Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The BBC opines: "In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements. After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award. ... The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.' This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image." The Washington Post collects more reactions from around the world.
It seems a bit premature. but hey, whatever they want to do.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.
I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it. Now it seems you get it for not being like the guy before you.
I think he may possibly deserver the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.
Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
The Nobel *Peace* Prize was always a joke.
the moon? How is that peaceful? The Raelians are going to be pissed!
Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.
Best Slashdot Co
That is one hell of a first 11 days.
(Or one hell of a consolation prize for not scoring the Olympics.)
(Or an ironic thing to give a man who declared war on the moon.)
(Or one hell of a band-aid for being satirized on SNL)
What exactly has he done to deserve the prize? Would it not have been better to wait until he got done with his presidency first?
As someone said on TPM, this sounds more like a 'Congratulations for not picking McCain' award.
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
For all his talk his biggest accomplishment so far is bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars - if anything that would be economic. I'm no W supporter, but what possible cause is there for this other than anti-W sentiment?
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
One week after Obama was elected, the possibility to nominate someone for the nobel prize was closed.
So he basically got nominated for a week's work.
But looking at it, this is not the worst selection by the committee. If they can give it to Arafat, why not Obama? Until now he hasn't started any war. He is only continuing the war that was started by his predecessor.
"This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," -Danny Danon, Israeli politician.
This is, I think, a general reaction from a lot of people, but it doesn't really line up with the history of the prize. In 1987, for example the prize was awarded to Óscar Arias, a Costa Rican president, for making some strong gestures that he would stop the Nicaraguan war that had been raging for a decade, fueled by the United States. This raised Arias' profile, and gave him the political capital to broker a peace deal in 1988.
In a lot of ways, I think that this is a better use of the prize; not to recognize achievements after the fact, but to encourage and foster new achievements that might not have happened without the award. Whether this will affect Obama's actions, who can say, but he'll certainly feel a little awkward now if he doesn't get anything done soon.
So do you think he looks so good just because he came after GW? Since when do we give out Nobel prizes for intentions?
How can they give someone the Nobel Peace Prize for something he has not done yet? The US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are no closer to pulling out than we were 8 months ago. From Wikipedia: "According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'" What has Barak Obama done (not talked about doing) in the last 8 months that makes him worthy of the prize this year?
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
does this graph
http://app.sgizmo.com/chart/189342-LC02FT150W995AC4HSAOQWU8WZACL1&crt=4&rspid=46741811
seem just a little odd? its from the washington post poll about Obama deserving the nobel prize.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
However, I would love if President Obama showed the world how good he is by refusing to accept it stating he has so much more work he still needs to do. However isn't Will Smith giving out the award? I don't think I could refuse an award by Will Smith so I can't blame President Obama if he reluctantly accepts. For what it's worth I still think he is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, even this soon in as long as he can deliver on the good strong start he has made.
cannot be taken lightly, but I think his best strategy yet might be to decline the Nobel.
body massage!
I'm relatively neutral towards the guy but really I don't think he's done enough to deserve this.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi. What a joke.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
... criticisms of KDawson for posting this article start in 3...2...1...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
I don't see how he could even be a consideration. I think Obama has peace intentions (although an ongoing war doesn't lend itself to that) but in no way has it impacted the world enough. The only way this could be a worse choice is if they gave one to Al Gore. (Fuck!)
I used to have an enormous respect and admiration for the Nobel Foundation, but like anything with good intentions in this world, it has fallen to disgusting political prostitution.
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.
Striving for peace (and the public good) is a wonderful thing, as is good diplomacy. However, these are things that we should expect of national leaders, not rare things to be celebrated.
While I'm far to the left of Barack Obama, I have a certain respect for him. Nontheless, I don't think he merits the prize - he has not done anything amazing towards it, and a prize that's made of combined forward-looking and acknowledgement of someone doing their diplomatic job properly isn't much of a prize. We may be less of a diplomatically wayward nation now, but each president we've ever had (and probably ever will have) reinvents our foreign policy - BushSr and Clinton, despite both of then being very well-informed and capable in foreign policy, still reinvented it during their office.
I don't think the prize means as much when it's used this way.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking at this and wondering what the hell your country is thinking.
I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade. Some of his speeches in the middle east reflect a balanced and measured approach without historical alliances clouding the issues.
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
.
This is not news for nerds. It's news for CNN, Fox, etc. Please stop trying to turn this site into Digg.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is Slashdot. Obama is supposed to be exactly the same as Bush. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss, and all that.
Don't get me wrong, i like the dude, and i probably would have voted for him if i lived in the States. But to award him a Nobel is a monumental joke -- he's accomplished absolutely NOTHING to this day.
Wow, so in your world affordable health care is "insane" but blowing billions of dollars on a war is business as usual? Where do you people come from?
His name is spelled Gandhi NOT Ghandi So you know
Wait, isn't the Secretary of State responsible for US foreign policy?
Hillary Clinton screwed again!
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.
You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.
Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.
Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.
Well, I am never ashamed to be an American, even if I find the behavior of some of us to be an embarrassment, and I think it is too early to call Obama the worst President Mi>ever, but I do agree awarding him the Peace prize is bullshit.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
I for one consider the Nobel shark, jumped.
So that he'll feel obligated to actually do stuff.
Bla, bla, bla... Obama is the outbreak of common sence and has done stuff that should have happened all the time. Of course he can't get everything done and needs to make comprimises but he is the best thing since Kenedy. Period.
I don't know what your failing perception of an ideal world is, but it can't be good. Let me guess... You get your information from Fox News?
Yes, pun intended. Flamebait? No.
Here be signatures
He is going to send more troops in Afghanistan where nearly every week unarmed civilians are killed by "friendly" fire and they give him the Nobel Peace Prize? WTF?!?
Obama will surely be better, much better, than the criminal George Bush, but until the day he orders the troops to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan, then cease all operations abroad related to that lie called "war on terrorism", he will just be a better US president from the US side and just another bad one from the rest of the worlds' point of view.
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism - in fact if was brought there after the US invasion - and it's pretty clear now that war in Afghanistan is dragged in order to last as long as possible to justify the foreign force presence. If he doesn't bring all troops home he's not much different from GWB. Now someone explain to me how could this guy get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Unfortunately Obama, like every other US president, is a puppet controlled by the Congress. This means he will never ever bring all troops home.
After 8 years of pure hell, Obama should thank Bush for making him look so good.
I mostly LIKE barack but I seriously had to sit here for about 10 seconds and try to come to grips with fact that I just lost almost 6 months of my life and that today was April 1st. Honestly - wtf were they thinking. If this is some kind of political maneuvering Obamas part then it's deserves to backfire on him. I wonder if he could refuse to accept the aware. Of course that too would have it's on political consequences
Study your history and think deeply about what happened the last time a bunch of mostly southern hot-heads decided to secede. Then, as now, there is no way in hell the conservatives would ever win anything, and the only thing that would happen is another bloody struggle that leaves the rebellious states/people as decades behind the winners. If you think you're oppressed now, wait until you start and lose a civil war. Idiot.
France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets and hordes of atheists burning churches.
Thankfully the insurance industry is ready to pay billions to upstanding Congressmen and selfless community organizers so they can spread the truth.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.
Obama's sticking point throughout the health care debates and in regards to tax reform is that nobody making less than $250k per year will be worse off than before. With health care, he's published research showing that only 5% of the population would find any "public" care option to be relatively worthwhile. For the rest of the population, it'll be business as usual.
Presuming your opposition to reform is because you're in the magical "makes more than $250k per year" group.... FUCK YOU FOR YOUR COMPLAINING RICHNESS.
I wish the world was a better place.
I wish people would get along.
I wish people would help each other when needed.
I wish people would let others live their own lives.
I wish people wouldn't force their beliefs on others.
Ok, where is my Nobel?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WHAT the fuck? If they're giving out prizes for not being George Bush, then I want one too.
Obama hasn't had time to wipe his ass yet, let alone deserve a Nobel Prize. That bar is awfully high, or at least it should be. WTF.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
This was simply compare and contrast. After Bush's supreme idiocy, Obama coming out and endorsing intelligence, diplomacy, and common sense looked genius.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
War on drugs and all that. We were eradicating the Mooninite's Moonajuana crop.
Of course he can't get everything done and needs to make comprimises but he is the best thing since Kenedy. Period.
Let me guess... You get your information from Fox News?
Your spelling and Kennedy worship suggests to me that you get your information from MSNBC. See how easy it is to dismiss someone when you can just stereotype them rather then engage in an actual dialog with them?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wait, is it April Fool's/Fools' Day already? I thought it was in October...
"Obviously, you need to be an Einstein to navigate the Austrian Patent Office website." - platinumrat
This win was to show that trolls come from Sweden.
biggest joke I have ever seen. He is doing the exact same thing Bush did with the war efforts. Apparently, you can win the Nobel prize through words, not actions. The Nobel peace prize has forever lost any meaning to me, it is another liberal pedestal.
Please don't procreate.
Jimmy Carter has won one too and he's the worse US President there has just about ever been.
nobel prize lost all credibility when algore was given the peace prize. this is laughably fun, sick, and stupid.
Wow, so in your world affordable health care is "insane" but blowing billions of dollars on a war is business as usual? Where do you people come from?
Who says anything about it being affordable?
So far, from the bills being proposed, the money will come out of Medicare (the old people are pretty steamed about that! And THEY vote!) and other fancy Washington accounting gimmicks. Their numbers don't work. In other words, it won't be affordable. The money will taken from somewhere else and there will be more national debt - China can only bail us out so many times.
Why can't they expand Medicaid and Medicare? Nope, gotta create a whole new bureaucratic entity and all it's overhead for that!
Yes, something got to be done about health care, but the Government is going to do what it does best: fuck everything up more.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
They have orbited a big old satellite of fail over the shark tank.
You should be a tad more disgusted that the glorified wasting of money to kill people across the world is considered "less annoying" than having the possibility of a slightly higher bill, or slightly higher taxes, or maybe, just maybe, it being a better choice.
Just remember, you said it. You prefer throwing billions at killing people than throwing billions at giving everyone health care.
Sure, but would your post get +1 or -1 Ironic?
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
He's american. After 4 years of G.W. Bush they elected him *again*. Yeah, in my world view, and judging from your post yours as well, a significant portion of the US electorate is in fact totally batshit, "omg the commies are coming" insane.
The funny thing is that they feel the same way about us.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
It is really shame that they forgot something like this :(
No, where do YOU come from?
I like Obama. I like much, not all, of what he's doing. But come on!
