Security Details For the Royal Wedding

Unless you've been living under a rock the past few weeks, you know that Friday is the day for the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

Time/Yahoo reports on the security precautions for the event. From nut jobs to al Qaida, there are contingency plans for everything.

[S]nipers from London's Metropolitan Police will have taken their positions on rooftops throughout the city. If a bomb explodes along the parade route, police will siphon crowds into areas that have been blocked to traffic, and ambulances will follow predetermined routes to get victims to various hospitals. Should terrorists launch a Mumbai-style gun attack on the streets, armed commandos, waiting in undisclosed locations, will storm the area within minutes to take out the assailants.

Cost of security: $33 million. Number of police officers: 5,000. [More...]

The bigggest threats: "Fixated people", Yemen's al Qaida Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Real IRA.

To boost the surveillance offered by the city's thousands of CCTV cameras, three patrol helicopters with high-definition video cameras will circle above the city. And, given Westminster Abbey's proximity to the Thames, contingencies will have been made for Mumbai-style attacks launched from the river. As for the VIP list, which includes 50 heads of state, the Met's Owens said they'll have the added security of up to 80 "close-protection units" - security speak for highly trained teams of bodyguards to escort them around the city.

They'll also be using "pre-emptive policing."

Other officers and soldiers will be in the procession but most of the police will be in the background in rapid response squads that can head to any area where there is trouble, or patrolling the streets along and around the procession route.

The latter groups will use random stop-and-searches, closed-circuit television cameras and "pre-emptive policing" to quash any perceived security threats.

At a court hearing in one of my federal cases last week, one of the state-local gang task force agents mentioned to the prosecutor that he was going to London to provide security for the "procession." If figures, if that's the group that will doing the pre-emptive policing. For those who say these tactics would never fly here, I suspect they are done all the time.

Powers included in pre-emptive policing allow officers to detain anyone on terror charges if they believe he or she poses a threat, even if the officers do not have hard evidence. former CIA agent Mike Baker told Fox News last week those detentions would never be allowed here. Really? What about the hundreds of Muslim men rounded up after 9/11 and detained for months on material witness warrants? Roadblocks and checkpoints? We do them routinely for DUI's. Stop and Search, they do those daily even without a threat. They just trick you into consenting to the search

In case you haven't noticed, between facial recognition technology, gigpan cameras, wiretapping, GPS, cell phone data collection, etc., we already live in a police state. Britain's got nothing on us.

Here's the wedding schedule for April 29. More security photos here.

I'm glad no one invited me. Unless the invitation came with private air travel and a stay at a very secure 5 star hotel, I'd have taken a pass. I can see all I want on TV.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Petraeus to Head CIA, Panetta to Head Defense Department >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The wedding is on Friday, not (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:05:29 AM EST
    Saturday, J.

    And because of the time difference, people here who want to watch it in real time will have to get up in the very wee hours of Friday morning.

    "Have you no sense of irony, sir?" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 08:50:05 AM EST
    Obviously, by referring to "Saturday," TL was just testing to see who else -- such as myself -- has been hiding under that same rock.

    Scoot over (none / 0) (#13)
    by me only on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    Your elbows are sharp.

    Or maybe we need a bigger rock.


    thanks, I fixed it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    Shows you how closely I've been following it (meaning not at all.)

    Meh. A Helicopter pilot (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    gets married to a good looking brunette.  I think I've seen this a few times at Campbell and Rucker. How about you, Tracy?  ;-)

    I won't watch the neverending coverage, but I do like the parades and processions. But I thought we fought a war with some guy named George so we wouldn't have to have royalty?

    I do have a serious question: Does Great Britain use more or less of these invasive policing techniques than the US?  I'm constantly concerned when watching television shows about federal agents using bank cameras and traffic cameras and security cameras...

    The British have tonnes of CCD (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    cameras all over London, but the system hasn't been demonstrated to be of any help in fighting crime:

    Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed.

    The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.

    In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.

    David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent."

    BBC Link


    Too true (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    But it is Harry that can put his life in danger being a rotorhead.  William cannot be in the British Armed Forces because he is first in line to throne.  Unless something happens to William, then Harry would have to give up his life of danger.

