Inaugural Balls - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

thesupermikey · 01-03-2005, 11:35 PM

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

Quote:

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.

Does this seem a tad crazy to anyone else. 40 million dollars are being spent on a bunch of parties for W. I'm not bitter about Kerry losing; if he were doing this I would be just as pissed off. I'm for Indiana and the new governor called off all of the Inaugural stuff cause the state didn't have the money to pay for it, not that any of this was called for. This whole scam is about 'themes'. Themes without action meaning or agency are nothing more than a show. There is a party for handpicked veterans, the president shows up, the media takes picture and all see is what the want us to see.

Konichiwaneko · 01-04-2005, 12:10 AM

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?

This question here just makes me not take this seriously. It just seems so baitish.

40 million is a bit though I do admit that, but I also don't know how much the clintons, bush senior, and the reagens spent.

Kadath · 01-04-2005, 05:14 AM

Yeah, this does seem like politics as usual, and not any particular new outrage by the Bush Administration. I would say if you wanted to counterpoint the $40 million spent on celebration against anything, it would be the poverty in which some people in America are living, to say nothing of the rest of the world, but that's just the little socialist who pops on my shoulder from time to time. I also agree with supermikey about Indiana; many states are in large debt and having to cut back on social services, transportation, and even school to make ends meet, so I hope the politicians are at least making token efforts to trim the fat and tighten their belts, but, again; politics as usual.

JohnnyRoyale · 01-04-2005, 06:06 AM

FYI, don't expect inaugurations (or the accompanying parties) to end anytime soon. See, those wonderful new laws that restrict donations to politicians and parties have this little loophole...you can give as much as you want to the inauguration committies.

Basically, there's federal money for the actual swearing in, which is handled by the government. But those gala balls, are all paid for by people who'd like the ear of the president, or a senator or congressman or two. And if Haliburtion ponys up a couple of million to the inaugural commitee to pay for an event, you can be damn sure the people they paid to see are going to show.

dobster · 01-04-2005, 06:10 AM

I don't know enough American history, but isnt this in part to counter the possibility of the troops being treated like those returning from another unpopular war that took place in Asia in the 60s/70s? ("none of them received a hero's welcome")

Seaver · 01-04-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

I don't know enough American history, but isnt this in part to counter the possibility of the troops being treated like those returning from another unpopular war that took place in Asia in the 60s/70s? ("none of them received a hero's welcome")

I dont think the war in Afghanistan in any way shape or form falls into the "unpopular war".

BonesCPA · 01-04-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyRoyale

you can give as much as you want to the inauguration committies.

And political conventions. I was at a political convention party during Gore/Bush days, and it was sponsored by Ketel One vodka (first time I had heard of it.) This was one of the best parties I have been to - the highlight was drinks that were chilled by pouring the vodka through blocks of ice with lines in the middle of the ice that reminded you of the old crazy straws. Good time.

I'm not necessarily against them. They do celebrate a significant historical event, regardless of who it celebrates.

dobster · 01-04-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I dont think the war in Afghanistan in any way shape or form falls into the "unpopular war".

Talking about Iraq, actually. But people had/have varied opinions of both wars didn't/don't they? Anyway, I don't live in The States of course - is there as much animosity against the troops in Iraq as we're informed there was against the Nam vets?

Boo · 01-04-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobster

Talking about Iraq, actually. But people had/have varied opinions of both wars didn't/don't they? Anyway, I don't live in The States of course - is there as much animosity against the troops in Iraq as we're informed there was against the Nam vets?

The returning troops are welcomed with open arms. People understand that they are doing a very tough job. "Support Our Troops" ribbons and US flags are on many vehicles here in AK.

BTW: The war criminals are treated as criminals. It is very unfortunate that we do have people that cannot follow the rules. They do much more harm than good.

dobster · 01-04-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

The returning troops are welcomed with open arms. People understand that they are doing a very tough job. "Support Our Troops" ribbons and US flags are on many vehicles here in AK.

