Government 101

From The New York Times' interview with Jeanne L. Phillips, chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

Q: I hear one of the balls will be reserved for troops who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

A: Yes, the Commander-in-Chief Ball. That is new. It will be about 2,000 servicemen and their guests. And that should be a really fun event for them.

Q: As an alternative way of honoring them, did you or the president ever discuss canceling the nine balls and using the $40 million inaugural budget to purchase better equipment for the troops?

A: I think we felt like we would have a traditional set of events and we would focus on honoring the people who are serving our country right now -- not just the people in the armed forces, but also the community volunteers, the firemen, the policemen, the teachers, the people who serve at, you know, the -- well, it's called the StewPot in Dallas, people who work with the homeless.

Q: How do any of them benefit from the inaugural balls?

A: I'm not sure that they do benefit from them.

Q: Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?

A: Honoring service is what our theme is about.

[Via Tex.]

Comments

PintofStout | January 3, 2005, 11:17pm | #

Wasn't it excessive splendor and lavishness that got the Romanovs too close a shave?

I feel in no way completely abused by this.

I also cannot express my sarcasm more thickly...

JD | January 3, 2005, 11:42pm | #

A very clever gotcha, but by the time that $40M percolated through the bureaucracy to the field, it would be $15M and the Federation would need it to fight the Klingons.

The Sloganeer | January 3, 2005, 11:43pm | #

If you want to get lefties to spontaneously orgasm, say "It's for the children!"

If you want to get righties to spontaneously orgasm, say "We support the troops!"

Actual benefits to children and troops are completely irrelevant.

Jim Walsh | January 3, 2005, 11:55pm | #

Joe Heller lives!

Bo | January 4, 2005, 12:10am | #

How the fsck are they spending $40 million on balls?

spinal | January 4, 2005, 12:15am | #

They've got big balls, that's for sure.

Dave | January 4, 2005, 12:20am | #

Are these balls paid for with private or government funds?

George W. Bush | January 4, 2005, 12:21am | #

I'm ever upper class high society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
I always fill my ballroom
the event is never small
the social pages say I've got
the biggest balls of all

oh, I've got big balls
I've got big balls
and they're such big balls
dirty big balls
and he's got big balls
and she's got big balls
but we've got the biggest balls of them all

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 12:39am | #

Bo,

It ain't hard.

Coarsetad | January 4, 2005, 12:42am | #

40million, you ask? Easy, thats only 200,000 Prime Rib Roasts.

thoreau | January 4, 2005, 12:46am | #

Gary, I like the fact that you answer a question about balls with "it ain't hard." ;->

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 1:19am | #

thoreau,

Its interesting that Jesse Walker didn't plug a line from this song (see below) into this write-up's title. :)

AC/DC - Big Balls

I'm ever upper class high society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
I always fill my ballroom
the event is never small
the social pages say I've got
the biggest balls of all

(chorus)
oh, I've got big balls
I've got big balls
and they're such big balls
dirty big balls
and he's got big balls
and she's got big balls
but we've got the biggest balls of them all

and my balls are always bouncing
my ballroom always full
and everybody cums and cums again
if your name is on the guest list
no-one can take you higher
everybody says I've got
great balls of fire

(chorus)

some balls are held for charity
and some for fancy dress
but when they're held for pleasure
they're the balls that I like best
my balls are always bouncing
to the left and to the right
it's my belief that my big balls
should be held every night

(chorus)

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 1:21am | #

Aw fuck. George W. Bush already beat to the punch!!! Good thing I didn't vote for you, fucktard. :)

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 1:25am | #

Of course there is also Will Oldham's Big Balls:

balls they come up happy
when I place them in your hand
and I will acknowledge with a cocking of my head
when the faces rise against us
cuz we're moderate or meek
they'll see we’ve got the only balls of them all

(chorus)
I've got big balls
o I've got big balls
I've got big balls
and they're dirty big balls
and he's got big balls
and she's got big balls
but they're not the only balls of them all

we could be eating pudding
but we'd rather place our balls
in their mouths when they are eating
and let 'em be themselves
well the world is bound to splinter,
still in paris they will cry
"we've got the only balls of them all"

(chorus)

o balls will make you happy
o balls all the time
press your balls against the mirror
now you're pressing them to mine!

well my balls are always bouncing
to the left and to the right
they've found themselves a color
and they peer into the night
once you've mouthed my testicles
you'll know I’m not a liar
I've got great balls of fire

(chorus)

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 1:41am | #

Sandra Bullock apparently dropped a cool million into the laps of the Red Cross for Tsunami relief efforts.

