Corrections to President Obama’s Inaugural Speech

Share |

My fellow Americans, I sit before you, an ardent critic of the current political paradigm. For this reason I have taken the time to correct all the contradictions in President Obama’s speech. The standard of value is the coherence and correspondence tests of truth. My corrections are in yellow, so you can read the speech corrected or as it was intended...for an audience of non-thinkers.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

Humility is actually a weakness. No one ever achieved anything by thinking less of their capacities. We need a man full of pride, who knows their own value, as well as their flaws. But I am sure it was just rhetoric anyway to appease conflicted Christians.

Actually just because Americans elected him does not mean they trust him. Now that's not humility, it's arrogance. The guy needs to earn our trust and respect. At this point, he is just the lesser of two evils. That huge Senate payout doesn’t give anyone confidence.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Thank President Bush! You’re joking. That’s not humility, that’s plain stupidity . 43rd President Bush - The worst president in history. He was also the most stupid. He wasn’t even smart enough to match the damage done by Roosevelt.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace.

Aside from the boring poetry, rising tides are not still waters, they rise.

Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

Oh, this is the calm before the storm?

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

Actually under Bush, the constitution was breached without restraint on several occasions. Even the actions to correct the Guantanamo Bay issue took too long. The illegal incarceration of foreign nationals without a court appearance. Shame on you for not mentioning it. Bush was skillful? A man of vision?

Geez, is it just me, or are American leaders just full of waffle. Millions of people are listening to this. Can’t he say anything interesting. I’m falling asleep analysing it. Boring.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. It was understood a decade ago. The Republicans and Democrats were not listening. Likely you didn’t understand. Now you are president. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Speak for yourself, unlike yourself, I have been critical of Bush for a long time. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights. True enough – first point of value.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They were real a decade ago, they started 100 years ago, they have their primary origins 400 years ago. Nothing changes because the problem is democracy itself. Give us reason, not consensus-based rhetoric ‘good of society’. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. See this is where leaders are bad. Hope is empty. I have reasons for believing in a leader, not vacuous faith. No, I don’t want unity. Basically people don’t get a voice, so issues are only addressed if there is conflict. Afghanistan and Iraq (as problems) were only addressed because they blew up the Twin Towers. Nothing gets resolved without conflict. So lets invite conflict, not evade it. Let’s not pretend that we are all in agreement, we are not. People are not being respected if we pretend they don’t have issues of conflict.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

This sounds so much like fluff. What pettinesses are we talking about? Katrina? Iraq? If these exist as they do, then speak to the problem. If you want our confidence, show us that you actually know what needs to be done.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. Well I studied scripture when I was a child, and it was just as illogical then as it is today. Why embrace a 2000 year philosophy developed in a pre-science era of fear and manipulation? The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Oh, was that the same enduring spirit that ran up huge debts, committed sexual crimes in Abu Graib, ignores its constitution? Revisionists are we, ignoring the bad elements of US history? Are we free? Hardly. Define freedom please!!!

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. Really. Politics is always about the short term, range of the moment decisions to win the next election. It’s always about settling for less. When has there been a political leader whom you could respect. It’s not humanity, it's the political process that corrupts them before they become leaders.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. Well it appears some of them dropped the ‘bankers ball’, or was it an own team goal, or a stolen ball? Something happened?

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

The problem I have with reminiscing back to US colonial history is that it seems far removed from the current context of America. It’s almost a confession that there is no current virtue in US history, so we have to search back to a time when people actually believed in freedom. It's all rhetoric far removed from the USA today. I just look at the PriceWaterhouseCoopers ranking of best taxing nations – the USA ranks 100^th plus, lower than Botswana and half the world. I don’t look to Botswana for philosophical guidance – why the USA?

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life.

This is where we see the moral greyness. The idea that life is a sacrifice. Working hard is not a sacrifice. It's an investment. You only work for the promise of gain. If the dice are against you, you want a corresponding higher return. E.g. Free land. These people were not so virtuous when you consider the persecution in England. Now, most people accept or repress the modern variety of persecution. Eg. Taxation, speeding cameras, drink drinking. Good laws? You think?

They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Well this is collectivism, otherwise referred to as socialism or fascism, and this is scary coming from Obama.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. Fair point.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

I guess he was speaking biblically here as Moses would do. Or was he thinking to part the Atlantic Ocean because you can’t use ‘soil to fuel our cars and run our factories’.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. But this is not the problem – a lack of imagination. Its' the political process.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Really. Well it beggars belief because I can guarantee that Obama will do nothing to undo what was the legacy of Bush. He will not unwind the power of banks, increase the accountability of CEOs, and certainly not politicians. When did the public service earn kudos for service? When did the government, the president, get the experience to justify him holding power over a budget of $4 trillion. I don’t even think the CEO of general electric would think himself experienced enough to justify that level of confidence. That is not a position of humility, but arrogance.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

This market collapse was always known. It is not new news. It was ignored for ‘political reasons’. How is this presidency any different?

