed to poles or sticks. He said the ban is reasonable considering safety concerns.
In 2001, thousands of demonstrators were able to stand on sidewalks along the parade route, carrying signs and shouting slogans as Bush's motorcade passed. This year, however, the park service is excluding the public from most sidewalks and open spaces between and around bleachers.
A.N.S.W.E.R. attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard complained that most of the areas reserved for protesters are behind bleachers or set off hundreds of feet from the street.
The parade gets under way at 2 p.m. EST Thursday after Bush's swearing-in at the Capitol and a celebratory luncheon"

Peace groups stage inauguration protests

Peace groups stage inauguration protestsPeace groups stage inauguration protests

While Republicans revel in the inauguration of President George W. Bush for his second term today, local peace groups will stage two demonstrations to protest both the lavish celebration in Washington and the policies of the Bush administration.
An outdoor vigil designating today an unofficial "day of mourning" will take place from noon to 1 p.m. in front of the entrance to the Hannaford supermarket on Route 9W in Kingston.
Members of the singing group Voices for Peace will attend, as well as members of the anti-war group Women in Black. Artwork protesting the ongoing war in Iraq will be displayed.
Another event, titled "Songs of Hope and Mourning: A Hudson Valley Inaugural Protest," will take place from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Pauline Oliveros Foundation in Kingston. The event will feature musicians, poets and other performers.
Both events are free, organizers said.

ECONOMIC BOYCOTT OF THE INAUGURATION OF KING GEORGE THE COWARDLY

TODAY IS AN ECONOMIC BOYCOTT DAY.

PLEASE DON'T BUY ANYTHING TODAY .

PROTEST THE INITIATION OF THE "SECOND INFECTION"

ALSO KNOWN AS THE INSTALLATION OF


RESIDENT BUSH (RESIDENT, NOT THE PRESIDENT)~!

Rice gets slowed down...Condi is now called "The Little Alien"

The "LIttle Alien", aka "Condi", aka Condoleeza, will
not be ushured in to be Secretary of State thanks to Senator Robert Byrd.

Hats off to the Senator for his courage and measured
thought!



"Condi" will now be referred to by me, as "The Little Alien".

What planet is CONDOLEEZA From?

nbc13.com - News - Rice Remarks On Birmingham Upbringing In Confirmation Hearing

nbc13.com - News - Rice Remarks On Birmingham Upbringing In Confirmation Hearing
"Although her nomination to the position is practically assured, Rice underwent hours of sometimes fierce questioning from both Republican and Democratic senators regarding the U.S. situation in Iraq.

In her opening statement, Rice remarked on her formative years spent in Birmingham. She grew up in what she called “the old Birmingham of Bull Connor, church bombings and voter intimidation.” But she also spoke proudly of her parents and their efforts to raise her during segregation.

"They refused to allow the limits and injustices of their time to limit our horizons. My friends and I were raised to believe that we could do or become anything, that the only limits to our aspirations came from within. We were taught not to listen to those who said to us, ‘No, you can't,’” said Rice.

"The story of Birmingham parents and teachers and children is a story of the triumph of universal values over adversity, and those values -- a belief in democracy, and liberty, and the dignity of every life, and rights of every individuals -- united Americans of all backgrounds, all faiths and all colors," said Rice.

Rice, who spent her first 11 years in Birmingham, got her start at the Hill Elementary School, and she made quite an impression on her former principal, Parnell Jones Jr.

“I never realized and thought some day I'd be sitting here and remembering her as I'm remembering her,” said Jones, 87.

He recalls her wanting more than just to excel in class, and he gave her a job in the school office as his second secretary.

“All you had to do was tell her what you wanted done,” said Jones. “Sometimes, my secretary would say, ‘Condoleezza, take this up to so and so's room,’ … there she'd go, just like that,” said Jones.

The most heated exchange of the day came with the questioning by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who accused Rice and the administration of misleading the American people regarding the rationale for going to war.

Rice responded by saying that she does not take the truth lightly and that she would appreciate it if Boxer refrained from impugning her integrity.

When asked about the situation in Iraq, Rice said she was reluctant to fit a time table on the military situation in that country."
===========SNIP===========================
Aren't Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell the whitest black folk in the country. "Condi" is so Uncle Tomish...and so much like Aunt Jemima..she should have shown up with a bandana wrapped around her head, protesting she "Don't know nothing about birthin' no babies."

Condi is the lap dog and token "two fer" (i.e. a BAF or "black AND female") of King George the Cowardly.

From her history, she is more adept at speaking Russian than Ebonics...

What a waste this is...sad...just sad!