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Too bad there is Nobel Prize for PR Speeches.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
This really just happened.
As I read this thread, I said "Obama won the Noble Peace Prize" and he immediately shot back, "Why? He hasn't stopped the war or anything."
I am not taking about an indoctrinated child poised to defend (or attack) certain ideologies. Hell, I don't even think he knows what the Nobel is...but he sure can figure out that Peace Prize and "ongoing war" should not go together. Pretty perceptive.
B.O. winning the nobel prize is like me winning the lottery, I'll keep playing and eventually I'll pick a winner, go ahead and pay my 130 million now.... It should be based on accomplishments. How many first round draft picks, children of successful people, and joe blow end up with nothing from something.
They take every chance they get to get foreign A-list celebrities to come to Norway.
1) They can get top notch music artists to perform for free at the ceremony.
2) They get Hollywood superstars (e.g. Scarlet Johansson) to host the event.
3) Third and final sell-out is giving the price to someone famous.
This kind of takes some of the prestige away from the proper scientific Nobel prizes.
- El riesgo siempre vive - Private J. Vasquez
" the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements" Like the saying goes "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Get ready it's going to get hotter...no wait that's just Global Warming!
Kansas
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Affordable health care is not insane.
It's just that insane health care "reform" is... insane.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Highly biased decision! What he has done to this world on peace? He has not even completed any remarkable task in his own country...Best joke of the year!
bits and bytes of life should serve the needy - My bits and bytes
Wow, so in your world affordable health care is "insane"
What makes you think that any of the bills currenting pending before Congress are going to make health care affordable? All they are going to accomplish is to transfer the burden of paying for overpriced health care to the Government. The reason that health care is so expensive is because large bureaucracies (public and private) separate the consumer from the cost of the product.
Take a look at health care procedures that aren't covered by Uncle Sam and/or private insurance. LASIK surgery, cosmetic surgery, etc all exist in a competitive marketplace and have all come down in price since being introduced. Why is it that I can now have someone operate on my eyes for less cost than my last round of blood work?
Health care "reform" that doesn't address health care inflation is no reform at all. It's just going to socialize the problem, which will in the long term lead to either rationing or bankruptcy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Every time I hear those words I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRUsdQ-rNVk
I suspect the reasoning behind this prize has much more to do with influencing his future actions.
To a great degree, he's limited by the opinion of the general population, as well as Congressional and media attitudes. And, some of his "peace"-oriented moves may be the result of hardball geopolitics; the rollback of missile defense in Europe probably had more to do with a backroom exchange of favors with Russia (I hope we got a good trade out of it).
However, remember when he pondered reaching out to the more moderate (moderate being an extremely relative word, in this case) factions of the Taliban for negotiation? The backlash made him reverse quite quickly, but I doubt few politicians in the US would have been willing to voice the possibility of less-shooty-more-talky in this case.
Now, the peace prize is a little different (okay, a lot different) from the scientific prizes, but it still carries a lot of heft. Not only does it possibly open up some possibilities, it may also close of other avenues of action, as he may now feel he has to live up to the reputation of a Nobel winner. Even if he doesn't allow himself to feel that pressure, from the public's perspective, it now makes it more ridiculous, for a "Peace Prize winner" to be seen talking in the cowboy-tough manner that U.S. presidents seem to resort to whenever they need to ward off accusations of being soft.
Well, he has continued action in two wars, while --- not... starting a new one yet?
That and declared that he wants Gitmo closed, you know, when they get around to it.
The award was given by an international committee, not Faux News. When you consider how the international community views the U.S. as compared to the previous administration, Obama has made tremendous strides. Whether this award is due to actual actions by Obama, or due to the message he sends is immaterial. The fact is the world views the U.S. in a much more positive light and is much less inclined to view it as the enemy, thereby promoting the prospects of greater peace throughout the world. In addition, the prestige of this award (at least to non-US conservatives) will empower Obama even more, as he will have additional clout when working with his adversaries because he will come into the negotiations as a man of peace rather than a man of war. While he is still having to grapple with the remnants of the Bush administration debacle in a responsible way (and not getting any help from the right), it does not diminish his overall message of peace and cooperation with other nations throughout the globe.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... they should have waited the end of his presidency, some more years to assess the results of his actions and then decide what to do. What they did is detrimental to the authoritativeness of the Nobel Peace itself.
Cool they have paticipation peace prizes now. I wonder when the "all i got was this peace prize" tshirts start showing up
Barack Hussein Obama!
"You love me, you really love me"
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I think this is a racist move by the Nobel people.
It seems everyone realized at once.
Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.
Well, he was one of the very few in Congress that spoke out against invading Iraq.
Free Martian Whores!
You really should visit the countries where is the social healtcare what Obama tries to bring to US too. There is not anykind death committees or people dying because they do not get treatment. Actually just wise versa. People lives longer and healthier life than US richer people.
It is just sad the politics and money makers lies to US citizens so they think something what really is not true.
I'll have to start a blog outlining all the things I want to do, like solving hunger, cleaning up all the pollution from the ocean, and bringing peace and love to all mankind.
If I get enough subscribers that I become famous, I can get the Nobel Peace Prize too! And I don't even have to leave my desk.
In chemistry for their work with Mentos & Cola. Also: Michael Moore - Literature Nancy Pelosi - medicine Osama Bin Laden - Peace Bill Nye - physics
Last time I checked the Constitution gave the Federal government the authority to blow billions of dollars on war and no authority to spend one red cent on health care (And yes I believe Medicare is unconstitutional too). The quantity of resources spent is an irrelevant metric to determine weather the Constitution permits something.
OMG! The day has come...
The Nobel Prize has become a pawn of the economical political system we live in. So, now it's only a farce for the weak minded masses. You know, the same people who think that being in "Who's Who" is an honor and not a money making scam to sell you a false sense of recognition.. right?
To me, they have given him this for not being George W. Bush. Hey, I'll take one.. I'm not him either! I can prove it, I have a backbone! *chuckle*
So, when I invent a energy / mater sequencing device (a replicator) I'll just have to be happy with the knowledge that I ended world hunger and poverty because I'll just get another Nobel to add to my paperweight collection then? (LOL)
Strange days!
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
This is part of a huge conspiracy to re-enact The West Wing in real life.
The Nobel Prize committee is just following The West Wing script, where the ideal president has a Nobel Prize (fictional President Bartlet received a Nobel Prize in economics).
First Paul Krugman, now this. How irrelevant is the Nobel Prize these days?
Just a bunch of elitists scratching their own backs.
The bar has been lowered. You can now win the prize by moving troops out of one destroyed country, and into two others - pending destruction.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:
Note the past tense.
President Obama has done nothing at all to reduce standing armies, and his work towards a fraternity between nations is in its infancy.
I have every intention of ending world hunger. Do I get a prize, too?
Are you bloody serious?!!!!!! The current health care system is a vampire on the American economy. We pay more and get less health care than EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. The overblown rhetoric surrounding this issue is the true symptom of insanity.
Please, someone...MOD PARENT DOWN.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The Committee has gone from being a joke (Al Gore) to a... huh -- where do you go from joke?
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
Obama wins the office after accomplishing nothing in the Illinois senate (yes I live in Illinois) and accomplishing nothing in the US Senate.
Now a nobel peace prize? Might as well give him a Super Bowl ring too.
This is essentially a big F YOU from the world to the Republican party. Love it.
No you don't.
you didn't CARE who got it. You barely knew what it was about even.
The only lowering of the Nobel prize is one you are doing by making such a big thing about this.
Have you actually looked at the Health Care Reforms that have been proposed in Congress? They're not going to make health care more affordable, they're not going to provide universal coverage. If they pass as written, the main thing they're going to do is increase the revenues of the current Health Insurance companies by about 10%.
Surely you remember those current Health Insurance companies? The ones largely blamed for the problems with American healthcare? Yah, those guys will make more money, the rest of us will spend more money, and Congress will call it good.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Raelians? Forget the Raelians. Gidney and Cloyd are coming, and the Earth is gonna get scrootched!
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Obama began working for peace long before inauguration day. He fought to refine the death penalty in Illinois as a state senator to reduce chances of the innocent being put to death, and was largely responsible for brokering the deal that did just that. He worked for nuclear non-proliferation in the US Senate, working with Lugar (R-IN) for funding and policy to destroy assorted weapons. On the campaign trail, his words (yes, words!) spoke of a new American policy, one of peace.
Now, maybe you feel that those deeds are sufficient, maybe you don't. But, to suggest that his body of work under consideration can only begin once he was inaugurated president is sheer folly.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
1. Completely altered and improved the worldview of the US, bringing down a lot of tension that had built up.
2. Reached out to Muslim nations and started a new era of improved relations.
3. Followed through on commitments to pull back from Iraq. He didn't start this policy, I know that, but he has stuck to it and the nation is far more autonomous now then when he took office.
4. Relieved tensions with Russia by taking back a completely silly missile defense site in Poland.
5. Completely changed the US policy on climate change and is working to try and make us actually do better. Which makes every other nation happy.
6. Actually brought Iran to the table and has them acting less crazy and agreeing to ship out portions or their uranium. Sure its not perfect, but it's not a bad start either.
I'm sure there is more, but I'm just saying that there are some achievements of note even at this point in his presidency.
If nothing else, it will be super fun to watch right wingers lose their minds over this. I would even consider watching Glenn Beck tonight, just for the entertainment value.
I'm trying to figure out what he did? Does spending trillions count?
"he is presenting a far better image" ... because image is everything.
Bill Gates through his foundation has done more for world peace. Please remember the nominations closed TEN days after Obama took office. I guess that giving billions of your own money to help the poor and establish peace does not count with the Nobel Committee.
There's a fella jumped in to help a child out of a river that had burst its banks.
But he received nothing for it.
Another bloke started a war because someone dissed his daddy.
He received nothing for it either.
THEY are jokes.
PS tell me the last time Gandhi proposed the removal of 1000 nuclear warheads and also had the power to see it done?
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize!!
Cheap Jordan Shoes Free Shipping
Yo Obama, I'm really happy for you & I'm gonna let you finish, but Mahatma Gandhi had one of the best Nobel Prize candidacies of all time!
... because I "intend" to bring about world peace. "How?" you ask. Doesn't really matter since it is my intention, but here's my plan... I'll just go around giving lots of speeches until everyone is so tired of my speeches that they will promise to be good just to get me to stop giving speeches. Peace achieved.
do you think most of america has any idea what is happening around the arabian peninsula?
more to the point: do you think the administration actually cares what the people want? everyone that i know, regardless of their religious or political views, says that the war in iraq was/is a waste; it's little bush trying to be like big bush.
