fabulous. i can't even get over irony of the fact that most of the major players in the US government right now would rather drink a rat milkshake than consider giving DC statehood, but they've got no problem with the city spending $17.3 million out of its own pocket to fund the inauguration:

The District expects the whole thing to cost it $17.3 million dollars. Mayor Anthony Williams would like a federal appropriation to help with the costs, but his spokeswoman, Sharon Gang, says they've been told that won't happen.

Instead, the mayor wants to use 5.4 million from the Emergency Planning and Security Cost Fund. That's been dipped into before to cover costs for things like Ronald Reagan's funeral and World Bank protests.

But that leaves nearly $12 million unfunded. So the mayor suggests using regional homeland security grant money. He's sent a letter to Secretary Tom Ridge, asking if that's an appropriate use of the funds.

brilliant, mayor williams! instead of getting a federal appropriation to cover the costs, we're going to take money out of a fund that should be protecting us from terrorists. D.C., a town that's about 95% blue, that is probably one of the highest-risk targets for terrorism, that has no congressional representation, is going to spend a good chunk of its Don't Kill Us, Please money on paying for the activities and alcohol of a bunch of republicans.

i am so totally spending january 20th on the roof of our apartment with a bottle of tanqueray, throwing spitballs and incoherent, slurred insults at anybody who passes by in cowboy boots.

UPDATE: from the moonie times: "The Washington Post reported the money is for construction and security costs and the Bush administration is balking at reimbursing the money to the District of Columbia as it and other administrations did previously."

and more from the post:

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

... A spokesman for Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, which oversees the District, agreed with the mayor's stance. He called the Bush administration's position "simply not acceptable."

"It's an unfunded mandate of the most odious kind. How can the District be asked to take funds from important homeland security projects to pay for this instead?" said Davis spokesman David Marin.

... The $17.3 million the city expects to spend on this inauguration marks a sharp increase from the $8 million it incurred for Bush's first.

According to Williams's letter, the District anticipates spending $8.8 million in overtime pay for about 2,000 D.C. police officers; $2.7 million to pay 1,000-plus officers being sent by other jurisdictions across the country; $3 million to construct reviewing stands; and $2.5 million to place public works, health, transportation, fire, emergency management and business services on emergency footing.

Congressional aides said the District sought unsuccessfully last year to boost the annual security reimbursement fund from $15 million to $25 million to pay for inauguration expenses. In contrast, New York City and Boston-area lawmakers were able to obtain $50 million from Congress for each of those two jurisdictions to cover local security costs for the national political conventions.

If you'd asked me before the election, I would have said that the internet would get less shrill after the presidential election. Clearly I would've been wrong. Turns out we lefties aren't such magnanimous losers after all.

I don't think it's all our fault. I expected the blogs to be sore winners, but between the crowing about a mandate, the confrontational appointments, giving Wolfowitz the Congressional Medal of Freedom... it feels a little like the President's trying to rub our noses in it. At the same time, I know liberal bloggers seem a bit more knee-jerk anti-Bush than before. Partly this is because we've seen how little conciliation gets us. Partly it's because we think the President is foolish and has done a poor job in his first term, leading us to greet anything he does with suspicion. But in large part it's because we genuinely don't like a lot of the administration's proposals. And I'm sad to see online discussions with people I like and respect degenerate into rancor.

So let me offer a tiny, admittedly lame olive branch: I like the President's tort reform proposals.

Dammit. I was prepared to ignore 24 this year -- last season irritated the hell out of me. Having inexplicably killing off the pouty-lipped, double-dealing, druglord-dating latina love interest halfway through the season, the series' producers left us to slog through a maze of bureaucrats, geeks and metrosexual villains. It fell apart pretty rapidly.

But then, that's always the problem with 24: the people plotting the show make it up as they go along. I still find it amazing that each season's arc isn't set in advance -- doesn't the premise demand it? Realistically, yes. In practice, no. As a result the show always gets off to a gripping start, then degenerates into plotlines about amnesia, mountain lions and bad Russian accents.

I'd finally had enough after season 3, and was determined to avoid this year's installment. I was prepared to be exposed to it -- Charles remains devoted to the show like no other -- but I hadn't counted on the blogospheric pop culture currents that this franchise brings with it. The first two hours seemed a little unexciting compared to previous 24 premieres, so maybe I'll be able to jump off this bandwagon earlier, but for now COMMENCE BLOGGING.

AKA nitpicking. Jim Henley (via Yglesias) has already picked apart the nonchalant acceptance of torture that we saw last night. There's also the apparently silly decision to make this season's terrorists Turkish -- I'm no expert on this stuff, but a country as publicly secular and westernized as Turkey seems like a bad candidate for breeding zealots determined to strike against the far enemy. Plus, it sounds like Turkey's actual terrorists are Marxists. If that's who this season's enemy turns out to be, count me in: now that the conflict is safely fictional, I love jingoist anti-Commie entertainment. Their debauched ideology killed Apollo Creed, for pete's sake!

But I have a feeling they'll be pushing America's more contemporary fear buttons, so instead let's talk about the other fun aspect of 24: the technononsense. We're still easing in, but this season is already off to a rollicking start.

Macworld will be starting up in a little under three hours, but its two most interesting developments seem to have already leaked -- or at least convincing hoaxes have been created to back up the two most talked-about rumors.

First up: the new headless iMac. There are some pictures here, although irritable Mac zealots seem to think they might be fakes. I guess I'm sort of hoping they are -- iHome is an unfortunately dopey name. A sub-$500 Mac would be exciting whatever it looked like, though. I'm not likely to ever switch, but I've got to admit they're sexy machines. It'd be nice to be able to buy a computer that just works when Grandma decides she wants to try email.

Second is the iPod micro. An Italian Mac news site claims to have seen the device, and the answer to everyone's question: there's no screen. It's shaped "like a small remote control". They also have photos of banners being put up for the product's announcement. The slogan? "Life is random". Er... great. They're not going to sell you on the device, they're going to sell you on shuffle mode.

Well, it's true that lots of folks are stupidly excited about shuffle mode. And it's true that some of those people are journalists with nothing worthwhile to write about. But I think Jobs may have miscalculated if he's counted this as a cultural phenomenon that can Apple can cash in on. The iPod is a runaway hit because it's pretty, because it was first to market, and because of its interface. Aside from that nifty scroll wheel, you can get more bang for your buck from a variety of other products. Get rid of the screen and you're getting rid of most of your interface advantage. I have no doubt it'll be a beautiful piece of gadgetry, but at $150 for a gigabyte of storage, paying for that Apple cachet is getting harder and harder to justify.