The Dallas Morning News reports that in the waning hours of his term, President George Bush commuted the prison sentences of former Border Patrol guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who were convicted by a Texas jury of shooting Mexican drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila:

The commutation allows Ignacio Ramos and Jorge Compean to leave prison early. But it is not a pardon, and the conviction will stay on their records. Both will be on probation for three years under terms of the presidential order.

Late last week, all but two members of Congress from Texas joined a last-minute plea for clemency on behalf of the former border agents. …

“We appeal to your good reason and sound judgment as fellow Texans,” the Texas lawmakers wrote. …

Ramos and Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for the Feb. 17, 2005, incident near Fabens, Texas.

Editorial Note: In the 15^th graf, the paper reports that “[a]t last count, 152 House members from both parties had signed a resolution calling on Bush to pardon the agents or commute their sentences” but the lede tells a different story: “President Bush on Monday freed two Border Patrol agents … bowing to relentless pressure from conservatives, border state lawmakers and foes of illegal immigration.” So which is it – a bipartisan call for justice or a conservative cause? And why does the paper allow loaded language like “relentless pressure” in its news pages?

The $170 Million Wing Ding

Barack Obama will make history in more ways than one by the time he is sworn in as the 44^th president of the United States. The festivities surrounding his inauguration will be the most expensive and extravagant in our nation’s history. As ABC News puts it: 
 

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama.

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty [sic] rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

Last week NewsBusters took The Associated Press and others to task for urging austerity and frugality for President Bush’s second inaugural in 2005, while encouraging Obama to spend like a drunken sailor on his big day (actually three days, but who’s counting?):  

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration.  …

[T]he AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.

To get a real feel for the contrast, here’s an excerpt of Lester’s January 13, 2005 piece ... starting with a lede designed to rain all over Bush’s parade and including the suggestion from two liberal Democrats that Bush eat cold chicken salad and pound cake instead:

President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

† 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.

† Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

† A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.

NewsBusters points out that “[t]he nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see” and that AP is not “tsk-tsking” the eye-popping expenditures.

Perhaps prodded by NewsBusters and other conservative media, The Associated Press did bestir itself - albeit not too vigorously - to address Dem hypocrisy on the inaugural spending four years ago and today - though AP did not cop to being equally guilty - on Saturday, in an article with the headline, “Unemployment Is Up. The Stock Market Is Down. Let's Party”:

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation - costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers - and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party. …

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry. …

"Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate," McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.

The AP article does not quote anyone who questions the unprecedented price tag, nor explains how Obama’s inaugural committee is “trying to be reflective of the climate” other than by “having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.” None of which lessens the cost to taxpayers  in D.C., as well as neighboring areas of MD and VA.

Editorial Note: Despite all the ballyhoo about keeping it green, “[t]he carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2,” writes Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi, and cites an Institute for Liberty calculation that “it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.” 

Well-Chosen Words: Part IX 

† Though atheist Michael Newdow went to court seeking an injunction barring Chief Justice John Roberts from adding the words “so help me G-d” at the end of the 35-word oath of office – the practice began in 1933 – Barack Obama filed an affidavit stating he wants the affirmation administered to him, and a federal judge okayed both the inclusion of “G-d” in the oath, as well as the planned invocation and benediction by Revs. Joseph Lowery and Rick Warren. All well and good, but Beliefnet.com co-founder Steven Waldman complains that in a country as religiously diverse as America, Protestantism has inexplicably become the default faith represented at the inaugural ceremony:  

[I]f one looks at the roster of clergy and the prayers they gave over the past 70 years, it appears that America has actually become less inclusive and pluralistic over time.

Including the two prayers at Barack Obama's inaugural, 12 prayers will have been delivered at inaugurations since 1989. All of them will have been delivered by Protestants. By contrast, in the previous 48 years, fewer than half of the prayers were offered by Protestants. Every president prior to George H.W. Bush had a Catholic and more than half also had a Jewish or Greek Orthodox clergyman.

Editorial Note:Beliefnet includes an archive of inaugural invocations and prayers since 1937.

† The New York Times asked presidential wordsmiths William Safire (Richard Nixon), Jeff Shesol (Bill Clinton), Mary Kate Cary (George H.W. Bush) and Gordon Stewart (Jimmy Carter) what advice they would give Jon Favreau, the 27-year old who is crafting Barack Obama’s inaugural address. Ever helpful to Obama, the paper also pulled together an interactive feature that analyzes the focus and themes of every single inaugural address from the George (Washington’s in 1789 to George Bush’s in 2005.

† You may know that the melody to our national anthem was co-opted from a popular English drinking song, but it turns out there’s more to “The Star-Spangled Banner” than the one verse we sing with our caps doffed and our hands over our hearts – three more verses, it turns out. The Washington Post recently published a fascinating history of the origins of this and other patriotic songs.

Bonus: Today is the bicentennial of Edgar Allan Poe’s birthday. You can read his poems here.

Another Case Of Ugly “Boobist” Stereotyping

Regular readers of this blog know about The Stiletto’s ongoing crusade against “boobism” – the last acceptable form of anti-woman bias. Condemning Chilean designer Ricardo Oyarzún's plans for a fashion show “dressing up models like the Virgin Mary - in some cases with ample, near-naked breasts,” Catholic bishops released a statement that Oyarzún seeks to “tarnish manifestations of sincere love toward the Virgin Mary, which end up striking at the dignity of womankind by presenting her as an object of consumption," reports Reuters.   

The Stiletto can understand objections to the Virgin Mary being shown in any state of undress, but not to being represented by a well-endowed woman. No one knows what the Virgin Mary looked like, and she could well have had D-cup-sized breasts. As The Stiletto is forced to point out time and again – sometimes in this blog, sometimes in real life – you cannot infer anything about a woman’s IQ or moral code from her bod.