Well thats good to hear. Sounds like a healthy attitude to me.

uncle_el · 01-04-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Yeah, this does seem like politics as usual, and not any particular new outrage by the Bush Administration. I would say if you wanted to counterpoint the $40 million spent on celebration against anything, it would be the poverty in which some people in America are living, to say nothing of the rest of the world, but that's just the little socialist who pops on my shoulder from time to time. I also agree with supermikey about Indiana; many states are in large debt and having to cut back on social services, transportation, and even school to make ends meet, so I hope the politicians are at least making token efforts to trim the fat and tighten their belts, but, again; politics as usual.

i was thinking the same thing... most of these inaugural balls are going to be in big cities, in downtown areas... where right around the corner will be the homeles... well, i guess not since in many cities the police round up these individuals before big events like this.

i think that saying "we've done this in the past, so we're going to continue the tradition" is a poor excuse at best. if the president were truly thinking about the american people first (remember, in the debates he claimed to wake up and think about how best to protect the american people), wouldn't he have this money saved. even if large corporations and private donors pony up the money, re-invest it in some way, shape, or form. we already know the financial bind we're in, it would seem to be a good move for the president just to say "we need to be fiscally sound, and scrapping these events is the first step."

but alas, we all know that won't happen. i can only hope that the cost stays as low as possible, lol.

smooth · 01-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dobster

Talking about Iraq, actually. But people had/have varied opinions of both wars didn't/don't they? Anyway, I don't live in The States of course - is there as much animosity against the troops in Iraq as we're informed there was against the Nam vets?

no, there isn't as much animosity against either set as you've been led to believe--at least from the anti-war/peace demonstrators.

if you're interested in a good read, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke is well written, not very long (about 200 pages), and not overtly academically styled.

Quote:

Dewey Canyon III, the protest in 1971 where vets (many VVAW) threw their war medals back at the capital building, is imortalized on the jacket of this insightful volume. Lembke dissects dozens of stories of 'Nam vets being spat on by the anti-war movement at home (usually, legend has it, by a young woman in the San Francisco airport). But even more importantly he eloquently exposes and breaks down who the myth serves, and the importance of accurate recollection:

"...Ironically if the real [emphasis added] Vietnam War had been remembered, the Gulf War might not have been fought. We need to take away the power of political and cultural institutions to mythologize our experiences. We need to show how myths are used by political institutions to manipulate the decision making process. And we need to dispel the power of myths like that of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran by debunking them."

"...instances of attacks of U.S. officers by their own men are all but forgotten in the popular remembrances of the Vietnam War. Many Americans today "know" that GIs were mistreated upon their return from Vietnam. Their images of Vietnam veterans run from the hapless sad sack to the freaky serial killer; for them post-traumatic stress disorder is a virtual synonym for the Vietnam veteran. But they have never heard of "fragging," the practice of soldiers killing their own officers. The true story of the widespread rebellion of troops in Vietnam and the affinity of GIs and veterans for the politics of the left has been lost in the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran."

This is a must read for anyone fighting to keep the real legacies of the Vietnam War alive. Lembcke goes into the history of how important past wars, their veterans, and the common summation of the public, are invaluable in building for support for the next war. He's also got a great filmography and references for further study.

"...How Vietnam is to be remembered looms large on the agenda of the turn-of-the-century legacy studies. Remembered as a war that was lost because of betrayal at home, Vietnam becomes a modern day Alamo that must be avenged, a pretext for more war and generations of more veterans. Remembered as a war in which soldiers and pacifists joined hands to fight for peace, Vietnam symbolizes popular resistance to political authority and the dominant images of what it means to be a good American. By challenging myths like that of the Spat-upon Vietnam veteran, we reclaim our role in the writing of our own history, the construction of our own memory, and the making of our own identity."

-- http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw39/Sp...ge_review.html

Quote:

Jerry Lembcke. The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. Assisted by Harvey J. Kaye. New York: New York University Press. 1998. Pp. xi, 217. $24.95.

