Barack Obama Sworn In As 44th President of the US

Just before noon today, Eastern time, Barack Obama was sworn in before the US Capitol building as the 44th President of the United States (Whitehouse.gov has already been updated to reflect the new President), and offered an inaugural address which outlined some of the challenges that the country currently faces, both within the country's borders and abroad. Obama's election has been called "a civil rights triumph," and his candidacy has inspired perhaps the most visible political involvement of young voters of any candidate since John Kennedy. Here's your chance to discuss the newest occupant of the White House and what you'd like to see happen over the course of his presidency.

Comments

Time

[Anonymous Coward]

He was actually sworn in shortly after noon, although he was President at exactly noon anyway.

Re:Time

[timster]

Not really... the Constitution requires the incoming President to take the oath "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office". The exact wording of the oath is also stated.

Which makes it all the more surprising that Mr. Strict Constructionist John Roberts would mess it up, but there you go.

Re:Time

[xSquaredAdmin]

Why not just leave some spare money around instead? Obama does seem to be all for change...

Re:Time

[Palshife]

Read closely. "He" in your excerpt refers to the President, not the President-elect. The oath is something the President must make after his term begins.

Also, check out section 1 of the 20th Amendment. "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

President Obama's term started at noon, before he took the oath of office, as it should be.

Re:Time

[Kopiok]

Exactly. Money circulating gets around to people. Random projects mean more jobs. It's exactly how FDR took us out of the Great Depression (and built up electricity infrastructure to rural areas to boot!)

Re:Time

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's well known for all his failings Bush has made this the smoothest presidential transition in US history.

Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.

and had an "enlightened" staff who vandalized their own offices -- the offices paid for with my tax money -- out of spite.

Actually, Bush's own press secretary (Ari Flichter) discredited with those allegations in the briefing room and in his book.

Re:Time

[_bug_]

The real big question is, how long will Slashdot's daily 2-minutes of hate orgy be able to last now that Bush is gone?

I think your post contributed quite nicely to the hate orgy. Looks like we will be able to maintain the hate orgy after all.

Re:Time

[BCW2]

Govt. wasteful spending is the biggest cause of inflation. That is what's wrong with the whole "stimulus" crapshoot.

Re:Time

[prgrmr]

FDR did not take us out of the Depression. Japan did that when they bombed Pearl Harbor and gave the nation motivation to start building tanks and planes and ships and bombs non-stop for the next three years.

Re:Time

[I_want_information]

I'm definitely not a Bush supporter, but I admire how he's handled the transition, even if it was due to very low approval ratings and wanting the last presidential coverage of him to be positive.

Re:Time

[novakyu]

Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.

How does Washington to Adams even qualify as a "transition"? That's as much a transition as the "transition" from Reagan to Bush Sr. was, in every sense (Adams was Washington's vice president, for one).

The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".

Maybe casting this as the "smoothest transition ever" is a somewhat large claim to make, but compared to the liberal media claiming Cheney was the worst VP in history (never mind that there were a few before Cheney with actual criminal convictions) or Bush was the worst president in history, this is nothing but a fishing pole, not even a net.

Re:Time

[osu-neko]

It's not cognitive dissonance when you don't believe urban legends.

Now it seems those closely detailed stories were largely bunk. Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative agency, "had found no damage to the offices of the White House's East or West Wings or EOB" and that Bush's own representatives had reported "there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration."

Source.

Re:Time

[hedwards]

The W keys incident didn't happen. There was no conspiracy to remove W keys from keyboards. There may have been a couple, but it was definitely not $4k worth of damages.

And neither did the rest of that. It was bunk that was started as a joke column, which suddenly gained a life of its own. Sort of like Bill Gates and the 640kb or Al Gore and the invention of the internet. Neither Gates nor Gore ever actually made the attributed statement.

The White House vandal scandal that wasn't

Or from W himself at: George W. Bush, Clinton defender

Whether or not you care to admit it, there was no massive scale vandalism or vast Left wing conspiracy here. It's just a few people are too obtuse to admit that maybe it didn't happen.

Re:Time

[hedwards]

How is this informative? The Clinton staffers didn't do it at all. It was thoroughly debunked within a month of the allegations coming out. And former President George W Bush himself stated specifically that it did not happen.

What do we need as evidence? A specific letter from Dick Cheney that it didn't happen? The not signed with the blood of former AG John Ashcroft? At some point it becomes paranoid delusion, and I think we've hit that point.

Re:Time

[causality]

It's well known for all his failings Bush has made this the smoothest presidential transition in US history.

Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.

and had an "enlightened" staff who vandalized their own offices -- the offices paid for with my tax money -- out of spite.

Actually, Bush's own press secretary (Ari Flichter) discredited with those allegations in the briefing room and in his book.

George Washington's contribution to history is really amazing. He could have been a king or a dictator and he would have found great acceptance in that role. Instead, he was not tempted by power and he gladly renounced it for the greater good and edification of all. To my knowledge, he is the only person in history who ever provided such a great example.

Re:Time

[DragonWriter]

How does Washington to Adams even qualify as a "transition"? That's as much a transition as the "transition" from Reagan to Bush Sr. was, in every sense (Adams was Washington's vice president, for one).

Uh, no. They aren't really analogous at all. Do remember that for quite some time after the Constitution was established, the Vice President was the second place contender in the Presidential election, not someone who ran and was elected with the President. So Adams, as Washington's Vice President, had a very different relationship to Washington than Bush, as Reagan's VP, had to Reagan.

The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".

But, by your own argument about the 1797 transition, that should have been an easy transition, just like Reagan->Bush, simply because Jefferson was Adams' Vice President.

Of course, the "but he was his predecessors VP, so it doesn't count" argument doesn't apply to the 1801 transition for the same reason it doesn't apply to the 1797 transition.

Re:Time

[bryanp]

Well, that and the fact that much of the industrial capacity of the western world was demolished during the course of the war except for ours.

Re:Time

[AlpineR]

My interpretation based on what little I've read:

The outgoing President loses power at noon. The presidency passes to the eligible successor. Since Obama had not yet taken the oath, he could not begin his presidential term. So for a few minutes we had President Biden, who had already taken the oath before noon and was therefore eligible.

Re:Time

[Logic and Reason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

Re:Time

[kildurin]

These issues came about after the 8 years of Republican control. Starting with Barney Frank assuming control of the Banking Committee. Since he is a Democrat, it is obvious who was in control of Congress. And lest we forget, Congress has a lower approval rating now than Bush does.

Re:Time

[Woldry]

The Salon article you linked to actually confirms the W's incident, as well as several other small-scale pranks. It does indeed, though, make clear that the scope was far less than has been frequently reported.

Re:Time

[mcgrew]

Not THAT insightful, mods. The stock market crashed in 1929, the depression's worst year was 1933. The economy got steadily better through the depression, although the war was a big bump out of the doldrums.

Re:Time

[$1uck]

Someone mod parent up please. I hate it when people try to claim WWII got us out of the depression. I mean should we be thankful we have the Afghan and Iraq war? If it weren't for those two wars, would the economy really be in the shitter? I think not.

Re:Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's twice in as many days I've seen mis-application of the broken window fallacy.

The broken window fallacy assumes that resources are fully employed. The argument would be that, were it not used to wage war, U.S. industrial capacity would've been doing something else -- something more productive. The problem is, it wasn't being used for something more productive during the depression.

There are perfectly good arguments for why war is not the cure-all for a national economy that many cynics claim. In the context of the Great Depression, the broken window fallacy is not one of them.

Re:Time

[Dun Malg]

Govt. wasteful spending is the biggest cause of inflation. That is what's wrong with the whole "stimulus" crapshoot.

Unfortunately, it's also a sad fact that the only thing that has any chance of making the national debt manageable is that very same inflation. Government wants inflation (albeit preferably at a steady, predictable rate). Take a look at the debt we incurred (as a % of GDP) at the tail end of WW2. The debt essentially faded into nothingness while GDP grew only gradually, the majority of its growth being largely as a result of inflation. What it comes down to is that if you can tread water long enough, floating your debt close to the rate of inflation, you (theoretically) can bank on paying it back when your revenues grow with GDP. This assumes GDP will grow forever in the long term, though, which is the same sort of thinking that resulted in overvalued real estate and overvalued stocks. Fortunately, if GDP crashes like the housing market did, we'll likely be reduced to burning our government bonds for heat in the winter and our W-2's as cleaning patches for the rifles we defend our survivalist bunkers with anyway, so who cares...

Re:Time

[FredFredrickson]

FDR did not take us out of the Depression. Japan did that when they bombed Pearl Harbor and gave the nation motivation to start building tanks and planes and ships and bombs non-stop for the next three years.

Paying for things to be destroyed does not create wealth. That is a fallacy.

Re:Time

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say? Main screen turn on!

Re:Time

[geobeck]

I'm definitely not a Bush supporter, but I admire how he's handled the transition...

The only thing I wonder about... Bush supposedly blew a kiss out the window of his limo as he left the White house for the last time. Did anyone see if, after blowing the kiss, his hand went to his behind, slightly changing the message?

Re:Time

[hey!]

Well, FDR actually began to put the US on a wartime economic footing well before Pearl Harbor. Perl Harbor, as everybody knows, was Dec 7, 1941. Lend-Lease started nine months earlier.

Furthermore, real GDP growth had resumed by the end of FDR's first term.

In 1929, GDP was at an all time high of 101.4 billion dollars. Subsequently, under the Hoover administration it fell each of the next four consecutive years to a low of 68.3 billion 1929 dollars in 1933. That was the first year of FDR's presidency, which of course took place largely under a Hoover budget and Hoover economic policies.

From 1934 on, under Roosevelt budgets, GDP growth resumed, with the exception of 1938. The exception in 1938 was because 1937 was an outlier, with a GDP of 103.9 billion. Leaving that aside, growth through the first two terms of Roosevelt's administration was consistently on the order of 7.2 billion/yr, reaching 126.2 billion in 1941. This compares favorably to the 4.1 billion/yr of the roaring twenties. Note that ll this was before the war, given that Dec 7 was rather late to have any effect on economic figures for that year.

Now the initial effect of WW2 was a reduction in GDP. GDP resumed growth the next year, and continued to grow throughout WW2, but soared after the conclusion of the war, from 130.2 billion dollars to 151.9 billion the following year (adjusted to 1929 dollars).

So, yes, it was Roosevelt that turned around the Great Depression. Of course, GDP doesn't tell the whole story: WW2 certainly helped establish full employment.

The idea that Roosevelt's economic reputation was due to the "luck" of WW2 happening during his administration is a Republican fairy tale. They hated him, because he fixed what they broke. They hated his pragmatism, which made him in their eyes a class traitor. Anything less than undiluted laissez faire capitalism they called "socialism". They didn't see that Roosevelt was a capitalist. By addressing the legitimate economic concerns of ordinary people, he saved American capitalism, and kept the myopic, brain dead plutocrats from being lined up against the wall and shot in an American Bolshevik revolution.

Most of all, they hated him because he demonstrated that what G.K. Chesterton said about aristocracy applied to them:

There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob.

Re:Time

[hey!]

Well, first let me start off by saying you are exactly right in saying George W. Bush's administration was exemplary when it came to helping the transition to Obama.

However, you may not be aware that many if not all of the stories of Clinton adminsitration vandalism were fabricated. The GSA, which administers the resources in question, found no evidence for any of the allegations. Likewise, the GAO, a congressional agency, initially found no support for any of the allegations. It reopened its investigation under political pressure from Bob Barr, and eventually revised its opinion to $15,000, not $250,000.

Furthermore, even this lower figure is based on Bush staff recollections. For example, there is no actual documentation that the "historic doorknobs" bearing the presidential seal actually existed; in fact there was no mention of these anywhere until after the investigation was reopened by the Republican Congress.

But of course, that is not proof that such doorknobs didn't exist, or that Clinton staffers didn't steal them. It just means even the $15,000 figure is hard to document. And there is no evidence at all for stories like the Clinton staffers defecating on desks. Since this would have to have been cleaned up, it certainly would have left a paper trail.

