Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications United States Hardware

Presidential Inauguration Hardware and Other Challenges 176

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the big-spend-for-one-off dept.
holy_calamity writes "The FBI has released images of some of the kit that will be deployed to safeguard Obama's inauguration, including mine-proof armored trucks like those used in Iraq to protect against IEDs, and a large armored chamber that any bombs will be shoved inside to be transported away and perhaps detonated inside. Interesting, even though the really good stuff is presumably being kept under wraps." Relatedly, necro81 writes "The Inauguration of Barack Obama tomorrow is expected to put considerable stress on the cellphone network around Washington, DC. The expected crowd could top two million people, and many of them are expected to call, text, tweet, photo, and blog their way through the event. In response, the major wireless carriers in the area have spent millions of dollars upgrading their local networks and will bring in extra 'cells on wheels' (COWs) and 'cells on light trucks' (COLTs). They are also requesting that attendees limit their usage during the event, and avoid bandwidth-heavy activities — like uploading photos — until afterward."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Presidential Inauguration Hardware and Other Challenges

Comments Filter:
  • Right wing garbage (Score:4, Informative)

    by thedogcow (694111) on Monday January 19, 2009 @06:31PM (#26521397)

    Oh please, this cost myth is just your average right wind Drudge myth garbage. Check this article [mediamatters.org] out. They are claiming the Obama inauguration will be 160 million. Well the 2005 Bush inauguration was 157 million. Not much difference folks.

  • by megamerican (1073936) on Monday January 19, 2009 @06:40PM (#26521495)

    Every time a controversial vote came up, he passed unless he had a carefully-polled stance already prepared. His entire campaign was based on taking the most popular position on everything.

    Not true. He voted to give the telecoms retroactive immunity which everyone was against. He voted for and was a major cheerleader for the banker bailout bill. Both bills were extremely unpopular.

    He has also mentioned "sacrifice" and national service over and over again, which I doubt is very popular. Biden and Obama have both said their policies are not going to be popular but we should just trust them! I seem to remember the last administration saying the same thing. Except now if you don't like their policies you'll be both unpatriotic and racist.

    It always seemed like people refused to look at what Obama says rationally because they are so blindsided by hatred for Bush and the repitition of "change" and "hope."

  • by Slur (61510) on Monday January 19, 2009 @07:01PM (#26521811) Homepage Journal

    Regardless of your political leanings, when it comes to debunking media distortions Media Matters rules! [mediamatters.org]

  • Re:Blame the NRA (Score:4, Informative)

    by AaronHorrocks (686276) on Monday January 19, 2009 @08:24PM (#26522917)
    In 1996, Obama said that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns".
  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Monday January 19, 2009 @08:27PM (#26522951) Homepage Journal

    GPP's use of the word "they" was a little unclear. The point is that Drudge, Limbaugh, et al. are claiming that Obama's inauguration will be much more expensive than Bush's, while Media Matters (and numerous other sources) are setting the record straight. The right-wing noise machine is saying that Obama's inauguration is costing ~$160 million (true) while Bush's only cost ~$40 million (false.) They get the difference in the figures, IIRC, by leaving out the cost of security for Bush but including it for Obama. The fact is that Obama's inauguration is barely more expensive than Bush's in absolute dollars, and factoring in inflation over the last eight years, it's probably cheaper.

  • by amRadioHed (463061) on Monday January 19, 2009 @08:29PM (#26522965)

    Setting aside the obvious fact that the investigation was a multi-million dollar partisan witch-hunt, Clinton was in the end found to be not guilty.

  • big deal? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Eil (82413) on Monday January 19, 2009 @09:55PM (#26523821) Homepage Journal

    Now, I'm a pretty young whippersnapper (almost 30) but I cannot even recall reading about another presidential election that's generated this much hoopla. From the primaries, to the election, to the inauguration, it's all been full-throttle excitement. And not just from the press, but people on the street as well. Even my bigoted father and step-mother think he's just great.

    Is it because:

    A) He's the first halfway intelligent president our generation has seen?

    B) He has the most fucking fantastic marketing department ever?

    C) He's the first not-exclusively-white guy to take office?

    D) The Internet is enabling average people to express their opinions and reach out to each other more easily than ever before?

    E) Pretty much everyone wants Bush out of the White House, even the most right-leaning republicans?

    So are we witnessing history here (and not just because of the race thing) or has there been another presidential election with this much carnival atmosphere to the whole thing? This is a serious question. Ya know, for old people. (And historians.)

  • Re:Yeah (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ian Alexander (997430) on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:11PM (#26523981)

    First off, emailing is free so there's no point paying for a text.

    There is if you want someone to get it when you send it as opposed to whenever they might decide to check their e-mail, and believe me, not everybody checks their e-mail every few minutes.

  • by Uberbah (647458) on Monday January 19, 2009 @10:21PM (#26524077)

    You don't follow politics much do you? Clinton got impeached for perjury, not for diddling the unattractive intern.

    Wrong. He was impeached because after the Republican Congress couldn't nail him for fraud (Whitewater) or murder (Vince Foster), or a parking ticket, they settled on a manufactured perjury charge.

    And Clinton didn't even lie, much less commit perjury. [huppi.com]

  • Re:Yeah (Score:2, Informative)

    by segwonk (1064462) <jwinn@earthlink.net> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:14AM (#26525651)
    www.cnn.com/themoment Heard it on NPR earlier today.
  • Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:15AM (#26525909) Journal

    Actually, it's a Microsoft Photosynth promo event [cnn.com] - that's the "VR" that they're using.

  • by Uberbah (647458) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @10:55AM (#26528655)

    Oh, yeah b/c he lied under oath.

    Read the link, bitch. The only way to prove he lied is to have literally read his mind.

    Then pray tell why was Clinton disbarred?

    Because after Whitewater didn't turn out, Vince Foster didn't turn out, and their bogus witch hunt didn't turn out, Republicans had to settle for something. Real justice would have been throwing Starr and the Republicans in Congress in jail for malicious prosecution.

    So try your revisionist history somewhere else please.

    That is the history. Clinton didn't lie, deal with it. In fact, if he had said he had "sexual relations" with Monica, that would have been a lie under the courts definition, as he didn't put his cock in her. Deal with it.

    Finally, just to prove how full of shit Republicans were and continue to be on this issue, just look at Scooter Libby's perjury conviction next to Clinton's perjury acquittal . You had the exact same cocksucking Republicans who argued for Clinton's removal from office arguing for a pardon for Scooter Libby. Hell, Fred Thompson - who voted to convict Clinton in the Senate - gave a hilarious speech where he passionately called for the rule of law and passionately called for a pardon for Libby.

    Seriously, Republican party membership should come with free visits to a proctologist, so you poor bastards can get some help pulling your heads out of your asses.

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin

Working...