2008 Woodie Awards
Reckless Rhetoric
Matt Oja
Issue date: 1/21/05 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 1
Guess who's back? Yeah, after a semester-long hiatus from writing this column, I'm back to turn some heads and inspire some angry letters. Or something. And today I'm in rare form. Thirty-two minutes late turning in this column (and counting), I've gotta complain about an event that's already occurred. Spoiler warning: this piece cannot be timely, and reading it may well be a huge waste of your time.
Now to unleash a short rant about President Bush's second inauguration. I've got one question for W. (Eh, maybe I have a few more, but there's just one pressing query on my mind right now). Why? Why would you ever blow $40 mill on your inauguration celebration? How could this ever have sounded like a good idea? What was the reaction at the conference table when such an extravagant collection of festivities was proposed?
"We've got about $40 million to get rid of; how should we run through it?"
"Seems that much of the world considers us stingy for our contributions - or lack thereof - to tsunami relief; speaking of which, it's been a few years since we've spent a small fortune on inauguration parties."
"You just read my mind."
Not gonna lie here - I usually won't touch anything political with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole. And, yes, the subject of how our president's supporters choose to spend their money is probably a little closer to politics than, say, making fun of drama or rambling about basketball. But it warrants criticism from someone (Matt Oja). Hey, maybe some readers or other columnists will complain about the inauguration in this week's Maroon News. I dunno. There're an awful lot of good points that they might make. Such letter- or column-writers could bring up the fact that spending such a sum on an inauguration is just egregiously misguided. It's wasteful. Forty mill might be a drop in the bucket compared to the capital needed to rebuild parts of South Asia, but it would certainly be a welcome contribution. The same could be said of that ill-conceived exercise in Iraq - if W and his supporters are such big proponents of the Iraq war, they'd be in the minority shouldn't they be willing to throw down a few bucks towards the cause? Not that that would be a wise use of funds. Aside from such practical concerns, it's worth noting that America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world is not unlike Ron Artest's image in the eyes of Detroit Pistons fans. It's an odd public relations move to show off such an expensive fiesta while so many people around the world are just struggling to make it through another day. Or maybe it's just straight-up uncouth. Then again, projecting a positive public image is not exactly something that President Bush has excelled at. Going in to his second term, he chose a perfect way to illustrate that.
Now to unleash a short rant about President Bush's second inauguration. I've got one question for W. (Eh, maybe I have a few more, but there's just one pressing query on my mind right now). Why? Why would you ever blow $40 mill on your inauguration celebration? How could this ever have sounded like a good idea? What was the reaction at the conference table when such an extravagant collection of festivities was proposed?
"We've got about $40 million to get rid of; how should we run through it?"
"Seems that much of the world considers us stingy for our contributions - or lack thereof - to tsunami relief; speaking of which, it's been a few years since we've spent a small fortune on inauguration parties."
"You just read my mind."
Not gonna lie here - I usually won't touch anything political with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole. And, yes, the subject of how our president's supporters choose to spend their money is probably a little closer to politics than, say, making fun of drama or rambling about basketball. But it warrants criticism from someone (Matt Oja). Hey, maybe some readers or other columnists will complain about the inauguration in this week's Maroon News. I dunno. There're an awful lot of good points that they might make. Such letter- or column-writers could bring up the fact that spending such a sum on an inauguration is just egregiously misguided. It's wasteful. Forty mill might be a drop in the bucket compared to the capital needed to rebuild parts of South Asia, but it would certainly be a welcome contribution. The same could be said of that ill-conceived exercise in Iraq - if W and his supporters are such big proponents of the Iraq war, they'd be in the minority shouldn't they be willing to throw down a few bucks towards the cause? Not that that would be a wise use of funds. Aside from such practical concerns, it's worth noting that America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world is not unlike Ron Artest's image in the eyes of Detroit Pistons fans. It's an odd public relations move to show off such an expensive fiesta while so many people around the world are just struggling to make it through another day. Or maybe it's just straight-up uncouth. Then again, projecting a positive public image is not exactly something that President Bush has excelled at. Going in to his second term, he chose a perfect way to illustrate that.