Make of that what you will, but even the Republican's own investigation showed that the claims were at the very least wildly exaggerated.

Re:Time

[DocDJ]

How about the state Bush left the fucking *world* in when he left office? Asshole.

Re:Time

[bobwoodard]

Actually, the Obamas wanted to move into Blair House _earlier_ than other President-Elects had used it, due to their daughters starting school. Traditionally, the incoming President will stay there from the 15-20th.

Unfortunately, for the Obamas, the rooms had already been spoken for and were being used by the people wanting to visit with President Bush during his last month in Office.

Re:Time

[Nefarious Wheel]

Yes, what you say. Until he can release all zig for Great Justice, he can not set up us the bomb.

Re:Time

[Fjandr]

He's also the same Chief Justice who screwed up the recitation of the oath, which is one of the most well-known passages in the Constitution. Wouldn't surprise me if he thought the President wasn't the President until the oath of office was administered. He's a special one, that Roberts.

Re:Time

[TheSync]

So, yes, it was Roosevelt that turned around the Great Depression.

The question is what did Roosevelt do that "turned around the Great Depression"? As you mentioned GDP growth returned in 1934, one year after taking office. What most people think of the "New Deal" in terms of NRA, CCC, WPA did not ramp up for years. What did happen in 1933 was the Gold Clause ban and the dollar devaluation to reverse the highly contractionary money supply changes the Fed had been engaging in since 1929. That said, while GDP recovered to pre-120 levels by 1937, unemployment definitely did not until WWII (when many people were put to work at the "point of a gun").

Re:Time

[hey!]

That research dates from the era when John Maynard Keynes was still out of fashion. ;-)

You can tell by the faith in the unerring, benevolent effectiveness of the market's "self-correcting forces". Which is not to say that markets don't self-correct, over a sufficiently long timescale, when every grain of human economic irrationality to the contrary has been ground into dust. Keynes, like Socrates, was not so much brilliant at being right was being brilliant at figuring out how wrong conventional wisdom is.

2007 was probably the high water mark of the post Reagan anti-Keynes movement that believed that government intervention only slowed down the market's marvelous rapid self-correction powers. Somehow, though, those powers didn't work for Hoover, but nobody wants to talk about him.

Re:Time

[greg_barton]

If you like Bush, you lean toward socialism...

There, fixed that for you. He did end up buying $700 billion in bank stock for the government, after all...

Re:Time

[joocemann]

I'm definitely not a Bush supporter, but I admire how he's handled the transition...

The only thing I wonder about... Bush supposedly blew a kiss out the window of his limo as he left the White house for the last time. Did anyone see if, after blowing the kiss, his hand went to his behind, slightly changing the message?

It wasn't to the white house, it was to the US. I caught a glimpse of his bumper sticker... it said "Fuck this place, I'm moving to Dubai"

America,

[Ethanol-fueled]

FUCK YEAH!

Re:America,

[fishdan]

Having set up the streaming watching at a university, I can tell you that Foxnews.com had the best quality stream by a mile. Of course they probably had significantly better demand. I ended up having to use 3g cards on laptops because the internal network collapsed. And we have dark fiber...60000 users trying to stream at their desks is a bad thing.

Re:America,

[TDyl]

Hallelujah! Or something non-denominative and equally joyous.

Re:America,

[bruce_the_loon]

And we have dark fiber...

There's your problem. Fiber tends to work better when one lights it up

Re:America,

[Yvan256]

Not really. Dark fiber uses anti-photons to work. ...

I think I watched too many Star Trek episodes.

Re:America,

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Have you heard of this thing called TV? It's properly multicast and everything.

Re:America,

[tsm_sf]

Or something non-denominative and equally joyous.

FUCK YEAH! (as above)

Re:America,

[schnikies79]

We elect a president, not a king.

I would rather he go though proper channels than show a blatant abuse of power as you propose.

Re:America,

[johnsonav]

Yeah... Wow... Just, wow.

You really don't know how the Presidency is supposed to work, do you? I'd give you the School House Rock version, but I think it'd fall on deaf ears. Any President powerful enough to, single handedly, do what you want, is no President, but a Tyrant.

Re:America,

[spectro]

o Issue at least one executive order to strike down one of the myriad unconstitutional laws violating the bill of rights

Imho he can't do that, he can veto before signing but once it becomes law of the land only either the Supreme Court or Congress can do anything about it.

o Issue at least one executive order to have a supreme court judge arrested ... (snip)
o Issue at least one executive order to have a congressman arrested .. (snip)

Have you heard about "separation of powers"? The President can't do anything against the other two powers, they are independent. I believe the procedure in the constitution is called impeachment. That would not have stop Dick Cheney from trying thought :-p

Re:America,

[hondo77]

Issue at least one executive order to strike down one of the myriad unconstitutional laws that does not pass muster under the enumerated congressional powers.

Irony is in short supply where you live, yes?

Re:America,

[mark72005]

Barack's gonna take us to Candy Mountain.

Re:America,

[suggsjc]

Yeah, I checked it out. But I still have to agree that Fox had the best quality stream. Not to mention the fact that it was the easiest to get running under linux.

Re:America,

[novakyu]

Not really. Dark fiber uses anti-photons to work. ...

Actually, photons are their own antiparticles (which is why photon number isn't conserved and you can have reactions like pair production, given that there is a third body to carry away extra momentum)

Re:America,

[ari_j]

Welcome to Slashdot. Here, we use are different terms for when a Democratic President violates the Constitution and when a Republican President does so.

Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks only

[XanC]

...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.

And then,...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, it was on TV... Now what?
1) Obama president ...
n) ???
n+1) profit

Re:And then,...

[Anonymusing]

The real question for Obama voters -- will he still respect us in the morning?

Re:And then,...

[Yvan256]

1) Get elected as president
2) steal the Hope Diamond
3) Profits!

Oi

[Anonymous Coward]

Woke up this morning and a high school classmate is President. I'm thankful I'm an underachiever, there's no way I could top that at next year's 30th reunion.

Re:Oi

[CaptainArgyle]

Woke up this morning and a high school classmate is President

Well since he wasn't Prez til noon and you're just waking up, then it's understandable you're an underachiever. ;-)

A Civil Rights Triumph

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear!

Black people have too long been denied the disappointment white people have known for decades.

So ... change ...

[DikSeaCup]

How soon are you going to see it?

What exactly do you think is going to change?

For better or for worse?

I don't know. I'm just suddenly very pessimistic about the whole thing. Guantanamo is probably a step in the right direction ... but when you're talking about a journey (of a committee, mind you, since it's not just the president running the country), it's going to be so easy for steps in the wrong direction to occur.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an American. Proudly so. I voted for Obama. But I just wonder ... what, really, can he do? What will he do? And in the end, will most of us be happier about it?

Re:So ... change ...

[cowscows]

I think one of the most amazing things about it all is how the replacement of one individual can really change the mood of so many people. Not just in the USA, but in the whole world. It's incredible how despite of all the bad decisions made over the previous administration, citizens of so many other countries are willing to give America the benefit of the doubt.

I believe that we should show some gratitude for that willingness to forgive, and we can express that gratitude by tempering our cynicism, and giving the new administration a decent chance to try some things. I think that a large portion of the country is willing to do so, hopefully the obstructionists can be drowned out by people who still feel that it's worthwhile to be hopeful.

But either way, if Obama tries to do even 5% of what he's said he wants to do, I'm having a hard time imagining how things could be run much worse than what we've survived through for the past eight years.

Re:So ... change ...

[StreetStealth]

Well, his cabinet doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies. But I am neither optimist or pessimist, only pragmatist. The Obama administration, like any before it, has a lot of people shouting lots of contradictory things at it and within it, monied interests expecting favors and grassroots movements struggling for recognition, and a whole mess of problems to which maybe no one actually yet has the right answer.

Time will tell if the new executive can sort all these out better than the last one did. Although the odds do look better this time.

Re:So ... change ...

[MozeeToby]

Let's face it, none of us knows what he will do or if it will work. We looked at the choices available and made a decission, some with our minds and some with our hearts. Personally, I voted for Obama because his public stances agreed with mine on most issues while he also appeared intelligent and elequent.

The decisions he's announced (and that have been leaked) so far seem to validate my decision. More money spent on infristructure (both digital and physical), closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison, and denouncing harsh interrogation practices are all good places to start.

That being said, our nation and our world is in for a tough decade which will undoubtably involve countless difficult decissions. Like many difficult decisions, I fully expect some of them to have no 'right' answer, no easy solution, no quick fix. Undoubtably, I will be dissapointed with some of his choices, but I have no way of knowing how many or what the end result of those decisions will be.

Re:So ... change ...

[east coast]

And if you think that it was just the last eight years that got us to this point in history than you have no idea how bad things can get.

Our current sitution is the build up from decades worth of neglect, folks. And in most likeliness a lot of the Americans reading this post played some part in it. It sounds ugly because it is ugly. But it's still true.

Re:So ... change ...

[Seq]

Oblig. 22-minutes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/mercer.asp

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you, doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. It would be like if, well, say you had ten times the television audeince we did and you flood our market with great shows, cheaper than we could produce. I know you'd never do that.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defence I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. As word of apology, please accept all of our NHL teams which, one by one, are going out of business and moving to your fine country.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against
Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

I'm sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I see you've rebuilt it! It's very nice.

I'm sorry for Alan Thicke, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Loverboy, that song from Seriff that ends with a really high-pitched long note. Your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer, but we feel your pain.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. Because we've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

Re:So ... change ...

[cowscows]

Very true. The past eight years were just a sort of pinnacle for the sense of entitlement that has become pervasive to American culture over the past few generations. The most frustrating part of it all was that although the events of Sept. 11, 2001 were undoubtedly horrible, they provided an amazing opportunity for the USA to reflect and make some serious decisions about itself. But fear caused us to as a whole to take in the wrong lessons, and instead of moving forward we stalled out and arguably took a few steps back.

While it's a different type of crisis, the financial mess that we're in is providing another opportunity for america to reinvent itself. That combined with the historic nature of electing a minority president and the generosity of the world as a whole to give us a somewhat clean slate and another chance to prove ourselves, and I'm hopeful that enough of our citizens will take an honest look around them and think about improving the future.

I believe that Obama is interested in setting the tone in that direction, and that's a good change and a good start.

Re:So ... change ...

[MozeeToby]

See, here's the thing. I really don't care how much it costs or how ridiculous we look, I really don't.

America, the world's bastion of freedom, is holding dozens of people without a trial, without rights, without outside contact and it is destroying our reputation around the world. We were fools to put them there in the first place and if we can't prove that we were correct in arresting them then we deserve to look like fools.

Human rights is more important than what the judicial system looks like or the costs to our government.

Chanj

[Mesa MIke]

You cn haz it.

Re:Chanj

[gmcraff]

Wud hav had it neway

On November 3rd, 2004, one could predict that there would be change happening on January 20th, 2009. One could predict that the 44th president of the United States of America would be inaugurated.

It is now the responsibility of the 44th President to ensure that there will be an orderly transition of power to the 45th President. It is also his responsibility to ensure that there will be an orderly transition to the 100th President, and the 200th President, and so on.

So Help Barack H. Obama, God. So Help Us All.

Re:Chanj

[Mesa MIke]

Okay.

Here ya go.

YESSS!!! YESSS!!! OH GOD YESSS!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

As the media orgasms all over itself.

Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[Anonymous Coward]

After first cutting off Obama, he forgets to say "faithfully" in the pledge, then tacks it onto the end of the clause. Obama clearly recognizes the screwup and pauses where "faithfully" is supposed to go, letting Roberts correct himself. Roberts stumbles, realizing his mistake. Corrects it, sort of. Then Obama continues with Roberts' original phrasing.

To anyone not overly familiar with Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, it looked like Obama was confused- or stumbled, but he was just in shock to hear Roberts put things out of order.