Petra Nemkova poses for donations.

Sting sells Yoga lessons.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/01/03/ddish.DTL

84rms | January 4, 2005, 2:06am | #

$40M for balls and he only wanted to give $35M for Tsunami relief, that should show you his priorities. Also Bush wants the American public to donate for Tsunami relief because he needs all our taxes to fight a disgusting "war" in Iraq. The American (Bush) people baffle me??

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 2:11am | #

Seawall built by France during colonial times saves Pondicherry, India: http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=5c66764e-a73d-46b5-968c-740fff9925a7

cj | January 4, 2005, 3:37am | #

Wonder how much is for security?

wyatt | January 4, 2005, 5:05am | #

If I was a troop coming back to america from a year-long tour in Iraq, I sure would appreciate it.

Remember people:

Tax money isn't like water--it finds no common level, and you can't divert it's flow by raising pressure. It's more like cinder blocks--solid, hard to move, and once you've got them in Montana, there's no fucking way you're going to get them to Tennessee.

So don't shit in this house. We've got fellow americans coming.

Douglas Fletcher | January 4, 2005, 5:54am | #

Life just ain't fair.

Can somebody wake me up around 2 pm? I gotta work tonight.

Eryk Boston | January 4, 2005, 6:25am | #

Hey NYT, think of how many victims we could help by selling the UN building.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 4, 2005, 7:49am | #

Let's see.. 9 balls at 40 million bucks.. that's over 4 million per ball, or 8 million for a pair of balls.

4 million.. that's a lot of booze and broads.

georgio | January 4, 2005, 8:12am | #

the thread on historical comparison and civilizational decline, cont'd :D

"parallels with American foreign policy today are apparent enough. The lack of real accountability, the rough justice, ignoring international conventions, maltreating prisoners, detention without trial; in Kenya the British used them all."

cheers!

db | January 4, 2005, 8:40am | #

$40M for balls and he only wanted to give $35M for Tsunami relief, that should show you his priorities.

Neither of these activities is strictly authorized by the Constitution, either. I say, if American citizens, individually, want to throw a party for the Prez, or to send money to aid victims of the tsunami, fine, but don't do it with my tax dollars.

His "priorities" are moot, when the real argument should be why either is being paid for by the government in the first place.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 9:17am | #

but we're not an empire, mr georgio! didn't you know? it forgives us all our sins, and relieves us of any moral duty to responsibly administrate our territories.

oh! did i say "territories"? i meant "friends".

oh! did i say "administrate"? i meant "talk to".

oh! did i say "moral"? did i say "forgive"? we don't believe in an applicable morality. we're a Great Nation in a heroic struggle for life of wagnerian proportion, you know. our motives cannot be judged by mere common men who do not share our noble struggle.

... but we're not an empire. period.

Warren | January 4, 2005, 9:26am | #

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all the inaugural hoop-de-do paid for out of kickba... I mean private donations?

dhex | January 4, 2005, 9:39am | #

4 million per ball is somewhat frugal, assuming a guestlist of 3 thousand people per.

believe it or not...i've seen balls you couldn't even begin to imagine.

R C Dean | January 4, 2005, 9:51am | #

dhex is right - anyone who has thrown a wedding reception knows that, for a fancy dress do with a sit-down meal and a bar, $130 a head is a steal.

The inauguration is paid for by private donations, for what that's worth. As a privately funded act of voluntary association, you'd think libertarians would be all for it.

The $35 mill was announced as our aid package on a day when the death toll was in hundreds? low thousands? and was never intended to be our final answer.