    Prince Harry is a true rotorhead though, he parties his butt off and is always doing something politically and socially incorrect :)  And he has lots of ex girlfriends :)  When Harry gets sick of himself though he will likely marry a good looking brunette :)


    Prince William (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    is in the British Armed Forces - he is a member of the RAF.

    From Wiki:

    He was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Blues and Royals regiment of the Household Cavalry--serving with his brother Prince Harry and, two years later, earned his wings by completing pilot training at Royal Air Force College Cranwell. In 2009, the Prince transferred to the Royal Air Force, was promoted to flight lieutenant and underwent helicopter flying training in order to become a full time pilot with the Search and Rescue Force. In Autumn 2010, he completed his generic and special-to-type helicopter training and he is now at RAF Valley on No. 22 Squadron performing co-pilot duties on the Sea King search and rescue helicopter.

    He won't ever be deployed (again), but he is a member of the British Armed Forces.


    I did not know that :) (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    I know more about Harry for some reason than I do William.  I suppose cuz he's a rebel.  I am surprised they allowed William to train as a helicopter pilot, it's much much more dangerous than fixed wing.  I remember the kerfuffle over Harry serving in Afghanistan though, and that was when during the deliberations it was gone over that perhaps Harry could deploy and serve in a war zone because he was second in line and his brother was in good health.

    So there is nothing special about William's nuptials that you can't see at Fort Rucker or Fort Bragg other than he is worth more money than any helicopter pilot in the U.S. Army.  If you exceed a certain level of wealth they won't let you fly a helicopter in the U.S. Army.  If you can easily pay for destroying it, they don't think you will make the best decisions when flying it.  And they reserve the right to be able to make you make payments for the rest of your life if you take anything on a joyride.


    I saw a wedding (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    at Annapolis once.  No, I wasn't a guest, but I happened to be strolling around the campus on a Saturday last summer, and got to see a Marine officer come out of the church with his bride and they did the whole crossing of sabers bit and smacking her on the butt routine - very cute and cool.

    If they ever smacked me on the butt (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    with a saber they had better look out :)  They do that too at the Air Force Academy and the crossed sabers look pretty cool against the shape of the chapel there.  I was married in the Garden of the Gods though in Colorado Springs and my husband was tuxed.

    My husband said he wants to be green buried now too.  Something about being frozen with liquid nitorgen and then they shatter you and you can be used as mulch then.  And it is cheaper than cremation.  I told him okay, but if he gets snuffed at war he still has to be buried at Arlington for his family.  It is leaving your family in what is now a very unnatural way.  I think that it needs to be acknowledged that it is a sort of death of choice and not something that just happened.


    His Plan is Life a Life in the Service (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    He's going to Wales after the wedding to serve.  I thought he was requesting Afghan duty, and I am sure he was in Iraq until it was publicly released, then he was pulled.  

    Not sure about the lines of succession, but since there is a queen and no king currently, that if there was a death, one of the women could step-in.

    Not sure if they have to be royal blood, or if Camilla/Kate (Katheryn I would assume) will be queen at some point.  Elizabeth has daughter as well, no idea where she fits in and she a sister or two, not sure if they are alive.  Either way, the lineage is so mixed that I don't think anyone really cares who's on the royal throne.

    Elizabeth's father is George VI, the Kings Speech clown.


    They already live in Wales (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:30:37 PM EST
    He is already serving there.

    No - line of succession is male only, unless no male heir.

    Camilla and Catherine will be "Queen-consorts" - meaning they cannot rule on their own and that they are Queen in title only because of their husbands. (Actually, there is debate over whether Camilla will take the title Queen-consort or remain a Duchess).

    Princess Margaret (QEII's sister) died a few years ago.  Her daught, Princess Anne, is so far down the line of succession that you or I may as well be in the line too.


    Bargain (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    I didn't know the IRA was still a viable terrorist group.  

    The price tag actually seems fairly low considering the costs I have seen with moving our President.  Ditto for the wedding, which is estimated at $30-35 Million to get an estimated $1.6 Billion extra tourism dollars into Brit hands.

    If our stimulus could have gotten that kind of return... 50:1 Obama would be a fricken hero.

    BTW, I'm Headed to Mexico to join this clown in a hunger strike until we get tickets.  She, like I, feel jilted that we weren't invited.