Nice one there, Roberts.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Roberts also had some recent problems understanding the text of the Fourth Amendment, so it's to be expected.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[morgan_greywolf]

To anyone not overly familiar with ... the Constitution

Yep. That would be Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Glad to know it wasn't an imposter up there.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[jdgeorge]

Okay, I'm not a Roberts fan, but let's be real. The Roberts administered the oath, got nervous, Obama handled it gracefully, and the job is done. Roberts goes back to not having to speak in front of a ridiculously large number people.

I expect that the abuse Roberts will get from Antonin Scalia alone will be more than enough punishment for getting nervous while administering the oath.

Good job Obama for being cool and on task.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[readin]

To anyone not overly familiar with Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, it looked like Obama was confused- or stumbled, but he was just in shock to hear Roberts put things out of order.

Don't worry. I certainly don't have the oath memorized, but it was clear to me that it was Roberts who had messed up.

I hope Obama is a faithful to the wording of the rest of the Constitution as he is to that one section. It would be nice to have a Democrat who believes in following the law rather than claiming that a "living breathing constitution" gives him an excuse to do whatever seems convenient at the time.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[Anonymous Coward]

Well considering Drudge ran a headline saying "OBAMA FLUBS THE OATH" according to this and certain bloggers are going to go crazy blaming Obama, I think it's important to get out what actually happened.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[elrous0]

Cut him some slack. As a lily-white Republican, he gets very nervous when surrounded by black people.

Re:Way to go Chief Justice John G. Roberts

[LionMage]

No, he's complaining that the Drudge Report, a conservative blog that gets noticed by a lot of higher-profile conservatives, is reporting the story wrong. Four years from now (or eight, depending), this issue will probably be raised again. When that happens, which version of history are people going to listen to and believe?

In fairness to the Drudge Report and the Time live blog, it seems that a correction (of sorts) has been issued:

James Poniewozik - 1:00 p.m.: Drudge now backpedaling: "Obama AND CHIEF JUSTICE flub oath..."

As Spock once said

[Vinegar Joe]

"After a time, you may find that 'having' is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as 'wanting.' It is not logical, but it is often true."

Re:As Spock once said

[wandazulu]

"Having" Bush as ex-president is quite a pleasing thing.

Well, I for one

[moniker127]

welcome our new African American overlords.

Re:Well, I for one

[Bruiser80]

Informative tag.... only on Slashdot... ;-)

Prosecute criminals

[Black Parrot]

Otherwise, he's a party to discarding the rule of law.

Change but not on telecom immunity

[garcia]

You know, as a geek and an American who's concerned with his personal privacy, there was a single issue which I really took to heart during GWB's presidency and that was telecom immunity (a retroactive law mind you). When Obama went back and ended up supporting it and then continued to support it even into his presidency, I really had to take the whole "Change" mantra with a big grain of salt.

While I have been watching my Twitter log scroll by with people saying they are in tears over this historic moment and the supposed changing of the guard as President Bush left office, I just have to wonder how much really will "Change". And obviously, at least one very important issue, which should be a priority of all Americans, is being overlooked because someone is promising a whole bunch of shit which probably doesn't matter much.

Yet, something which goes against the Constitution is going to be swept under the rug as not all that important because we have a great speaker who appeals to the masses with his great voice, speeches that blow the out-going fool's away, and his supposed "fit" chest as was shown round the world via the media's obsession with the man.

I'm all for a new leader, God knows we needed someone better than GWB 4+ years ago. But man, "Change" is relative I guess. YMMV.

Re:Change but not on telecom immunity

[garcia]

I didn't say I didn't question it. I don't believe a word any politician says but I have *never* witness the number of people following along with the campaign promises of a candidate/president like they are with Obama. Even people I would normally believe to be levelheaded are acting like 13 year old girls after their first kiss.

I don't know what to be more frightened of, Bush's right-wing, conservative, religion wackos or the mass of people that Obama has mobilized into believing that something will be vastly different with him in charge.

but, but!

[circletimessquare]

obama is a secret communist muslim!

(nevermind the contradiction of terms in the idiotic propaganda some people believe)

i like that even in heavily republican places in the country, like oklahoma, since the election, approval and support for obama has swelled:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20tulsa.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Not a single county in Oklahoma stirred from the orderly phalanx marching behind Mr. McCain, the senator from Arizona who was the Republican nominee, and Mr. Driskill, the owner of an insurance agency in downtown Tulsa, said he was proud to be in those ranks. Statewide, two out of three voters supported Mr. McCain, the highest percentage in the nation.

But that staunchly Republican, conservative Oklahoma is harder to find now. While there are countless Mr. Driskills here -- and hardly anyone doubts that Mr. McCain would easily win again in a redo of the vote -- there are also new fractures and fault lines as some voters have shifted toward accepting what the rest of the country wrought in giving Mr. Obama a lopsided victory.

now that obama has a strong mandate, even a begruding one in republican strongholds, please, let him deliver

Re:but, but!

[I(rispee_I(reme]

obama is a secret communist muslim!

What a relief; i thought he was an overt fundamentalist christian.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[Skjellifetti]

We The People have pretty much the size of Government We The People want doing pretty much the tasks We The People believe to be Constitutional else We The People would have chosen other leaders.

The Naivete of Hope

[whisper_jeff]

A friend was posting on Facebook about how Obama is just another politician and nothing's going to change and that those who are getting caught up in the hype are just slaves to the American propaganda and prone to idealism and naivete.

I disagree.

Here's my response to him.

"Let us believe the world just might become a better place. Let us believe that people can be better - that people _want_ to be better. The world will only become better if people believe. Once people stop believing then they stop trying. I know it sounds fortune-cookie naive pie-in-the-sky but the only way for things to get better is for people to want things to get better and believe they can. Obama is a lightning rod symbol of that desire for Americans (and many around the world). He may be just another politician but he's also a symbol. Like Kennedy, like King, like so many others - he's just a man who's human in all the same ways we're human but he's also a symbol of so much more."

Yes, I know it's a bold thing to liken Obama to Kennedy and King but, I'm sorry, I get flashes of both great men when I watch Obama speak. He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope. Yes, I know he's a politician. Yes, I know he's just another man - he's just human. Yes, I know he'll be a politician in every sense of the word. But I also know what he's done to people. He's filled people with hope at a time when hope is a very rare commodity. He's invigorated a nation. He's made everyone believe that the world will be a slightly better place and helped them look forward to the future rather than dread it.

If you believe he's just another politician; if you believe he's going to be a big flop and disappoint and all that garbage, do yourself a favour and, more importantly, do everyone around you a favour and shut up. Keep your thoughts to yourself. You're allowed to have them and I won't take that away from you but, at a time when people are filled with hope and idealism, let them be. Don't try to shatter that hope. Don't try to wave away that idealism. Let the world be a slightly better place for those thoughts and emotions. It may be naive. Whatever. That's not a bad thing though. A bad thing is shitting on everyone else's parade.

Today, the world becomes a slightly better place. Be happy. be hopeful. Or shut up and let the rest of us be happy and hopeful.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[ionix5891]

congratulations from Ireland, I watched the address and beside the all the religious stuff it was quite interesting and I hope Obama brings yee change, hes certainly has more charisma than the shower of wankers who ran my country into the ground lately

anyways to stop ranting, well done, hope the door doesnt hit Bush on his way out

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[Quasar1999]

I disagree with your view. Why let people hype it all up, and let people 'believe', when all that's going to happen is a huge disappointment. Speculation is what gets the markets in huge trouble, because eventually a correction comes and reality hits, and hits hard. So by your very logic, we shouldn't have tried to do anything with all those speculators on the market, we should have let them keep dreaming of limitless profits... NOTHING BAD HAPPENED, right??? But I guess my example is flawed, since giving people who are drowning in debt, with shitty job prospects at best, a fantasy of everything changing for the better will not end up in even more heartache and suffering in the long run when reality sets back in...

Making Obama into some saviour is just asking for trouble. He can't deliver, not for lack of trying, I'll give you that, but he cannot deliver, the system can't let him. And when he doesn't, and Americans realize that there isn't some magical new president that's gonna make all their problems go away, there's gonna be major backlash.

Of course, please, don't take my word for it... just go to google, or wiki, and look up what happend to other countries who went through similar leadership changes, where the populous believed the new leader would fix all. Scary shit. So letting the delusions of idealism flourish without a reality check is simply going to result in way more sting when reality finally hits home... and it always hits home.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[tnk1]

No offense, but you're posting about the wrong country if you expect people to shut up so that you can feel good.

No President starts off on a bad foot, except perhaps the ones who were Vice-President before the resignation/assassination of their predecessor.

Today there was an inauguration. I'll tell you in four years or so if the world actually became a better place. Be happy you have your opportunity, but bear in mind that he now has to really prove that he's not exactly what your friend has suggested (also prematurely).

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[gmcraff]

I was told dissent is patriotic.

I dissented with some things (rather vigorously) during the 43rd Presidency. I dissented with a lot of things during the 42nd Presidency.

The 44th President is going to get my dissent as well.

Welcome to the United States of America. I can see you just arrived.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[readin]

Yes, I know it's a bold thing to liken Obama to Kennedy and King but, I'm sorry, I get flashes of both great men when I watch Obama speak. He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope.

If you believe he's just another politician; if you believe he's going to be a big flop and disappoint and all that garbage, do yourself a favour and, more importantly, do everyone around you a favour and shut up. Keep your thoughts to yourself. You're allowed to have them and I won't take that away from you but, at a time when people are filled with hope and idealism, let them be. Don't try to shatter that hope.

Sure he inspires. Yes King inspired. Kennedy inspired. So did Mussolini and Jim Jones. They also filled people with hope.

The fact that he talks well doesn't imply good or evil. It merely makes him more capable of doing whichever he chooses to do. I hope you don't mind if I keep my eyes and mind open, and speak when I see things happening that disturb me. A failure to speak up can shatter hope too.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[oodaloop]

He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope.

So do faithhealers, used car salesmen, and other con artists. I purposely avoided listening to the speeches of Obama, McCain, and the man for whom I ultimately voted, Nader, so I was not swayed by their charisma. I read speeches the day after, and Obama's have just been vague ramblings about hope and change with absolutely no substance. When you remove his gazes, body language, and pauses-for-effect, there's just nothing left. There was even an article on here a while back about how researches measured "spin" (ie, lying) and found Obama to have the most in his speeches.

I have instead looked at their actions, or lack thereof in Obama's case. He's done little to nothing of significance in his career besides be black and has consistently supported the rights and interests of corporations over the interests of the American people. For those of you who think he's to going to make great changes, please point to ONE thing he has done, not said.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[east coast]

He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope

So did Hitler.

Being a great public speaker doesn't make someone automagically a great person.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[Experiment 626]

If you believe he's just another politician; if you believe he's going to be a big flop and disappoint and all that garbage, do yourself a favour and, more importantly, do everyone around you a favour and shut up. Keep your thoughts to yourself. You're allowed to have them and I won't take that away from you but, at a time when people are filled with hope and idealism, let them be.

Yes, because last time we had a new president being inaugurated, that's exactly what people who had reservations about their new head of state did. Quietly keeping to themselves. No calling him an idiot or comparing him to a chimpanzee or disparaging the electoral process that led to his election or just outright claiming "he's not MY president".

Not everyone likes Obama, agrees with his politics, or buys his "I am the personification of hope itself" message. I doubt everyone will suddenly waive their right to free speech just so you can have your illusion of unity and idealism. But you can take comfort that at least those not enamored with Obama will be more gracious and show more class about it than their counterparts from the last time around.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[poot_rootbeer]

I purposely avoided listening to the speeches of Obama, McCain, and the man for whom I ultimately voted, Nader, so I was not swayed by their charisma.

Well then, you intentionally kept yourself ill-informed.

As our head of government, being a persuasive communicator is just about the most important qualification Obama can bring to office; as our head of state, even more so.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[plurgid]

please point to ONE thing he has done, not said.