Cripes, people, there is so much to bitch about legitimately, why waste your limited time and credibility on fact-challenged whining about crap like this.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 4, 2005, 10:07am | #

$40M for balls and he only wanted to give $35M for Tsunami relief, that should show you his priorities.

Well, using half-truths might show you priorities. The $40 million is privately funded and the $35 million was an initial immediately pledge to assist. It wasn't meant to be the final package. Even though he shouldn't use tax dollars on this and should let private donations do it.

So yes, according to your warped words, he does have twisted priorities.

I can't believe you made me defend a demican.

Matt In Cincy | January 4, 2005, 10:14am | #

A-Fricking-men R C Dean.

Is this the first administration to have an inagural ball? If you don't care for G.W. and his admin fine, but please, this is ridiculous. Oh, by the way has anyone checked out The Agitator to see who is REFUSING aid? How about we pledge 10 Billion dollars, then get 9.99 of it back with a "Thanks, but f**k off" letter?

joe | January 4, 2005, 10:22am | #

I gotta agree that the "only $35 million" story is silly. We were NEVER going to limit our relief aid to $35 million. That was an immediate release, intended to be followed with more funds.

But what I want to know is, why did the REAL initial figure of $15 million get dropped down the Memory Hole?

While we're on the admin's response to the disaster, why was it inspiring for Bush to make a "feel your pain" statement on top of the WTC rubble, but useless and inappropriate to do the same thing in this case? My guess: Bush was too wasted to appear on TV that day, they had to make up an excuse why he didn't appear, and gratuitously insulting Bill Clinton is always a favorite piece of misdirection.

Jesse Walker | January 4, 2005, 10:25am | #

At the risk of stating the obvious, I don't really care if people want to waste their private dollars on fancy-dress balls. I reprinted the excerpt because of that priceless exchange at the end. ("Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?" "Honoring service is what our theme is about.")

Gary: The song I thought about quoting was the Bob Wills number "Big Ball's in Cowtown," which includes this immortal chorus:

Big Ball's in Cowtown
We'll all go down
Big Ball's in Cowtown
We'll dance around

...whose meaning shifts somewhat if you take out the apostrophes. D.C., alas, is not a cowtown.

drf | January 4, 2005, 10:33am | #

this zero sum game of tit-for-tat insulting has been tiring for years now. we've had discussions here about religious fundamentalism and violence, and people red bait and give the thoreau'esque "commies are worse": no discussion, just deflection.

just party on down. and enjoy. life goes on. look at how new york eventually resumed being funny, partying, and living. we can be saddened and awed and want to help, but we still have to live. the balls represent an amazing aspect of america. we've had peaceful transfers of power since washington-adams. that's really cool. even if you didnt vote for the guy, you can still take a moment to reaffirm what a fantastic fucking country this is! revel in and enjoy being american during inaguration week.

(plus, after the awful, idiotic campaigning, we've earned a party)

i got several emails from theocon and neocon associates of mine who were going off, less articulately than our wisconsin pal RC (hrumph about the packers! but sprecher is awesome!), but they went off the same way: people can spend their frickin money how they want. balls, parties, celebrations, titties (damn, what a giveaway), and the like. how true.

the funny thing about one email was that it came from someone who plays the "okay for my side" game. he complained about Theresa Kerry's $$$ suggesting that it was somehow inappropriate for someone from that side to be wealthy. but he's an alan keys fan. (alan is an anagram for anal)

coming from those sources, makes you wanna give these guys on both sides a cleveland steamer or do something involving tabasco, a telephone receiver, and the anus.
rack me. out.

Call me snake | January 4, 2005, 10:47am | #

Walker's intent to be derisive with his "Government 101" title demonstrates his lack of understanding about leadership.

The concepts of military celebration and tribute reach back over 2000 years. It is entirely right and proper that a CinC ball should take place, just as it was entirely proper that Bush spoke on the aircraft carrier to commend the military and celebrate the fall of Hussein's dictatorship. A leader should celebrate the effort of the military in conspicuous ways.

The fact that Walker, albeit a Godless heathen communist twinkletoed sonovabitch, accepted the premise of that journalist's question makes me suspect that he drinks during the day.