It was a screwup done in the 1940s, or even earlier. Not awarding a price the year he died is as close as they can ever come after Nobel's instructions. So it happened and they'll probably still talk about it in another 100 years but the past can not be changed. It's not Obama vs Gandhi, it's Obama vs other candidates of 2009 vs not awarding one at all. There's a lot of lesser candidates that have gotten price because there wasn't any better, perhaps that is the problem?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
he isn't trying to make health care more affordable. None of them are. They are about consolidating the power of the Federal Government.
If they were trying to make health care more affordable they would have first...
1. Removed the blocks put in place so you cannot buy or take your private health insurance across state lines.
2. Medical malpractice and tort reform, because the amount of insurance needed to practice some medicines is beyond reasonable
3. Clean up the fraud in Medicare so more of the money is actually available for treatment
4. Expanded HSA so individuals can make their own health care decisions.
The real fault of the US's current health care is that severe medical hardships can strip a family of all their property - something that state medical systems already do (at least you can go bankrupt fighting a private insurer but states still take property)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Damn, WTF is with the left wing shitwit bury brigade today? Obama gets mentioned in the title and they're guarding like hawks to push their agenda.
Slashdot's mod system is fucking broken when insightful posts get bury-brigaded like this.
... has such enormous praise been foisted on someone that has done so little.
If Obama has any integrity, even a shred of it, he would refuse to accept the prize.
I kept expecting the guy during the announcement to say, "Bababooey!!"
Why is everyone making such a big fuss about this? I mean, come on, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago for making a video about climate change. That doesn't even have anything to do with peace. Giving Obama the Peace Prize doesn't seem so bad in comparison.
Henry Kissinger also won one and he's the jackass who said we need to make more nuclear missiles to get rid of missiles.
Can I get a Nobel Physics prize because I fully intend to create a unifying theory to explain all four of the fundamental forces?
The Nobel Peace prize means nothing now.
Your spelling suggests to me that you don't know how to spell "than" correctly. Why do you blame someone for getting their information from MSNBC if you, according to your own logic, do the same?
It's not about what he has done it's about what he's trying to do (most recent the neclear disarmament talks at UN)
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said.
Besides, this isn't american idol or BCS or even Oscars. There are no mathematical formula for giving nobel prize!
The best part isn't that Obama won the prize 8 months into his presidency but rather that he was nominated 2 weeks after getting into office. So this crap that he's working towards peace was merely tacked on in an attempt to justify the award.
It's interesting that this reflects, quite nicely, the problems with America's youth today. Kids have been overly coddled by their parents, children win awards for merely participating so that no one feels left out, garbage like that. So we're stuck with these millennials who can't deal with the challenges of life and expect the government to shield them from everything. So Obama winning this award for "intentions" is quite fitting.
I see everyone on here critizing the nobel comittee for selecting Obama. Maybe that was just there best choice right now. This isn't the time of Ghandi. People are just now realizing our world is going to shit faster than we expected and they're trying to grab on to anything they can to slow the process. Instead of just looking at the problems of the present, peopele are starting to look at the big picture to help steer us to a not-so-shitty future.
Everything has bias. Stop even attempting to claim that anything is objective. People use bias as a way to attack the value of what is being said. The truth is that everything said or written carries a spin intended by the original author. Whether this affects the veracity of what is said is an entirely separate matter.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The "peace" prize jumped the shark a long time ago. Wilson, Roosevelt, Kissinger, Arafat? Obama should decline the prize as an insult.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I have every intention to cure cancer sometime before 2050, Where is My Nobel for Medicine?
He's obviously a Republican.
Spending your money to help people is socialism, giving your money to people who worked for it is good. Even if all they did was build stuff to kill people with, even if its our own people. Military suppliers are honest businessmen pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, while single mothers and people whose parents didn't insist on them getting a good education should be punished for their poor decision making. Having children outside of wedlock can be avoided by keeping your legs together you dirty hooker, everyone knows birth control isn't 100% effective. After all, if we help one out we have to help them all, and that's when government increases and taxes go up.
I'm pretty sure that's correct, I've watched Fox News before.
for losing the Chicago 2016 olympics?
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi.
Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. So I don't think Gandhi should be expecting a call from Stockholm anytime soon...
Actually looking at your definition, I feel even more strongly about post I made above. I will repost it for you...
When I heard this I thought it was a little premature too. But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics. When Bush was in office, the US was pretty much reviled throughout the world. Well, maybe not reviled, but definitely not trusted or liked. Whenever the US tried to do something internationally, everyone's first thought was always "What is their real purpose", because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow. But, Obama somehow changed that. The US is regaining trust and respect in the world at a rate that I would not have thought possible. A lot of people in countries other than the US "support" Obama. How many "heads-of-state" do you "support" that aren't in your own country? How many can you even name off the top of your head? He has brought the US back into a prominent position in the international community which allows it to be a mediating influence in world relations rather than a destabilizing one (Bush was usually ranked at the top of the list of destabilizing influences, even above North Korea or Iran, in international polls while he was president). I am still not sure that I think Obama deserved the prize, but I can see why he might have gotten it. I think it might have helped his case to follow such a bad example of what the President of the US can be.
He may not have the bullet points, but I think he has achieved a lot towards those goals in the short time he has been in office
I'm not sure I understand quite what you're saying. Are you claiming that in your Republican worldview there is some sort of conflict between what you term "working man" and some other groups which you presumably consider "nonworking?"
Please expound at great length, just so we're all clear on the exact character of your Republican ideas.
Go on.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I'm both a Democrat and an Obama supporter (Feel free to read my comment history if you think I'm bullshiting to make myself sound more sympathetic, it goes back years and is pretty firmly liberal throughout), and I agree. If it was 7 or 8 years from now and Obama was coming out of office having accomplished some of the many things he has promised to do, I would be behind this 100%, as it is I was fairly shocked. As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself were shocked. I mean this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented. Give him a chance to get the results, then give him an award.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
who nominated him in the first place ?
I would mod you up if I could. There are simple things the government could do to significant reduce the cost of health care in the US, including prescription drug patent reform, malpractice tort reform, and forbidding doctors from being compensated on a per-procedure or per-patient basis, which is a clear conflict of interest. Those factors alone account for half of the cost difference between US health care and other comparable countries, and fixing them wouldn't cost the taxpayer one dime.
But of course, nobody's talking about that, because our representatives aren't actually interested in fixing problems. That's why I'm running.
Former US House candidate, TN-5
Man, they should see the work I'm going to one day do in a yet to be determined field!
I think that this administration gives most of us more hope for good things here at home in America and abroad than we ever could have gotten from the last administration. I think that few would argue against Obama being more intelligent than Bush and maybe more morally sound than he or Clinton. That said, this award is given very prematurely and with little merit in my opinion. I too question not only its validity but the possible motives by behind it. Even if Obama had brought about world peace and puppies and rainbows for everyone in his first 8 months the nomination coming only a short time into his presidency smacks of popularity. If he had received this in 2010, even without doing much more than offering up more promises and rhetoric, I think that the Nobel committee would have a better shot at making this award carry some weight. As it stands, either Obama will push forward with more peace initiatives (either on his own or due to the pressures of the award) or the Nobel will be tarnished. I think we'll land somewhere in between. Either way this will be a lightning rod for controversy for years to come.
A lot premature. Barack has accomplished very little in terms of peace. They could have just waited 10 years and then give him a prize if he really did anything good. They've been giving many of these prizes years after the actual achievements, so what's the rush?
After all, the USA could still start a war with Iran, and so much for world peace then. You can say they are making nukes for all they want, but there's no real evidence yet[1].
[1] http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html
Take a look at health care procedures that aren't covered by Uncle Sam and/or private insurance. LASIK surgery, cosmetic surgery, etc all exist in a competitive marketplace and have all come down in price since being introduced. Why is it that I can now have someone operate on my eyes for less cost than my last round of blood work?
Because demand for vital services like blood work is inelastic. You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like. And they do. Whereas demand for cosmetic surgery and LASIC is much more elastic. You don't need them to live, therefore providers must price them attractively to attract customers. And they do.
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
officially a participation ribbon.
:wq
As long as they're rewarding potential and intent - why not give a physics nobel for my kid? He is very smart for his age and all his teachers say "the kid has a lot of potential". Oh yeah, it will motivate him too.
Seriously, I used to be pissed that Mahatma Gandhi was never given a Nobel, but looking at a lof of winners after him (Arafat, Kissinger, and now Obama to name a few), it's probably an insult to Gandhi to be grouped with this bunch.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-s3XnE9TmA&feature=channel
May be part of the reason. I know this does not constitute the only reason for getting the prize, but i'd say it's a contributing factor. He's trying to mend the strained relations between the US and Middle East (Read: Iran) created by the last administration to stop things like war from happening.
Which party is telling us what we can and cannot think? Which party is telling us what we can say and listen to?. Which party, rather than actually doing something to actuallly help people out of poverty is instead keeping them from that end state?
You misunderstand the notion of Republicanism in its purest sense (i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party, not RINO's who's only goal is to grow government slighly more slowly than the other guys). It is intended to create an environment where equal opportunity exists for all; it does not guarantee equal outcomes for all, nor should it. That's been tried, and it has failed dismally where ever it's been tried.
"Hire Nobel, get Nobel."
(Should I patent that?)
France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets...
Zombies are a very real danger of socialized medicine. You can't swing a chainsaw or shotgun in Paris without hitting the undead.
If you think Ghandi deserves a peace prize, you probably need to read up a bit more on Ghandi. He's not the selfless saint that society has conditioned itself to portray him as, much in the same way they've misrepresented Mother Theresa (who we've been groomed since birth to regard as the ultimate in selflessness and altruism, without any real cause).
This is probably redundant but it seems odd to me to award someone a prize for hoping that they are going to do something great. I mean, sure, Obama has definitely shown us that there are Americans with good smiles and good acting capabilities...but if that's what he is being awarded for why hasn't Brad Pitt landed one of these babies?
I suppose that the committee has the right to give the prize out to whoever they want for whatever they want but giving it to someone for their efforts and implying that, hopefully, those efforts will pay off one day just seems like an absurd case of futurism: "We predict that amazing things will come from this man, so we are going to award him for those things now." What if he gets shot? What if zombies attack before any of his work can pay off? What if our recent bombing of the moon (teehee) backfires and the intergalactic police invade our planet for vandalism? I know these are absurd examples but the point is that tomorrow is never promised (hell I'm not convinced it even exists in anything but our imaginations), and that even holds true for the invincible Barack Obama.