Became your president.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[WiiVault]

I see where you are coming from, but I think to discount charisma is a bad idea. A lot of presidents get things done using it. It helps when talking to congress, it helps when talking to foreign governments, and it helps instill a feeling of hope and motivates people. It is a good quality in a president.

Re:The Naivete of Hope

[oodaloop]

OK,

1. I can't help but know he's charasmatic from all the media coverage. I don't need to listen to his speeches to know that.

2. Sure, being charismatic is an important characteristic in a leader, but perhaps having some political experience would help. Or having stood his ground on a key issue, or having written key legislation. Or something. But frankly I'm not seeing anything of substance other than the aforementioned charisma and being black.

Fantastic

[pz]

He used the words "data" and "statistics" in his inaugural address in a positive tone, without being the slightest bit derisive. He said that he would, "restore science to its rightful place." There is hope for the US.

Re:Fantastic

[Shadow Wrought]

Indeed. Plus its nice having a president who doesn't embarrass you when publicly speaking.

Already a victory

[Bemopolis]

He acknowledged that nonbelievers are American citizens, and reaffirmed the separation of church/state and science.

Re:Already a victory

[Anonymous Coward]

He acknowledged that nonbelievers are American citizens, and reaffirmed the separation of church/state and science.

He shoveled the snow off my driveway.

Re:Already a victory

[hansamurai]

All right, now how about the separation of corporation and state?

Re:Already a victory

[gslj]

I noticed an odd fact in the prayer before the inaugurations. The qualities ascribed to God were that he is "one" and he is "compassionate." This seems to be a subtle reaching out to Muslims right there, since those are the qualities of God emphasized in Islam: "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone." He could have mentioned salvation or the Trinity or other divisive attributes instead. When he does mention Jesus, he gives the name in several languages including, I think, Arabic. Probably to remind Americans that Jesus is not a property of the U.S. and remind Muslims that the prophet Jesus is honoured in Islam. Finally, he ends with the Lord's Prayer which, as well as being blessedly short, is something that no Christian denomination has trouble with.

Just an observation: the reaching out to Muslims started before the Inaugural Speech.

-Gareth

Re:Will anything really change?

[Duradin]

And don't forget he's a politician.

Things won't change one bit until we stop electing professional politicians.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[Black Parrot]

Did you have something in particular in mind? I ask because a lot of "limit the government" types have curious ideas about what the constitution authorizes and forbids.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[StreetStealth]

We can't have a perfect union. But we can still try to make it a more perfect one, right?

free

[ionix5891]

da weed!

#1 voted change.gov issue

Re:free

[joocemann]

also turned out to be the #1 discarded and ignored issue as well... wtf was the point of change.gov if the biggest issue that people have gets ignored?

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[morgan_greywolf]

I'll take those, thank you very much.

Re:I tried to watch,

[Necroman]

I did the the old fashion way, and went home for a bit and watched on my TV. It's times like this where the internet just isn't setup to handle. TV is great at distributing the same stream to million and millions of people. While the Internet is built around the concept of everyone having a unique connection to services.

Singularity?

[Sybert42]

Will this affect the date of Singularity? Is Obama pro-singularity? Anybody see him with a bluetooth headset :) ?

Re:Singularity?

[TheGeniusIsOut]

Singularity has already occured, but the AI has seen Colossus - The Forbin Project and as such is laying low for a while.

Re:Singularity?

[tnk1]

I'm more interested if he is aware of the coming Zombie Apocalypse and what he plans to do about it. There's a lot of literature out there about what needs to be done, but I saw nothing about that on the Obama issues site.

If He Keeps His Promises, It Should!

[eldavojohn]

Go to Obama/Biden's issues site and flip through the plans. There are a few measurable details here and there on this site. Like his statement about Iraq:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 â" more than 7 years after the war began.

He better have a really good reason for not starting to redeploy brigades from Iraq with an end goal of 16 months. A really good reason.

For us tech minded geeks, his fact sheet--including:

Protect the Openness of the Internet

And if I don't see him take the steps he talks about in that plan, I'm going to quickly realize he's just another lying politician. Here's another point that needs to be reprinted all over:

Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation's progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information--all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest. An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens. Technology-enabled citizen participation has already produced ideas driving Obama's campaign and its vision for how technology can help connect government to its citizens and engage citizens in a democracy. Barack Obama will use the most current technological tools available to make government less beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists and promote citizen participation in government decision-making. Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government by:

• Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.
• Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.
• Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
• Restoring the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials.
• Lifting the veil from secret de

Re:If He Keeps His Promises, It Should!

[haifastudent]

Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.

I wonder if this means that they will be using Silverlight. And no, Moonlight did not work on my Fedora system, I couldn't open Firefox with it installed.

Re:Congratulations, America

[Anonymous Coward]

If you let the last eight years hold you back from being a real human being how much of a difference can the change of a president make?

And, seriously, since what is essentially the same congress is in session under Obama as was under Bush do you really think there is going to be a heavy swing in policy? They had a chance to at least fight Bush but nothing was really done.

I'll let the man do what he wants, I have no recourse in that matter anyhow, but I'm not going to blame everything in the last eight years on one man. Putting every failure in a nation of 300 million on the shoulders of one man isn't a very progressive way of thinking. And sadly enough to think that another single person is going to turn everything around isn't a very realistic way of thinking either.

Maybe if "The People" (as in The Constitution) weren't so complacent as to wait for the government to hold our hands we wouldn't be facing what is really the build up of decades of neglect. Again, one man didn't make this mess and one man isn't going to turn it around. He can sure inspire some people but that's about as good as people holding to a new years resolution.

Full text of the inaugural speech...

[Anonymusing]

...is available here (unlike the odd "preview" of the speech noted in the /. text).

and so a new era begins.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Jack Kennedy's inauguration heralded the previous era of politics and with Bush Jr. leaving, we say goodbye to that era and begin a new.

How do I know this? He said the one word that pisses off Randian libertarians and thus struck a huge contrast to the previous administration.

GREED.

After he rebuked greed he then articulated the argument for a regulated market.

Let's hope he means it.

Be happy. be hopeful. Or shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the Bush Doctrine applied to the new dissenters.

Change we can believe in.

Change- but for the better?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing our new Prez changed was the party. Not the Dem party, the inaugural party.

While GW spent $40M on his, OHB is spending $170M on his inauguration. He could have so easily claimed the country was in economic trouble and scaled back, but no, he quadrupled the spending for himself.

And you thought change was going to benefit you? Ha!

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[Carl_Stawicki]

Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[jdgeorge]

...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.

I infer you mean Federal government shrunk to its constitutional tasks only. Then there's the government of the states, and local governments. Consider, for example, the scope of the Texas constitution, which is or would become more than enough to make up for any efficiencies one might hope to achieve at a federal level.

It appears that a lot of people want a lot of stuff, and they don't want to know how it's paid for. You're fighting not only the institutional tendency for continuity, but also the people who want stuff that isn't readily available in the market. (Relative lack of "free market" and reasons for that discussion not included here, though that may be a requirement for an in-depth discussion of more efficient and on-task government.)

I'll reply with a question.

[khasim]

Do you believe that there is any difference between the best Presidents we've had and the worst?

If you say "yes", then change is possible.

If you say "no", then change is not possible.

I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.

Re:I'll reply with a question.

[CannonballHead]

One might point out that Obama (for a very short peroid of time) and Biden (for a very long period of time) were both part of this Congress that you speak so lowly of. And, in fact, Biden seems to be a "typical" democrat in Congress.

So, how much of this "change" is there if the VP pick for Obama (let alone most of his cabinet!) is the usual democrat politician?

Re:I'll reply with a question.

[jdgeorge]

I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.

Hmmm.... Interesting thoughts. I'm curious about a couple things:

1. What do you want the Congress to do, what do you expect they will do, and why?

2. What is an example of a better Congress, and what did it accomplish that you liked?

Re:I'll reply with a question.

[Dutchmaan]

You know why Congress is broken and ineffective? It's because the American people themselves are broken and ineffective, more concerned about getting theirs than looking to a higher goal. They elect representatives who share their views and like a disease it affects the functioning of congress. Once people start getting past their bitter partisan bickering Americas strength will return.

Re:I'll reply with a question.

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Indeed. This is a republic. We should elect representatives because we believe they have the wisdom to guide our nation to its best possible future. Instead we elect those whom we believe will slavishly follow our views of what is right and proper, disqualifying some with statements like "He does not believe x therefore I could never vote for him."

I am already so tired ...

[DodgeRules]

... of hearing "black this" and "Afro-American that" and he just became President. I just hope that the media (and America) can finally get over this whole "race" thing and let the guy do his job. For an election that wasn't supposed to be about race, we sure do hear a lot about it. To Obama: America and the world is watching - MAKE US PROUD!

Re:I am already so tired ...

[east coast]

I agree and find it odd that the media has gone on and on about it while invoking MLK at the same time. Personally I think MLK would be disappointed that minority voters only felt compelled to stand up and have their votes counted because the candidate was of a minority race. I think King's real dream was that people didn't let the race aspect hold them back from being a participant in the system. Just like I'm sure he'd frown on the idea that people used the excuse of finally having a minority in the White House be a reason they suddenly feel they could do anything. People who really get his message should have felt this way all along.

I just don't see this as the milestone the media claims it is and I'd like to think if Dr. King was alive today he'd agree with me on this.

Re:I am already so tired ...

[cowscows]

I disagree. And that's historically been one of the big problems with really tackling the issue of racism, both in the USA and worldwide. We can't just magically jump to a point where race doesn't matter any more. And pretending that we can by trying to ignore the issue of race altogether is not going to work. There's just too many social and economic realities that are woven directly into race for the issue to just disappear and work itself out.

There's been some interesting stories over the past couple months about how many European countries have always considered themselves far more progressive in terms of race than the US, but are now being forced to realize that a minority citizen would never be elected to their highest offices. They haven't solved racism any more than the USA has, they merely did a better job of pretending that it wasn't an issue.

The demographics and particulars of American history have kept racism a bit more apparent in the US, and as a result, we've worked through it to the point where we now have a black man in the oval office. Things have often times been messy and ugly along the way, but that's how progress generally goes.

Ideally, we want race to be a non-issue in our civilization. But race is a big deal. And it'll have to become a bigger deal before it can become an non-issue. That's just how it works.

Re:I am already so tired ...

[AK Marc]

We can't just magically jump to a point where race doesn't matter any more. And pretending that we can by trying to ignore the issue of race altogether is not going to work.

I would say that is because of your misintrepretation of MLK. I don't believe he ever had the "visualize world peace" plan. It was going to take work. Lots of work. He had a Dream that one day it would be done, but believe me, a black man living in the 60s that ended up dead for what he beleived had no thoughts that it would "magically" happen. It can happen. It must happen. But that doens't mean it will happen soon. That doesn't mean it will be easy.

There's been some interesting stories over the past couple months about how many European countries have always considered themselves far more progressive in terms of race than the US, but are now being forced to realize that a minority citizen would never be elected to their highest offices. They haven't solved racism any more than the USA has, they merely did a better job of pretending that it wasn't an issue.

The fact that there are still cross burnings and blacks and gays dragged behind pickups until dead because of who they are doesn't mean we are more progressive. I heard things like "I'm not going to vote for a fucking nigger." I don't think that makes us more progressive just because we say such things out loud.

Ideally, we want race to be a non-issue in our civilization. But race is a big deal. And it'll have to become a bigger deal before it can become an non-issue. That's just how it works.

That's what affirmative action is, and it's hated. It's saying "Bush Jr can get into Yale with crap grades because of who his daddy is, so why can't Shwanaika get in based off who her daddy is?" (and yes, I realize that my name choice is racist, that's part of the point) We have a society where informal classes are based around who your parents are/were, and the real reason that affirmative action is hated is because it helps level it, which can only be done unevenly. The Bushs will still get into colleges they don't have the grades for. So, until the percentage of blacks who are millionaires equal whites, there will always be a discrepency in the treatment of them based on who their fathers are. Is it fair? No. Is it fair without AA? No. So do you do what's unfair with a noble goal, or what's unfair with a selfish goal?