As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.

You already have. Only the rhetoric remains. Don’t forget Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, breaches of the constitution (gold standard, taxation), etc.

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. Peace at what price? Peace means nothing if it's not free of coercion. We are not free of coercion.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

Yeh, but in those days the alliances were twofold – those intended to expand power (German-Japan) and the Allies (to keep enemies at bay). Today we have government alliances expanding their powers under an illusion of security threat. We have international alliances intended to entrench the existing political parties. They will rationalise that there is a 2-party competitive party structure, but its really a 2-party coalition or concubine.

I fell asleep at this point. You too? Not surprised. I need content to analyse otherwise my parched lips die.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/20/president-obamas-inaugural-address/
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Do politicians ever learn? More stimulus

Share |

Most OECD countries are burdened with huge debts. These debts are the result of policies that encouraged debt creation. The solution of the Australian government is to 'double-up', to in effect support the policy of the Australian Liberal Party by not only continuing the policy of offering cash grants to home buyers, but increasing the grants to make it easier for them to buy. This is great short term policy. But understand where this is going. ITS GOING TO SCREW BUYERS and everyone else, and here is why. These people are going to be taking out variable rate loans because they can see that interest rates are falling, asset prices seem to be reflating. The problem is inflation. We are going to see a lot more inflation. These people are going to be screwed by higher interest rates at some time. That's not to say you should not buy, but this is a traders market, not an investors market. The long cycle is over. This is the time to jump on short waves (rallies), and play on the soft stuff. Do you really want to commit to another home. What else is there? Well I recommend foreclosed Asian property because its still very cheap and higher yields will drive a lot of money there. Otherwise I would stick to trading equities, particularly precious metals. But what them first. They might fall back in the short term because of falling interest rates and a resurging stock market. More likely I see gold consolidating until the rally is over, then gold will take off.
This is another example of politicians compromising the long term future of the country for their short term political careers. We need political reform! Watch my blogs for the answer. I've got a book on this coming.
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The politics of wind farms

Share |

There is an emerging battle in Australia centered in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. The pertinent governments are pushing for the development of wind farms to meet the government's target of 20% renewable energy. It seems an unlikely target. The power is required to meet the needs mostly of the cities, but the generation will occur in the countryside. Therein lies the problem. Some farmers witnessing a decline in on-farm earnings and few opportunities to generate off-farm earnings are keen to receive royalties and upfront payments for a wind farm. The problem is - the neighbours are not happy. I have some sympathy for their position. Many farmers value the rural life and wind turbines on the horizon are not an attractive feature for many people. Some don't mind them. Clearly these people are put out by the personal gain of certain farmers.
I actually think farmers should have the right to do with their property as they wish so long as it doesn't impact on the neighbours property. Herein lies the problem. The scenic view of a property is impacted by what your neighbour does. Should the neighbour have recourse to prevent a development?
Rural communities are very cohesive, yet such issues are dividing farmers as much as coal mines in Gunnedah, NSW. Business people welcome the jobs and prospect of more patrons. Farmers and lifestylers lament the prospect of damage to their lifestyle and the ambience of the place. Sometimes the risks are exaggerated. There are coal mines in the Gloucester area, but if you were driving through you would never know. There are also mines in the Hunter Valley and they are ever-present. Clearly people want and expect a say in how their environment is developed. As it stands, they don't have that power. State governments generally make such planning decisions, and mining is conducive to job creation.

It is difficult to stop mining because the right to mine is vested with the state governments. The right to export is vested with the Federal government. In the case of wind farms its a personal decision by the farmer. The best suggestion I can make to farmers who don't want wind farms is:
1. Decide if your property has a consistent wind breeze
2. Get all the property owners in the area to sign an agreement to have their property placed on a register of 'no wind farms'. This agreement would be a legal document preventing the person from developing a wind farm, and that restriction would be transferred with the property.
3. A legal requirement for the owner to sell the property with a notice of restraint on the development of wind farms

Critics of wind farms might be unreasonable, but that depends entirely on their point of objection. The proponents of wind farms have equally dubious opinions. The idea that wind farm critics are 'scared of progress' is a stretch. There are valid reasons for not wanting them.
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How constitutional is your constitution?

Share |

Ever wondered how fair governments are? Is it lone individuals, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the way government’s are organised. In the UK yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling ordered that all assets held in Britain by a troubled Icelandic bank be seized in order to protect the interests of British depositors with funds in the Iceland bank. There are several problems with this:

1. He used anti-terrorism legislation in order to seize the assets
2. He effectively placed Britain’s interests above those of bank depositors in general.

