Hey, there! Log in / Register
President rushes through the South End, jams up commuter rail, subway
By adamg on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 7:52pm
Obamamobile in the South End. Photo by Julie Ciollo.
Fundraiser at the Cyclorama meant delays of up to 20 minutes on some lines out of South Station and on the Orange Line as the presidential motorcade passed near or over. The E line was cancelled altogether past Prudential for awhile this evening.
Photo copyright Julie Ciollo. Posted in the Universal Hub pool on Flickr.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Brookline too
I don't know where he was going, but all of Brookline Village was shut down too.
Brigham Circle
Saw him heading west on Huntington Ave around 6:45 - they had E line trains stopped in both directions waiting for him to come through.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nananio/5735290784/
The Orange Line doesn't cross any streets at grade
so I don't understand why it would be delayed for a motorcade.
Think mole people
They don't want anybody exploding things from underneath.
I think that whats really get
I think that whats really get me is your tax dollars are paying for this regardless if this is a self-serving fund raiser or not. So we're being inconvienced because the president decides he wants a FUNDRAISER in boston? Yet we all can't attend because its 10,000 per invite.
John Keller had an interesting spin on the 11 PM News. A new study claims that politicians spend almost as much time fundraising and re-running for office than they do on the issues. Kinda wish they'd focus on the job they were hired to do, and not worry about if they'll be rehired again. Let the voters chose.
Then again, I am a proponent of very clean elections and caps on fund raising and spending. (why should only the Rich be able to run since they make it nearly next to impossible for a no body with little or no financial backing to even begin to run)
Welcome to the game
You've got this little problem called the First Amendment, unfortunately. Yes, I think it is disgusting how much is spent during elections these days, and yes, I think that prevents us from having a wide enough pool of potential canidates, but I feel the Constitution trumps all that.
The good news is you do have a say in the process; don't vote for the big spender, dig to educate yourself on all candidates, even those who don't have an ad on every 30 seconds or worse (shudder), robocall 10 times a day!
I don't, which is why I
I don't, which is why I changed my party (and pay them) to Libertarian.
I'm still wondering your comment about the first amendment, which is about free speech. I'm not sure how this plays into very clean elections.
I'm also the very small minority that believes the constitution needs some editing. Its a great document, but its also a very outdated document. My argument is, would you teach a child about science from a textbook from 1776? No. Why should government be any different? Yup its a great document, but it was written in an time long before modern conveniences, and like all 'textbooks' it should be updated.
We have far too many loopholes in the Constitution. And we have laws on top of laws to define these words in our constitution. I like to refer to it as a house in the cape thats been onto several times. The bones are good, but it looks nothing like it did when it was originally built. I often wonder what Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, and Geo Washington would think about the United States. Something tells me this isnt exactly what they planned.
I'm not an America hater or a communist or something silly like that. I like the US, and just want to make it better, but feel we need an updated document to guide us.
What I find REALLY funny is, every time we take over a country and 'set up government' for them, is it a true democracy? Nope. So even our own politicians agree, our system is broken and do not 'deploy' it elsewhere.
Funny how that works out.
Moving on (historically speaking)
It has to do with the funding of campaigns. You can't restrict how much is raised or spend without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Which of course why it was written rather broadly, to offer some wiggle room. Sure, there are some things I'd like to see changed (the Second Amendment, for one), but given the political tenor present currently I sure ask heck don't want our current crop of leaders tinkering with the thing!! Which is also why there is a system which makes it possible, though very difficult, to alter the Constitution.
Perfect? No. But nothing involving human endeavors is.
Err, do you have any examples you'd like to site, and why you don't think they're not "true domocracies"? I'll spot you Afghanistan, but I don't think we screwed Japan up all that badly.
True Democracy?
Not to be overly pedantic, but true democracy would be every voter getting to vote on every suggestion made, with the majority ruling (or, as some libertarians are fond of saying, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.) We don't export true democracy because we don't live in one. What we do live in is a democratic republic, wherein citizens vote for elected officials to whom authority is delegated to make decisions.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
In addition, we don't export
In addition, we don't export "Presidential" democratic republics like our own, because history shows that the vast majority of them are unstable and degenerate into autocracies (like Venezuela). Our success is truly exceptional.
Well what the hell, is he
Well what the hell, is he suppose to take the 43 bus there?