Gary | January 4, 2005, 11:12am | #

Yeah, when comparing compassion (née largesse) witness the $12 billion in aid Bush requested for Florida after the hurricanes.

If anything, Rove is a master "i-banker" who knows how to raise political capital.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 11:36am | #

"Is this the first administration to have an inagural ball? If you don't care for G.W. and his admin fine, but please, this is ridiculous"

Exactly.

It's funded by private money - not tax money.

Furhtermore, Clinton's inagural celebrations costs more than this one will and I don't remember any huffing and puffing back then about cancelling it and giving the money to "the children" or "the homeless" or whatever.

Twba | January 4, 2005, 11:37am | #

Snake, this godless heathen just finished his first beer of the day. Party on.

OPUS | January 4, 2005, 11:38am | #

Don't forget that Clinton's balls were the best.
Just ask Monica.

Jesse Walker | January 4, 2005, 11:41am | #

Just for Snake and Gilbert, I'm gonna say this again. This time I'll put it in boldface.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I don't really care if people want to waste their private dollars on fancy-dress balls. I reprinted the excerpt because of that priceless exchange at the end. ("Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?" "Honoring service is what our theme is about.")

Only reason the rest of the excerpt is there is for context.

drf | January 4, 2005, 11:43am | #

c'mon, jesse - snake and gil were blinded by RC's absolutely brilliant analysis of everything. forgive them their oversight here.

Coarsetad | January 4, 2005, 11:57am | #

Honoring servicemen? Hmmm...considering it looks Bush is going to need an additional $100 billion for Iraq, I think the theme should more honestly called:
"Thanks Chief!, From all us military subcontractors."

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 11:58am | #

"Just for Snake and Gilbert, I'm gonna say this again. This time I'll put it in boldface."

You don't need to say it for me, I wasn't aiming at you in the first place.

I was responding to some of the other selectivelly outraged characters who posted here.

Call me snake | January 4, 2005, 12:04pm | #

Thanks, Walker, now that I know the entire object of the post was to chuckle over the logical fallacies of the inauguration planner's statement.

And the Godless heathen part is a quote from R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, although he uses a much stronger noun beginning with "c," that is not appropriate.

except for joe.

That Amerasian Guy | January 4, 2005, 12:06pm | #

I could care less how much they're spending on the balls. The fact that they're having them at all when other "War Presidents" have forgone them for the "sake of the troops" or because they felt it would be undignified to party while our troops were dying in some overseas hellhole is the real point.

Talk about how Clinton spent more all you want, he hadn't committed our troops to a losing proposition in an optional and stupid war and then threw an expensive party ostensibly in their honor.

It's not about the money, it's about the complete disdan for the men and women he put in harm's way unnecessarily.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 12:18pm | #

"I could care less how much they're spending on the balls. The fact that they're having them at all when other "War Presidents" have forgone them for the "sake of the troops" or because they felt it would be undignified to party while our troops were dying in some overseas hellhole is the real point."

No the real point is you left wing punks are just grasping at something else to carp about regarding Bush.

"It's not about the money, it's about the complete disdan for the men and women he put in harm's way unnecessarily."

Funny how the majority of those same men and women favored Bush over Kerry.

Oh and by the way, YOU'RE no authority on what is "necessary" regarding the war or anything else.

Coarsetad | January 4, 2005, 12:27pm | #

Ok, Gilbert. I'm assuming you think "forcefully installing democracies" is necessary and legitimate purpose of the federal government,then?

thoreau | January 4, 2005, 12:27pm | #

Gilbert-

FWIW, I've found all of the innaugural extravaganzas unseemly. I don't think that the head of state in a system of representative government should be the subject of lavish celebrations. If that makes me a left-wing punk, well, I guess I'll go buy a Che t-shirt or something. You and I can go shopping together, and I'll help you pick out a brown shirt.

tex | January 4, 2005, 12:28pm | #

I reprinted the excerpt because of that priceless exchange at the end.....

I liked the StewPot part, too. You know...people who work with those, uh, homeless people.

Jesse Walker | January 4, 2005, 12:35pm | #

Yeah, that was funny too.