Among the cultural images that create historical meaning about the American experience of the Vietnam War, that of the Vietnam veteran who was spat upon by antiwar protesters carries particular weight. Recent analysis of the effects of the Vietnam War in American culture has revealed that the dominant cultural narrative of Vietnam veterans has to do with their treatment after their return from the war rather than their experiences in the war. So, for example, the symbolic recognition of the veterans at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. (a memorial for the dead that is also specifically about the living) can be said to have offered recompense to veterans much more on the issue of their treatment at home than their service at war. 1
Jerry Lembcke's book looks at this image of the veteran who, having served his country and barely survived, is spat upon by representatives of the antiwar movement, and finds it to be an urban myth. Lembcke works hard to show that there is no evidence of such incidents taking place, and examines why this image nonetheless carries such tremendous cultural currency. He effectively demonstrates that, in fact, many Vietnam veterans turned against the war and formed important coalitions with the antiwar movement. Moreover, he pinpoints the ways in which the Nixon administration, and later the Bush administration during the Gulf War, had enormous stakes in depicting the antiwar movement as anti-veteran, effectively rewriting the cultural memory of protesters demonstrating at induction centers while recruits and draftees went off to war into a story of protesters demonstrating at airports when the worn veterans returned home. Lembcke makes clear that the government's stakes in this representation were high, in particular in terms of garnering public support for the Gulf War by convincing Americans that not supporting the troops was a fatal mistake of the Vietnam War. Once those hundreds of thousands of American troops were sent to the Persian Gulf, this narrative effectively helped to shut down public debate on the war's merits. 2
Using this image as his focal point, Lembcke, who is a veteran himself, examines the ways in which the spurned veteran has functioned as a myth that both aided in the stereotyping of the veteran as a mentally unstable psychopath and in demonizing the antiwar movement and the political Left. He covers this issue from many angles, discussing the role that well-meaning psychiatrists, in designating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a veteran ailment, played in perpetuating the myth of the veteran as isolated and unstable and analyzing the gendered aspects of the myth that women spit on men. Lembcke is at his most effective when examining the compelling history of the work of veterans against the war, the ways that the Nixon-Agnew administration created a public discourse of good and bad veterans, and the long-term effects of this myth on subsequent antiwar movements. 3
In taking on a topic that is both narrow (the specific image of the spat-upon veteran) and potentially vast (the cultural memory of the Vietnam veteran), Lembcke is faced with a particular set of challenges, and at times the book seems to be arguing not simply that no veterans were spit on by anyone but also that no veterans were ostracized after the war or mentally damaged by it. Furthermore, in arguing in detailed fashion about whether or not actual spitting took place, or, for instance, giving a detailed analysis of why the film Coming Home (1978) distorted the stories of the veterans on whom it was partially based, Lembcke seems at time to be arguing against himself. For as he makes clear, the cultural memory of the spat-upon veteran, which some veterans themselves remember, is, even if a kind of false memory, nonetheless still a memory that has cultural value: it acts as a symbol for the difficulties experienced by the veterans after the war and the invisibility they felt. At other times, Lembcke is skilled at walking that ever-important line between dispelling the myth and acknowledging the difficulties that do exist for many veterans. His book is an important contribution to creating a more complex analysis of the experience of Vietnam veterans and, importantly, of the ways in which the image of the Vietnam veteran (and the Vietnam MIA/POW) has been exploited to aid in furthering warfare. 4

Marita Sturken
University of Southern California

-- http://www.historycooperative.org/jo...5.2/br_73.html

and here's something by Lembcke himself:
http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95

one of my undergrad soc professors knows him as a personal friend and had nothing but good things to say about the man. I never met him, but I did read his book. hope you read and enjoy it.

Manx · 01-04-2005, 03:26 PM

I hereby declare that all of my future nights on the town getting shit faced are in Honor of Little Orphan Puppy Dogs.

