Freeloading their way out of crisis

The president of the European Central Bank (ECB) said Europe doesn't need to boost spending more in order to triumph over the global financial crisis. This puts the ECB in line with most European governments and squarely at odds with the U.S. over the approach needed to combat this worldwide emergency. In fact Mirek Topolanek, the prime minister of the Czech Republic and current president of the European Union called the U.S. emphasis on fiscal stimulus “the way to hell”.

Now while there is much to be critical of in the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis, at least they are trying. Europe, on the other hand, has essentially declared that the crisis will solve itself in due course and wants to sit back and watch. Germany and France, in particular, appear to be looking for a free ride off the U.S. (and many would say “what’s new”?). Knowing that their economies are almost entirely export driven, you don’t need to be Einstein to understand how Germany and France will be big winners if the U.S. stimulus package works – without them having lifted a finger to help. This is a most grotesque and selfish form of protectionism whereby Germany and France keep their national debt stress-free and stave off the possibility of high inflation while sitting back and allowing other countries to suck up the pain and do the hard work. Sadly, the obvious response to such selfishness is more protectionist policies; which is no solution at all.

This should be an interesting G20 summit meeting next week – which would be a change for the better as well.

Stimulus: Create an International Emergency Response Force

President Obama's New Deal has paved the way for a $787 billion economic stimulus package. The goals include: improving infrastructure, investing in energy projects and providing financial relief for families via tax cuts and increased government benefits. These are admirable domestic goals and should be pursued, but there are also international pursuits that would achieve the goal of stimulating the US economy while at the same time saving thousands, if not millions of lives and also demonstrating a true leadership role against protectionism in the process. I am proposing the raising, training and sustaining of a truly international emergency response force, open to citizens of all nations.

The creation and maintenance of such a force is badly needed on both humanitarian and economic grounds in order to provide effective, prevention based response to genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and natural disasters. Such a force, funded principally by the US, might need to operate under the umbrella of the United Nations, but must not be constrained by the existing veto arrangements that prevail in the Security Council and that make that body so ineffectual.

The force would comprise not only military personnel, but also administrators, police and medical teams. With the bulk of funding coming from the US, raising, training and sustaining such a force could achieve similar positive results in terms of stimulating the US economy, as did World War II - which most historians agree had a more concrete impact on the economy than Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the1930s.

Such a force, operating within an appropriately crafted mandate, would not only save countless lives, but according to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, would have saved the international community nearly $130 billion of the $200 billion it spent on managing conflicts in the 1990s by focusing on conflict prevention or early intervention rather than post conflict reconstruction.

Obama officials dragging the President down

Investors and Wall St are making clear their contempt for Mr. Obama's $1.2 trillion bailout of banks. The Dow is down 15% since inauguration day and although it is reasonable to claim this economic crisis was inherited; the markets are now dropping further every time an Obama official makes a public statement. Inheritance can't be blamed for that.

The gang of egg-heads that President Obama has surrounded himself with are showing all the measured resolve of a deer in the headlights; and the nation is starting to panic. Mr. Obama's first seven weeks in office have been substantially eclipsed by a series of awkward and unfortunate blunders - which sadly has put his well publicized poise and prestige to the test. Only seven weeks in...and already there is widespread talk about him being unable to walk the walk and being a single termer. The disorganized and undeserving Republicans must be rubbing their hands with glee.

First came the stimulus package, which should have been a clearly focused parcel of initiatives aimed at only one thing - combating the economic meltdown. But instead what we got was a bloated potato sack full or earmarked programs which will surely be the shame of House Democrats for a long time to come.

Next came Mrs. Clinton's gaff burdened trip through Europe. If we believe that the rate at which a politician matures is directly proportional to the embarrassment they can tolerate, then Mrs. Clinton is maturing nicely - leaving behind a string of fumbled Russian translations, mispronounced names, incorrect historical assertions, and diplomatic faux pas. The foreign policy-watching public are definitely nervous.

Then comes Mr. Geithner and Mr. Orszag onto the scene. These two youthful looking economic whiz kids instilled about as much confidence in me as they did in Wall St, with their timid half-measures to restructure debt-laden banks and their discerningly unstated descriptions of how these measures will lead to economic recovery.

And who will put their hand up to claim responsibility for advising Mr. Obama on matters of protocol associated with the ill-fated visit of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. What a clumsy fiasco that was - with all the pomp and ceremony of an unexpected visit from your mother-in-law. Alliances have been tested for less.

