Friday, January 23, 2009

Flat n' all that.

HI kids! As a part of the new service a certain amount of outsourcing will occur, starting with this rather rib-ticklesome essay on the dreaded Thomas Friedman. He's something of a smug bugger who writes for the New York Times who, being reviled by both left and right alike, one might imagine to be somewhere near the truth, but no – Elroy's never liked him, and after this you won't do. Fuck him.

Now, should I merely link to it? Or reporduce the whole thing? Please advise, and meanwhile enjoy:


Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Well, it’s been a while but here we are – back.

Elroy has made a new years resolution to post often and not, as is his wont, write ream upon ream on a subject until either the situation has resolved itself or changed completely, or the interwebs crashes because of the word count. No, the new Let’s Ask Elroy!™ will be full of up-to-the-second thoughts and ponderings, links, quotes and just…more. Hooray!

On a personal note, Elroy would like to extend an apology to Emannuel, a reader from Elroy’s hometown who made some very kind comments and asked some very pertinent questions. Elroy did attempt to reply – he wrote it down and everything – but it has only just come to the attention to his dedicated team of Interwebs manipulators that, for reasons unknown, it never made it onto the screen/website as such and instead disappeared into the cyber-ether after being posted. Grrr! Stoopid Cyber-ether!

So sorry Emannuel, and please don’t take it personally – the team noticed the omission because Mad Dog logged in to agree with you, and so Elroy says ‘Ta everso!’ to him, too and begs Emmanuel’s forgiveness. Elroy’s sorry, really, and will reply again shortly.

Meanwhile, onward and upward – more posts, little ones, big ones, links, other people's posts, whatever – welcome to the all new looking Let's Ask Elroy!™

His Word Is His Bond.

So, what’s been happening? I believe that a Republican took the White House in November – indeed, the landlord gave him the keys just today – so let's have a look at how that went down....yes...I see....gee, he pulls a crowd, doesn't he?...yes...hmmm...and...that's it! $160 million gone down the Potomac!

Yes, it has been the cause of much wailing and gnashing and teeth, that bill. $160 m! Four times more than Bush's 2005 bash! It's an outrage! etc, except of course it's all bollocks. Obama's inaugaration actually cost $42 m, a tidy sum I'll grant you, but still less that Bush's $45 m, so where does the $160 m come from? Well, for Obama's costs, New York's Daily News helpfully added the full and as yet unknown costs of security and threw in the lethally ambiguous 'could approach', as in 'costs could approach $160 m' which is where the figure comes from. That's right kids, they made it up. Well, not quite...

Given that Obama's $45m and Bush's $42 was raised privately, the security is what the tax-payer springs for and in 2005 it was a healthy $115 m – so the full cost of Bush soiree was actually a paltry $157 m, give or take a balloon or two.

Now, either the Daily News, FOX et al knew this and deliberately skewed the sums, or they were just pulling it out of...the air, but either way it shows a duplicitousness that the Pres is going to be treated to in spades over the next eight years – good job he's not a leftie or things could get really ugly.

On the other hand there is no mention of how much the White House rent is, and Elroy certainly didn't see Obama handing over a security deposit at the inauguration, so we can only assume that his word is his bond.