I guess giving it to him for his efforts is decent enough to offset this, but hell, I think a lot of people have been putting effort into making the world a better place, whether it be through blogging or grassroots activism or science experiments or white-hat hacking. Why don't they get prizes too? They are putting in major efforts as well right?
Odd...
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Give the peace price early in order to make it more difficult, politicaly, to bomb later.
Which pretty much permanently canceled whatever prestige or symbolic value the prize might have had.
you had me at #!
I'm curious who the other nominees were that lost out to this bizarre result.. were they so unworthy?
Some would say the prize is premature, but this prize isn't about accomplishments. It's about one of the top leaders of the world, coming into office, and immediately doing everything in his power to apologize to the world for our arrogance, remind us and others that the US is one among many nations, reaching out to all other nations, friends and enemies, and making efforts to reduce nuclear arms around the world. Has he succeeded in all these things? Some. Will he succeed in more? Well that's the point of the award.
The award serves two purposes. One, he is rewarded for his intentions. It lets Obama know that the rest of the world perceives his intentions and actions favorably, and that he should continue in this way if he truly seeks peace and harmony among nations. Second, it gives him a slight boost in authority. He is now widely recognized for his intentions, and his desire to bring peace to the world, and that should help him (albeit, only slightly) when negotiating with others. It gives him credibility, and leaves less room for others to doubt his motivations. It encourages others to support his efforts if they also seek peace.
In other words, the award is recognition of his efforts so far, and will act as a tool to help him proceed with his peaceful goals in the future.
> He's obviously a Republican. Or someone who's actually read the constitution.
Affordable? So every young married couple without employer insurance is forced to pay a fine of $2000 per person per year versus $1500 if they were unmarried or versus $0 from the current situation? Remember that "Freedom" is paramount in the American mindset. Why can't I be free to not pay anything when I'm young and starting out? Properly invested, that $4000 a year can grow to pay all of the medical bills a couple will face in old age, and buy a sailing boat.
than throwing trillions at giving everyone health care.
FTFY
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
The NotBush Peace Prize has been awarded to the man who now presides over the largest war machine in history; who has made no cuts to the military budget; who is escalating the war in Afghanistan; who is moving forward with a missile defense system in Europe which will end MAD; but who has stated an intention to end our reliance on nuclear weapons for global (in)security.
Well, the last civil war they had was about "Shall we continue to enslave people or not.", so something as simple to understand to Europeans as a basic practice of living in society that is "You shall not let anyone die just because they are not rich and can't pay for medical treatment." may very well not apply in the USA.
While I'll definitely grant you that the BBC is WAY more unbiased than Any American News Network, I'd hardly call them unbiased. Now if you were to come up with some kind of mutant crossbreed of the BBC and The Register, then you might actaully have an unbiased news source. Or you might just get an eternal dragon eating itself or a Phoenix rising from it's own ashes. Both are more likely than an unbiased news source. It simply doesn't exist. Some are better than others and the only way to get a decent picture is to read from both sides of the argument and try to figure out what the real story is, that lies somewhere between the two news sources. The only way to get at the truth is to read several sources on both sides of the fence. Even then you have a fat chance, because the truth is a closely guarded secret restricted to those who have the power to bend it to their will.
-- But then I may be a pessimist when it comes to human behavior. Or a tinfoil hat wearer, but that doesn't mean THEY aren't out there trying to turn us all into mindless zombies living at Walmart and Eating @ Taco Bell. Personally, I prefer hats made out of Aluminum sheet. It's thicker, sturdier and reflects more radiation. Much better protection.
Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.
Airmax Tn
Nike Air Force One
Airmax Trainers
Air Jordan Fusion 4
Jordan Shoes
Jordan Store
Shoes Store
Nike Shoes Store
Shoes Buying
CHEAP Nike Shoes
CHEAP Air Jordan Shoes
Air Jordans Retro
Cheap Jordan Shoes Free Shipping
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/
see those grumpy old swedes?
they picked the award
not the parent teacher association of peoria illinois
now you can wax and wane philosophical all you want about the decline of a true meritocracy in the usa, that's perfectly valid. and you can register a complaint about the empty vapid faddishness of the wine and cheese set in stockholm, again, totally valid
but confusing the two is just a desperate troll
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is even stranger that awarding the prize to Yasser Arafat!
I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade.
I think the emphasis should not be on 'far' but 'image'.
I don't doubt that things are different in the international arena, but I wonder how much of it is Obama. I wonder if a big part of it is that he is the new guy from the other party. He hasn't been in long enough to genuinely change perception that much. It just seems like the Nobel Prize people are really saying that they really, really, really didn't like Bush.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image.
Hey, that editorial crack is completely unfair.
They were not trying to turn the world into a more back-biting, Machiavellian, toy for manipulation by megacorporation advertising and strong-arm back-door deals.
They were succeeding. "Trying" is for sissies.
Disclaimer: The above is a joke and is not intended to imply that I like the current course significantly better than the old one. New corruption pretends to sweep clean, but it's still corruption, and we still employ Halliburton and Blackwater.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
as an MCSE now...
Coming so shortly after SNL's scathing "Not Done" skit, this has reduced the Nobel Peace Prize to little more than a Valentine's Day card for popular liberals. [i]"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said.[cnn.com][/i] So, in the vacuum of people who have made real strides towards peace in the past year, the committee is going for someone who made the loudest promises. Brilliant.
Best thing since Kennedy? Best thing since the president that got the US into the Vietnam War? Hmm... Well, low standards and all.
> He's not the selfless saint that society has conditioned itself to portray him as
Dude, no one's a *saint*. Even the folk promoted to Catholic sainthood were human beings with all sorts of foibles. But Ghandi deserved this award a lot more than Obama did. A whole lot more.
Go somewhere random
I don't like the idea of a government run health care system sucking away my tax dollars for the benefit of someone else who can't acquire health care through working hard for a company or paying it themselves (mostly because I question any government involvement in anything and I like keeping my own damn money for my own damn self) . . .
. . . HOWEVER . . . Have you seen some of the fucking nutjobs who are absolutely apoplectic over the whole health care thing? They can't string a full sentence together between their dentures or gaping toothless maws and an awful lot of them are armed and misinformed (amazing how the government getting involved in health care is the most abhorrent infringement on civil liberties and our societal foundation EVER, but subsidizing churches through tax-free status and dictating who people can sleep with, what movies and music and books should be censored or banned, etc is just fine, right?).
You have to remember that this is the country where there are always at least a few people who react to things they don't like through violence.
Yeah, I guess I did fuck that up. Mod AC +1 grammar nazi who nonetheless missed the point :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I really dont get it. I'm a progressive independent, and Obama hasnt done a damn thing yet!
As far as I see it, he's as lame as Bush was.
He's failed at Univeral Health care
He's failed at getting out of these stupid wars against boogiemen
He's failed at solving the economic crisis
He's handed over billions of our tax dollars to the wealthy, while mom and pop lose their homes and jobs and receive NOTHING from the government.
He's as fake as the rest of them. They're all corrupt assholes.
Bring on the real Revolution.
matter this much?
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/
can i round up some tipsy old farts at the golf course and announce their vapid opinion on the world media stage too?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Like the United Nations, the Nobel committee is now irrelevant. The only thing Obama has accomplished is to further polarize the people of the United States and grow the government to obscene levels.
I'm waiting patiently for responses that blame Bush and call a me racist.
Where do you people come from?
We come from YOUR country. Everybody here came from somewhere else, and frankly, the reason why we left was often because things were getting seriously messed up back in the Old Country.
We like having the chance to do things differently than you.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Well... I actually think it's a stretch to say "Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize", which implies he actually did something to earn it or had to compete with others to get it.
The committee gave it to him for whatever reason they wanted to. Probably should have been "Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize", which is a more accurate description of what happened.
Next maybe he can toss the football around with Emanuel on the White House lawn, and they can award him the Heisman.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like.
No, providers can charge whatever they'd like because you have no idea what the service actually costs and people have no incentive to argue with them over the price because they aren't paying it to begin with. Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market. Go read this article in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Figures no one will mod you up. It sucks to get hit with facts when discussing politics. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how the democratic platform is even slightly constitutional. But why worry about that when you control the courts? I'm always hit with a cruel sense of irony when I hear the term liberty. I feel as though we have completely given up liberty and forgone a large number of individual, much less state rights granted in the constitution. When I discuss this with anyone who is in favour of restricted property rights or laws that seem obviously in conflict with the bill of rights or a health care plan that takes away individual rights to choose how we live our life I find the basic consensus is the constitution has no value any more. It is very disturbing yet both parties march to this drum too much of the time. I often wonder if anyone anywhere in the US could actually run on a platform of individual liberty and get elected. How sad is it that a basic tenant of the constitution like liberty, an inalienable human right, would not be able to win an election? I'm shocked that the promise of health care reform can only be done by taxing the very system they want to make more affordable. Where is the sense in that? Oh well we will get what we vote for.
I just learned I won the Academy Award for Best Picture because I promised a really good movie in a few years.
This is my signature.
soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin
Any questions?
Name one. I'm serious.
What does government health care have to do with "affordable health care"? How does making the government (that is, me and every other tax payer) foot the bill for an $800 aspirin versus you and your HMO paying $800 for the aspirin change anything? The problem is inherent to the industry itself and the ridiculous costs and exploitations. Having an expensive health care system run by the government (with their sterling reputation for efficiency and organization, of course!) is no better than having an expensive private health care system.
The simpler solution that falls in line with the principals of our nation's constructs is to deal with the nature of the industry to rip people off and deal with the prices. For example, isn't the entire premise of insurance that you use it to pay for unforeseen emergencies that you could not possibly pay for on your own? You pool your money together with the collective on the mathematical probability that far fewer will ever need to reach in than ever put in. When you start using it for every fucking thing -- like checkups, routine visits, prescriptions, births, etc -- it's no longer insuring for/against anything now, is it?
If the costs were dealt with, health *insurance* could properly survive at an affordable rate, because everyone who wants to can contribute into it and they only withdraw for catastrophic emergencies that no individual could shoulder on their own (major surgeries, terminal illness, etc). Everything else? Well, it would optimally be cheap enough that you could afford it out of your own pocket.
You know, kind of how your car insurance covers car accidents but you have to pay for your own gas and your own oil change and tire rotation.
The slight of hand "let's make nationalized health care, instead of dealing with the real problem!" is clearly to push another agenda far beyond and aside from affordability. It's unfortunate all the idiots on all sides are too wrapped up in their narrow world views and foaming at the mouth to bet beyond that and deal with the true underlying issues.