Let me finish by stating this is not an Obama beat-up; and criticizing the performance of the Administration should not be misconstrued as such; but if Mr. Obama doesn't get his staff performing like professional politicians they will be his undoing. And looking at who is waiting in the wings to take his place fills me with little enough confidence to genuinely wish Mr. Obama well!!

Ten good reasons to legalize illegal drugs

Current policies related to the war on drugs have proved to be a complete failure. What we see happening in Mexico is a manifestation of those failed policies. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime admit that the global production of cocaine and opium is unchanged from a decade ago and Cannabis usage and production has risen markedly. Here are ten good reasons why legalizing currently illegal drugs would be a more effective way to bring the war on drugs to a satisfactory conclusion:

1. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would allow the government to tax and regulate the drug trade. The US alone spends approximately $40 billion each year trying to prevent the supply of drugs – unsuccessfully.

2. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would destroy the interests of organized crime in the business and reduce the current woeful death toll associated with organized crime’s role in the illegal drug trade.

3. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would make them safer and less prone to contaminations.

4. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would allow the opportunity to deal with addicts properly. Addicts are currently treated as a law and order problem problem, whereas they should be treated as a public-health problem.

5. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would bring to a halt the practice of making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, who experiment with drugs or who use such drugs occasionally (such as the current President of the United States who admits to having experimented with illegal drugs).

6. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would ease the burden on over-stretched prison systems. Each year, just in the USA alone, more than 1.5 million citizens are arrested and approximately 500,000 are jailed due to a zero tolerance of illegal drugs.

7. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would allow the government to use funds raised by taxation – as well as the many billions that would be saved by not making drug a law enforcement responsibility - to educate and treat addiction.

8. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would allow the establishment of a pricing structure that balanced the objectives of reducing consumption and discouraging black markets and crime (and other social disorders) that sustain the current illegal trade.

9. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would not necessarily mean more people would use hard drugs. The success in cutting down the use of tobacco in developed countries, where it is similarly taxed and regulated, is testimony to the hopeful possibilities that exist. Even if we concede that some increase in the use of these drug is likely, in my view more people would gain from the improved treatment conditions and education than would suffer.

10. Legalizing currently illegal drugs would release the state from its self imposed mandate of policing individual enjoyments. Many illegal drugs are very dangerous; but most are not – and used only occasionally for social enjoyment (just as alcohol and tobacco are).

Could U.S. Taxpayers be funding Hamas??

How in the hell can the U.S. government pledge $900 million to Gaza and believe that no money will go to Hamas? Unfortunately for the needy people of Gaza, $900 million isn't much in geopolitical aid terms, but just as fortunately for the tax payers of the United States that also restricts the amount of useful funds that will find its way into Hamas' hands.

Hillary Clinton's visit to the Middle East only served to reinforce what I have alluded to previously, i.e. that there is precious little difference between the foreign policy of President George W. Bush and Mr. Barack Obama. At least if there is any difference, it wasn't made obvious as a consequence of Mrs Clinton's latest visit. Clinton's visit really was just a distraction - more unkindly it could have been termed a boondoggle...it was intended for show....it was intended to pave a way for the allocation of more money (which may not actually eventuate)...and to be "seen to be there" thus avoiding criticism of not being engaged in the Middle East "problem".

There can be no doubt that the hurdles to be overcome in obtaining peace in the Middle East are enormous; especially now with Mr. Netanyahu likely to head the Israeli government - but if the Administration of Mr. Obama has any ideas up its sleeve, they weren't apparent as a result of Mrs. Clinton's latest foray.

Obama will be changed by Iraq more than Iraq will be changed by Obama

Barack Obama's commitment to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq reminds me of that wonderful quote from Mr. Churchill - "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies". Not that I believe Mr Obama is lying necessarily, but he has certainly hedged his bets well by letting the people know of his assurance to retain a sufficient force in Iraq to ensure stability beyond his 16 month deadline. Anybody interested in obtaining a clearer understanding of exactly what this means is fighting an uphill battle however. Mr Obama says "combat troops out in 16 months"...Mr Robert Gates on the other hand, briefing Congress in January of this year, stated that troops will be required in Iraq "for many years to come". General Raymond T. Odierno (Commanding General in Iraq) has also publicly stated that he expects troop levels in Iraq to still be in the order of 30,000-35,000 in the 2015. What is one to believe?