I should get tax breaks now.

Gatorade Frost · 01-04-2005, 03:48 PM

I don't think about this so much as being for the president and his inaguration but as a way to celebrate the troops, and it's being held at the same time as the inaguration. The money goes to a bit of a morale boost for the military and I think it's a good idea in my opinion.

jorgelito · 01-04-2005, 04:16 PM

As long as the money is privately sourced and not publicly funded. Otherwise, it's just more ridiculous big-government spending.

As for "honoring" our troops, how about a pay raise, real health benefits, and humane deployment periods. And maybe adequate equipment?

Actually, whatever happened to the victory parade? I think that would be nice and not too expensive. That way all troops could be honored in their communities instead of a select 2000.

Fourtyrulz · 01-04-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

This question here just makes me not take this seriously. It just seems so baitish.

It does seem like an agressive question, but is it not a legitimate one? I think many troops coming home (although I could be way off) would rather see the money go to their fellow soldiers over seas.

I think the most baffling part of the interview is this response:

Quote:

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

It leaves me smacking my forehead...

Konichiwaneko · 01-04-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz

It does seem like an agressive question, but is it not a legitimate one? I think many troops coming home (although I could be way off) would rather see the money go to their fellow soldiers over seas.

I think the most baffling part of the interview is this response: It leaves me smacking my forehead...

40 million dollars will armor probably 2 humvees, only because humvees never had armor in the first place.

To our eyes 40 millions a lot, but when 40 million is only about 4% of a new military plane, you gotta wonder how much it can do.

Mephisto2 · 01-04-2005, 05:40 PM

Whilst I think the comment about the $40M being better spent on better equipment was quite funny (HumVees were only mentioned by TFP, not in the original quote), I'm not sure if this criticism is really valid.

Sure, it's a lot of money. Sure it could be spent on better things.

But so can almost everything.

If we want to be smartypants, the billions of dollars being spent on the entire war could be better spent. The billions of dollars being spent on proping up Israel (militarily) could probably be better spent. The billions of dollars being used to fund NASA could be better spent.

But we don't live in a utopian dreamland, so money gets distributed along party political lines. The Democrats would be no different from the Republicans.

Mr Mephisto

Konichiwaneko · 01-04-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Whilst I think the comment about the $40M being better spent on better equipment was quite funny (HumVees were only mentioned by TFP, not in the original quote), I'm not sure if this criticism is really valid.

Sure, it's a lot of money. Sure it could be spent on better things.

But so can almost everything.

If we want to be smartypants, the billions of dollars being spent on the entire war could be better spent. The billions of dollars being spent on proping up Israel (militarily) could probably be better spent. The billions of dollars being used to fund NASA could be better spent.

But we don't live in a utopian dreamland, so money gets distributed along party political lines. The Democrats would be no different from the Republicans.

Mr Mephisto

Thank you Mr. M. I will admit the only reason I mention Humvees is that's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "The US military not being properly Equipped.". In the US Media here when you heard the news mention anything about needing equipment it was always about armor on our vehicles.

Mind you I may be generalizing it a tad bit to much, but I listen to the news almost 6 hours a day because of my job, and imagine being bombarded for 3 weeks of straight "Our Humvees have no armor".

smooth · 01-04-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

Thank you Mr. M. I will admit the only reason I mention Humvees is that's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "The US military not being properly Equipped.". In the US Media here when you heard the news mention anything about needing equipment it was always about armor on our vehicles.

Mind you I may be generalizing it a tad bit to much, but I listen to the news almost 6 hours a day because of my job, and imagine being bombarded for 3 weeks of straight "Our Humvees have no armor".

well, I try to imagine myself being bombarded while wearing no armor.

the national guards' lack of body armor is the most prevalent complaint I hear.
and the family members who send care packages with kevlar vests.
Given that their prices range from $600 to $1600 (and I suppose upward from there), 40 million would buy a lot of the activated members kevlar vests, politics aside of course.