Also, in MY world, I don't want to spend needless billions of dollars helping breeders squirt out children in a hospital **OR** funding a pointless military action. One stupid waste of money does not justify the other.
..except you don't want to.
THAT'S why you won't get the prize.
So many other people have actually accomplished something. I guess you can get a Nobel prize for being black??
BS. According to another source, Nominations for the award closed Feb 1. All he did by then was actually take the oath of office.
This is a political Left wing stunt, right up there with giving the award to Al Gore.
Your reasoning for why he deserves the Peace Prize seems to be, "Because many people in the world like and trust him," right?
Focusing in on the "fraternity between nations" part of the definition? With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Which basically means, any time we have any national leader who is broadly well-liked, we should give him the prize?
I've noticed for the past few years that the Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to definitely be moving in a direction not of honoring people for recognized achievements, but instead using the prize, seemingly, to try to promote an agenda. The parent's point is a good one - Obama hasn't really done that *much* yet, to promote peace - though I'm sure he has nobel, err, noble intentions, the actual results don't seem to be in yet.
Well, if the Constitution proves to be violently outdated in certain aspects it can be changed, right? I don't think the concept of universal health care was very widespread back in 16th century.
Don't be crazy anymore!
I would say that the current POTUS is nominated by *someone every year, as a matter of course.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Judging from the international polling and studies to date, most notably the most recent global Pew poll (more details here), you're completely wrong. Obama has, in fact, genuinely changed the perception of both the United States and our interests. And the Nobel committee unanimously agreed that Obama has exemplified and personified the approach to world matters that the peace prize is meant to award.
E pluribus unum
miss America. for her ambitions for world peace!!!
I feel sad on behalf of the scientists who where awarded the nobel prizes in physics and chemestry. They recieve the award for a lifetime's work, that truely change the world, and they can look over to the guy who recieved it for being a black man sitting in a white house for 11 days.
Wait a minute. Obama, a Nobel laureate, just refused to meet with the The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), another Nobel laureate. Does that mean he will have to give his medal back?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
What's it called, when you are so used to bad TV, that a not quite as bad show will look to you like the best thing ever? Or when so many people tell you that a movie is great, that it can never match your expectations?
In this case, are they really honoring him for not being a obvious visible piece of criminal shit, like that one before? I can only say, what Chris Rock said: "[They] always want some credit for some things they are supposed to do. [...] [Like] 'I take care of my kids'... You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker!". (Obama does not want it, but they give it to him for the same reasons.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/world-reaction-to-a-nobel-surprise/
anyone who came after gw bush in the white house would look deserving of the peace prize in comparison, by simply not being gw bush. that's the sum total of the truth about this prize right there
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course Barrack was awarded the peace prize. This years prize also includes a set of Ginsu steak knives and 10 free car washes.
This is funnier than hell. A "working man" buying into the republican - especially the neoconservative republican - ideology is just as funny as a mixed breed mostly Native American man joining the KKK or the Aryan nation. (Yes, I've seen such foolishness). The conservative party caters to BIG FUCKING BUSINESS. They could care less about the working stiff who earns less than $75,000/year. Maybe you haven't noticed just how many "working men" are out of a job right now? The "official" unemployment rate in America is closing in on 10%. Shadowstats puts that at 21%. I could easily make an argument that the real, unadulterated unemployment rate has reached 30%. It's great to be a politician, so that you can decide which people you're going to count, so that your statistics are palatable to the general public. (For general public, read mindless idiots.)
If you have more than 5 million in the bank, and your income is over 1/4 million, yes, I can see why you would prefer the republicans. But, don't tell me that you're a "working man". That bird don't fly. Graduating from an Ivy League college, just to join the Good Old Boy's club doesn't qualify you as a "working man". Never has, never will.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
don't know about Ghandi, but they at least should have given one to Gandhi.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. Make a speech and some promises.
2. ???
3. Nobel Peace prize!
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
You should look things up before you open your mouth, and remove all doubt of your understanding of the subject.
The first nobel prize was awarded in 1969. Ghandi died in 1948. Obviously you are ignorant to the specifics of the nobel peace prize, that the prerequisites for even being nominated for it contain this;
The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize.
The Nobel Foundation also has explicit rules about giving the award to a person posthumously. Here is the relevant section right out of the Foundations guidlines;
4. Work produced by a person since deceased shall not be considered for an award. If, however, a prizewinner dies before he has received the prize, then the prize may be presented.
Explain to everyone WHY you find it interesting that a man who died 21 years before the prize even existed, hasnt won it.
Don't forget non-working honkies, hillbillies, and rednecks who sit on their asses and post racial slurs on slash dotall day.
is all it is
Obama needs a source of revenue to pay for all of his spending. I view legalization as inevitable. A tax on pot is one of the few things he can do that would not violate his pledge to avoid tax increases for the middle class. California is leading the way because they are DESPERATE to balance the state budget. Either they legalize pot, or they get the mother of all bailouts from the federal government. Obama either plays along with Calif., or stands firm and watches 49 other states do the same thing to balance THEIR budgets.
A tax on something I don't use (that was previously illegal) is one of the few taxes I can support.
Can I have a Nobel Peace Prize?
The current crop of Republicans AND Democrats in office are all self-interested, career politicians with no real interest in doing anything other than keeping themselves in power. There is no real difference in how the country is run under Democrat or Republican rule; neither understand the world of today. The US has not moved forward, economically, since 1970. The only thing the US has done since then is accumulate debt and manipulate accounting rules so that the debt looks like a product export to strengthen our GDP.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
The Democratic platform is constitutionally questionable - correct. But so was the Republican one of the last administration. What sucks in discussing politics is that people still believe there's really a difference between the Republicans and Democrats that are actually in office.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Seems you're trying to be misleading. The link you give isn't about limiting what you can think. (Until mind reading is a scientific reality, that will never be possible.) It's about telling you you can't be violent.
Likewise you misrepresent that. It's not about telling you what you can say. It's about preventing the dishonesty of party political propaganda masquerading as news programmes. Certainly a side effect of that is limiting what you can listen to, if for some reason you prefer being lied to with propaganda rather than having a proper news channel.
Of course given your distortions, it's odds on that you are very fond of the propaganda channel known as Fox News. So one can see that you would indeed be disappointed to see a Fairness Doctrine. But for people who think democracy shouldn't be distorted by blatant deception aimed at the ignorant, it's nothing but a good thing.
The work he has done on nuclear disarmament (largely unreported in the US media) has been simply astounding. FWIW.
Neither party is intending to create equal outcomes for all individuals: the democratic party is content with a meritocracy, as well. Both are dedicated to some version of capitalism with an array of government programs to aid and abet it.
The Republicans are less interested, however, in leveling the playing field. an "environment where equal opportunity exists for all" would mean a lot of social engineering to make sure that all children had the same level of educational opportunities, equivalent health care, safety at home and in public, safe and affordable housing, etc. These all sound like Democratic planks to me (and from the leftward side of the Democratic party, too.) The traditional (or rather, contemporary) version of Republicanism thinks that "equal opportunity" just means that everyone can submit resumes for any job, and little more.
If you look around a little you may notice that Democrat Politicians are all wealthy Ivy League trust fund types. Republicans tend to be self made.
The conservative party caters to BIG FUCKING BUSINESS
Oh really? Let's see... coal mining? Yep, big business. Banks? Big, big fucking business. Media conglomerates? Yep, big business. Movie companies? Hell yeah. Big music labels? Yep.
What do all of those have in common? Oh yeah, they overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democrats...
They could care less about the working stiff who earns less than $75,000/year.
Hm. Every time my taxes go up, it's Democrats doing it. I make less than $50,000/year. They raise my taxes, I have less money to support my family. Yet I "make too much" for most government-given benefits. I don't think the Democrats care about me very much at all...
If you have more than 5 million in the bank, and your income is over 1/4 million, yes, I can see why you would prefer the republicans. But, don't tell me that you're a "working man". That bird don't fly. Graduating from an Ivy League college, just to join the Good Old Boy's club doesn't qualify you as a "working man". Never has, never will.
I make under $50,000/year. I didn't go to an Ivy League college, I paid my own way from a Tier 2 college on partial merit-based (National Merit Scholar) assistance. If I had been female or black, I was told by most of the places I applied that (a) if I wasn't accepted, being female/black would have gotten me in and I was rejected so they could meet minority-quota, or (b) I was accepted but all their scholarship money was reserved for female or "minority" students and the basic NMS assistance was all I'd get out of them.
Fuck the "Good Old Boys" club, and equally fuck the "we discriminate on race/sex" crowd. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said, "the best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."
My objection to the Democrats is simple: from the time I have been able to work (and I started working at age 15) every time they get power, my taxes go up. They jacked up the sales tax in my home county, they jacked up the property taxes and nearly put my family out of our house at one point, they jacked up payroll taxes, they jacked up income taxes on both the state and federal level. I'm a "working stiff" and they don't care shit about me, and if you believe the Democrats care about working stiffs, you're either clueless or brainwashed.
Uh ....no he is not insane. Obama and his minions have shown no regard for the wants, needs, expectations, and concerns of their respective constituencies. They have THEIR plan, THEIR agenda, and the fact that they are in position to ram-rod THEIR legislation through with little or no resistance means they intend to do just that. If anything would start a "civil war" here, I'd think that their behavior and the backlash that results from the ill effects of their legislation would do it.
-Oz
He got the prize 'cos he's not GWB. That's how low the threshold is, these days.
Obama is only perpetuating two illegal wars of agression and a global network of 737 military bases.
Actually, I think they did this to PREVENT him from launching aggression on Iran. ;-)
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I can think of so many people who deserve the honor more. That this prize, full of tradition and prestige, is squandered on an undeserving politician, diminishes the worth of the award. I would have awarded it to Greg Mortenson, myself.
First Al Gore, now Obama. Are Democrats BUYING these Nobel Prizes somehow?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
He may not have fulfilled any of his campaign promises or in fact done anything except holding speeches, but there's one huge achievement for world peace he can be credited with: Replacing Mr. Bush. That's what he got the prize for.
Complete agreement on all points: I come from the same general side of the political spectrum as you and I was like WTF? I'd love it if he won the Nobel in 7 years for all the amazing things he'd done over those 7 years, because I think the world could be a much better place. But now? no. It could even be a disincentive: why try hard, when you've already won the freakin' Nobel?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I think it's probably likely that he'll turn it down, thereby making him seem like "the honest guy." The whole thing reeks of PR stunt.