Winston-Salem Journal | Security at Bush's inauguration may be tightest of any in history

Winston-Salem Journal | Security at Bush's inauguration may be tightest of any in historySecurity at Bush's inauguration may be tightest of any in history


SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

>> a d v e r t i s e m e n t <<

>> w e b t o o l s <<
Print Story | Email Story | News Tip?

WASHINGTON

The nation's 55th presidential inauguration, the first to be held since the Sept. 11 attacks, will take place this week under perhaps the tightest security of any in U.S. history.

Federal and local law-enforcement agencies and military commands are planning what they describe as the tightest possible security. Almost everyone who gets within eyesight of the president either during the inauguration ceremony Thursday at the U.S. Cap-itol or the inaugural parade on Pennsylvania Avenue later in the day will first go through a metal detector or be given a pat-down.

Thousands of police officers and military personnel are being brought to Washington from around the country for the four-day celebration. Sharpshooters will be deployed on roofs, and bomb-sniffing dogs will work the streets. Electronic sensors will be used to detect chemical or biological weapons.

Anti-abortion protesters have been told to leave large crosses at home. Parade performers will have security escorts to the bathroom, and they have been ordered not to look directly at President Bush or make any sudden movements as they pass the reviewing stand.

"It's going to be very different from past inaugurals," said Contricia Sellers-Ford, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, which is responsible for the Capitol and grounds. "A lot of the security differences will not be detected by the public - there will be a lot of behind-the-scenes implementation - but the public will definitely see more of a police presence."

The Department of Homeland Security has designated the inaugural a National Special Security Event under a protocol in-troduced by President Bill Clinton. The protocol calls for especially tight security during gatherings of national importance at which large numbers of government officials and dignitaries are pre-sent.

There have been 20 previous events with designated special security, including Bush's first inaugural, last year's Democrat-ic and Republican conventions, former President Ronald Reagan's funeral and the 2002 Super Bowl.

Under the protocol, the Secret Service takes the lead in drawing up the security plan, the FBI gathers intelligence and the Federal Emergency Management Agency oversees responses to possible terrorist attacks.

The Secret Service also works closely with the Defense Department, the National Park Service, and local police agencies, especially the Washington police department and the Cap-itol police. About 40 agencies are involved.

The Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region, which was created two years ago to bring coordination to the ma-ny disparate military units around Washington, will provide more than 4,000 soldiers to help.

Washington, D.C., police Chief Charles Ramsey has sent invitations to police departments across the country inviting them to send squads of officers to help with inauguration security. The federal government is paying for officers' hotels, meals and air travel.

Several thousand officers are expected, Ramsey said. That includes squads from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chi-cago, Bradenton, Fla., Charlotte and Greensboro, N.C., the N.C. Highway Patrol and several law-enforcement agencies in Texas and other parts of the country.

The extra officers from around the country will free Washington police officers so that they can form "mobile platoon civil-disturbance units" to prevent protest demonstrations from getting out of hand, Ramsey said.

Groups planning demonstrations during the inauguration festivities are already upset about security restrictions. Anti-war protesters with the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition have complained that large sections of the parade route have been set aside for Bush's political contributors and supporters and will be closed to the general public.

The anti-abortion Christian Defense Coalition, which is also planning a demonstration, threatened to sue the government because the Secret Service recently added crosses to its list of objects that are banned from the parade route. The Secret Ser-vice later said that there is "no ban on crosses per se" if they are depicted on paper, worn around the neck or carried in rosaries. Still, the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the coalition vowed to test the parade ban on larger crosses.

Besides weapons, other items on the banned list include coolers, folding chairs, bicycles, pets, papier-mache objects, such displays as puppets, mock coffins, props and "any items determined to be a potential safety hazard."

Wired News | Rice Defends Her Integrity in Clash Over Iraq

Wired News | Rice Defends Her Integrity in Clash Over Iraq
" Rice, whose confirmation as the first black woman secretary of state is all but assured in the Republican-led Senate, said she believed sufficient U.S. forces were sent to Iraq despite the insurgency that erupted after the March 2003 invasion, and she vowed to use diplomacy to repair foreign ties strained by the war.

In a heated exchange in an otherwise generally cordial hearing, California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer accused Rice of making contradictory statements to argue the case for war and said the Bush administration shifted its justification because it had failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"I personally believe ... that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth," Boxer told Rice, citing statements about how fast former dictator Saddam Hussein might acquire a nuclear weapon.

Rice responded: "I have never, ever, lost respect for the truth in the service of anything."
=============snip======================
lololololololol>.....OH, MY SIDE..WAIT....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

FT.com / World / US - US Congress targets Iran for regime change

FT.com / World / US - US Congress targets Iran for regime change World / US Print article | Email article



US Congress targets Iran for regime change
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: January 17 2005 22:05 | Last updated: January 17 2005 22:05

Support for “regime change” in Iran is growing in Congress, encouraging new exiled opposition groups supported by Washington's neoconservatives to spring up in the hope of receiving US funding.


