Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Government United States News Politics

Barack Obama Sworn In As 44th President of the US 1656

Just before noon today, Eastern time, Barack Obama was sworn in before the US Capitol building as the 44th President of the United States ( 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Barack Obama Sworn In As 44th President of the US

Comments Filter:
  • but, but! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:19PM (#26531959) Homepage Journal

    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: []

    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:America, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fishdan ( 569872 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:22PM (#26532047) Homepage Journal
    Having set up the streaming watching at a university, I can tell you that 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.
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki AT cox DOT net> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:28PM (#26532225)

    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.


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

    Let's hope he means it.

  • by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:28PM (#26532233) Homepage Journal
    I am gladdened the sad epoch of George W Bush and his particular brand of wanton cronyism, prideful ignorance and blind ineptitude is at an end. 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. Obama and anyone else who thinks they can praise the civil rights accomplishments of gay couples while at the same time denying them the right to a state and federally recognized union for all intents and purposes is as much a bigot as those who denied interracial couples the right to marry. Not only is it a civil rights issue but a public health one as well. 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. Marriage and the family unit is the bedrock of civil society to deny anyone the benefit is abhorrent. Shame on you Barrack Obama, shame on you.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:29PM (#26532263)

    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.

  • by jdgeorge ( 18767 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:30PM (#26532287)

    ...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.)

  • Re:So ... change ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StreetStealth ( 980200 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:32PM (#26532333) Journal

    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.

  • by DodgeRules ( 854165 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:33PM (#26532377)
    ... 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!
  • by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:36PM (#26532413) Journal
    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.
  • by readin ( 838620 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:39PM (#26532485)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:41PM (#26532539)

    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.

  • by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:46PM (#26532665)

    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.

  • by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:46PM (#26532669) Journal
    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.
  • by jdgeorge ( 18767 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:49PM (#26532787)

    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?

  • As a non-American... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leathered ( 780018 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:53PM (#26532893)

    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'.

  • by haifastudent ( 1267488 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:57PM (#26532999)

    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.

  • by Robyrt ( 1305217 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:01PM (#26533087)
    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:America, (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:11PM (#26533397)

    o Order the heads of military to plan orderly and rapid closure of all military bases outside the borders of the United States and its possessions, including the return of all troops, the return of all equipment that is practical, and to execute the immediate sale or destruction of all weapons and defense systems that cannot be transported within a 90-day period.

    This would probably cause the economies of Japan and Germany (and possibly other nations where we have bases) to completely implode.

  • by feepness ( 543479 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:14PM (#26533475) Homepage

    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.

  • by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:16PM (#26533541) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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.

  • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:48PM (#26534437)

    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 []

  • by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:55PM (#26534625) Journal
    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 &#226;&#8364;" the nation's largest daily electronic news service for the outdoor industry &#226;&#8364;" has named the president-elect its gun salesman of the year. And for that, we extend our deep congratulations. "
  • Re:Time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:10PM (#26534935)

    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AlpineR ( 32307 ) <> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:28PM (#26535315) Homepage

    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.

  • by osu-neko ( 2604 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:29PM (#26535331)

    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.

  • Indeed it should (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coryking ( 104614 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:36PM (#26535503) Homepage Journal

    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:Time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Woldry ( 928749 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:39PM (#26535577) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:40PM (#26535607)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:40PM (#26535623)

    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.

  • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @05:18PM (#26536461) Journal

    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.

  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @05:24PM (#26536613)
    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?
  • by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @05:29PM (#26536723)

    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.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @06:11PM (#26537469) Journal

    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.

  • by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @06:29PM (#26537745) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by greg_barton ( 5551 ) <> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:29PM (#26538601) Homepage Journal

    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...

  • What nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:57PM (#26538917) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by jjohnson ( 62583 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:02PM (#26539829) Homepage

    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."

  • by scooviduvoctagon ( 801935 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @12:15AM (#26541687)

    "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.

    [*] []

  • I am pessimistic (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ifthir ( 1446587 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @01:43AM (#26542415)
    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.
  • by bitrex ( 859228 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @02:32AM (#26542677)

    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.

Usage: fortune -P [] -a [xsz] [Q: [file]] [rKe9] -v6[+] dataspec ... inputdir