Marc Rich of the NY Times expounds on the latest anti-Republican theme - the inauguration should be toned down or canceled because of all the suffering in the world.

Washington's New Year War Cry: Party On!

Washington's next celebration will be the inauguration. Roosevelt decreed that the usual gaiety be set aside at his wartime inaugural in January 1945. There will be no such restraint in the $40 million, four-day extravaganza planned this time, with its top ticket package priced at $250,000. The official theme of the show is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service." That's no guarantee that the troops in Iraq will get armor, but Washington will, at least, give home-front military personnel free admission to one of the nine inaugural balls and let them eat cake.

Gee, do you think that comparing the scale of human suffering caused by the fifth year of WWII and the current losses of the Iraqi campaign is a little bit ridiculous? Consider the fact that this country was about half it's current size back then and you can even double WWIIs affect on our citizenry - never mind the homefront rationing, blackouts etc that was making life miserable for everyone.

Regarding the "let them eat cake" remark, an interviewer shows her agenda in a Magazine section interview with the woman who is overseeing the inaugural planning.

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

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.

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?

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.

How do any of them benefit from the inaugural balls?

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

Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?

Honoring service is what our theme is about.

The fact is that people like Rich would deny the Republicans the right to celebrate the inauguration for whatever reason, even if there was no war. And no matter how snide the remarks and how morally superior the reporters at the Times feel, the troops still overwhelmingly back the President. You can't claim to support the troops and then call them idiots for supporting their commander in chief. It's not about the money and it's not about fighting a perfect, bloodless war, but the liberals don't understand that.

Also, in a tiny article, the Times also gives a dig at people who work on Wall Street (like myself), because we are compensated better than the men and women who are fighting overseas.

Battle Pay Is Better When Wall Street Is the Battlefield

Perhaps I can be made to feel guilty for not volunteering to go to Iraq, but I don't see any liberals rushing to their local recruiting office to make the troop's lives easier by providing bodies either which is what they need the most if you believe the criticism. I will not be made to feel guilty for playing by the rules, studying hard and getting the best paying job I can.

So there you have it. You can open today's paper to the Magazine, Entertainment or Business section and get your dose of Republican/conservative/wealthy people hatred. I didn't even mention the Editorial page where one piece mentions Tom DeLay's name 3 times regarding a scandal simply becuase he knows the people involved (guilt by association). Who knows what lurks in the Real Estate section? Do any liberals get this kind of treatment or has no one on the left ever done anything that upsets the editors?