Having adopted legislation in the past aimed at Cuba and Iraq, Republicans and Democrats in both houses are starting to champion political reform in Tehran.

The activity comes amid a magazine report that the US has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran in preparation for possible military strikes.

However, Dan Bartlett, a counsellor to George W. Bush, US president, said the article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine was “riddled with inaccuracies”.

Lawrence DiRita, Pentagon spokesman, said Mr Hersh had been fed with “rumour, innuendo and assertions about meetings that never happened, programmes that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made”.

One Washington exile group the Alliance for Democracy in Iran describes itself as an opposition umbrella group that would act as a “clearing house” for US taxpayers' money dedicated to advancing the cause of democracy.

“Our true purpose is to empower the Iranian people, to change the regime to become more democratic,” said Kamal Azari, the alliance president. He stressed that the group renounced violence.

In Congress, the proposed Iran Freedom and Support Act calls on the Bush administration to back “regime change” and promote alliances with opposition groups that renounce terrorism.

Xinhua - English

Xinhua - EnglishWASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- US President George W. Bush said the US military would pull out of Iraq "as quickly as possible," but set no timetable for the withdrawal, according to the Washington Post Sunday.

"American troops will be leaving as quickly as possible, but they won't be leaving until we have completed our mission," Bush said in a wide-ranging interview with the Post aboard Air Force One on Friday.

In the interview, Bush twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statement that the member of Americansserving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end.

ABC News: Writer Urging Inauguration Day Boycott

ABC News: Writer Urging Inauguration Day Boycott
DETROIT Jan 11, 2005 — David Livingstone says the idea behind the economic boycott he's organizing is simple: If people don't show up at work or buy things, companies lose money. As he sees it, that's money the Bush administration can't tax, and can't use to run the war in Iraq, protect polluters or chip away at the Constitution.

So the Detroit Democrat and a handful of other anti-Bush groups across the country are urging others of like mind to withhold their cash and labor on Inauguration Day from all businesses. They don't think they'll inflict a huge economic pain, but they do want to make a point.

"I view the inauguration of Bush as a black Thursday for this country," Livingstone says. "We've tried marching in the streets to stop the war, we tried writing letters, we tried initiatives on the Web, but Bush doesn't listen. It seems to us the only thing Bush and the Republicans will listen to is money."

Livingstone, a 41-year-old writer, hopes to be in Washington for the Jan. 20 festivities, which for him means protests, black armbands and backs turned to the parade route.

And he's vowing not to buy gas, food or use his credit card that day: He wants the GOP, big oil, big banking, big box stores and any other "bigs" to know they can't push him around or ignore him at least not on Jan. 20.

The White House is taking all the boycott talk in stride. Bush "is proud that we live in a society where people are free to peacefully express their opinions," spokesman Jim Morrell says.

Other groups nationwide, many loosely connected through the Internet, have put out calls similar to Livingstone's. Jesse Gordon, 44, of Cambridge, Mass., spreads the word through his Web site, Not One Damn Dime!

Gordon doesn't expect to shake the economy, but does want to see the president recognize dissent.

"I think Bush should acknowledge the boycott. If we're effective, he'll know about it, and he should acknowledge it," Gordon says.

In New Orleans, Buddy Spell says his January 20th Committee eagerly endorses the idea of an economic boycott. He remains primarily concerned with organizing a jazz funeral procession through the downtown to mourn a second Bush term and what he calls the death of democracy. But he says a boycott is worth pursuing, in part because it can help unite disparate anti-Bush forces.

The groups hope to see several million people eating brown-bag lunches and dinners on Inauguration Day. If people don't want to boycott all business, the groups suggest buying from just those that support Democrats. The protesters say they'll measure success not in economic terms, but by whether people know about the boycott and if it sparks future activism.

And if there's by chance a blip in the GDP, that would be a bonus.

A bonus indeed, say economists and historians.

"I can't imagine it would have any impact whatsoever," says David J. Vogel, professor of business ethics at the University of California at Berkeley. "Even if everyone didn't buy on that day, they'd make up for it the next day."

Historian Lawrence Glickman says boycotts rarely accomplish any substantial economic goal, and if they do, it's usually because they are tailored to a specific product. Boycotts tend to have more success applying political pressure, but even that is limited.

Still, he said, their record of failure never seems to stop Americans from launching them.

"There's this appeal about boycotts, anyone can take part in them and you can use your pocketbook to express your dissatisfaction," says Glickman, who studies labor and consumer activism at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.

"It's a way of feeling like we're participating in something bigger than ourselves."

==========SNIP===================
I will be participating in this, and have marked the 20th as a day I will not make any purchases.