Sorry if I aimed at you inappropriately, Gilbert.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 12:37pm | #

The concepts of military celebration and tribute reach back over 2000 years. It is entirely right and proper that a CinC ball should take place, just as it was entirely proper that Bush spoke on the aircraft carrier to commend the military and celebrate the fall of Hussein's dictatorship. A leader should celebrate the effort of the military in conspicuous ways.

The fact that Walker, albeit a Godless heathen communist twinkletoed sonovabitch, accepted the premise of that journalist's question makes me suspect that he drinks during the day.

violent fools like this are a significant part of our electorate.

cdunlea | January 4, 2005, 12:45pm | #

"The concepts of military celebration and tribute reach back over 2000 years. It is entirely right and proper that a CinC ball should take place, just as it was entirely proper that Bush spoke on the aircraft carrier to commend the military and celebrate the fall of Hussein's dictatorship. A leader should celebrate the effort of the military in conspicuous ways."

You mean like when the Emperor X defeated rival Emperor Y, then threw a triumph celebration complete with captured soldiers, slaves and loot from the conquered territory? Yeah, I'm sure that's what Washington intended when he started the tradition.

Gary Gunnels | January 4, 2005, 1:21pm | #

Jesse Walker,

I got the punch line.

Gilbert Martin,

Oh and by the way, YOU'RE no authority on what is "necessary" regarding the war or anything else.

Who is? Indeed, I suspect that you post on matters which are not an authority on all the time, but is the common reaction to question such or to attack the merits of your ideas? Hell, if we to all live by your silly standard, the level of posts here would go down dramatically, and Hit n' Run would largely be a defunct blog.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 1:37pm | #

"Who is? Indeed, I suspect that you post on matters which are not an authority on all the time, but is the common reaction to question such or to attack the merits of your ideas?"

That's my reaction to the guy who said the war was "stupid" "optional" and unnecessary" as if his opinions were so universally acknowledged as being truth that no further elaboration was necesseary.

If that displeases you, then so be it.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 1:42pm | #

That's my reaction to the guy who said the war was "stupid" "optional" and unnecessary" as if his opinions were so universally acknowledged as being truth that no further elaboration was necesseary.

wadr, mr martin, simply because you're convinced of the desirability of wanton chaotic slaughter doesn't mean that it is desirable.

Call me snake | January 4, 2005, 1:44pm | #

cdunlea, of course not: over time the circumstances of the celebration change, but the concept is the same. Men and now women risk their lives for the body politic, and should be recognized.

The fact that I even have to make this nakedly self-evident contrast means you should think before typing.

Although that has rarely stopped me.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 1:56pm | #

"wadr, mr martin, simply because you're convinced of the desirability of wanton chaotic slaughter doesn't mean that it is desirable."

And just becuase you want to define it as "wanton chaotic slaughter" doesn't mean that's what it is, either.

That Amerasian Guy | January 4, 2005, 2:01pm | #

I'm retired Navy, gilbert. So yeah, I'd say that gives me a fairly decent insight into what's necessary in regards to war and what's not. Unless you've had your boots on the ground or the deckplates in some form of armed conflict, I humbly suggest that you keep your gung-ho, "I'm all for the war, as long as I'm not fighting it" crap to yourself.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 2:02pm | #

war is not wanton chaotic slaughter.

of course you think it desirable. why wouldn't you?

have you ever raised your voice against it here, mr martin? have you done anything here except glorify the heroic role of the killing leviathan that is the army? have you done anything but belittle the utilitarian sentiments of "giving the money to "the children" or "the homeless" or whatever"? romanticizing american imperium in the guise of manifest destiny? it doesn't take a freudian to see you're in love with the romantic vision of war.

i'm often surprised at how oblivious people are to their own philosophic cruelty.

anyone here will to tell me how nietzschean sociopathology doesn't play a role in the american right?

Call me snake | January 4, 2005, 2:37pm | #

Amerasian guy, being retired Navy does not give you immunity from a flawed argument.

No one can comment on the military unless they have been in the military? That's a close relative of the equally flawed "you're not black/gay/female therefore you're ineligible to comment on a black/gay/female "issue."