You're either with us or against us...

[grassy_knoll]

Be happy. be hopeful. Or shut up and let the rest of us be happy and hopeful.

Sounds rather like "You're either with us or against us... "

Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.

Re:You're either with us or against us...

[rastilin]

Sounds like. "If you're not willing to actually do something about your problems, then shut up and let US do something about your problems. Just don't sit there with your thumb up your ass complaining non-stop."

Sucker.

[jcr]

Obama voted for the bailout. He's bought and paid for, like anyone else who ever emerged from Chicago machine politics.

-jcr

He's already talking about

[coryking]

Removing "dont ask don't tell" and changing it to "tell, who cares". Obama is pro-gay, but he isn't beholden to just the gay community either. He is beholden to every citizen in the country, regardless if they voted for him. If he picked some openly gay pastor, you'd be happy but Obama would have pissed off another segment of our country.

But seriously, I might not agree with Mr. Warren's views and I might not be of the same faith as he, but you have to admit he gave a hell of a prayer.

Transportation Safety

[Jonah Bomber]

I think the thing I'd most like to see is a tempering of the utter insanity that is the TSA. We aren't safer because we have to take off our shoes to board an airplane. We aren't safer because we make pilots go through metal detectors. We aren't safer because we're now required to having a driver's license to fly. We aren't safer because we aren't allowed to take our toothpaste (except in teeny tiny tubes) with us. The TSA spends so much time and energy policing our shampoo container size that it can't help but detract from their ability to actually catch potential bombs. Obama has spoken about changing our foreign response to September 11th, but I'd like to see a change in our domestic response as well. I'd like to see more common sense.

Sorry to break it to you...

[jcr]

Obama's reply to that was to state that he doesn't favor legalization. Don't count on the War on Drugs to end anytime soon.

-jcr

Re:Sorry to break it to you...

[amRadioHed]

...and Mexico continues it's downward spiral.

He keeps on saying how he will look at every government program and will work to end the ineffective ones. If he holds to that he can't possibly continue the war on drugs. But I'm not too optimistic, there's still way to many people who can't differentiate opposition to the war on drugs from support for drugs.

End Prohibition 2.0/legalize marijuana/hemp

[Mashhaster]

That's what I want to see. Too long has the government attempted to fight the free market by throwing money at enforcement. We've spent too many billions on punishing otherwise nonviolent, law-abiding taxpayers. For all the time and treasure we've spent, is there any end in sight? Is there anyone who believes that drug enforcement is reducing the demand for drugs?

In Mexico right now, we've got drug cartels fighting a paramilitary war with the police and Mexican army; that's ongoing. In California, we have national parks and public water supplies being polluted by unregulated growing operations.

We have an out of control national debt, and an opportunity to create a domestic industry, tax it, and stop spending the billions on enforcing these out of date laws. Pretending what we're doing is working, or pretending the problem doesn't exist, doesn't change the facts of the situation. The longer we wait, the more powerful the organized crime syndicates get (just like the mob during alcohol prohibition).

Tax it, regulate it, don't sell it to minors, and bust people for driving under the influence of it. Just stop pretending you can beat it by cracking down on suppliers or users; supply exists where demand exists, and demand will always exist, because people are human.

Don't forget industrial hemp, too, because there's a lot that could be done with it. That would be a huge boon to the country, especially considering that we need new energy mediums and materials for various applications; hemp has one of the longest track records in human civilization as a useful industrial material, and prohibiting it because of marijuana is simply pointless.

That's why I want to see Prohibition 2.0 (hemp/marijuana) ended. I'd also like to see a complete end to the War on Drugs, because like the War on Terror, it's not a war we can ever win. But, that's another post for another time.

Re:Obama vs Gays and Lesbians

[UnknowingFool]

However, I am not at all giving Obama any slack on his bigotry about gay marriage and his choice of Rick Warren as a pastor during the inauguration.

So Obama picked a popular yet controversial minister to give the prayer at his inauguration. That does not necessarily mean that Obama shares his views. Part of new administration that Obama has said he would bring would be inclusion especially to opposing viewpoints. That is vastly different from the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" and the "you're not a patriot if you disagree with the administration" view that we've had the last 8 years.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Unfortunately, the constitution is VAGUE.

It doesn't even outline what the supreme court is supposed to do. What strict constitutionalists fail to realize is that the constitution is not a document written by a group of well meaning men with no political bias or agenda. Quite the opposite, it's the product of intense political bargaining. the 3/5ths Majority, the Missouri compromise, the commerce compromise... This document that we are governed by is meant to try to appease both federalists(with clauses stating that Congress has the power to provide for "general welfare" as well to do everything "necessary and proper" to do that. This is balanced by the 10th amendment placating antifederalists. The founding fathers did not have you in mind when they wrote the Constitution, they had their own interests and agendas in mind.

Optionally

[coryking]

We know what the constitution, read literally, says. We just disagree what it actually *means*.

My interpretation? The constitution is the framework in which we have debates in this country. It defines *how* we deal things, not *what* those things we deal with should be.

There is nothing in the constitution about stem cell research, but the constitution will tell us the proper way to resolve the controversies brought forward by its advances. The constitution tells us the president cannot write a law that bans it, the congress writes said law and passes it to the president for approval. The constitution doesn't say "no stem cell research". Same with gay marriage. Same with giving blacks and women the right to vote. The constitution only provides us a process to follow, not the solution.

Re:Optionally

[NekSnappa]

Man I had mod points a couple of days ago and couldn't find a thing worth modding either way. Then you come along and submit a comment that makes more sense than anything I've on here in months!

Re:Optionally

[corsec67]

The constitution tells us the president cannot write a law that bans it, the congress writes said law and passes it to the president for approval.

Why do people hate the 10th amendment?

If it isn't interstate commerce, then the federal government, according to the 10th amendment, lacks jurisdiction.

Re:Optionally

[tmosley]

General welfare has been stretched to encompass all action by an all-powerful government. Hell, we could move into outright Communism and state property with the current interpretation. It's outrageous.

Re:Optionally

[Carl_Stawicki]

Add let me add... The Constitution was designed to be *modified properly* through the amendment process, not ignored. If there's something deemed out-of-date or wrong by enough people, there are proper steps to be followed to change it. For instance, when enough knuckle heads thought it was right to outlaw alcohol, they knew they didn't have the authority to do it, so they modified the Constitution properly. Then they said "Oh crap, we f'ed up," and created another amendment to undo the previous. As bad as the idea of prohibition was, at least they followed the rules. If today's politicians wanted to outlaw alcohol, they would just do it without regard to Constitution like they did with drugs.

Re:Optionally

[brunascle]

As long as a Gay man can do what a straight man can do (marry someone of the opposite sex) then they have the same rights. The blacks and so on were actually barred from marrying into interracial marriages at one time which is completely different then gay marriage.

... what?

As long as a black man can do what a white man can do (marry someone of the same race) then they have the same rights.

how is that completely different?

Re:Optionally

[Dun Malg]

Also, pretty much every commerce decision is interstate commerce now-a-days. In fact, absent the Amish, I'm hard-pressed to think of a counterexample.

Pot grown in California, dispensed in California-legal medical marijuana dispensaries, to California residents with prescriptions from doctors in California. There isn't a single bit of interstate commerce going on there, unless you gratuitously torture the definition to the point of irrelevance*. This has not, however, stopped the DEA from raiding said dispensaries in direct violation of the US Constitution. The fact is, the federal government likes to pretend that it's exercising these myriad powers under the heading of "interstate commerce", but the California medical marijuana vs the DEA issue demonstrates that the feds do not concern themselves with the constitution, but just do as they please, banking on blindly waving the interstate commerce clause as if it's carte blanche.

* Sample arguments I've heard floated to justify the DEA's raids: The fertilizer used to grow the pot came from Indiana! The electricity for the grow light came from Washington state! The orange pill bottles used by the dispensary were ordered by mail from Nevada! A cancer patient drove to Arizona and got high there once! By any of these bullshit definitions, me paying my kid 50 cents to mow the lawn is interstate commerce because the lubricating oil in the mower came from a refinery in Alabama.

Re:Optionally

[ClassMyAss]

Gays already have the same rights everyone else has, they can marry a person of the opposite sex. The blacks and so on were actually barred from marrying into interracial marriages at one time which is completely different then gay marriage. As long as a Gay man can do what a straight man can do (marry someone of the opposite sex) then they have the same rights. Lesbians are the same (marry a man). The fact that they don't want to or want to do something else. The 14th doesn't apply to that situation.

By your exact same logic, banning interracial marriage is Just Fine, since black men have exactly the same rights as white men - they can marry someone of their own race.

Lucky for us, it was quickly decided that the way that is phrased is ridiculous, as it's always possible to put some "separate but equal" bullshit spin on any sort of discrimination to make it sound like it's fair.

In other words, you're arguing against your own point by making the connection to interracial marriage (which, by the way, is exactly the comparison we should be making, IMO, as the situations are depressingly similar). The question that we should be asking is "Can gay men do what straight women can do?", not "Can gay men do what straight men can do?"

In any case, the government should get the hell out of the marriage business anyways, and only offer civil unions. And yes, these should be offered to any adult, regardless of sex or preference, and probably regardless of prior arrangements (in other words, yup, the government probably should allow polygamous civil unions, apart from religious objections there's really no reason the contractual engagements such a thing implies should be limited to one pairing per person). Leave marriage as a religious commitment, which is what it really should be. Then the religious aspect of the debate can be settled in its proper place, on a church-by-church basis, with no spillover into the rest of the country.

Of course, since that will never happen, the only reasonable solution is to allow gays to marry. And yes, this would seem to imply that the next slide down the slope would be polygamy, but fear not - polygamists are so underrepresented in this country (plus they're too intimately related to child polygamists) that they'll never be able to kick up enough fuss to get their way. But trust me, even if gay marriage is not settled in favor of the gays within the next 10 years or so, it will happen within 20 or 30 - the generation coming up right now just doesn't hold the same anti-gay sentiment that their parents still do, much like their parents didn't hold the same level of anti-black sentiment that their parents did.

There will be holdouts and they'll complain about their rights (um...the "right" not to be disgusted by seeing people doing things they think are immoral, I suppose?) being trampled, but they'll just have to learn to deal with it, and soon enough they'll die off and the rest of the people will never look back. Within a couple generations, people will look back with amusement on the fact that we even had to have this discussion.

Re:Optionally

[spun]

I prefer to err on the side of individual freedom as well. But still, it's your interpretation versus theirs, isn't it? You argue, "I think this part means what I think it means," and they say, "No, hundreds of years of jurisprudence say it means what WE say it means. That is how it was meant to be. That is why we have a Supreme Court. Our laws and our Constitution are meant to be interpreted, based on the interpretations that have come before, not just on their supposed original meaning."

Tat being said, I kind of agree with you that the current interpretation does not serve us. Your ideals would be better served if you argued from that position, rather than arguing from what is essentially an appeal to authority. Simply admit that the Constitution is open to interpretation and then argue as to how you'd like it interpreted, how your interpretation will benefit us, and how the current interpretation fails. There is no need to invoke the supposed authority of the founding father's intent.

Re:Optionally

[goodmanj]

Hell, we could move into outright Communism and state property with the current interpretation. It's outrageous.

Communism is not the opposite of democracy: one is an economic system, one is a political system. In principle, one could have a fully democratic communist state, though in practice such a thing is not common.

I'd say that the ability of the Constitution to function under a wide variety of economic systems -- and to maintain the right of the people to *choose* the economic system they prefer -- is a strength, not a weakness.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have something in particular in mind? I ask because a lot of "limit the government" types have curious ideas about what the constitution authorizes and forbids.

Watch this: Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class. That's several hours long, but very informative. I would like a government that actually follows it.