This was a gross misuse of authority for several reasons:
1. British banks which loaned funds to the Icelandic bank are more culpable for the Iceland bank failure than any depositors
2. British depositors should rank equally with all other depositors
3. The Chancellor is over-extending himself on this issue, using powers he does not have. It’s a total misuse of power. There is no element of terrorism, and it highlights the danger of countries enacting legislation in times of emergency
4. The capacity of governments to act this way highlights the dangers of arbitrary rule, and undermines the credibility of the justice system

We need to draw a distinction between the two elements of the justice system. There is the part of the justice system concerned with common land, which is basically logical. Then there is the enacted laws which are approved by parliament. It is these laws which cause all the grief because they are arbitrary. It matters little whether they are created for the purpose intended, misused or serving the interests of the country, they are immoral. The parliament of each country needs to be abolished and a few framework needs to be established on a similar framework to common law – a framework based on reason. Reason permits no contradictions or arbitrary actions as we have seen evidenced today. Such actions reflects flaws in Western constitutions. It is not so much a loophole in the law as an illogical legal structure inherent in the constitutions of all Western governments, which are for the most part based on the UK model of governance. There will come a time when others will question this model – just as I have been doing. Mind you, I could be labelled a terrorist in a number of countries for questioning the validity of the constitution. Need I say more! Reason has been quashed by coercion. Well....not quite.
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

McCain vs Obama

Share |

In the most recent debate between the presidential contenders, both were disappointing. There was no knock out punch. The problem as I see it was that Obama failed to make a connection. He made the point that McCain was privy to Bush's plunders, but McCain was able to argue that he had opposed all the policies that are a blight on the Bush record.
This leaves open a blaring contradiction. Bush had the support of someone in the Republican Party. Now McCain is the main of the moment. The implications is that a lot of the people who supported Bush must be supporting McCain.
Not convinced? Well its the Republican Party that made it possible. It was Reagan that put the US in debt, it was Clinton that pulled the US through it. It was the Bushs' who put the US back in debt, now looks like it will fall upon the Democrats to again get the US out of debt. I had to laugh when I saw assertions by Republican congressmen that the problem was caused by greedy capitalists. The common denominator is the Republican Party.
REPUBLICAN PARTY = EXCESS DEBT CREATION!
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Why are CEOs being rewarded for self-serving packages

Share |

It really is not good enough for US Treasurer Henry Paulson to come out and say he will make concessions to Congress to have caps placed on US salaries. There are several problems with this:
1. Weak regulation - the government is not even looking at white collar crime; since they make no resources available for it.
2. Too late - what is the point of capping salaries 20 years after the problem started. The last generation of CEOs has retired or converted their options into shares, and in most cases sold out.
3. Too little - The CEOs have engaged in self-serving action at the expense of shareholders. In Australia that is a breech of duty. Not only should those funds be recouped, but directors should no longer be entitled to options.
4. Standard of value - The standard of value by which CEOs are paid should be the same by which shareholders are paid, the share price. The difference is that the CEO should be paid a basic salary plus a performance incentive based on the extent to which he out-performs the broad index. This would mean the best CEOs are attracted to the best performing sectors, which is where you want the best people. Though someone might argue you should compare them with same industry CEOs. I have some sympathy for that view.
-----------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Unbloody believable - corruption under Bush

Share |

Being a supporter of small government, you might have expected me to be a supporter of the Republicans, however my contempt for Bush and the Republicans has sunk to a new level. I was reading about Alan Greenspan's forecast for the US economy. For the life of me, I don't know how Greenspan could be so blind or repressed, to be unable to see the consequences for his own actions. He talks down the economy, but he otherwise seems oblivious to the fact that he caused it. He is not alone. My mother's boyfriend, also a conservative seems to be suggesting that the Labor Rudd government is responsible for the weaker Australian economy. As much as I think Rudd has been a disappointment, I would have to conceed that he hasn't had the chance to really do any damage yet. I would love to be the journalist who asks Greenspan what part he played. I could retire after asking that question. It would be worth being blacklisted by every media outlet. Talking of blacklisting. In an interview on Dateline, George Negus was implying that Naomi Wolf was being sensational by suggesting that the USA had become a fascist state. Ask yourself why a bestselling author would now be blacklisted by the media. Why is she only showing on foreign media by a government TV channel, which has a reputation for political independence? I can't imagine that George Negus would have been bought off, though I guess he has worked before with the large private TV stations. Does he owe someone a favour. Read his transcript for his interview - it struck me as highly impartial. Poor interview as well, and quite condescending. I note that the media is particularly critical of the Independents in the Australian politics. Its true that some of these players are very unpolished. I guess for the media, unpolished politicians are a little uninteresting. Scandal though is valued when it comes from the main parties, but quashed when it comes from Independents. In the Philippines they of course kill critical journalists.

