Friday, October 19, 2007
Diplomacy's heavy price
A certain segment of the British public is apparently up in arms because the British ambassador to the United States spent $10,000 throwing a surprise birthday party for Condoleezza Rice. Huh? There were 111 guests, which means that Ambassador Manning delivered a formal party in Washington for about $90 per head. If he served anything more expensive than pigs-in-a-blanket (not that there's anything better than pigs-in-a-blanket, mind you) he got a great deal for the British taxpayers. Have you planned a wedding lately? Any party of quality -- requiring, at a minimum, an open bar and imported cheese -- costs at least that much. Indeed, as an American patriot I expect foreign diplomats to spend substantially more than that sucking up to our most important officials. If it were anybody other than the Brits (or maybe the Aussies) I'd consider a $90 per head party to be a slap to the national face.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Oct 19, 07:18:00 AM:
Indeed a lofty sum per person.
Compare and contrast to the Pirate Coast on the TH reading list, which I just finished while in Turkey-Egypt-Greece. Hardly a tribute even in dollars unadjusted for inflation.
Incidently, we got to see the actual dagger/scimitar on the cover. Quite impressive.
JT
By 
AmPowerBlog, at
Fri Oct 19, 11:13:00 AM:
Well said! Hey, if you're throwing a party for us, spare no expense!
By , at
Fri Oct 19, 12:07:00 PM:
$90 a person has to be something of a bargain in DC, so it is not the money that is causing the objection. It is Condoleezza Rice they object to. They are just not honest enough to say that.
By , at
Fri Oct 19, 12:49:00 PM:
WET BLANKET WARNING!
What a pain it must be to have a comments section. There you are, innocently scribbling away, when suddenly some mean, nasty person comes along and shreds it to pieces.
But consider the poor unfortunate who has to do this dirty deed. Do you think he wants to criticize one of his favorite bloggers? Do you think he wants to divest said blogger of the last shred of dignity and respect he has? Do you think he wants to vilify and degrade said blogger until said blogger's soul resides somewhere between the deep, dark abyss of Hell and Eternal Damnation and the sweet fulfillment of Utter Madness?
Well, sure. Why not? :)
"A certain segment of the British public-"
Uh, it was one person, and all he did was ask for an accounting. There is nothing, whatsover, in the entire article that implies anybody was "up in arms," or even the tiniest bit upset, over the cost of the party. The magazine article was about Rice and, in it, mentioned the party, which got the Labor guy going. But that's all. I think you were thrown by the word "demanded."
But that's the writer's word as he strives to stir up the common rabble, which... (Dare I say it?) ("Dare! Dare!")
...which apparently he did. :)
Damn commenters.
Well, now that we have a complete non-story on our hands (not to mention my getting on TH's good side for the day), may I highjack this tiny corner of the comments area to raise an issue regarding the site?
First off, Hawk, congrats on getting the sidebar link on Michelle's site the other day regarding your Coulter article. Amazing how magnetic that name is, eh? If you have a daily sitemeter, it'd be interesting to see if there was a small spike.
Okay, a question:
Have you ever noticed how some blogsites get lots and lots of comments, and some don't get many at all? Sure, traffic plays the major role, but could there be some other factor at work?
I think there is. I haven't actually sat down and made the tests, but I think there's a distinct correlation between sites that have 'advanced' comment editing features, and those who offer the pixelated equivalent of dog poop.
For the record, this site's comments editor would be in the "expensive grade of dog poop" category. At least we can embed links -- assuming one's fluent in HTML.
Is it really a coincidence that the sites with the most comments also have the best editors? It's a snap to embed a link on Ace's place, or Michelle's, or HotAir, or LGF, etc. Heck, some sites even let you include pictures -- and how cool is that?
Now, let me make a salient point on the side before continuing:
About half of the comments in a normal comments area are replies to other comments, not the article, itself.
These replies often contain very interesting links as someone tries to prove his point to someone else. They're interesting, because they're not the standard fare that's currently circulating around the 'Net. They figure the moron they're talking to has already seen those, so here's something fresh. With me?
So, when I go to Ace's site, I definitely glance through the comments on topics of interest, knowing that I might very well see a smattering of new, interesting links.
I don't expect that here.
Nor at Hugh Hewitt's place, nor Maggie's Farm, and a host of other very nice sites that have (1) low numbers of comments and (2) substandard software.
Again, I don't think this commonality is mere coincidence.
FWIW, I emailed the people who recently re-did Malkin's site (and who has a dynamite comments editor) and asked them to look at your site and figure out how much it would cost to upgrade the comments editor. I'm ready to donate some bucks to the "Renovate TH's Site" fund, so I thought I'd do a little advance work, heh.
They said that they just did the site, not the comments area, and gave me a web address to the group that supposedly did, but it looked like one of those commercial links sites ("Realty", "Cars", "Electronics", etc) so I skipped it. But there are others out there.
Anyway, please think about it. I know the site's just a 'hobby', but, hell, people spend a lot of money on hobbies every year. And others beside myself might donate to the cause. We understand you have a family to raise, but, likewise, we understand this blog is valuable, and deserves the best software support it can get.
And, given the satisfaction such 'hobbies' give, it could be argued that it's the best money one can spend.
After the wedding ring and baby crib, of course. :)
By davod, at
Fri Oct 19, 02:10:00 PM:
What a waste:
Now if he was going to spend 10,000 to welcome back from Norway hero of the world Sir Albert then that would be ok.
By sammy small, at
Sat Oct 20, 12:29:00 AM:
Pigs in a Blanket? Shouldn't this be referred to as the British version: "Toad in a Hole"?
