Friday, January 14, 2005

Coronation of a king

Well, the week we’ve all been waiting for—inaugural week—is just around the corner. With the expected cost of the festivities expecting to exceed $40 million dollars, our compassionate conservative emperor hasn’t spared any expense for his coronation.

Historical precedent holds that war time presidents toned down inaugurals, from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt. Washington postponed his until May 7 in 1789, while FDR didn’t have one at all in 1945, in deference to the American soldiers dying overseas. Our current president however, forever showing his privileged pedigree, isn’t going to allow a few dead troops to spoil his party. Not even a tsunami can keep George, Laura, and the twins from basking in the perks of power.

We all know that Captain Codpiece doesn’t like contact with the hoi polloi, so security is unprecedented from any previous presidential inaugural. Last estimates were that the cost of the security alone was topping $17 million for the 6,000 police and 2,500 storm troopers on hand, to keep the rabble away from our beloved despot. Part of this tab will be picked up by the city of D.C., already financially strapped and lacking in basic necessities for many of its predominantly poor, and coincidentally, African-American citizens. Let them eat cake!

Tuesday’s Toledo Blade got it right when the editorial writer wrote, “A diamond-studded package of receptions, concerts, fireworks on the Ellipse, three candlelight dinners, and no fewer than nine official inaugural balls are set, all enclosed in a cocoon of security said to be the tightest of any in the 216-year history of such events.

Everything is bigger, more lavish, and more costly than any of the 54 presidential inaugurals that have gone before. For those who can afford them, tickets to the various events come hitched to sponsorship costs of $100,000 and $250,000. To the casual observer, it might appear that a coronation is about to occur, although we have it on good authority that the United States is still a constitutional democracy - albeit one whose presidential.” I’ll shout a hearty, “Amen!” to that!

Not everyone is overjoyed about the gala events, come January 20th. Groups from all over the country are planning to forego the balls and expensive black tie dinners, and actually wage some citizen dissent. Events as simple as turning one’s back on the president, to others being planned by Code Pink and Billionaires for Bush plan on letting the country know that not everyone approves of our leader's actions.

In a truly weird item, Mike Malloy reported on his show last night on Air America that there was a news report indicating that Bush and his security people are refusing to allow members of the crowd to look at the president? Entertainers and other performers supposedly were told not to look at him while they performed at events attended by the leader of the Bush Family Crime Syndicate. I’m not sure how they plan on doing this short of shooting anyone who dares cast their eyes upon his visage. Come to think of it, that might not be that farfetched? As to the veracity of the report, I’ve been unable to find an actual news story or link that supports this, but knowing Malloy, I don’t doubt that it’s true. I’ll continue to look, but if anyone has a link, please send it my way and I’ll be happy to put it up for others.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on our president and his quest for royalty. Personally, I’ve always preferred our supposedly representative form or government, to the British system of Kings and Queens.

Speaking of English royalty, it appears that Prince Harry doesn’t know that wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party might offend a few people. Apparently his privileged education at the best schools that money can buy, never taught the little snot any history (Holocaust? What's a Holocaust?).

The powerful keep finding new ways to show themselves to be the pompous, condescending asses that they really are.


weasel said...

I love the phrase "Captain Codpiece". I shall call him this for ever more.

Anonymous said...

As I'm sure you well know, another shameful aspect of asking the residents of DC to foot part of the bill for this shameful display is that a whopping 90% of them voted against him!


Jim said...

I wish I could claim the origination of Cappy C'piece, but someone more clever than I used it prior (wish I knew who was the inventor of the term). I like it because it so captures Bush, the "little man" that he is, puffing himself up as a "man's man", while still psychologically cowering under his mother's watchful glare.

Yes, the DC funding piece of the inaugural is another example of the term "representative government" being an oxymoron in the plutocracy we find ourselves residing in.

ChefDunn said...

I guess I am considered as part of a "younger generation", but I really didn't see the big deal with the Prince Harry thing. It was a costume party.

I fully understand the Holocaust, having done quite a bit of studying with my modest education. But I hardly think that Harry at a costume party in such attire is anything to loose any sleep over.

Jim said...


I'm sorry, but I'll have to respectfully disagree. Harry isn't some run-of-the-mill working class stiff's kid--he's part of the British Royal Family and because of that, he's held to a higher standard.

After American troops liberated Europe and the death camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, the world said "never again".

With the growth of far-right nationalism in the form of the British Nationalist Party and the specter of hatred and racial superiority never too far away--Harry should have exercised respect for those who suffered humiliation and extermmination at the hands of a brutal murderer--certainly not a character a member of Britain's royal family should be emulating.