But in a related article I learned something shocking about America which I did not know. The government controls an appropriations committee which dolls out money to politicians around the country. We have this in Australia too, though its much more blatant in the USA. They function as personal investment funds, and there is evidence of course that these funds are used to pay backhanders to the sponsoring Senators. The bulk of the money goes to marginal seats, helping to keep the government in power. Just like campaign funds the burden of these dispersements are increasing each year.

I don't know how anyone can argue that we are not within a period of fascism. Would you like another example? Malaysia is benefiting from a resurgence of popularity by Anwar Ibrahim, the would-be prime minister of Malaysia, who was jailed by Mahathir cronies for sodomising his driver. Mahathir has long since disappeared after a long rein in Malaysian politics. But Anwar has again been charged with sodomy just prior to the leading party vote. I would not be surprised to see Anwar assasinated or jailed against for sodomy. And I would be surprised if this results in riots in Malaysia. So you would think that Western politicians would be outraged by these events in Malaysia, but no! Very little commentary at all. Why? I think its because they are scared to become under criticism themselves. I don't know if you realise the dichotomy that our elected officials have created. They have liberalised markets, and I guess you could argue they have increased market competition. But in politics they have entrenched their own parties position. Global governments support dual-party systems despite the fact that these are rife for collusion. You might think they are competitive, but understand they play in a certain way. There are rules of engagement. They know they will have power roughly half the time, and if they opportunity only comes once in a lifetime its worth it. It need not be a dual system. In Japan, its the omnipotent Democratic Liberal Party that has controlled government for 75 years, aside from a very short hiatus. The conceals the fact that the DLP comprises factions that distribute gratuities like its Xmas.
The Philippines is so corrupt its amazing. Its beyond comment. Its guilty by reputation. I notice that governments do seem to have rules of engagement. It was when evidence emerged that the Philippines government was engaging in political killings that the US government actually stepped in and said something. As far as I can see there are secret rules of engagement. They will permit anything but political killings. Clearly the reasons for this are self-serving. Imprisoning a person is OK under these rules. That's why no one cared when the 'red racist' Pauline Hanson was imprisoned by Tony Abbott in Australia, and no one cared when Anwar Ibrahim was imprisoned in Malaysia on trumped up charges, and will again. I would not be surprised if President Obama is assasinated by the Republican Party. Of course they will pay a white supremist with self esteem problems to do the damage, and then they'll kill the evidence trail. Its all very predictable if you look at the trend. That is of course if Obama is any different. Kennedy didn't want to play ball, so he got assasinated. There is no reason to believe that Obama is anything but a fascist team player. There is hope because he has been in politics for less time. Any idealism in him though will be corrupted or he will be eradicated. The rules change if you don't play by the rules.
The most cynical aspect of this presidential campaign I have seen so far is the appointment as Senator Palin as the Vice President nominee. Aside from the fact that she appears to be a credible candidate, I would make the following points:
1. Palin attracts the female vote that Obama snubbed when he shot down Hillary, which was the right thing to do. Hillary is a control freak who would never have played 2nd-in-command.
2. Palin supposedly a strong force against party corruption. I personally think that is political spin because she comes from the state (Alaska) which receives the greatest funding by 'earmarks' These funding instruments are a scam story in themselves. Alaska gets 10x more funding from 'earmarks' than any other state. That makes her vulnerable to the Republican party appropriations committee. So she is a puppet.
3. She is a gun-totting politician

I conclude that there is so much spin on Palin that she is not going to know which way is up. Just ask yourself why this woman from nowhere is elected. Its all politics of managing perceptions. The Republicans are vulnerable on the female vote and corruption. The media has painted this woman as the party sheriff who is going to clean up corruption. As soon as the election is over, the party will pull her aside and say 'If you don't play by the rules' we will cut funding to her electorate in Alaska. Global politics have become so dirty, and there are few places in the world where its so 'clean' and slimy as the USA. In the Philippines its far more impersonal. They just shot you from a distance.

What is more concerning to me is how the general population is so indifferent to these issues. They just turn off. Their attitude is - I can't do anything about it - so i'm going to look after number one. My problem is that these political parties are going to get a little desperate and start killing opponents. What will these compliant voters say then? The old idea that you can always vote them out is nonsense. These fascists are in both parties. No one represents the workers anymore. That is the rhetoric. Those union leaders who don't play ball are either paid off or removed by the upper echelons. There are few unions with any power anymore. This is not new. Union leaders in Japan have for decades been paid off. They were even given positions on the company board of directors.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com