Putting aside the need for Mr. Obama to live up to his campaign promises, I believe Mr. Gates' and General Odierno's assessments are significantly closer to reality than Mr. Obama would wish to acknowledge. Getting troops out of Iraq "responsibly" will be no easy task. The troop reductions that happened to date have been the easy ones; taking U.S. troops from only those areas where the residual security risks remain low. Starting now, and going into 2010, the residual security risks in areas affected by troop withdrawals will increase markedly - hence the Generals want the drawdown to be slower than members of the public have been led to expect - and certainly want more troops staying behind than Mr. Obama has in mind presently. And rightly or wrongly, I think the Generals are right.

At the tactical level, which is the only level where the success of the troop "surge" is evident, the presence of troops is literally the only thing standing between order and chaos, and in several cases between life and death. At the strategic level (where the surge has had no impact), the potential regional conflicts stemming from a total U.S. withdrawal are too dreadful to seriously contemplate. The Turks (who are members of NATO) will not stand by and allow Kurdistan to become independent, Iran - who already enjoys more influence in Iraq than even the U.S. does - will fall over itself to fill the lingering power gap in a manner that best suits its own interests, and consequent to Iran's rise to power, the Arabs will undoubtedly contrive to protect the Sunni population. These regional conflicts may still become a reality even with a reduced number of U.S. troops present; but they are almost a certainty with none.

To end with another quote, this time from Thomas E. Ricks authoritative book on the inside story of the Iraq war, The Gamble..."the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered by us and by the world have not yet happened."

US now officially an oligarchy

$1.2 trillion bank bailout. $75 billion mortgage bailout. $787 billion stimulus spending plan. This is classic big government tactics on an unprecedented scale, but those who are putting this plan to bed are experimenting. That's all it is, a grand experiment by a few amateurs. President Obama himself has told us "We've never seen anything like this since the Great Depression." Therefore, nobody in the workforce at the moment has any personal experience of such matters.

If you believe, as most experts do, that the crisis we are experiencing has its roots in irresponsible spending and the unwise creation of debt, then do you really believe that more spending on this scale, with the resultant record level of national debt, can possibly be the answer?

More important than that however, is that these policies are being designed and executed by the very oligarchs that created this problem in the first place. Yes, that's right...I said oligarchs. Oligarchy is that form of government wherein power is exercised not by the people, but a very few powerful individuals who have the wherewithal to control the purse-strings of government and influence the shape of government policy. These spending bills have created a new form of government for the United States of America - an Oligarchy. It may come as a surprise to many however, to know that our powerful new oligarchs aren't politicians; they are the CEO's of the big banks. This is no emotional rhetoric either - it is a fact recognized by Simon Johnson, former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund.

Now lets explore a little deeper. How has it come to pass that these banks have so quickly convinced taxpayers to part with a whopping $1.2 trillion dollars to fix their mistakes and solve their problems? Its not hard to work out when you realize that Geithner's chief of staff was a principal lobbyist of Goldman Sachs, the new deputy secretary of state was a CEO of Citigroup, the new assistant to the President and deputy national security advisor for International Economic Affairs is a former Citigroup CFO, and even one his deputies also came from Citigroup and yet another new member of the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board comes from UBS, which is being investigated for shady tax evasion deals on behalf of its wealthier clients. Is it unreasonable to assume that these guys don't have any conflicts of interest??. In fact I'm certain they have only one interest, and it isn't yours or mine. It's the interests of the financial industry.

Oh, and don't expect too much from the overseers at the House Financial Services Committee either. Two weeks ago, eight top bank CEOs were brought in to testify before that committee of Congress, and guess what...it has now been revealed publicly that almost every member of that Committee had received contributions from those banks during the previous year. Now it is clear how those CEO's felt invincible enough and arrogant enough to proceed with massive bonus payments we saw at the end of last year. What a rotten mess...and its got nowhere to go but down.

Solution to global economic crisis: Dance like nobody's watching

Our life is a perfect reflection of the choices we make. We can choose to be happy or we can choose to be sad. We can choose to be angry or we can choose not to be so. We choose to accept or reject. We choose to do, or not to do....in every respect our lives are a mirror image of the choices we make. The challenge we face is to control our emotions so that the choices we make contribute to a fulfilling and happy life - and not to a life of resentment, regrets and misery.

In achieving this, there is so much we can learn from children. The uninhibited ease with which children embrace friendships, renounce embarrassment in favor of enjoyment and enjoy living "in the moment" is an art that should never be lost. But sadly, lost it often is, and increasingly it appears to be lost way too soon as a consequence of the demands of modern living. Life is short and there are too many demands on our lives that do not contribute to our happiness, but which we accept without rancor. In this new era of change, let's commit to enjoying our daily endeavors more, whatever they may be, but also to find a way to contribute more of ourselves for the advantage of others. We must take more time to smell the roses and enjoy the short time we have on earth. If we all do so, I guarantee that the benefits in the short term may only be personal - which is no bad thing, but the full impact in the long term will be truly global.