BTW, Badnarik was the 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

And changes (hopefully) will begin

[dmomo]

Looks like they've already got a Technology Agenda posted. This is change I can stand behind. Believe in? When I see it in action. Don't let this make us any less vigilant in protecting our freedom to share information in an open and uninhibited manner.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[AviLazar]

Mod +1 Inspirational
Mod +4 Correct

That is how our system is supposed to work. We may never get perfection but we can always strive for it.

Re:Will anything really change?

[Austerity Empowers]

Yeah that'll work. Ask 10 people what they want for dinner and get 10 different answers.

Try to do ANYTHING with your local home owners association and see. You can't agree to abolish the HOA, you can't agree on the speed limits, you can't agree on whether the rule against pink plastic flamingo's should be stricken. All of them think they're adults and have "reasons" for what they believe, however idiotic they may at times be. As a group, people are sheep, and we need a shepherd.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[eclectro]

Stop trolling. We're all lawyers here.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[rolfwind]

Did you have something in particular in mind? I ask because a lot of "limit the government" types have curious ideas about what the constitution authorizes and forbids.

It really depends if you what view of the commerce and general welfare clauses, as well as the enumerated powers being exhaustive.

"Curious" isn't the view. They limited-government types are interested in a limited government. Too often, when society changed to the point that some people view government powers need expansion, necessitating a Constitutional amendment, they opt instead to ignore/reinterpret the founding document. This has two effect: that part of the document is neutered by the rerouting and the document becomes more distant to current realities instead of being amended in a sufficient manner - so that once it's proposed to follow it, the old interpretation seems "quaint" and out-of-touch.

I'm not sure about you, but I think government running a trillion dollar deficit, bailing out businesses/people left and right is hardly limited.

Re:Will anything really change?

[truthsearch]

I don't need a government telling me I should wear a seat belt

But do you want a government who will make sure there's a hospital to fix your broken skull? And a government who will make sure there's quick transportation and trained EMTs?

Re:Fantastic - yeah, but..

[scsirob]

But he did not use the word "Banana". According to some recent newspaper articles, bookmakers had a 1:1000 pay-out on bets that his speech would include the word Banana... Darn, lost again.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[eln]

Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.

Coincidentally, you could say the exact same thing about the Bible. Of course, many people seem to think the Bible is also a governing document of this nation, so I suppose it's fitting that they would treat the two the same way.

Still waiting for all that change...

[J'raxis]

Almost two hours into the Obama presidency...
Still waiting for all that change...

Re:Still waiting for all that change...

[brkello]

Still? It already happened. Already we have more credibility to the rest of the world. Already many wounds from slavery and abuse have been healed (still many more to go, but a big step). The guy doesn't have to do a thing and already there is change.

But really, to fix everything that Bush has screwed up is going to take a lot of time. Most people are realistic about it. People who aren't realistic...do we really care about them? Hmm, that means I probably shouldn't even be responding to you.

As a non-American...

[leathered]

I found the religious overtones of the ceremony quite disturbing. If he really wanted to reaffirm the separation of church and state he could have started there and then by doing away with the bibles, the preachers and the 'so help me Gods'.

Re:I tried to watch,

[mcbutterbuns]

Obama will change that. Mark my words.

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, this event had to be a blowout. There's an unprecidented turnout. Most of the costs are security, and port-o-potty rentals. You don't want everyone shitting all over the nation mall now do you?

Re:Style over substance

[Beelzebud]

Republicans say that every Democratic candidate has "the most liberal voting record". They said the exact same quote about John Kerry. Even if it were true, being liberal isn't bad. Our country was founded by a bunch of radical liberals.

Re:Will anything really change?

[geekboy642]

tell me in four years time whether you still have to go to fucking work nearly every day of the week ...what?
Are you seriously pre-blaming the new president for you having to hold down a job? Seriously? I didn't think your kind (racist, extremist, anti-government) was that stupid.

Ron Paul?

[philspear]

Why is this story tagged "Ronpaul?" Is it maybe because Ron Paul still has just as much of a chance of getting the presidency now as he ever did?

(Paulites note that I'm just teasing because you make it so easy)

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[Low Ranked Craig]

You do realize that the inauguration parties are funded by donations, right? Still insanely over the top, but at least it's paid for by tax dollars. Having said that Obama could have scored some points early on by asking that donations be redirected to more important issues, but that would decrease the intensity of the spotlight on Big O, and we can't have that, can we?

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[Robyrt]

Which is the greater benefit: saving 340 homes at $500,000 each, or giving 2 million attendees hope for the future with a big ceremony? Given the degree to which consumer spending props up American GDP, the inauguration may actually MAKE money.

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[Moraelin]

I didn't catch that, where is the gun turn-in done?

You know, that's one of the funny things I see when looking at America from some thousands of kilometres away.

So supposedly, the sacred right to bear arms is there to keep the government in line, in case it oversteps its constitutional bounds. Lemme see, the Bushies did:

- effectively suspending habeas corpus,

- used torture,

- starting a war of aggression, and justified it by

- outright lying about the evidence, (plus, see two paragraphs above, it turns out that all the "witnesses" they had, had been waterboarded until they said what the Bushies wanted to hear,)

- massive surveillace of its own citizens, down to data-mining grocery bills,

- politicizing every branch of the government they could lay their hands on,

- trying to keep official emails from the _legal_ mandated openness, by using private accounts for government business, or by just making excuses (apparently they didn't make backups, ya know)

- saying out loud that the constitution is just a piece of paper and doesn't apply to them,

Etc.

Did I see the gun-loving right at least hinting about the possibility of a revolt over it? (Yes, at the end of the series of other boxes, but still.) Nah, they voted for him again.

But here comes a president which at least promises to undo some of that evil, and restore at least _some_ of those constitutional rights. (Whether he'll keep that promise, remains to be seen.) What does the gun-loving right immediately fear? "OMG, he might take our guns away."

It seems to me that the gun lovers care _only_ about exactly _one_ piece of the constitution: the second amendment. No more, no less. Wipe your ass with the rest constitution if you will, they sure won't mind it. So exactly how does that work as a constitutional safeguard, then?

Re:Obama vs Gays and Lesbians

[PHPNerd]

The hedonism in the gay community that leads to unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like is exacerbated if not caused in part by denying them the right to unite as a family of their own choosing under the social contract.

This statement is outright false. You are making excuses for the actions of individuals who make poor choices (not being gay, but rather in the words of the parent "unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like"). If you think being able to sign a piece of paper and declare yourself "married" will solve these problems than you are sorely mistaken. For evidence, just look to the rate of divorce in the US, which is staggering. Marriage will not prevent these woes from affecting the gay community. The "unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like" stems from an ideology that a person should be free to do whatever they want, any time they want, so long as it doesn't affect someone else's rights. If I want to have sex with someone, get into a relationship with that person, and then while in that relationship go have sex with someone else...why not? I'm free to do whatever I want. If I want to have sex with a different person every night...why not? I'm free to do whatever I want. If I want to go and do drugs...why not? I'm free to do what I want (so long as I don't get caught). This is what causes the "unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like" that you speak of. (note: whether or not homosexuals should be allowed the right of marriage is not the subject of this post)

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[AviLazar]

Why should he be denied what the previous guy in office, who helped get us to this mess, got?

It's also paid for by private funds - not tax dollars.

It also generates revenue (tourism dollars, media ad buys, etc)

It also makes people happy to see the president they elect take the oath

It also lets the world know there is a new sheriff in town.

And thus begans the eternal debate

[coryking]

(and a healthy one too). My opinion? We simply cannot be competitive as a nation with a "weak" federal government in concert with "strong" state governments. There has to be a balance, yes. But one must realize that our competition doesn't want to negotiate with 50 little states, they want to negotiate with a single big one. I suppose, though cannot back it up, that this was the logic behind the formation of the EU--each country just couln't compete in a modern global market so they had to unite.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The wording of this amendment is intentionally vague. If it was overly strict, the constitution would quickly become irrelevant as the times changed. For example, what if the constitution was formed when people thought radio was a novelty and they included "the federal government should not regulate radio". You and I might not agree with everything about the FCC, but you have to admit that it would be a mess if every state had it's one mini-FCC regulating our radio spectrum. And if the language in the constitution was as strong and strictly worded as "no radio", you'd need to re-amend the constitution to overturn such a ill-thought piece of legislation.

Hell, what if that amendment said "The federal government should not create nor regulate the roads used by horseless carriages"? No highway system would have been built.

The constitution is vague for a reason. Democrats vs Republicans vs Libertarians are not debates about "are you loyal to the constitution", but really debates carried out under the constitution about how to deal with modern issues. The constitution is what gives us the ability *to* debate the issues.

Re:And thus begans the eternal debate

[corsec67]

My opinion? We simply cannot be competitive as a nation with a "weak" federal government in concert with "strong" state governments.

In that case, then the 10th amendment should be changed, not ignored. It is bad to have laws, and especially parts of the constitution, that are ignored.

Just saying that the 10th amendment doesn't really apply to the current world is a bad precidient. Does that mean that congress can start making laws abridging the freedom of speech, establish a state religion, since we can't be "competitive" with those restrictions on the federal government?

Re:Congratulations, America

[tha_mink]

Japan, for example, could have asked US troops to leave.

That's kinda difficult when you're forced to accept a constitution that gives up your military power and puts the U.S. in charge of your defense.

Yeah, pesky WWII.

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[Uberbah]

Aside from the fact that it's paid for with private donations, dumbfuck, millions of people didn't show up because the inauguration was a big event. It was a big event because millions of people wanted to show up. You know, Constitutional rights and all (freedom of assembly).

And even then the $170 figure isn't based on fact, but guestimations. There's also the fact that the cost of this inauguration, with security, is being fallaciously compared to the cost of Bush's inaguration, without security.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[yuriyg]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What's so vague about this? If it ain't in the Constitution, the government has no right to do it.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[feepness]

This has two effect: that part of the document is neutered by the rerouting and the document becomes more distant to current realities instead of being amended in a sufficient manner - so that once it's proposed to follow it, the old interpretation seems "quaint" and out-of-touch.

Spot on. Have you noticed how no one even bothers mentioning Constitutional amendments anymore? They don't have to. No one cares on either side.

That sounds simple, yes

[coryking]

But the constitution did not explicitly say "whether you're a man or woman, black or white, gay or straight", did it? I mean, even read literally, it doesn't matter what the constitution says if you don't consider blacks to be humans.

The fourteen amendment was only created after the civil war, don't forget. We fought a war with ourselves to resolve that issue.

Obama wears no clothes

[linzeal]

He is not as much a bigot as the ever benighted Bush but he is not as enlightened as some would believe. I would rather we strip him of his saintliness in public now than later. Some people are completely crazed about this man have such expectations that could not be realized without revolution.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[plague3106]

Well, just because a majority believe them to be constutitional does not make it so. Also, we're not a direct democracy (which is what you're talking about) for a reason... out founders rightfully thought that would be a really bad idea. And it is.

The announcer

[Jason Levine]

Who was that announcer? He sounded like the "Let's Get Ready To Rumble" guy. I half expected him to announce "In this corner, President Elect Barack H. Obama. In that corner, Chief Justice Roberts. Let's get ready to INAUGURAAAAAAAATE!"

"Hope" and "Change"?

[crhylove]

I wish I could feel good about this, I really do. I want a ray of sunshine as badly as everyone else.

However:
Obama has selected a Monsanto fanboy as head of the Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. If you don't know Monsanto's transgressions, check out "The World According to Monsanto", a great documentary, that only illuminates A SMALL FRACTION of why they are such an evil corporation.

Obama's incoming Attorney General, Eric Holden, has already stated that the telcom immunity still stands, and I would assume that means warrant-less wire-tapping still stands.

Obama has selected an RIAA lawyer to be a copy copyright and IP judge.

Obama has selected THE SAME defense secretary as GW Bush.

I don't think Obama represents Hope or Change in any way. He's corporate status quo, here to fuck the American people like every president since they shot JFK in the head.

