EckerNet.Com

Found a rather interesting article complaining about the Presidential Inauguration

In Sunday’s New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations “become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor.”

Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function — posing uncomfortable questions to those in power — with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Obama on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today’s mainstream media.

It continues citing some of the specific costs:

And it might have been helpful in the limited media debate that did take place about the inauguration’s costs to point out that if the $40 million to $50 million raised for the Democrat’s parties had been donated to the war effort, as some have suggested, the money would have covered only about six hours of the U.S. military’s operations in Iraq. (Costs are running roughly $110,000 per minute there.)

I got a confession….I modified the above slightly, by substituting “Obama” for “Bush”.  This was an article originally written in 2005 complaining about the $40 million dollar price tag for Bush’s inauguration.  It’s odd you’re not seeing the same outcry over Obama’s $160 million inauguration price tag.

Nobody is complaining about the type of message a posh and extravagant ceremony is going to look contrasted against people losing their jobs and defaulting on their homes.  Nobody is asking how much better that money could be put to use in helping cover deficit spending.

It’s amazing how much of a difference Hope&Change makes.  When Bush does it, it’s terrible and selfish.  When His Holiness does the same thing, except four times worse, then it’s okay.  Just making sure I understand the new rules.