Lets all take the advice of Mark Twain...when he told us to "Dance like nobody's watching; love like you've never been hurt. Sing like nobody's listening; live like it's heaven on earth."

Economics, Protectionism and Conflict

There is no doubting that the economic crisis is having a very negative impact on political stability in many countries across the Globe. This relationship between the economy and conflict is nothing new of course, but it needs to be recognized. The colossal disorder and economic instability that accompanied the end of the First World War – and the ascension of protectionism in the 1920s and 1930s (along with the enduring anger over the Versailles treaty), all combined to bring about World War II. In fact those same issues also set in motion many of the national and ethnic conflicts that continue to this very day around the world. I can see clear evidence that the current economic crisis, on top of the already destabilizing impact of rapid globalization, is creating more disruptions to the traditional social and geographic boundaries in many countries – and setting the scene for geopolitical rivalries of the type that have led to multiple wars in the past.

Last nights speech from President Obama, despite having been received very favorably by most members of the American public according to reports the morning after, contained elements which will be viewed as fanning the fires of the very geopolitical rivalries I warn about above. If the US denies tax breaks to American companies that outsource work to low-cost destinations they have be prepared to defend against accusations from countries such as India and China that the US is now leading the way in protectionism. Has the US thought through what the possible repercussions will be??

Pakistan frees nuclear terrorist.

You've thrown the worst fear that can ever be hurled, A fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins
Bob Dylan

****************************************

The struggle of the superpowers that dominated the first nuclear age was contained by such hideous concepts as "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). The second nuclear age, however, will not be controlled by such nuclear abstinence, but by the twisted whims of suicidal terrorists and the abhorrent impulses of rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran.

For this reason I was particulary upset to see so many people in Pakistan celebrating the release, after only 5 years of home-detention, of Abdul Qadeer Khan - the father of this second nuclear age.

As the self confessed provider of illicit nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea and other countries, for which he is alleged to have received millions of dollars, Mr. Khan has undoubtedly also ensured the proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorists. He is also a source of extreme national pride throughout Pakistan. Dr Khan welcomed the ruling that set him free and said he was not bothered what the international community thought of his release. Obviously Pakistan also isn't bothered by what the U.S. thinks of his release either; in spite of the enormous U.S. financial assistance provided to the country.

The host of shady deals done by Khan, for the sake of money, involved brokers and networks from Malaysia, Germany, Turkey, United Kingdom, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Japan and the Netherlands. Hardly difficult to believe that somewhere within all these exchanges he managed to advance the plans of terrorist organizations to obtain nuclear weapons. All this at a time when the US has provided approximately $12,000,000,000 in assistance to the Government of Pakistan over the past 7 years. To add insult to injury, Mr. Khan's release comes at a time when U.S. legislators are being asked to consider a bill that would triple the U.S.'s current annual non-military aid to Pakistan.

A CIA spokesman, George Little, has called Mr. Khan "one of the most dangerous proliferators in history". Surely Mr. Khan's hand in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists and rogue states, and the national celebrations that accompanied his release a few days ago must jeopardize Pakistan's status as a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Richard Holbrooke, the new U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan certainly has his work cut out for him.

In the meantime, how much more should U.S. taxpayers be prepared to pay for the obviously shaky commitment to world security offered by Pakistan.

Madoff may as well have pulled the trigger...

A very decent family man and a respected former British military Officer (Major Bill Foxton) took his own life on Tuesday, because he had lost his life savings in the alleged fraud orchestrated by Mr. Berny Madoff. As I watched the report, I couldn't help but ask whether this con-man, in addition to other criminal charges, would also be charged with involuntary manslaughter. This is the second death that I know of, that has been blamed on him and his ponzi scheme. The first being back in December 2008 when investment advisor Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet was found sitting at this desk in New York, with both wrists slashed and a bottle of pills by his side. There may not have been any intention to kill or cause injury by Madoff while Madoff was stealing the life savings of so many people, but his recklessness and criminal negligence certainly has resulted in their death.

In the meantime, Madoff has to endure the hardships of being under hourse arrrest in his multi million dollar home, and now we also hear prosecutors have revealed that his wife, Ruth, managed to sequester more than $15m from their accounts before he was arrested. Where is it, and what is being done to get it back?

