M
Matt25
Guest
St John Chrysostom said-
“The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is committing an form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally.”
So how sinful is the inaugural going to be
Extravagant inaugural does not fit the times
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 11, 2005
Last updated: 6:16 PM
A presidential inauguration is a reaffirmation of our democracy, a celebration of the transition of governmental power without bloodshed or revolution.
It’s also a chance for the winner to crow, and, in the wake of a grueling election, celebrate his triumph before the nation and the world.
We don’t begrudge President Bush his moment in the sun. After all, he won last fall’s election fair and square. He deserves to mark his ascendancy to the realm of two-term presidents.
But, given the president’s constant reminders that “we’re a nation at war,” we wonder if it might be more appropriate for this year’s inauguration to be a tad low-key.
This isn’t a money issue. Taxpayers will foot a $1.25 million bill, administered by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugurals that oversees the swearing-in ceremony. In the scheme of governmental expenditures, that’s budget dust.
And the lion’s share of the estimated $30 million to $40 million cost of the inaugural parade, balls and dinners will come from private donors.
This is about image.
This is the first presidential inauguration since the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, the deadliest attack on America in 60 years.
And when violence in Iraq is escalating, our young men and women in uniform are dying, and just six miles away, hundreds more are sitting in Walter Reed Army Medical center horribly maimed or missing limbs, it’s somewhat unseemly for Bush to be whooping up his wartime presidency.
Heck, even Hollywood toned down Oscar night after 9/11. And it celebrates the world of fiction and make-believe.
Bush’s supporters argue that, of all American wartime presidents, only Franklin D. Roosevelt, at his fourth swearing-in, advocated for inaugural austerity.
But Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower and other wartime leaders didn’t live in a world of 24-hour cable channels and all-news-all-the-time Internet, available to any world citizen with a modem or a satellite dish.
The unfortunate reality of our age is that image matters. With America embroiled in three wars simultaneously, the nation is in a somber mood, not a party-hearty one.
Bush has done a good thing by holding a first-ever commander in chief’s ball, giving away 2,000 free tickets to military personnel who have served in Iraq and their family members.
But while the world is watching our democracy change hands, Bush would better serve our already tarnished international image by toning down a bit of the luster encompassing his merrymaking.
“The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is committing an form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally.”
So how sinful is the inaugural going to be
Extravagant inaugural does not fit the times
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 11, 2005
Last updated: 6:16 PM
A presidential inauguration is a reaffirmation of our democracy, a celebration of the transition of governmental power without bloodshed or revolution.
It’s also a chance for the winner to crow, and, in the wake of a grueling election, celebrate his triumph before the nation and the world.
We don’t begrudge President Bush his moment in the sun. After all, he won last fall’s election fair and square. He deserves to mark his ascendancy to the realm of two-term presidents.
But, given the president’s constant reminders that “we’re a nation at war,” we wonder if it might be more appropriate for this year’s inauguration to be a tad low-key.
This isn’t a money issue. Taxpayers will foot a $1.25 million bill, administered by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugurals that oversees the swearing-in ceremony. In the scheme of governmental expenditures, that’s budget dust.
And the lion’s share of the estimated $30 million to $40 million cost of the inaugural parade, balls and dinners will come from private donors.
This is about image.
This is the first presidential inauguration since the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, the deadliest attack on America in 60 years.
And when violence in Iraq is escalating, our young men and women in uniform are dying, and just six miles away, hundreds more are sitting in Walter Reed Army Medical center horribly maimed or missing limbs, it’s somewhat unseemly for Bush to be whooping up his wartime presidency.
Heck, even Hollywood toned down Oscar night after 9/11. And it celebrates the world of fiction and make-believe.
Bush’s supporters argue that, of all American wartime presidents, only Franklin D. Roosevelt, at his fourth swearing-in, advocated for inaugural austerity.
But Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower and other wartime leaders didn’t live in a world of 24-hour cable channels and all-news-all-the-time Internet, available to any world citizen with a modem or a satellite dish.
The unfortunate reality of our age is that image matters. With America embroiled in three wars simultaneously, the nation is in a somber mood, not a party-hearty one.
Bush has done a good thing by holding a first-ever commander in chief’s ball, giving away 2,000 free tickets to military personnel who have served in Iraq and their family members.
But while the world is watching our democracy change hands, Bush would better serve our already tarnished international image by toning down a bit of the luster encompassing his merrymaking.
Code:
[home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80339&ran=216524](http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80339&ran=216524)
:whacky:
I do notice, as others posted, that liberals seem to save their complaints about such things for a conservative event. Now, why might that be? 