I find it interesting that you think a prize that didnt exist until 21 years after Gandhi died, and is never awarded posthumously, should have been awarded to him.
I personally feel the American people should get the Nobel Peace Prize. They did more for peace by voting Bush out of power than Obama has done.
I dunno, it doesn't exactly look to me like anyone else has done anything towards the end of "peace" this year. Maybe they should have just called off the 2009 prize altogether. :P
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
He was in Congress then? Here I thought he only became a Senator after the 2005 election...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The Nobel Prize is hardly worth the paper the check is written on anymore - other than the fact that they get money. Otherwise, who really cares anymore. They gave the same prize to Arafat and Gore for Pete's sake - A terrorist and a hypocritical glory-whore. The year they gave them the prize there were other people more worthy. The dumb committee members are just making their lame political statement.
W(ho)TF cares about this Peace prize? Probably Nobel - because they've made him turn over in his grave AGAIN!!! Give the poor stiff a rest!!!!!!!
I intend to prove string theory correct. Do I get a Nobel Prize, too?
Carter? CARTER?!?! Give us a freaking break. The inept bungler who accomplished almost nothing. The bright boy who thought he could pull together a multi-service task force on a whim, so they could rescue hostages, only to have them getting killed in the desert. Carter should have stayed with nuclear propulsion, and left leadership to men who lead. FFS, I'm not aware of one single command decision that he made while in the Navy. Carter was a functionary and mechanic with scrambled eggs. There's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, of course. It was only when he began to think that he was something more that he screwed up. Lapdog to Admiral Zumwalt is not a qualification for president.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"I like overpaying for healthcare dag nabbit!"
It's such a joke, the same people who have unaffordable health care or are being subsidized for their hospital visits by everyone else's taxes, are the same dumbasses railing against universal health care. Just because Rush Limbaugh told them "it's like the communists!"
Fortunately, it only hit a Walmart.
Table-ized A.I.
Dude, they are Swedes
The Republican Party doesn't HAVE a Conservative core, because there aren't any Conservatives left that matter.
It has a Right Wing Christian core, and is now the Party of God. Religionists think they are Conservative, but they don't know what it means.
Eventually power will return to the Repubs as inevitable Democratic hubris takes hold, but don't ever pretend it is due to Conservatism, which is so dead it doesn't even stink anymore. Conservatives lost because they don't have the balls to challenge the Bible Thumpers who took over the party. They aren't tough, they aren't vicious enough to fight serious political battles (ivory towers are much safer), and they don't have a movement.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I find it funny that there's an ad for "Stop ObamaCare Now! Click Here!" on this page.
It seems a ham sandwich could have also won this prize for sharing the only possible criteria for this award - Obama was not George W Bush.
Never mind that he's keeping the same policies and hasn't actually done anything yet. He intends to. And he is definitely not the same guy we had before.
What I can't decide is the angle:
1) Are they pressuring Obama to now do something to actually earn this award?
or
2) Are they reinforcing the results of the election, hoping to promote similar results in the future?
Or what?
They certainly, absolutely, positively are not awarding this prize to someone who they feel genuinely deserves it. As others have said, he was nominated in February. I'd insist that we limit his list of accomplishments to that date, except it would be the exact same list as today.
Today I feel like the stereotypical 'stupid American'.
I suggest that if Obama accepts this award, he be impeached for a serious breach of ethics. There are others in the world who actually did things, and he would be doing something immoral to willingly deprive them of their recognition.
While I agree with you and several (sub-)responses here in that he has not actually accomplished much (yet??), you guys seem to be ignoring the actually summary of the article here ["the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements"] as well as the statement from the committee [they are recognizing "his extraordinary efforts"].
From the Nobel website:
While you may not think he has done a damn thing to deserve it, apparently the committee thinks otherwise.
Karma: NaN
...
.....
Not really. Point still stands. It could be googelpexian numbers of money being thrown at healthcare; it still doesn't change the fact that OP thought killing people was easier to stomach than saving people, even when footing the bill for both. If anything, it accents that fact because OP found war to be less evil because it personally cost him less.
Just sayin'.
I'm an American. One who was more than pissed off with Bush. One who voted for Obama. One who is still proud of that choice.
I've seen a stark change in the world perception of the USA. I've seen opinions and hopes change within my family, friends, neighborhood, state, etc. Even Republicans I know, while still a bit jaded over Dem's winning is hopeful for the future under a Dem.
But what has _Obama_ the man done to win this prize?
I'm just an average citizen and all I've seen so far is an attitude shift in the country and world towards the changing of our President to a non-republican. And I'm not even sure the Republican change is even as important as the simple leaving of office that Bush graced us all with.
My point here is simple. Did Obama gaining leadership deserve him winning the Peace Prize, or was it awarded to the _office_? Did the real healing began _merely_ because Bush left?
Say _anyone_ else won the Presidency, not even necessarily a Democrat, but say anyone who was against War in general and came across as a "peacetime" president or at least, not a war mongering one. Would they have won as well?
I'd suggest that yes, yes they would have. At least if they were as personally likable and articulate as Obama is (regardless of who writes his speaches, he at least comes across as edumacatud).
My opinion is that the absence of Bush won the Prize, Obama just happened to be the person who filled that slot.
If it was 7 or 8 years from now and Obama was coming out of office having accomplished some of the many things he has promised to do
By that time, Obama will be out of office, and the price will no longer make any difference. As Nobel intended it, the peace Nobel price is to be awarded for achievements dating back no longer than a year. As such, the price is intended to be a vote on current political matters. However controversial decisions turn out under that condition, it is Nobel's will.
Could be, you got the wrong impression. I bash the idiot democrats as much as I bash the neocons. I happen to look like a white man, although my grandparents were discriminated against by the white people. Because I look white, I don't get jobs reserved for "minorities" either. Join the crowd. (Grandpa couldn't legally own land in his home county, because he wasn't "white" - yeah, the laws have changed since then, but I remember.)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
God, I hope not. The fact that I can't answer that question with conviction makes me sad.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Excellent point. I wish I had mod points!
And the Nobel committee unanimously agreed that Obama has exemplified and personified the approach to world matters that the peace prize is meant to award.
I notice you carefully avoided the word accomplished in your hosannas.
this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented.
And with this action, it no longer is.
Actually, I think they (Nobel committee) already made that mistake by giving Al Gore a peace price for work that isn't really peace related.
Both parties are all about money and big business.
Those are the facts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I don't see Nobel getting a Ghandi Prize either... fair's fair.
Yep. Just get 67 Senators and 289 Represnetatives to agree, and we can start on getting the 38 States to agree. Then it'll be changed.
Note that no-one has actually proposed getting the Constitution amended for that purpose. Instead, they are taking the approach that if they want something, then the Constitution automatically allows it.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Even worse, the nominations for the Peace prize start in February, correct? So Obama wouldn't have been in office for even a month before they stated he would have been worth the prize. Granted, they have had a few more months before actually determining the winner, but this took a lot of hubris.
But nominating is not the same as selecting a winner, which happened more recently. Nomination only puts one on the list. A recent event that helped world peace was removing the anti-ICBM (anti-missile) equipment from Poland. Iran has no ICBMs so far, which is why Russians saw it as a threat to them and not so much to Iran, the claimed defense target. Whether this played a role in the decision or not is an open question. But it was an actual peaceful action that can be pointed to. "He did nothing but speeches" is simply not true.
Table-ized A.I.
he is not george bush. He represents a choice by the american people not to put another hatemongering, fearmongering rich white guy in the white house. Just BEING THERE is a huge step forward for america, and he's defused a lot of the international unified hate directed at our nation. The former administration was so evil that gore and obama both won peace prizes. Don't for a second think that it's just about them. Because anything appears shiny when you contrast it on a background like that.
I am posting anonymously because it is my god-given, protected right. For now.
I live in Norway, and can honestly say far from everybody here is fond of this.
Many criticize the committee for awarding a prize to a man that has not earned it (yet), merely planning. That is not really what prizes are given for. It is a political game though. They expect U.S. president to follow up on expectations after this prize and deliver - including saving the environment, limping economies dependent on U.S. far too much etc.
Can't say this justifies the committees decision. It seems people with power decided to use Nobels Peace Prize to advance their own schemes.
"The [Peace] Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy."
source by "Francis Sejersted
Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Commitee, 1991-1999
26 April 2001"
The problem with any discussion of Democrat and Republican platforms is that neither party even remotely espouses the supposed platforms they stand for.
You have supposed liberals championing for government control, censorship, and the removal of rights. (Clinton, Biden, Reid)
You have supposed fiscal conservatives handing out bushels of money left and right. (McCain and Bush)
Both parties voted for war. Both parties voted for massive bailouts. Both parties keep putting money in their pocket. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties keep creating new federal bureaucracy without doing anything to really make our lives better.
At the end of the day, we need a certain dose of the Libertarians, who want less government and more personal freedom, except they're naive in thinking if we ignore the rest of the world, they'll ignore us.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
"Wow, so in your world affordable health care is "insane" but blowing billions of dollars on a war is business as usual? Where do you people come from?"
The Deep South, mostly. We don't need health care to go to Heaven, but we do need to defeat the Wogs to make Israel secure.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Hamas says Obama hasn't accomplished enough, and awarding this prize was premature.
Israel says it was awarded for "wishful thinking".
Why am I not surprised by either?
From the Washington Post, scroll down to "Updated 7:34 a.m.":
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The problem with all hate crime laws is that they punish somebody more severely based on what they were thinking at the time they committed the crime. True, it doesn't come into effect until a crime is actually committed, but the logical endstate that we're on will eventually outlaw agree with, oh for instance, certain parts of Leviticus and Romans, simply because they contain language offensive to certain people, as has already happened in Canada.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, so NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... they're all bastions of unbiased news reporting? They were all in the bag for BHO and given what I've seen on them in recent days, they desperately want his Constitutionally questionable domestic social agenda to succeed.
The reports are that he's flying to Oslo to accept. Are you surprised now? This is beyond a joke and it amazes me that any American could take seriously anything these Eurotards say or anyone they give awards to.
Obama is essentially getting an award for campaign promises and campaign speeches. It's disgusting.
"If this goes on there will be a public option, the US is gonna end up like Cuba, or the UK. France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets and hordes of atheists burning churches."