Challenge Gilbert's (or anyone's) argument on the merits, not with ready made devices to shut down debate.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 2:39pm | #

and what would that merit be? that murder is noble and therefore good?

That Amerasian Guy | January 4, 2005, 3:01pm | #

Point taken, snake. But here's the thing. This war has been run from the start, by armchair generals and the couchbound clowns that cheered it on. Ask any grunt in the field if he's proud to serve his country in whatever capacity he can and he will gladly say, "yes". This is as it should be. But when we've got people like Gilbert who don't know thing one about what it's like pontificating about how right and just our cause is, and the armchair generals start believing thier own hype, soldiers die unnexessarily.

Gilbert and people like him don't know the sacrifices their armed forces have made and continue to make and probably never will. It pisses me off to no end to hear them proclaim like they are the be-all and end-all in the war on terror or the war on anything else when they haven't done a damn thing to earn that merit.

mknight | January 4, 2005, 3:03pm | #

The balls may be financed by private donations, which are given primarily in the spirit of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine", but the security for these things is not to the best of my understanding.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 3:35pm | #

"I'm retired Navy, gilbert. So yeah, I'd say that gives me a fairly decent insight into what's necessary in regards to war and what's not."

You can say whatever you please and so can I.
I don't care what your background is. Your personal opinions about the war being "unneccessary" , "stupid" and "optional" are still just that - your personal opinions - of no more consequence than anyone elses.

That Amerasian Guy | January 4, 2005, 3:39pm | #

"I don't care what your background is. Your personal opinions about the war being "unneccessary" , "stupid" and "optional" are still just that - your personal opinions - of no more consequence than anyone elses."

Good, just be sure you understand that goes for your opinions as well.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 3:44pm | #

That's fine with me.

We can mutually ignore each other's opinion.

Oh and Gaius, your characterization of what were doing in Iraq as "wanton chaotic slaughter" - well that's just YOUR opinion as well - not a fact.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 4:14pm | #

your characterization of what were doing in Iraq as "wanton chaotic slaughter" - well that's just YOUR opinion as well - not a fact.

really? because it seems pretty clear that you're just plain wrong.

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 4:45pm | #

Not on your say so.

drf | January 4, 2005, 4:56pm | #

so what now?

you all can't prove your points to the other and will ignore each other. cool.

so there was a good reason to fight, even though it can't be established?

well, at least there were reasons.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 4:59pm | #

what do you make, mr martin, of those photos? of children with their faces shot off? that doesn't qualify as "wanton chaotic slaughter"?

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 5:06pm | #

or did you need more evidence of what heroism allows to be done to the innocent?

drf | January 4, 2005, 5:16pm | #

"what do you make, mr martin, of those photos? of children with their faces shot off? that doesn't qualify as "wanton chaotic slaughter"?"

tragic? definitely.
a horrible loss? absolutely
regrettable to all? you bet (probably)
but proof of wonton chaotic slaughter? um.

gaius, i'd say more wonton chaos and destruction, but i don't think children are sought out for slaughter or even winged for fun. you save that for kittens or some such.

seriously, there is a huge human tragedy going on that the doves point out whenever there are needless deaths. then the hawks point out (absent 9/11 or WMD links) all of the needless suffering going on when SH was in power. it's not an either-or. both are very real. the presence of one doesn't mitigate or cancel out the other.

the whole fucking thing is a terrible tragedy. how about: quit dickwaving that one side or the other is "right", and what to do about winning the peace? (and none of the problems should come as a surprise to either side, so none of the "i'm shocked!").

Gilbert Martin | January 4, 2005, 5:25pm | #

"what do you make, mr martin, of those photos? of children with their faces shot off? that doesn't qualify as "wanton chaotic slaughter"?"

It is the insurgents and terrorists that are engaging in wanton chaotic slaughter - not our troops.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 6:46pm | #

the presence of one doesn't mitigate or cancel out the other.

but one is definitely our contribution, mr drf. one *we* are responsible for, in all its horror.

drf | January 4, 2005, 6:51pm | #

"the presence of one doesn't mitigate or cancel out the other.

but one is definitely our contribution, mr drf. one *we* are responsible for, in all its horror."

