> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Spot On
... > Clinton was probably the most governed by the Secret > Service, as he was the first President to allow them > to close Pennsylvania Avenue, something they had > requested of _every_ President of the last 40 years or > so. Bush, having a higher security threat against him > than any of his predecessors since Lincoln, I have > more sympathy for. How is this measured? Seems to me that potential assassins in this country are more motivated by the idea killing the president than by any political beliefs. Crazy people usually aren't able to hold rational political ideas. It seems clear to me that part of the reason that security is tighter is simply that it has become possible to do so and the Secret Service will adopt any new technology that it can. Thus, we now see portable metal detectors (the kind you walk through, like at airports, etc.) at every public event. As for protestors with signs, I haven't seen any change since the Carter days in the fact that the Secret Service won't allow people with signs near the people they protect. Those signs are virtually always on sticks of some kind, which they regard as a potential weapon. Did you know that in a public situation, they won't even let the president, etc., sign autographs or books, because the pen is a potential weapon? On the other hand, they'll let somebody hand him a cell phone to chat with mom or whatever, which Clinton would do. Finally, if we're going to make generalizations, I would think that a more conservative president would be safe, since the folks on the right are the ones with the guns! Liberal wackos use different weapons, don't they? (Okay, I don't really believe this, as I said in my first paragraph, above. Had to say it, though.) Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
