Relativity in the 2008 US Transition
The economic turmoil that helped unseat the "pale male" monopoly on heading a major developed world power continued in early December 2008 when stories exploded about the President-elect intending to buy his wife a $30,000 ring.
The reputed ring was made of rhodium, "the world's most expensive metal," according to the New York Post on December 2.
On December 3, the Big Three US automakers were back in Washington for the second time to appeal for a $34 billion bailout in the form of federal loans to prevent collapse of their industries by year's end.
As instructed on their first trip two weeks before, they returned in December with a more solid plan on how to use the bail-out money than presented earlier.
The new plan included an agreement with the United Auto Workers Union to cut worker benefits, including unemployment pay and retiree health insurance.
The uproar about a $30,000 ring is symbolic of America in 2008.
It is a year in which taxpayers are bailing out failing industries even as their benefits are cut and they are laid off while corporate executives continue jetting to emergency bailout meetings and retreats.
No doubt the new first lady is not the first wife who has ever received a thank you present from her husband for having helped him gain an even less historic victory for the country than this was.
Little doubt also that the new President and his family are the objects of greater scrutiny than former presidents and families were.
Scrutiny and curiosity are closely entwined and the country, along with the world, is intensely interested in the brand new first family holding so much promise in beleaguered times.
Yet the outrage over a $30,000 ring during economic hard times calls for a look at relativity in America before the new President takes office.
During the presidential campaigns leading up to the 2008 election, the financial crisis was in full swing when $150,000 was spent on clothing for the Republican vice-presidential candidate's family.
The jacket in which the candidate delivered the speech that won conservative hearts and rallied the Party was a Valentino jacket with a price tag close to $12,000.
Presuming the rest of the clothes worn that night were purchased at shops above the level of local Salvation Army outlets, even if not at Saks Fifth Avenue or Neiman Marcus as the venues reported to be where most of the shopping took place, it is quite conceivable that the outfit worn that night cost the equivalent of the $30,000 ring, if it does get purchased after the attention.
It is also presumed that the $30,000 ring will be bought with private funds and not with political Party donations expected to be one-tenth of what the actual cost turned out to be.
The ring is also likely to be a permanent possession, unlike the fate of the infamous clothes as of early December, when an announcement about a charity donation had not yet been made.
Further during that same financial crisis and on nomination night, the Republican candidate's wife wore an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair in September to have cost approximately $300,000.
A gold balloon dress by Oscar de la Renta was worth a modest $3,000.
But a pair of three carat diamond earrings was estimated to be worth $280,000.
Between nomination night, through the election and into early December when the intended ring became public knowledge, the unfolding scenario of executive excess, ambition and incompetence continued to unfold with no end in sight.
The symbol of that legacy to America is the insurer AIG, which paid $400,000 for a junket after being bailed out by $150 billion in taxpayer money.
The $30,000 ring is a bargain at ten times that price and the new President would be well-advised to buy it.
Americans deserve to see that ring on the finger of their first lady as a reminder that nearly half the population voted the other way.
They voted for the Party that spends as much on earrings as an average taxpayer earns in ten years, provided, of course, that jobs are found in the first place.
The reputed ring was made of rhodium, "the world's most expensive metal," according to the New York Post on December 2.
On December 3, the Big Three US automakers were back in Washington for the second time to appeal for a $34 billion bailout in the form of federal loans to prevent collapse of their industries by year's end.
As instructed on their first trip two weeks before, they returned in December with a more solid plan on how to use the bail-out money than presented earlier.
The new plan included an agreement with the United Auto Workers Union to cut worker benefits, including unemployment pay and retiree health insurance.
The uproar about a $30,000 ring is symbolic of America in 2008.
It is a year in which taxpayers are bailing out failing industries even as their benefits are cut and they are laid off while corporate executives continue jetting to emergency bailout meetings and retreats.
No doubt the new first lady is not the first wife who has ever received a thank you present from her husband for having helped him gain an even less historic victory for the country than this was.
Little doubt also that the new President and his family are the objects of greater scrutiny than former presidents and families were.
Scrutiny and curiosity are closely entwined and the country, along with the world, is intensely interested in the brand new first family holding so much promise in beleaguered times.
Yet the outrage over a $30,000 ring during economic hard times calls for a look at relativity in America before the new President takes office.
During the presidential campaigns leading up to the 2008 election, the financial crisis was in full swing when $150,000 was spent on clothing for the Republican vice-presidential candidate's family.
The jacket in which the candidate delivered the speech that won conservative hearts and rallied the Party was a Valentino jacket with a price tag close to $12,000.
Presuming the rest of the clothes worn that night were purchased at shops above the level of local Salvation Army outlets, even if not at Saks Fifth Avenue or Neiman Marcus as the venues reported to be where most of the shopping took place, it is quite conceivable that the outfit worn that night cost the equivalent of the $30,000 ring, if it does get purchased after the attention.
It is also presumed that the $30,000 ring will be bought with private funds and not with political Party donations expected to be one-tenth of what the actual cost turned out to be.
The ring is also likely to be a permanent possession, unlike the fate of the infamous clothes as of early December, when an announcement about a charity donation had not yet been made.
Further during that same financial crisis and on nomination night, the Republican candidate's wife wore an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair in September to have cost approximately $300,000.
A gold balloon dress by Oscar de la Renta was worth a modest $3,000.
But a pair of three carat diamond earrings was estimated to be worth $280,000.
Between nomination night, through the election and into early December when the intended ring became public knowledge, the unfolding scenario of executive excess, ambition and incompetence continued to unfold with no end in sight.
The symbol of that legacy to America is the insurer AIG, which paid $400,000 for a junket after being bailed out by $150 billion in taxpayer money.
The $30,000 ring is a bargain at ten times that price and the new President would be well-advised to buy it.
Americans deserve to see that ring on the finger of their first lady as a reminder that nearly half the population voted the other way.
They voted for the Party that spends as much on earrings as an average taxpayer earns in ten years, provided, of course, that jobs are found in the first place.