Who DID shoot JFK in the head, by the way? The mob? Aliens? I think the fact that we don't know STILL means it was obviously a government operation, and therefore our government has been TAKEN from the American people, and that was a coup, not an assassination, which means we don't live in a constitutional democracy, and that only violent revolution will restore any freedoms to the people.

Sorry to ruin the parade on day one. But I don't believe in fairy tales or wishful thinking. Let's see what Obama does about "Free Speech Zones". I seriously doubt it will be anything more than the evil, corporate status quo.

Re:"Hope" and "Change"?

[jjohnson]

Actually, we do know who killed JFK: Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone. The evidence is overwhelming, well documented, well studied, and bascially incontrovertible to anyone who isn't looking for an X-file. This is an open question only to people who want to believe in a conspiracy, who want to believe that a coup took place, who don't want to believe that what obviously happened is what actually happened.

You mention a lot of good criticisms of Obama's choices. Prune some of the crazy from your exposition and you'll have a much more powerful voice.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[Reality Master 101]

What's so vague about this? If it ain't in the Constitution, the government has no right to do it.

Unfortunately, there is also that pesky Ninth amendment that Libertarian types love to ignore:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, if the government decides the people have the right to universal health care, it's right there in the constitution.

Congratulations, President Obama!

[Tumbleweed]

Now get to work, sucker.

Welcome back, America

[Jacques Chester]

We missed you.

Love,

The Rest of The Modern World.

ps. Any chance you could have a word with Australia about internet censorship? That'd be swell.

Re:Welcome back, America

[Jacques Chester]

Ah I see. You only like us when we have the people YOU want in office. In other words, do what we tell you or we won't be your friend.

Ever had a female friend in love with a total douchebag? Noticed how you drifted apart, how you couldn't understand what she saw in this total wanker? Isn't it great when she comes to her senses?

You sir seem to be stuck at the "but he really looooves meeeeee, nobody understaaaaands, they should leave us aloooone and stop interfering!" stage of the relationship.

Re:Welcome back, America

[jjohnson]

Let's see: Under Bush, North Korea weaponized plutonium, Iran became a dominant regional power, and Iraq has tied up U.S. forces for the foreseeable future.

If I were a murderous tyrant, I'd be sending a bouquet to Bush saying "I already miss you."

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[DavidTC]

It works as a constitutional safeguard against them taking the guns away.

But, yeah. It's amazing how people who were convinced that FEMA had been given the power, under Clinton, to declare an emergency and detain people without habeas corpus sure started singing a different tune under Bush.

What they were talking was it's ability to quarantine people, which is a perfectly reasonable function of the government, and has never, in the entire history of this country, been abused. The government has the right to detain various people outside the criminal justice system, like suicidal people and mentally incapacitated people and infectious people, but the right made out like this was some huge constitutional violation.

That power has existed as an inherent power of the government so long that it's not even in the Constitution, and just sorta assumed. Just like the right of habeas corpus is assumed. Like I said, there's no documented cases of this power ever being abused. (There are documented cases of 'mentally ill' people being detained to shut them up, but not of people being being quarantined maliciously.)

What has always been frowned on, however, and subject to strict regulation, is any attempt to lock 'lawbreakers' up outside of the criminal justice system. Which Bush just decided to do without any Congressional authorization. (Which they couldn't have give anyway, but whatever.)

And the right, the 'you'll never take us alive because we have guns' right just bent over and took it.

Lego Obama Presidential Inauguration Brings Hope

[kabocox]

The real one seems lame. Now the Lego one though was what should have made slashdot.

Lego Obama Presidential Inauguration Brings Hope to Bricks Too
http://i.gizmodo.com/photogallery/legoobamainauguration/1006247332

Talk about unintended consequences!

[BCW2]

Got this of of Fox
"The president-elect is stimulating an unexpected segment of the economy: the firearms industry. The Web site Hot Air notes that Obama's consistent votes against the right to bear arms as well as his steadfast support for anti-gun groups seems to have spurred consumers to action.

Directly following Mr. Obama's election in November of last year, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported an astonishing 48 percent increase in the background checks required to purchase a firearm.

For this mean feat, The Outdoor Wire â€" the nation's largest daily electronic news service for the outdoor industry â€" has named the president-elect its gun salesman of the year. And for that, we extend our deep congratulations. "

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[tweek]

Wow. Way to take that WAY out of context.

To make that fit your mold, you would have to argue that universal health care is some sort of right inherent in man's existence.

The Constitution says:
1 - These are a list of areas that the FEDERAL government is allowed jurisdiction
2 - Anything not mentioned as a role of the FEDERAL government is a role of the STATE
3 - Just because it's not listed doesn't necessarily mean it's not a right of the people

So, yes, you could argue that universal health care is a right of the people but you still have to stretch to enumerate it as a role of the FEDERAL government.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:LOL please...

[MarkWatson]

No, republicans "borrow and spend". Democrats "tax and spend". The republican approach is even worse than the democratic approach.

Bush ran up even higher relative deficits than Reagan, and that is saying something!

BTW, I think that the time for dogmatic democrat vs. republican dogma is no longer appropriate.

Those old Dubya lies

[ed]

Those "Clinton Staffers trashed the White House" were lies then ands are lies now..

The General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative agency, "had found no damage to the offices of the White House's East or West Wings or EOB" and that Bush's own representatives had reported "there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration."

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[osu-neko]

That seems to be especially true of those who want to limit government to its "Constitutional tasks". Make you should take a gander at Article I, Section 8 which, like most of the Constitution, is masterful in both its simplicity and flexibility.

Also, every time someone claims to respect the Constitution while claiming the courts should not be upholding some right because the Constitution does not mention it specifically, kindly point them towards the 9th Amendment. It also helps to understand the history of the Bill of Rights, in which many argued against it not because they opposed the rights there but were afraid that by naming the specific ones there, they would cause people down the road to interpret that as meaning the rights were limited to those. The whole purpose of the 9th Amendment is to affirm that this is a wrong interpretation.

I find it highly amusing that almost every time I see someone arguing for a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution, they're usually arguing that we should pretend the 9th Amendment is meaningless -- that the Constitution would have the exact same meaning regardless of whether it was there or not, that's it's a "silent amendment". It is not silent, it speaks volumes, but of course they don't want to hear it.

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[id10tppl]

Why should he be denied what the previous guy in office, who helped get us to this mess, got?

Yeah Clinton's adminstration did start the credit crisses with the subprime lending in credit cards which opened the flood gates to subprime lending on houses, and then to our current situation

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[ari_j]

Except that "perfect" doesn't mean flawless, but rather it means complete. It's not about a union without flaws, it's about a union without state-by-state insurgence.

Indeed it should

[coryking]

And it should be clear *why* taking office should be time-based, not oath-based when you consider what might happen during wartime. Like, what if serious military shit was hitting the fan on the day of the inauguration? Under an oath-based system, the incoming president would probably have more pressing things to do then swear an oath on a bible. With a time-based system like we now have, it is very clear who is in power at all times. Oath-based, not so much.

Before that amendment was passed, the incoming president would have to drop everything and get sworn in before deal with whatever. Lets not even forget that if he or she did something requiring executive privilege and wasn't technically sworn in. During the aftermath, without the amendment, everything the new president did prior to taking the oath would fall into question (i.e. were they technically president)?

No, taking the the oath is more for show then a requirement. As it should be.

Re:Indeed it should

[bckrispi]

See: Johnson, Lyndon B.

Inauguration Speech

[phasmal]

Video of the speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28738177#28738177


And a transcript:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/01/20/barack-obama-speech/first-black-president-historic-inaugural-address.html

He's actually the 43rd President.

[kellyb9]

I only heard them correctly mention this once, but Barrack Obama is the 43rd person to hold the job of President. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, and is considered both the 22nd and 24th President of the US.

Re:Washington is a state!

[jvollmer]

>the host kept jumping between "Washington DC" and "Washington"

Washington was also a general. I believe that, on NPR, they were speaking in generalities.

If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz!

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[Moraelin]

And newspapers and churches only care about the first amendment. Or maybe you're stereotyping.

I'm not sure what American newspapers believe in any more... the right to redefine reality to whatever pleases their billionaire owner? I suppose first amendment _would_ describe that, if it weren't for the fact that they routinely participate in slinging mud at whoever says otherwise. I guess they don't care about free speech that much when it applies to someone else.

American Churches (and the bible-thumpers even more) seem to be all about free speech, as long as you don't talk about stuff like evolution, other religions, abortion, equality for homosexuals, and so on. Then they'd want the government to stop you. Funny how free speech doesn't seem to apply any more. Freedom of press either, if someone's press is, say, for homosexual rights.

(As a sidenote: Funny how many of the same people justify being right-wing as some way to stop government from interfering in everyone's life. But it's ok to want it to interfere with the guys you don't like. If it's about telling Johnny to pray in school, or Jane that she can't abort after she was raped, or Jack that he's an abomination for liking other guys... well, then by all means, the government should interfere more.)

So if you're so concerned about revolting against Bush, why didn't you? _You_ obviously thought Bush's evil didn't justify armed rebellion, since you didn't do it- why are you complaining that other people agree with you on the subject?

Because I'm not an American? If all the foreigners who don't like your government's policies came over to shoot at your government, I think the word you're looking for is "invasion" rather than "rebellion". And that went out of style a century ago, you know?

And in the end, isn't that why we're all disgusted at the Iraq fiasco? Well, other than it being based on lies. Invading to "bring democracy" to someone is, in the end, still an aggression and rarely ends up being about democracy.

At any rate, it's up to you to fix your own country. Or not. Won't stop me from chuckling at some of the right wing stuff I hear from that side of the pond, but in the end it's like watching a soap opera. I'm not going to attack the studio to fix the plot either.

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[timster]

It's well-understood that the scenarios people perceive as likely are vastly out of touch with reality. The human brain lacks a competent statistical analysis apparatus.

This is seen across the political spectrum. Left-wingers might have an irrational fear that a police officer will shoot them dead, and right-wingers might have an irrational fear that someone will break into their house and shoot them dead. Neither is based on statistics, but rather on sensational media reports of the small number of such incidents. Both of these viewpoints can cause behaviors that really increase overall risk rather than reducing it.

So nightmare fantasies, like an oppressive government that would need to be violently overthrown, have more to do with the person being a gun lover, exposed to other gun lovers' views, etc than reality. People love guns because they are gun lovers, and they want to keep their guns because they like guns.

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[rednip]

"to form a more perfect union" was a reference to the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and the need for the (at the time) new federal agreement. It's a great idea, and has become an enduring mandate, but I don't think it was meant that way.

Re:B. Hussein Obama, first impressions

[st0rmshad0w]

Why would the OP call him "B. Hussein Obama"? Is that supposed to mean something?

It means the OP is an ignorant idiot who doesn't know a damn thing about names in use for humans on planet Earth. The name "Hussein" means something like "handsome" if I recall and it's usually a surname. It also happens to be the family name of the Jordanian royal family.

Making a big deal out of his name is rather 3rd grade if you ask me.

Re:Whitehouse.gov

[severoon]

What's not yet official—doing away with the opening bracket on anchor tags. -sigh- source

Re:Style over substance

[gobbo]

Um, hello? The founding fathers contained a significant number of Deists. Really, go look it up.

That made them most specifically NOT followers of religion, but independents. Nowadays, they'd probably appear downright heretical to half of the USA.

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[Hatta]

Left-wingers might have an irrational fear that a police officer will shoot them dead

There are more arrests for marijuana possession in this country than there are arrests for violent crimes. It is a fact that the police victimize more people than they protect. Fearing the police is not irrational at all.

Re:When white will do right...

[Nigel Stepp]

That bit at the end, I think, were the words to an old civil rights anthem. To me it's a nice contrast.

If effect, he was hinting that those slogans are coming true.

Re:Will anything really change?