How do you feel about this?

Deadly Fires

Messages of condolences are pouring into Australia from around the world. As an Australian living in Washington DC I feel quite helpless while I watch and hear the reports of the fires that have ravaged parts of my country. Almost 200 people dead so far, and my Grandmothers hometown of Healesville in Victoria, which holds so many fond memories for me, looks like it could be in trouble now too.

It tears at my heart to see the devastating effect these fires have had on so many families. It is certainly times like this that will test their strength. I wish them all the best, and send them my sincere condolences. Be strong. I want to express my appreciation for all those who are sacrificing their time and energy to fight these terrible fires as well. For many their work is thankless, but their efforts are not unappreciated. I’ve read horrifying accounts of 911 operators (000 in Australia) who had to listen on the phone while people died in house-fires, helpless to do anything. Its incomprehensible to me.

Spare a thought too for the countless thousands of beautiful australian animals and livestock that will have perished. Little Sam, the beautiful Koala pictured here, is one of the few lucky ones to survive.

Bushfires in Australia are often severe, and frequently kill, but I can’t recall anything to equal this. 2009 will certainly be a year which will live in infamy for many Australians.

The Realpolitik of Foreign Policy

So much hinged on Vice Prez Biden's role at the Munich Security Conference last week - in fact his speech was eagerly anticipated as a catalyst for a new trans-Atlantic partnership and the means to mend the frayed ties between Europe and the USA. So did the Vice Prez's first major international appearance live up to expectations? The jury is clearly out. It certainly wasn't all negative - as evidenced by Europe's shared view that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. However a scan of the German tabloids reveals justifiable disappointment that there were not clearer signals of real change in foreign policies in the wind. In fact most were asking "what has really changed" especially after Biden made it pretty clear that the basic premise of US foreign policy hasn't changed at all.

The Russians were probably the least impressed. Having earlier heard about US interest in "resetting" the US-Russian relationship, it was arguably what they didn't hear that concerned them the most. They didn't hear of any diminished interest in expanding NATO to include Georgia and Uzbekistan (which would essentially surround Russia with NATO troops). They didn't hear of any intent to forego building US missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic (a program less likely to be foregone now that Iran has tested its own "rocket") and therefore, they really didn't hear much at all that distinguished between the policies of Bush and those of Obama.

The same can be said for the major European allies of Germany and France. When Biden called for more NATO troops in Afghanistan, in support US foreign policy initiatives there, Germany used typically evasive and politically vague terminology to essentially say "no way". When Biden called for the expansion of NATO - both Germany and France, kowtowing to Russian interests, shuffled diplomatic phrases about that amounted to the same thing,- a resounding "no way". These responses wouldn't have been difficult for either Germany or France however, as both were used to responding the same way when these same policy proposals were wheeled out by the Bush administration. So what has changed? The answer is "not much".

Realpolitik has shown its true colors at Munich. Obama can be forgiven for not having changed the world in the few weeks since he took office; but substantial change was promised and it has clearly failed to materialize at the first major opportunity to outline the new administration's foreign policy program. This is less a failing of the new administration, or Obama/Biden specifically, than it is recognition that nation states don't alter their strategic interests easily - and that it is going to take a lot more than stump speech rhetoric to improve the trans-Atlantic partnership. There are limits to what even the Big O can achieve in matters of foreign policy - and through the Munich conference, this lesson appears to be driven home sooner rather later.

Help free Harry Nicolaides

Harry Nicolaides is by all accounts a normal, fun loving, respectable individual who has never been in trouble with the law. Late last year however Harry was arrested in Thailand after writing a book, Verisimilitude, in which a few sentences were seen as criticizing the Thai crown prince. The book was a fictional account of life in Thailand that included a reference to the love life of an unnamed prince. For this, Nicolaides was sentenced to 3 years in a Thai prison, where he remains to this day.

Nicolaides’ imprisonment draws attention to Thailand’s chilling lese-majeste law which imposes self –censorship, in matters dealing with the royal family, on anybody in Thailand who wishes to stay out of prison. In fact a December issue of the highly respected Economist magazine was reported to have been voluntarily kept off the shelves in Thailand by the distributors because it reported the Nicolaides’ story and drew attention to the role of the monarchy in Thai politics.

While this law might have a role in Thailand’s history, there are many in Thailand (and around the world) who would argue that history is exactly where this law belongs.

If you are interested in helping to free Harry, check out the following website and sign the petition: http://www.bringharryhome.com/

Read My Lips.....No Lobbyists!!!