    Funny, my real IRA (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:25:58 AM EST
    lost a tremendous amount of value over the last few years...

    Mine Too, But this Year it's Back in Black (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:34:49 PM EST
    Some bits of royal trivia (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    In the early years of monarchy in Britain, Kings sort of hand to make it up as they went -- hence the failed experiments with, among others, mandatory helmet wearing in public for all geese; compulsory bowel movements to coincide with the Queen's daily sorcery session; the requirement that every man with a Q in their name commit the Bible to memory in Klingon (more about this prophetic bit of history later...much later); and the seriously considered proposal that beheadings be carried out by abandoned children armed with "empty stomachs and rusty butter spears."  

    submitted by
    Q.S. Darlington

    From under the rock... (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:53:22 AM EST
    I'm glad no one invited me. ... I can see all I want on TV.

    Not me.
    I am shocked and disappointed that I was not invited.

    Watching on television will just not be adequate for me.
    I need to feel the actual presence of the police, the C.I.D., the soldiers and other examples of Royal surveillance technology to truly enjoy this ritual.

    Actually I didn't know the date. (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 08:06:31 AM EST
    I have skipped every story on the "royal couple"

    Me too (none / 0) (#7)
    by star on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    I do not have cable and thankfully watch nothing but Fringe and Event on the telly...
    Have stayed away from any wedding story in print and refuse to discuss it with friends. I was a teenager during Diana's wedding - was fixated. loved her. the whole mystique of prince and princess - came to know later on how miserable the couple actually was and what a charade the whole thing is. wish these youngsters could have eloped or something and saved the country some money .....

    This seems to be less of an (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:23:11 AM EST
    arranged marriage than Diana's, which is promising.
    (I hate myself for even knowing that they dated for  several  years, but nobody is perfect)

    It does doesn't it? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    I thought that Di's arranged marriaged sounded magical but I was a kid.  Now that I have a marriage of my own, to me that would be a certain hell :)  This seems like a real wedding and not a state ceremony.

    BUT.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by star on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    my daughter is 15 and thinks I am kill joy for not getting into the wedding spirit. She is making plans to wake up real early tomorrow and text to friends so they can 'virtually' watch it together ...sigh...

    So your daughter thinks the wedding (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    will be on Thursday?  This is getting to be truly hilarious.

    :-) My bad (none / 0) (#32)
    by star on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    I told ya I do NOT follow this story... The 'tomorrow' part was from ME - about what my daughter is going to do on the wedding day. so pl.direct all Hilarity towards me.. I deserve it for not being up to DATE on the DATE of the wedding ...

    From the Royals perspective (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    they probably feel that they cannot have too much security.  That episode when Prince Charles and Camilla's Rolls Royce was steered into an angry crowd at Piccadilly Circus protesting education cuts must be etched in their minds.   Attacks on the royal automobile, their cowering on its floor and memories of those shouts of "off with their heads" would bring a reaction of princely proportions.

    I was in London for (none / 0) (#12)
    by sj on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    ... the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002.  We were in the financial district for the procession and I remember the rooftop sharp-shooters then as well.  They weren't "in your face" but at least some didn't really try to hide either.  

    My pictures of the Queen and Prince Philip in the Golden Coach show we were amazingly close.  Also have pix of Princes Harry and William in the State Landau carriage which the newlyweds may use after the ceremony.

    Rooftop sharp-shooters for Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    when I saw him in person at an open-air event a year or so ago, I well remember -- and they were very visible, too.  There also was an extremely high level of security checks by Secret Service officers by the dozens to get in the area, and security cameras, and more.  

    Also memorable were the quiet skies for hours before, as this below a very busy air traffic route where we usually see planes every few minutes.  So when a plane did fly over, very low, it was very cool -- because it was so low that we could read the Air Force One insignia.  Then it went on to the local airport, and then the freeways nearby became emptied for almost another hour, awaiting passage of the presidential limo and accompanying fleet of limos for a couple of cabinet members and, of course, dozens of security vehicles.

    And then even more sharp-shooters took to the rooftops all around us as Obama neared the site -- to stand amazingly close, too, to a crowd of thousands only a few feet from him.  But the level of security remained, and so much higher than I recall from the last time that I saw a president in person, decades before.  But then, I remember when the White House was not a fortress.