You, sir, need to design video games!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's like filling a plastic bag with dog shit, putting it on someones front door, lighting it on fire and knocking on the door - then hiding in the bush to get a good laugh. No one that has any sense at all puts any credibility in the Nobel Prize any more. It is a political prize given to the Left and they are the only ones that see value in it. The Academy Awards used to be valid as well, but it, too has been politicized. Real accomplishment in our world no longer is valued by those on the Left. I mean, they gave the prize to the leader of the terrorist organization PLO for crying out loud.
The Thing is.
As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself were shocked. I mean this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented. Give him a chance to get the results, then give him an award.
I agree.
I think the best thing Obama could have done is to refuse the award. Doing that would have demonstrated the integrity that he likes to portray -- and that Americans really like to believe their presidents have.
I've never particularly liked Obama (I think he's a good man, I just disagree with his politics), but refusing this prize would have impressed me deeply. His decision to accept an award he clearly has not earned tarnishes his character in my eyes, and that's really the only thing I thought he had going for him.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It may be that the award was given to narrow the President's options in regard to Afganistan. It is somewhat difficult to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and then send agree to your general's request for 40,000 aditional combat troops. Normally, when the prize is given to people who've not acomplished something, but are hoped to continue toward a goal, the committee has given the prize at pivitol moments to encourage a certain type of behavior. Arafat is a good example of this. The Nobel may have been awarded at a time when the POTUS is earnestly debating views on Afganastan to encourage a certain outcome in his deliberations.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
Maybe it's just the list of nominations is getting thin and the committee is having to loosen their standards to award a person.
There was a record-setting 205 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
Nominations closed on 2009-02-01, 2 weeks after Obama took office.
sharia is an abomination and it is unfortunately spreading (see malaysia, indonesia)
but its not universally recognized
all societies go through fits of reactionary lunacy. the muslim world must weather their fools, and the rest of the world must remind them that sharia is an obvious trangression of basic human rights and will not be tolerated in the least, and with any luck, the storm clouds will pass quickly
if not, we have a lot misery and suffering we need to deal with, the obvious byproduct of the stupidity of sharia law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
War is peace.
What sucks in discussing politics is that people still believe there's really a difference between the Republicans and Democrats that are actually in office.
Well, duh, there's obviously a difference! One's called "Republican" and the other "Democrat".
Really, though, Dems and Reps are the least of the trouble in politics. What makes politics difficult for the critical thinking is the density of ethical questions surrounding every subject. We see people fighting over who's right and wrong when it's really a battle of "everything's fine but people have different desires that can not simultaneously fill the same place".
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I think that wouldn't be such a good idea to see the peace prize just as a "lifetime achievement" thing, after you've done everything. When reflecting on history, you may easily see what has been going on, and what the big players were.
I think what the jury is trying to do is tell others that there is a change going on around Mr. Nobel-Prize, and people should listen a little because they think it is gonna be big and influential for our time.
In 50-100 years we will know if it started a new peaceful era of mankind or if it was just another US government. But then we can't influence anymore how big a 'revolution' of some sort, if it was happening, will get, i.e. how many people it will affect. I think the idea is to draw more peoples attention to it and to think and reflect upon whether this is a change on the global scale of some sort, and to hop onto that train.
And perhaps to think about what your countries path will be for the next 50-100 years. Governments don't do that.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I don't think that this will be other than a nuisance for Obama. As US president he has all the recognition and power he needs. This just puts pressure on him and could end up completely backfiring on the committee if he ever has to do something that's good for America but not, on the face of it, for overall world peace.
For Mr Tsanvgirai it would be very helpful in every way because his rather disgusting opponents do try to belittle him at every step.
He's a man who has been hospitalised by beatings but he has always preached for peace so Zimbabweans, though miserable and downtrodden, have not become murderers. It seems to be working very slowly but all would be lost if there were military coups or Tianemen-square-type failed protests.
So I'm Zimbabwean, obviously.
This is all just my personal opinion.
I would expect any reasonable supporter of Obama to feel this way. This award makes a typical Onion headline look tame in comparison.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:
wait a minute here.. if I can win the nobel peace prize by reducing standing armies, does that mean I could get it for launching a nuclear strike that takes out a sufficient number of the enemy's ground forces?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Don't be suprised. The best way to win a Nobel Prize right now is to bad-mouth the United States. Jimmy Carter did it, and got the prize. Obama does it, so he gets one too. What's hard to understand about that?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
The Peace prize is awarded by Norwegians, by some request in Alfred Nobel's will. The rest of the awards are decided by Swedish committees.
- El riesgo siempre vive - Private J. Vasquez
I'm looking forward to getting next years Physics Nobel Prize because I have some great ideas about energy. I thought the Nobel Prize Committee made a serious judgement error when they gave the racist de Klerk of South Africa the Nobel Peace Prize together with the deserved winner Mandela a few year's ago. Now they've given it to someone who has great ideas but who is in charge of a country at war which continues to incarcerate people at Guantanemo Bay without trial. Maybe there will be more respect for the Ig-Nobel prize after this.
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi.
What a joke.
Ghandi was kind of assassinated. Posthumous awards are not granted.
"he is presenting a far better image" ... because image is everything.
Image is 90% of everything! Perception IS reality.
You can be the most amazing programmer/developer/engineer/etc in the world, but if you can't project an appropriate image of competence, nobody is going to care.
.
Parent said nothing to imply bolded portion. You made that up and attributed it to him. It is therefore a lie.
You surely don't mean before the invasion, do you? He wasn't elected to the Senate until after the invasion, around the time when it was 'cool' to be against it.
parsing sentences. you're doing it wrong.
What exactly is your definition of an illegal war?
The UN Security Council said they would have voted against going into Iraq as a UN effort, but the vote never took place. Technically, the UN's cease-fire agreement said if Iraq did not fully comply, the cease-fire was null and void, and UN military action was authorized. The security council find Iraq in violation of the cease-fire some 75 times.
The US went into Iraq with the direct support of over 30 nations. When the coalition displaced Saddam, the UN officially recognized the US control of the nation as a soverign leadership in the UN before Iraq had its own government in place. In effect, the UN recognized the war as being legal and valid.
Congress voted for it, and the UN ended up approving it. How was that illegal?
Afghanistan was already in civil war before we got there. We supported the side that was ousting a terrorist regime who initiated military conflict with the US on 9/11. We remain in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghani government. The UN recognized this as valid as well. Congress voted for it.
Again, how are either of these illegal?
Please look up the definition of illegal and get back to me.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
...well, he did replace Bush, that's apparently an achievement worthy of a Nobel prize! :-)
Where do you people come from?
The United States. Duh!
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Another international organization awarded Glenn Beck the International Pee Prize, for what he is doing to his pants.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I think the real accomplishment that this reflects is Obamas role in changing the perception of the US as an aggressive unilateral nation that has no serious interest in dealing with global warming or participating in true international cooperation. In this respect it is similar to the Gorbachev award in the 90s. I think it is an opportunity for some introspection into how US diplomatic style affects the rest of the world for better or worse. It is also an indication of a changing of the winds on how we as a nation are perceived, and perhaps an opportunity for a better relationship with the larger community of nations. Like the general goodwill of other nations extended to the US after 911, this is an opportunity that can be squandered, or used constructively. Only time will tell whether Obama seizes or drops this moment.
With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?
I'm certain he will reduce our own standing armies.
(OURS, meaning the US for you foreign folk)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...I wouldn't be surprised if the man himself were shocked. I mean this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, ...
I would be surprised. As I recall in the elections, I was supposed to believe that he had accomplished much and had vast amounts of experience. What I think of him as as the President doesn't matter (yes, I'm conservative; yes, I voted for a republican; no, I'm not trying to be partisan in this comment) - Obama doesn't strike me as a person of great humility at this point.
Does that mean he can't be a great President? No... just saying that humility/being-shocked-at-getting-honored is something I haven't seen yet :)
And now Obama will have to think about all his future decisions under the light of having received this Peace Nobel Price....
I couldnt have tought of a better way to make him truly commit to make a difference in terms of peace....
It's kind of ironic if we think that Norway is interfering in U.S. Politics with such a move...
Nominations for the prize were due 12 days after he took office. What exactly did he do in those 12 days (or prior) to earn this? Make promises? Shoot, I promise to cure cancer, aids and MS. Where's my prize? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Obama, though I certainly think this is a farce.
You must understand that India/Pakistan was in a state of flux for a period from 1947 to somewhere in 50s, or probably even the 60s. When Gandhi died in 1948, the conditions in India were pretty violent. It would be understandable if the Norwegians were not convinced of the viability of India as peaceful, stable, unified country.
Most people could appreciate Gandhi's work much better in the 70s.
Wow, so in your world affordable health care is "insane"
What makes you think that any of the bills currenting pending before Congress are going to make health care affordable? All they are going to accomplish is to transfer the burden of paying for overpriced health care to the Government. The reason that health care is so expensive is because large bureaucracies (public and private) separate the consumer from the cost of the product.
Take a look at health care procedures that aren't covered by Uncle Sam and/or private insurance. LASIK surgery, cosmetic surgery, etc all exist in a competitive marketplace and have all come down in price since being introduced. Why is it that I can now have someone operate on my eyes for less cost than my last round of blood work?
Health care "reform" that doesn't address health care inflation is no reform at all. It's just going to socialize the problem, which will in the long term lead to either rationing or bankruptcy.
Hmm, so LASIK has come down in price in the US?
Last time I checked, LASIK was still cheaper here in Canada. Oh, and we still have the public health care system, so my bloodwork is free.
So much for your FUD though!
You must've missed the bit about the promotion of the general welfare.
Pardon me, but he has already done something! He's not W and that in itself is a lot. Hell, McCain could have won the presidency and even that would have been a big improvement worthy of the Nobel Peace prize.
we have free speech enshrined as a constitutional right, here in america. that in many ways makes us different than many other western democracies.
regardless of whether you like hate crime leglislation or not, it does not tell us what we "can and cannot think". You can THINK anything you want. It does punish some violent crimes more severely than others: I'm not a fan of that, but neither does it do what you said. please edit your arguments in the future to be a bit less misleading.
Behind that "image" you are sooo proud of is an empty suit. If his teleprompter fails, he is fucked.
...is ticked.
As the great Mitch Benn said this morning: "It's official: George Bush was such an asshole you can win the Nobel Peace Prize just by not being him."
This is so clearly political it is disgusting. Without commenting directly about my feelings on Mr. Obama, lets face it: he has not done that much tangible toward world peace, especially by comparison to most past winners. Okay, sure he's only been in office less than a year, so he still has time. Many winners get the prize years after they actually **DO** anything. Why now? It's generally been frowned on to give the prize to a sitting politician because of the obvious political ramifications and the fact that it makes the committee look like they're entirely political.