So another “lobbyist” creeps into the Obama administration - doesn't anyone recall “No lobbyist will be allowed in my administration.” Is this just another case of "tell the people what they want to hear..." Don't you just love politicians

And it gets worse. This is actually the third lobbyist to be appointed to the Administration, but this one is a little different. Despite an impressive resume, Mr Neal Wolin, who is now the Prez's new top legal-eagle on economic issues has just left his post of President of the Hartford Financial Services Group Inc where he was so successful he has apparently been seeking to secure several billion dollars in bail-out money from the taxpayers of America.

If pulling in a failed financier to be the top advisor on economic issues doesn't tarnish the O-shine among the Hopier-and-Changier crowd, I think it should.

Would you like chocolate sprinkles with that abortion??...

Krispy Kreme doughnuts are being taken on by the feminist catholic pro-life, anti-abortion, American Life League for having offered doughnut consumers a "freedom of choice". These idiots at American Life League have claimed ownership of the word "choice" and insist that it is synonymous with abortion access and therefore anything or anyone that supports 'freedom of choice' is a tacitly endorsing abortion rights on demand.

You tell me what comes to mind when you read the following statement...chocolate sprinkles or aborted fetus'?????.....

"Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20".

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Its a ridiculous state of affairs, but at the same time so tragic because it is true. Where will it end?.....

Why 56th Inauguration

To us non-Americans, a reasonable question to ask is "why is this the 56th U.S. Presidential inauguration. While Barack Obama will be the 44th president, his inauguration will in fact be the 56th such event. Presidents who are re-elected are inaugurated for a second time (although Franklin D. Roosevelt was actually inaugurated four times). The number 56 does not include those vice-presidents who suddenly succeeded a president who died or resigned - and there are nine such instances in United States history, although several of those nine went on to be elected to their own terms, and, therefore, have their own inauguration. Never let it be said this blog site wasn't educational :)

An Aussie's Tribute to the Character of America

What an amazing time to be in Washington DC. As I write this, down at the National Mall and the Lincoln Memorial in the nation’s capital, just 3 blocks from where I work, on Sunday 18th January 2009, a most amazing spectacle is unfolding – the celebration of the inauguration of President-elect Barak Obama featuring some of the world’s most famous artists. Over the past two weeks I have walked down to the Lincoln Memorial almost every day to watch it grow from simple impressive monument, to the extraordinary stage that is today the venue for an incredible concert for the entire world to see.

I would defy anybody who watches this magnificent ceremony, whether live as I am (abeit on television), or at some later time, not to be overwhelmed with the extraordinary sense of “nation” present in this great country at the moment. I actually found myself cheering and applauding at times during the concert – simply absorbed by the ceremony and the weight of the occasion – I have always said that Americans "do patriotism” bigger and better than most – and this is Americans, and America, at its very best.

But let no cynic condemn this spectacle to mere politics. This is truly a historic day. It is a day of common hope and it is a day that truly reflects the ideals of the American character. May it win through - and long may it prevail…across these United States…across the world.

The National Mall and the Lincoln Memorial will forever mean something just a little more to me now - no longer just a simple impressive monument.

Free Enterprise vs Socialism?? Give Me a Break....

Its somewhat of a local US issue I know - albeit with the potential to impact the global economy, but if you have been following the discussions surrounding the release of the next $350 billion dollars of financial rescue funds to the banks, you may (or may not) be amazed to know that nobody in Congress yet has any idea what the banks did with the first $350 billion. In fact all the evidence appears to support accusations that that banks are just hoarding the funds rather than using them for the purpose the taxpayers intended, that is lending to businesses and consumers.

Perhaps more amazing is that some financial analysts (yes, no prizes for guessing what sector these guys come from) actually argue that demanding to know what happened to the first $350 billion represents "micromanagement" by Government - and must be avoided. Dick Morris, from Realclearpolitics.com argues that Congress needs to quickly approve the remaindr of the bail out funds but limit its "muscle-flexing" in terms of oversight. In fact he implies that such muscle flexing would represent a move towards socialism and away from the free enterprise system. Excuse me???? If the free enterprise system were allowed to run its course, there wouldn't be any any bail out on offer....give me a break!!

Take time to smell the roses....

This story was passed on to me by my good friend Charlie Cole. Its called "A Violinist in the Metro" (Metro is what they call a train station in Washington DC). You will get the point.....

A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousand of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule. A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk. A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked a t his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars. Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.

This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context? One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

See video at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html