    I was in downtown Detroit (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    In the middle of a work day, going to the federal courthouse because I was working on a project for a judge.  As I was turning the corner to get to the parking garage, there was a uniformed officer, standing on the corner, with the largest weapon I had ever seen.  He kind of looked at me, checking me out, and then looked away.  

    When I got upstairs to the judge's chambers, I mentioned this, and he laughed and said, "Oh, there's a federal reserve branch next door - must be deposit day!". He also told me that if I lived in Tel Aviv, that would be a common sight.

    Scary stuff.


    Over here, with our (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    presidential security, the authorities have done a dramatic 180, from criminally lax and strangely incompetent during the Kennedy admin 50 yrs ago, directly enabling a tragedy, to a police state security overkill situation today.  Heck, back then, there wasn't even a fed law covering the murder of the president.

    And I'm old enough to remember when even major candidates for the presidency didn't have SS protection, and it took another assassination to change that.

    Unfortunately, in the case of Obama, he probably needs most of his protection, given the degree of hatred out there for him in some quarters.  Shame though, as it only distances him further from being in touch with ordinary people -- a bit of a weak point already with Obama.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    Unfortunately, in the case of Obama, he probably needs most of his protection, given the degree of hatred out there for him in some quarters.  Shame though, as it only distances him further from being in touch with ordinary people

    This is a large part of why any president needs protection.  Somehow you make it sound like Obama is the first president hated or fixated on enough that crazies might go after him.


    Hardly the first (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    as a casual glance at the first part of my post would indicate.

    But he's one of the most hated I suspect, and by the type of haters likely to be armed and itching to go into action.


    all presidents need protection (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    and they all face threats - that's true.

    But there have been a number of articles that say Obama had faced more than any other president in history.

    It's a combination of a rough economy, people are desperate with nothing to lose - and the white supremacy factor.  And an increasingly connected world also means that they are hearing more of what's out there.  It makes sense that the threats would spike.


    Uh oh. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    Where is the "registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal" that makes this copy acceptable by our State Department for a passport?  Watch for this to just fuel more debate by those who, well, want to fuel more debate (rather than force our leaders to focus on real issues).

    If (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    as Obama says, he is releasing this now because it was  a distraction from important issues - why in god's name didn't he just make the phone call two years ago and release it?

    Didn't he think the problems two years ago were as important - as in the WARS?


    But now it's important (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sj on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    because of the important issue of running for re-election.

    That's (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    what I feel.
    It's about his reelection.
    That's what's important to him - not the issues from which he alleges that we have been distracted.

    Well he's still a mooslim socialist (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    who wants to impose Sharia Law on an unsuspecting innocent American public. Oh god, I'm going to the dentist and the drugs are beginning to take hold. Whee...

    My copies of my birth certificate (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    have the raised, embossed seal of the issuing office, also visible in copies that I make.  Interesting -- but, of course, entirely possible that your state doesn't go to that trouble.  

    What a lot of birthers don't realize is how much certificates of live birth (and/or the usual sort) vary from state to state.  That is so typical of us in our "states' rights" but not typical of many other countries, with national certificates.


    I just hope HM's NCO's make him a (none / 0) (#27)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    proper Artillery Punch for the dining in sendoff. If he remembers the sendoff, they failed.

    Anyone have the "play list" re music (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    during the actual wedding?  

    No Elton John. Yay! (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    I wasn't going to watch the wedding (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    I don't find it important.  I watched Di get married though when I was in high school, it seemed magical then.  I changed my mind about recording the ceremony and watching it though when it was reported that William was doing a lot of rehearsing of his speaking moments so that he would be able to not cry when he spoke of his mother.  Because I have had to do the same thing myself and failed miserably at my own wedding during the toasting, it touched my heart deeply and now I want to watch them marry.

    My daughter, who was a teenager, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:46:53 PM EST
    got up to watch Diana and Charles's wedding.  So I had her wake me up to hear Kiri Te Kanawa sing.  Quite lovely.  

    hmmm (none / 0) (#34)
    by star on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    I too was a Di fan. Now you are tempting me to record it.. well my daughter may do it anyways since she has to be at school by 7 am...William does look a lot like Diana IMO.

    That brought a tear (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    to my eye as well.  D@mn.  I might be watching or taping it after all...

