Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Forgive me if there's a thread on this already. You know, the thing about the woman in labor not being allowed to cross the street to get to the hospital because the United States President's motorcade was coming:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 27662.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me this brings up a larger issue that really frosts me. It's this thing where we act like the President of the United States is royalty or something. Like they're SO important that everybody else's life has to stop when they're around. And they don't have to be around for anything important either. In this case the President was going to a fund raiser.

To me that's not the way it's supposed to be. The President is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. That's it. He's not indispensable. He's not supposed to be viewed as "above" any other citizen of the country. In fact, he is a servant of the People of the country. The position is important. The person in it really isn't. If the President croaked tonight someone else would occupy the position and the country would continue to operate.

It is NOT necessary to paralyze a city every time a President comes to it. By all means take reasonable security precautions. But don't friggi'n act like it's the end of the world if something happens to him (or her at some point) and close down major streets and stuff so he (or she) can drive through. If he wants to have his limo drive down street, have his limo drive down the street. But don't disrupt everybody ELSE's life by shutting the damned street down so he can ride down it by himself. If having him ride down the street without shutting it down worries people, then don't have him drive down the street unless there is really some important reason for it. And that's rarely the case nowadays. I'd say that at least 90% of the time when a President goes somewhere it's not really important to the interest of the country that he go.

And that principle applies ESPECIALLY well to this case; where he was driving to a fund raiser for a political party. You're going to delay a woman in labor getting to the hospital because the President is going to a political fund raiser? I mean really. And there's no telling how much additional distress and inconvenience was caused by that street being shut down like that. It just so happens we know about the woman in labor because that's kind of novel and it made the news. But I can just about guarantee you there were a lot of other people that were at the very least inconvenienced by the practice of acting like the President's poop is made of gold.

Understand your concerns, but you're wrong.

Obviously, POTUS is one of the highest risk targets on the planet. Diversions and distractions are normal components of an assassination or act of terrorism. Use of compassionate figures to distract/disarm security is a common tactic.
Many don't like the current POTUS, but protecting whomever is POTUS is necessary to ensure our nation's stability.
Sorry, JSO, but Secret Service acted appropriately by blocking the street.

The Secret Service is not gonna fall for the old "pregnant lady needs to get to the hospital" trick.

travelinman67 wrote:Understand your concerns, but you're wrong.

Obviously, POTUS is one of the highest risk targets on the planet. Diversions and distractions are normal components of an assassination or act of terrorism. Use of compassionate figures to distract/disarm security is a common tactic.
Many don't like the current POTUS, but protecting whomever is POTUS is necessary to ensure our nation's stability.
Sorry, JSO, but Secret Service acted appropriately by blocking the street.

Two things

1) The person in the office is not that important. It's the position that is important and it can be filled more than adequately by any number of people. As has been demonstrated before, having the President of the United States assassinated does not destabilize the United States. It just doesn't. They could cut the risk sufficiently without having to do what they do. In the last couple of decades they have really gone over the top. It's like they think the world is going to end if a President gets knocked off and it wouldn't. Life would go on with hardly a beat being missed.

2) There is a need to look at the question of whether or not the President needs to go somewhere. In this case he was going to a political fund raiser. The "need" for him to be where he was going was not sufficient to justify shutting off, among other things, access to a hospital. As I wrote in my first post: I'd guess more than 90% of the trips a President takes don't have to be taken. And if they don't have to be taken people shouldn't be shutting things down like that in order to have them take it.

To expand on number 2 above: It's not just Obama. It was not necessary, for instance, for George W. Bush to physically go to New Orleans after Katrina. When Presidents do that, all they do is get in the way. It does absolutely nothing to facilitate addressing the problem. Same when they were making a big deal about Obama not going to the border to look at Central American kids. Him going there would have accomplished nothing. Would have made ZERO difference in the effort to address the problem.

So if they DO feel that there is this big need to reduce the risk of Presidential assassination to as close as possible to zero no matter how much it disrupts operations and peoples' lives, they damn sure ought to be VERY picky about where he goes and make sure it's ESSENTIAL for him to go there.

I'd like to see a poll with a question framed as below.

Answer Yes or No.

Should a major street in a major city be shut down so that the because the President of the United States can ride his limousine to a fund raiser for his political party?

What do you think the majority response would be?

JSO, that position can't do anything without the man behind the desk. Tman is right. Besides, this is a non issue. Inconvenient? Yeah. But a pregnant woman, sitting at a bus stop while the motorcade passes isn't noteworthy.