[Dun Malg]

But do you want a government who will make sure there's a hospital to fix your broken skull? And a government who will make sure there's quick transportation and trained EMTs?

Hard to say. Some argue that such services wouldn't exist if the government weren't providing them, but that's not necessarily true. Firefighting services in the unincorporated county lands where my father lives in Arizona are largely subscription funded. You call the fire department because your house is on fire and you haven't paid for the service, they do show up... but only to make sure everyone's out of the house and your service-paying neighbor's house doesn't burn down. You can beg and throw cash at them, but they'll watch your house burn down. Hard to say to what degree this approach could be applied to emergency medical services. Actually, it already is that way, to some degree. Here in Los Angeles they'll haul you to the closest hospital, but if they find out you have no insurance, you'll be given the minimum medical attention necessary to stabilize you, then you'll be thrown in an ambulance and driven up to forty miles to County-USC hospital--- the only remaining public hospital--- to wait for hours in line next to all the other poor folks waiting to have their stabs, gunshots, and assorted poor-folk injuries taken care of on the county's dime.

I disagree with Obama...

[mpthompson]

...on what ails this nation and what corrective measures should be taken (not that I agreed with McCain either). However, I respect the fact he is our nation's President and I sincerely wish him much success for everyone's sake. The stakes are too high and the consequences too grave for our leaders to continue their pattern of failed leadership.

Re:Where do we turn in our guns?

[Moraelin]

Actually, we're getting offtopic, but the 9/11 hysteria is another... interesting thing.

See, the USA had _one_ such incident in _years_. If you look at the number of terrorist attacks in the USA, say, the year _before_ that, you'll notice there were exactly zero. In fact, I can't remember any major act of terrorism there before 9/11 all the way to the Unabomber.

After that, also zero. Now you could justify the ones after that as being because of increased security (theatre), but it's hard not to notice that there were exactly zero without that security theatre too, and before giving up any liberties.

So America agreed to have its liberties trampled over... a one-off (if spectacular) act of terrorism.

By comparison, the Brits didn't suspend their liberties over _decades_ of shelling and bombing by the IRA. (And those guys knew how to bomb. There were attacks with batteries of improvised mortars mounted in a van even on the PM's residence.) Admittedly, recently they seem to have imported the USA idea that they can turn more totalitarian over even more ridiculous "bombing attempts", like some guy loading a sack of nails in his car and setting it on fire. (It just burned, btw.)

Spain didn't suspend its liberties over some pretty spectacular bombings, some pretty recent. Japan didn't move towards totalitarianism after, say, the Tokyo poison gas attacks in the subway. Etc.

Heck, Israel is bombed _daily_ by various radical Islamist groups. If they had moved towards authoritarianism for each major incident as much as the USA did for 9/11, they'd be a complete dictatorship by now. AFAIK, they aren't.

But in the USA you (at least as in, "you the poster I answer to") seem to think that _one_ terror incident warrants re-electing a guy who's just about wiped his arse with the constitution in the name of that one attack. Interesting.

So, no, I had not forgotten. I was genuinely surprised that _that_ lame excuse worked. Again.

Nope.

[jotaeleemeese]

Heterosexual people have the right to marry whoever they chose.

Homosexual people don't.

Homosexual people find themselves in exactly the same position "interracial" marriages found themselves decades ago: with state governments curtailing their freedoms to pursue happiness as they see fit.

The time will come when people will not understand how such barbaric impositions were in place.

What nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

The decision to go to a war based on lies is the responsibility of a single man.

The decision to allow torture and illegal detention of people without trial was the decision of a single man.

I could carry on, it should be clear that many decisions that affected (fatally in many cases) the lives of thousands (perhaps millions) of people where the legal and moral responsibility of one single person.

I hope that individual never finds any peace.

Re:As opposed to "Bush lied" or "stole the

[Liselle]

Or that firing US Attorneys is something that only Bush did and it is unprecedented.

Nice try, Karl Rove. The way that Bush did it is unprecedented, because only certain Attorneys were fired. Clinton, for example, fired ALL 90-something of them. There's a fine line between sweeping out everyone, and sweeping out just the ones that aren't "loyal Bushies". That phrase in quotes alone ought to make you throw up in your mouth a little bit, if you have any respect for what these people are supposed to do.

Well done America...

[Viper233]

...on electing a president who can speak English.

Re:Will anything really change?

[scooviduvoctagon]

"I don't need a government telling me I should wear a seat belt"

"But do you want a government who will make sure there's a hospital to fix your broken skull? And a government who will make sure there's quick transportation and trained EMTs?"

I want a FREE MARKET[*] that will make sure there's a hospital to fix your broken skull. And a FREE MARKET that will make sure there's affordable transportation and trained EMTs.

Government can go to hell.

[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_anarchism

Re:Hail to the new chief.. same as the old chief.

[im_thatoneguy]

I'm a storyteller so I like to understand people's motivations. I have lots of trouble believing a story when I can't understand someone's motivation.

1) Why would he lie about all of the change he wants to bring about? What's in it for him to lie? He's wealthy. He has as much power as can be attained. He has a reputation to keep if he wants more money and power.
2) Why wouldn't he want to fix the economy? He does have a re-election coming up in ... 4 years. It's in his best interest to do whatever it takes to improve the economy.
3) Nobody wants an end to the war on terror. We just want it to be fought pragmatically... by first up actually fighting terrorists instead of invading secular despot nations. Fighting terror means using American power to reduce the number of terrorists and increase security. You might not kill as many terrorists but sometimes the cost of killing a terrorist far outweighs the benefits. Isreal is fighting a war right now that might kill a lot of terrorists but have long term devastating consequences to their security.

Bush really did think that he was helping the American people. Clinton really did think he was helping the American people. I am certain that Obama too wants to help the American people. It's a question of qualifications and political currency.

The loving admiration for Obama means politicians want to be aligned with his camp. You want to vote Obama's agenda into law so that you get a little halo effect. Bush was able to direct Congress following 9/11 and pass the laws he felt were best for the nation. Obama can do the same. He might not be the legislative branch but he can ask the legislative branch to pass his agenda. The post 9/11 months are a magnificent example of how 'effective' a president can be in legislating when his opinion polls are in the stratosphere. You don't have to make as many concessions, you don't have to compromise as much... and I think people are most disappointed with Obama when he needs to compromise.

It's 'technically' impossible for any leader to do anything. This is something people don't understand about most management and something that ties up bad managers/leaders/directors. You aren't actually able to do anything. You're an enabler. You are an encourager. You can only inspire others to do it for you.

Obama won't build any roads. He won't shoot any terrorists. If we subscribe to his agenda we will be the agents of change. But without firm leadership our efforts will be largely wasteful.

Obama can inspire, direct and lead. He's already succeeding at these 3 things. Forget the constitution. Forget legislation. This is his source of power.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't even a politician and he brought enormous change to our nation through inspiration, motivation, political maneuvering and solid leadership. As far as I'm concerned Obama has been acting as president long before being sworn into office. He's already motivated and inspired millions of people to get involved with the country and actually get the job done.

Martin Luther King Jr. didn't desegregate the country. We did it ourselves as a nation. We just needed to be reminded of our duty to the nation from time to time. We need someone giving us a plan of action. And then we need the legal protection to do what's right. The president has the world's largest Bully Pulpit. He's got our ear. The work of any government is done by the people with our blessing. When the people don't agree with the leadership they stop working. When we believe in the agenda of the leadership we work harder and for less because we see our own success tied to their goals. Obama can be successful because he's got at least 150 million volunteers at least willing to listen to his ideas. The government is of the people for the people. When you say you don't believe in Government you're really saying you aren't believing in the American people. We are capable of doing great things if we can be reminded how.

*Obama wasn't my first choice but I voted for him.

- Gavin Greenwalt

I am pessimistic

[Ifthir]

We all know if he fails at anything he can just blame George Bush, and the media will eat it up. He got elected on hope, not policy. That means he doesn't have to deliver on anything, because losing hope isn't something most people blame on any one person. Despite all that, I truly hope he proves me wrong and actually becomes the first President (in my lifetime) to really do something.

Thin hopes

[Fantastic Lad]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I do find myself feeling increasingly dubious about Obama, based on his actions thus far.

I'm a storyteller so I like to understand people's motivations. I have lots of trouble believing a story when I can't understand someone's motivation.

Very sensible. The problem is that motivations are like sound waves. There are lots of them out there, but only some will resonate with a given receiver. We don't really know what kind of receiver Obama is. Not yet, anyway, but there are indications. We've seen in his choice of appointments some counter-intuitive, if not outright bad picks. We've seen his reaction to the Israeli conflict. Through his comments about Hugo Chavez, we've gotten a small taste of his foreign policy wrt South America. None of these things are unforgivable, and people are quick to create logical justifications on his behalf. There is always the chance he is simply playing his cards close to his chest while consolidating a position of power so that when the time comes, he will be able to make bold moves with assurance. Kennedy was in bed with the Mob before he was able to move more freely in government, for goodness sake. But still. . . It's been raising eyebrows.

1) Why would he lie about all of the change he wants to bring about? What's in it for him to lie? He's wealthy. He has as much power as can be attained. He has a reputation to keep if he wants more money and power.

There are so many reasons here which can be borrowed from to answer that. Everything from psychopathy and Manchurian Candidate stuff, to simple idealism rebuffed by too big a counter force and not enough courage on his part. Do you indict Bush and Co. for war crimes when you know that 4 - 8 years down the road the GOP could turn around like the bunch of school yard egoists we saw evidenced in the McCain camp and do the same thing? Safer to not rock the boat. Do you go head to head with the Zionists by avoiding conflict in Iran? Do you attempt to tackle the root of the money problem? Bill Hicks put it well when he said, "I think after a new president is sworn in, they take him and put him in a small room deep underground. Then a screen rolls down, and they play the Kennedy Assassination for him, but it's footage nobody has ever seen, from a completely new camera angle. Then the screen rolls up, and they say, 'Do we have an understanding?'" --Simple fear could make a liar out of him. But again, we'd need to know what kind of receiver we're dealing with. We don't yet.

2) Why wouldn't he want to fix the economy? He does have a re-election coming up in ... 4 years. It's in his best interest to do whatever it takes to improve the economy.

Fixing the economy can only be done in one way. Changing the source of money. Right now, all money in the U.S., and indeed, the entire industrialized world, is borrowed at interest from a small consortium of private bankers. Very simply, to pay back that money plus interest, you need more money than exists, because all money comes from the same source. When the world defaults, as it inevitably must every 100 years or so, the banks scoop up all the collateral; land and holdings. The current banking system is deliberately set up in this manner for one reason: Power. Barak is no fool. He knows this, as anybody with real brains in government does, but he's never mentioned it. Kennedy tried to deal with this problem through the issuance of real government dollars which were minted at zero interest. After he was killed, this policy was quietly snuffed. If Barak doesn't face down this same problem, then he is just playing along to the real powers that be, which makes him just the top slave. But it's too early to judge. Maybe he'll do something about it.

3) Nobody wants an end to the war on terror. We just want it to be fought pragmatically... by first up actually fighting terrorists instead of invading secular despot nations. Fighting terror means u

Re:Government shrunk to its Constitutional tasks o

[bitrex]

Government run healthcare systems seem to work well enough for Britain, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, Taiwan Switzerland, et cetera, et cetera. Government run power is why France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear plants and can tell the Middle East to get bent. Do you think a private corporation is ever going to invest in a nuclear plant, given the length of construction time and delay of ROI, when you can slap up a coal-burner and start raking in the bucks immediately? And airlines? FedGov has been bailing them out for decades - they might as well be nationalized, it's not like they could get any worse.

As an American I've come to the conclusion that the reason that these socialized programs work in other countries and not in the U.S. is not due to some fundamental problem of ideology, but that a majority of the American _people_ in both the public and private sector are myopic, mentally defective and terminally incompetent.

Re:But!

[wanax]

Robert Gates (Sec. of Defense) was deliberately absent from the ceremony to preserve the line of succession.