    He'll be there as a guest, though. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    I read (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    that neither Tony Blair or Gordon Brown were invited.

    That's a plus.


    Since William is not heir to the throne (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    It is not a "state occassion" so they have a much greater latitude in whom to invite.

    The Obamas weren't invited either.


    Very curious...

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    seen it.
    She was born in Kenya.

    Hmmm. I wonder if William knows.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    As with the good ol' USA, (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    the motherland is cutting back on social programs for its citizens, but it can find 33 million dollars for this exercise in whogivesash*t.

    I would say the UKgivesash*t (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    Did you read upthread that this 33 million expense is likely to bring in an estimated $1.6 Billion extra tourism dollars.

    So there's that.

    Also that in my experience, British subjects -- while they may grouse -- are uncommonly proud of their Royal Family.  The spectacle is entirely welcome by most.  So theygivesash*t.

    They have additional security issues.  And the British would giveash*t if someone from the Royal Family was injured or worse because insufficient dollars were allocated for security. I would say that if that happened damages from the likely rioting could well exceed 33 million.

    I don't understand this kind of comment any more than I understand the snideness on the occasion of Chelsea Clinton's wedding.


    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    a trial run for seurity and getting people interested in tourism for next summer when the Olympics come to London.

    Chelsea.. (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    something about the optics involved in erstwhile leaders of the "party of the working man" underscoring their true place in the order of things during a time of 10% unemployment and with populist outrage at an all time high..  

    Yes, of course. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    Because she should have gotten married at the JP and had a reception at the nearest county park with bols of potato chips and Bill standing over the grill cooking hot dogs and hamburgers.

    why not? (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    it was good enough for Bill's folks..

    Do they love each other any more now that someone plunked down 5 mil or whatever it was?


    I really don't get this mentality (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    The rich have money.  It would be better for everyone if the rich SPENT that money.  Because at least then it's going back into the economy.

    No love for all the people on the receiving end of all that dough?

    I bet they were thrilled to have that business.


    you're talking to the wrong guy (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    I'm in favor of a maximum wage and an educated, engaged citizenry doing the work they're passionatly interested in. As opposed to the Skinnerian monetary carrot-and-stick that most people in this country accept as a given.

    And, does that as-long-as-they-spend-that-money apply acrosss the board to everyone? Lloyd and the boys at Goldmann Sachs for instance?


    you want to talk about (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    taxes and income disparity - fine.  But that's not what you're talking about.

    You're complaining about what they did with their money once they already had it.

    My point was, as long as they have money, they might as well spend it, rather than keep it locked up in a safe somewhere rotting.  You're trying to turn that into "as long as they spend money it's okay that they have it all".  Not the same thing at all, and I'm not playing that game.


    Not his real concern (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    It's all about looking for any excuse to attack Clinton.

    The wedding is just an excuse for a tirade.


    taxes, income disparity (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    and the (very) public spending habits of certain perceived champions of the working man are all completely seperate issues?

    I don't compartmentalize reality that way. I guess I need to work on that.


    Add it to the list n/t (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:10:36 PM EST
    mind if I get a second opinion? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:14:22 PM EST
    not that you haven't pretty much always been right about everything..

    By all means (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    But given your obsession with how much you think was spent on CC's wedding (and the significance that only you attach to it) ...

    ... don't expect a different result.


    you're right (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    it's much better to have them running around in bowling alleys pretending to be middle class while drinking their high life and yucking it up with the locals.

    Because if they did that - people would REALLY want to raise their taxes.

    Frankly I think the more rich people throw their money around, the more public pressure you have to change the system.


    Obsessed much? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:12:09 PM EST
    Soon as I saw the title of this thread, I knew you'd try to make it about Clinton.

    CDSers are so predictable.


    yes it's hate, hate (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    nothing but hate, for those long suffering spiritual lights in the darkness of yours.

    Someone else broached the subject, if you'd take the trouble to read upthread.


    Yeah, saw that ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    ... and knew your salivary glands would kick into high gear, ...

    ... not that you ever need an excuse to bring up your favorite subject.


    that being the continually rightward (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    trending Democratic party, killing us softly with their song since the early nineties.

    Close, ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 06:42:19 PM EST
    ... although you nailed the time frame.