-- we're perched on the slippery slope where the natural comment is, "what about the responsibility we have to take for tolerating SH's behavior because he was a thorn in iran's side, including helping arm him; and by mismanaging the interwar years?"

that's a little snarky, but it's been one of those days. you've read the other posts.

sigh. and in cyber space you can't order the next round and shake hands with everybody... :)

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 6:53pm | #

i can't combat willful ignorance, mr martin. god help us that there are many like you.

gaius marius | January 4, 2005, 6:58pm | #

in cyber space you can't order the next round and shake hands with everybody... :)

lol -- so true. and then again, a few people here as human beings plainly aren't worth pissing on, much less anything so happy as drinking with.

Gilbert Martin | January 5, 2005, 9:27am | #

"i can't combat willful ignorance, mr martin. god help us that there are many like you."

Get lost you pretentious twit.

You're not a damn bit more "enlightened" about anything than anyone else here.

gaius marius | January 5, 2005, 10:16am | #

not to put too fine a point on it, but i think we're virtually all a bit more enlightened than you are, mr martin.

WillyBadHeart | January 5, 2005, 10:37am | #

Did the Times forget to mention that the 40 mill is donations and not tax payer money-Check Clinton's balls but not for amount, for STD's-Every President gets this perk and you could always say why not spend it on (fill in the blank). This is a silly issue with no traction. Sure it gives AC-DC a nice plug and Artie Lange can scream FIRE over and over, but that is about all.

WillyBadHeart | January 5, 2005, 11:07am | #

Gaius- I think I've seen some of those pictures before- I thought there were victims of PLO suicide bombers or was it another terrorist attack. I guess the point is a picture of a dead child, while evidnece of a terrible tradgedy does not show how the child died, let alone who may be responsible. Oh, I beleive one of those pictures was actually a picture of a child killed by Saddam when he unleashed gas on his citizens.

Gilbert Martin | January 5, 2005, 12:00pm | #

"not to put too fine a point on it, but i think we're virtually all a bit more enlightened than you are, mr martin."

You can think whatever you please - that doesn't make it so.

Waiting | January 13, 2005, 9:22pm | #

Bush defenders and war supporters;

The troop levels in Iraq are too low! Your country needs you to suit up and support the troops in more concrete ways! Ut is time to put your support to good use. We need YOU and Your loved ones in Iraq NOW!

Please bring your own armor and two way radios we are running short since we forgat to place the order for them.

Also be advised we are closing some VA med centers and cutting benefits so please try not to get hurt.

And hurry we need you in Iraq NOW!!

Apollo | January 14, 2005, 12:22am | #

It is all fine and dandy to bicker back and forth about who has any authority to express their opinion on any subject... but has anyone bothered to look at the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in the 80's, and correlate just how much that picture means? Anyone care to look at the strange set of circumstances that has kept the SAME criminals entrenched in our government for SO FREAKIN LONG??? You're all bent out of shape with your little pea shooters- stay there, that's what the despots and oligarchs want. Idiots. Government 102, class dismissed.

Tony Blag | January 14, 2005, 5:15am | #

But who can say my mate GW has no balls at all anymore !

No balls at all
No balls ay all
Who can say he has no balls at all !

(Sung to the tune of $40M !! )

ncObserver | January 14, 2005, 7:21am | #

George W. Bush must go!

But so should all the other members of the Senate and House. Without their "yes man" attitudes this country wouldn't be in such a mess.

Gomer Pyle | January 14, 2005, 8:45am | #

It's actually pretty amusing, the idea of all the criminal oligarchs dancing in their splendid costumes while the troops are getting their asses kicked by untrained civilians in Iraq.

Our troops will be lucky if they can get out. We are losing, badly. It's far worse than the corporate media are letting on.

Louis Varnson | January 26, 2005, 1:28pm | #

Looks like fiscal sanity in D.C. will get worse

Now that "Unlce Ted" Stevens is term-limted from the Senate Appropriations Committee (thank God!), the Republicans give us another porker, Thad Cochran. Cochran received a B- and ranked 37th out of 51 Republican Senators. Will it never end?