Ibanez wrote:JSO, that position can't do anything without the man behind the desk. Tman is right. Besides, this is a non issue. Inconvenient? Yeah. But a pregnant woman, sitting at a bus stop while the motorcade passes isn't noteworthy.

Our system design such that as soon as a President dies by any means he or she is automatically replaced. Eight US Presidents have died in office. That's one in 5.5 who have served. It was never the end of life as we know it. We had one die while World War II was going on and the guy who assumed the position upon his death had to make the decision about dropping the atomic bombs. It's the position. Not the person. The position is important because of the power it has. But that doesn't mean it's important that any particular person in the position lives to see the next day just because they are the person in the position.

You and I both know that if any President died in his or her sleep at any time the country would continue to function pretty much as though nothing had happened except that there would be news stories, pomp, and circumstance about the President dying.

These people are not even in the position based on their qualification for it.

What's hysterical about JSO's rant is that his entire slant would change were this man the president...





You know its true...

Chizzang wrote:What's hysterical about JSO's rant is that his entire slant would change were this man the president...





You know its true...

Maybe not Reagan, but....President...

...President...

...Upton.

travelinman67 wrote: Maybe not Reagan, but....President...

...President...

...Upton.

Well now you've done it... GATW will be jizzing all over this thread
She is pretty darn cute though

Chizzang wrote:What's hysterical about JSO's rant is that his entire slant would change were this man the president...





You know its true...

I actually talked to my wife about that today. Yes, if Reagan had died after the attempt on his life I would've been upset. But the country would have gone on. Our government is pretty much on auto pilot. George H.W. Bush would've stepped in and life would've gone on. The country would not have been destabilized.

To me history makes it pretty much self-evident that it's not that big a deal for this country in terms of ongoing operations if the President dies while in office.

And again: If you are going to say the extreme measures to reduce the risk that are taken are justified, do you not think that maybe there should be some consideration of the question of whether or not a President really NEEDS to go where he or she is going? Should we REALLY be disrupting the day to day lives of large numbers of people and spending a bunch of public money just so a President can go to something like a political fund raiser or vacation at Martha's Vineyard?

We are supposed to have rejected the idea of having royalty 238 years ago. I don't see how anybody can dispute the assertion that we have come to treat Presidents as though they are royalty. That's not the way it's supposed to be. It's just a man (so far) in a position. And lots of other men could do as well or better than he's been doing in the position. He's not there because he's uniquely qualified for the position. Really, he need not even be qualified for the position at all. He's a figurehead.

I don't see how anybody can argue that those statements aren't the case if they really think about it.

travelinman67 wrote:Understand your concerns, but you're wrong.

Obviously, POTUS is one of the highest risk targets on the planet. Diversions and distractions are normal components of an assassination or act of terrorism. Use of compassionate figures to distract/disarm security is a common tactic.
Many don't like the current POTUS, but protecting whomever is POTUS is necessary to ensure our nation's stability.
Sorry, JSO, but Secret Service acted appropriately by blocking the street.

I didn't read this case, but they do go too far sometimes. BO was going to a speaking engagement once in Maryland and they blocked ALL the roads that went over or under the DC beltway on the route he was taking for 20-30 minutes. I know because I was stuck in it.

If she were that pregnant she should have pulled into the ER.

89Hen wrote: I didn't read this case, but they do go too far sometimes. BO was going to a speaking engagement once in Maryland and they blocked ALL the roads that went over or under the DC beltway on the route he was taking for 20-30 minutes. I know because I was stuck in it.

Is the DC beltway ever not a traffic jam? Can one block a traffic jam?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: I didn't read this case, but they do go too far sometimes. BO was going to a speaking engagement once in Maryland and they blocked ALL the roads that went over or under the DC beltway on the route he was taking for 20-30 minutes. I know because I was stuck in it.

Is the DC beltway ever not a traffic jam? Can one block a traffic jam?

It was a strange site. The beltway was wide open while all the side roads were jammed.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: I didn't read this case, but they do go too far sometimes. BO was going to a speaking engagement once in Maryland and they blocked ALL the roads that went over or under the DC beltway on the route he was taking for 20-30 minutes. I know because I was stuck in it.

Is the DC beltway ever not a traffic jam? Can one block a traffic jam?

495 is an interseting animal. Its either gridlock or jammed but going 85mph. I only feel pressured to drive faster on that road. Weird. Glad I only have to deal with 695 BS.