JumpinJesus · 01-04-2005, 06:29 PM

While I agree that honoring our soldiers can be done in much more meaningful ways than having them come to a great big party, I think it's obvious that the question was asked for purely political reasons. The reporter most definitely knew that the ball is privately funded and also knew that $40 million wouldn't go very far in Iraq.

It's media stunts like this that lead me to believe more and more that our contemporary media is becoming obsolete and useless.

Now, for the partisan bickering portion of my response:

Quote:

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.

This exchange sums up what I feel the current administration stands for: Pay a lot of lip service about honor and compassion when actions don't benefit those who you claim to honor.

01-04-2005, 12:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	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? This question here just makes me not take this seriously. It just seems so baitish. 40 million is a bit though I do admit that, but I also don't know how much the clintons, bush senior, and the reagens spent. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us. Last edited by Konichiwaneko; 01-04-2005 at 12:13 AM..

01-04-2005, 05:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Yeah, this does seem like politics as usual, and not any particular new outrage by the Bush Administration. I would say if you wanted to counterpoint the $40 million spent on celebration against anything, it would be the poverty in which some people in America are living, to say nothing of the rest of the world, but that's just the little socialist who pops on my shoulder from time to time. I also agree with supermikey about Indiana; many states are in large debt and having to cut back on social services, transportation, and even school to make ends meet, so I hope the politicians are at least making token efforts to trim the fat and tighten their belts, but, again; politics as usual. __________________ it's quiet in here

01-04-2005, 06:06 AM	#4 (permalink)
JohnnyRoyale Psycho Location: Boston, MAss., USA	FYI, don't expect inaugurations (or the accompanying parties) to end anytime soon. See, those wonderful new laws that restrict donations to politicians and parties have this little loophole...you can give as much as you want to the inauguration committies. Basically, there's federal money for the actual swearing in, which is handled by the government. But those gala balls, are all paid for by people who'd like the ear of the president, or a senator or congressman or two. And if Haliburtion ponys up a couple of million to the inaugural commitee to pay for an event, you can be damn sure the people they paid to see are going to show. __________________ I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

01-04-2005, 06:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
dobster Insane Location: South London, UK	I don't know enough American history, but isnt this in part to counter the possibility of the troops being treated like those returning from another unpopular war that took place in Asia in the 60s/70s? ("none of them received a hero's welcome") __________________ sig-na-ture 1. One's name as written by oneself. 2. The act of signing one's name. 3. A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity.

01-04-2005, 03:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I hereby declare that all of my future nights on the town getting shit faced are in Honor of Little Orphan Puppy Dogs. I should get tax breaks now.

01-04-2005, 03:48 PM	#14 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I don't think about this so much as being for the president and his inaguration but as a way to celebrate the troops, and it's being held at the same time as the inaguration. The money goes to a bit of a morale boost for the military and I think it's a good idea in my opinion.

01-04-2005, 04:16 PM	#15 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	As long as the money is privately sourced and not publicly funded. Otherwise, it's just more ridiculous big-government spending. As for "honoring" our troops, how about a pay raise, real health benefits, and humane deployment periods. And maybe adequate equipment? Actually, whatever happened to the victory parade? I think that would be nice and not too expensive. That way all troops could be honored in their communities instead of a select 2000.

01-04-2005, 05:40 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Whilst I think the comment about the $40M being better spent on better equipment was quite funny (HumVees were only mentioned by TFP, not in the original quote), I'm not sure if this criticism is really valid. Sure, it's a lot of money. Sure it could be spent on better things. But so can almost everything. If we want to be smartypants, the billions of dollars being spent on the entire war could be better spent. The billions of dollars being spent on proping up Israel (militarily) could probably be better spent. The billions of dollars being used to fund NASA could be better spent. But we don't live in a utopian dreamland, so money gets distributed along party political lines. The Democrats would be no different from the Republicans. Mr Mephisto