That said, in circumstances where the prize has been awarded to a sitting head of state, it is ALWAYS because they have done something tangible and unusual in its implications. INTENTIONS DO NOT COUNT. **I** very much want to bring peace to the whole world, but I don't get the prize because you actually have to do that and not just want to. In the past, the prize was given for major peace accords, changes in policy or brokering some kind of treaty or ceasefire with direct results. Simply being more diplomatic than ones predecessor is not enough to make you stand out as the most pro-peace person on the face of the earth.
There is certainly some time left for Obama to do something worthy of the peace prize. He's barely been in office. Really, there has not been enough time to put any of his actions in any kind of a greater perspective. That is always important and it's the reason why the prize has historically often been held off for several years before giving it out.
This should be very obvious. A lot of people like Obama because they disliked George W Bush so much and they think Obama is very different. They also find him to be an inspirational speaker. The man is definately a good public speaker. He's gotten a lot of support as an alternative kind of politician. This is all fine, but you don't award the peace prize to someone because of that kind of thing.
...that he's had a substantial impact on international relations and the way we think about race in this country simply by being the first black person (or even first not-plain-old-white person elected to the presidency of this country). That's a major accomplishment in the vein of MLK Jr. in itself.
Don't get me wrong, I was surprised; I think everyone was. I'd like to see some significant progress in re-thinking the drug war and marriage equality before deciding one way or the other about him.
But it's not my prize. If you don't like it, get your own internationally prestigious peace prize and give it to someone else.
Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
He got it because:
1. He's the president.
2. He's not John McCain.
3. He's not George W Bush.
4. Joe Biden is not Sarah Palin. Also.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
My opinion is simply : yes they're the same. But it'll take the republicans longer to destroy America than the democrats. Potentially postponing said collapse till after my death. If that's the best I can have, I'll gladly take it.
Providers can charge whatever they like, and the insurance companies pay whatever they like, regardless of what the providers say it costs. Providers increase charges by 1%, insurance companies decrease reimbursement by 2%.
Except that's not exactly how it works for medicare/medicaid, because they tell you the maximum and minimum you can charge for any given diagnosis/procedure, and change the rules every three to six months, and there's more rules than the US tax code, etc...
If you haven't worked in medical billing then please don't presume to know anything about medical billing.
Costs are going up because doctors are required by law to document everything to a standard, which cannot be delegated to an employee, and meeting the standard takes at least as much time as treating patients. Computers can only help if the software is properly designed, and very few existing programs are.
I believe in universal healthcare, and I'm no friend of capitalism (or socialism, communism or mercantilism, for the record), but I don't think any of our politicians have a clue how healthcare economics work. I wouldn't let somebody with no computer experience try to fix my supercomputer, would you?
Perhaps this says as much about the weakness of the field as anything else!
Attempted murder? Now honestly what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted -c-h-e-m-i-s-t-r-y- peace?
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
So he should get the award because he's better at lying or because we just haven't given him enough time to hang himself?
America is rather disconnected from war, so people who make comments like 'incite the US to civil war' are generally ones who have absolutely no clue what war really is. Even now, with a 'war' as its being called in two different countries, Americans have no idea. We lose as many if not more soldiers in training accidents during peace time as we've lost in our two current wars, and people are freaked out about it.
Most Americans now days are so spoiled I'm pretty sure more than half of us would just mentally shutdown and ignore the world around us if we were actually involved in a real war with someone.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Who is this Ghandi you speak of?
Oh, you mean Mohandas Gandhi! As a poster above us noted, the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be award post-humously.
He was kinda a dick too. Used WWII as leverage to try to get the British to leave India. Also was also somewhat racist.
"Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the government. The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out passes."
Not saying he didn't do a lot of good, but he was a man & no man is perfect.
(Not that I agree with this current award. Too soon, too soon.)
There is a war going on for your mind.
Yeah, in my world view, and judging from your post yours as well, a significant portion of the US electorate is in fact totally batshit, "omg the commies are coming" insane.
Hmm. This seems like a polarized, self-centric world view, different perhaps in ideals than GWB and many of his supporters, but similar in its defensive, insular nature and inability (or unwillingness) to share or understand another's perspective. Was the irony intentional?
Are you really surprised that a country with a different constitution than yours, a different mishmash of social perspectives and history than yours, representing a different set of interests than you, and having a few different in social values than your own, might elect such a leader because he is the best of the available choices at the time?
As far as the GP's question, no, there isn't going to be a civil war over healthcare. He was pointing out that it is a contentious issue, and that not all US citizens like Obama, or like him as much as the rest of the world does, or thinks we should.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Survival of the fittest. We're going to need their lands to grow crops on since we apparently can't keep our dicks in our pants long enough to breed at a reasonable rate.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The problem with all hate crime laws is that they punish somebody more severely based on what they were thinking at the time they committed the crime. True, it doesn't come into effect until a crime is actually committed
The problem is that one of the "crimes" is voicing your opinions. Hate crime laws are an evident way of using police force to settle public debates. I am not contending the "slippery slope" argument. I am contending that merely the fact that outlawing voicing "hateful" opinions effectively destroys meaningful public debate.
The problem is that they cover everything. For example, in the health care debate it is important, to say the least, to state that pensioners are not productive citizens. Regardless over the action that said (evident) observation merits, the voicing of that fact itself will be considered hate crime. Needless to say, such observations do not merit executing the infirm, or denying health care to them. The only government ever to try that were the national socialists of germany and the soviet communists.
There are also a lot of other facts that are true, but could be construed to be hate crimes. There are studies ranking ethnicities by IQ. There is the (again obvious) observation that "black" crime is bigger than white crime, and there is obviously a necessity for research into the causes of that. There is the issue of what exactly a certain religion had to do with 9/11 (imho, a great deal). Such things NEED DISCUSSION.
Such discussions are not possible with hate crime laws. They are also critical to rational policies.
In my world the government blowing trillions of dollars on ANYTHING is insane.
Take your Red Team/Blue Team mentality and fuck off with it.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Might makes right, eh?
http://nbgazette.com/index.php?entry=entry090910-210927
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35807.html
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Hey, he was declared "The Greatest President" before even taking office — much less concluding even one Presidential term.
Seriously, if he wants to earn true respect, he would reject the award: "Thank you, folks, hold that thought until 2012, but for now my accepting it would make the mockery of the award itself and of most of its past recipients."
Fat chance, I know...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Stark, staring bonkers. Are they breathing from the exhaust pipe over there?
Well said. The party left me behind before I could even vote. There's no way the inept Democratic party would be in power if conservatism still existed. There was a time that I thought the conservative view had jumped the aisle. That turns out to be embarrassingly naive. I don't understand why the Libertarians can't find a candidate who isn't a complete nut job. Ron Paul was not bad, but the rhetoric that comes from the rest of the libertarians is a stink that he could not overcome.
Bad choice of words; I should have said "in the legislature" as he was indeed a Senator.
Free Martian Whores!
What makes politics difficult for the critical thinking is the density of ethical questions surrounding every subject.
Which is complicated further by the fact that many people confuse ethical issues with moral issues. And then further confuse a single religion's stance on an issue as "THE" only right moral, and therefore ethical, stance to take on the subject.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Hey I like Obama and voted for him, but this is crazy.
He has not done anything yet. Maybe he will do something brilliant, so wait and give him the prize then. Maybe instead he will do something terrible in which case you can give the prize to somebody else.
This simply the Nobel committee awarding Bush some kind of "anti-Nobel prize". And I don't like Bush either but this is pretty transparent. Way to go guys, you have discredited yourselves and made the neocons hate you more than ever.
How do you suppose hospitals cover the cost of treating the uninsured?
http://www.marxist.com/
Always assumed this was for accomplishments, not good intentions.
Aww, so this is why he's sitting on the decision to increase troops in Afghanistan or not.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
...to be perfectly honest it sounds like they did this just to slap Darth Jar-Jar and all those millions of Bushistas in the face. It's a well-deserved slap, but the wrong kind of slap if you ask me. They're not very good at picking up on subtlety.
"Einstein didn't even have Power Point, but that's essentially what he did too."
So you're arguing that Al Gore actually conceived the theory of global warming then? Did the science? Worked out the equations? Submitted the research to peer review? That Al Gore?
I guess he really did invent the Internet then.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I sat here for the last hour trying to think of any really good things Obama has done that deserves this prize and I think I've got it. He helped to deflate that pesky US dollar, I mean who even uses those anymore, no wonder why OPEC is asking for oil to be bought with something else I mean even the Canadian dollar is worth more now days. Plus it helps the committee's Euro look better.
Have in practice done nothing but tilt the playing field. Affordable housing is in reality housing that you can only stay in while you're unemployed, meaning getting a job is a stupid financial move. What the hell does "equivalent" health care even mean ? That everyone grows equally old ? Face it : "yellow" people will outlive you, on average, and you'll outlive blacks, again on average. They will, however, run circles around you on the track, again on average. Some even say both effects are related. "Same level of educational opportunities" can only function if we do not use schools and classes. People drag eachother down, out of spite, out of ... So putting anything more than individual troublemakers in "better performing" classes will simply destroy the scores of the class, not improve the troublemakers' scores.
All these sound like
The lunacy of it all is, it doesn't matter how well studied a problem is, in America (and fairly, in many other places), only the populist notion matters. No matter how wrong it is. Now we'll lower energy usage by "increasing efficiency". Except that this is a well-studied problem. Besides, actually lowering energy usage means either letting people starve, deprive them of products, or freeze. Everyone's grandmother and her dog know just how popular those prospects are.
The only "equal opportunity" that can be imposed from above is equal misery for all : a short, violent life followed by a painful death. All other opportunity has to be made by the person enjoying it later.
More likely, Vastly Higher Bill, Vastly Higher Taxes, and probably, just probably NO CHOICE whatsoever.
If you don't look at both possibilities, you'll never make an informed choice.
Let me ask you, why is Nevada being exempted from parts of the current health care bill if it is so great?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics.
I wasn't aware you got a nobel peace prize for screwing over Poland. Where's Hitlers Nobel Prize? (Goodwin! I called it first!)
Or perhaps the position change you are talking about, is bending over for Iran.
I don't think there's anything he has done that hasn't acted to decrease peace over the next decade. Watch and learn.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Proof that both sides have people willing to believe the horseshit spin machines.
The international community would seem to disagree with you and agree with GP.
Just what is the International Community? Is there a membership card? Requirements for getting in? Because if you mean "other people across the world", it also includes North Korea, Libya, Cuba, etc.
Besides, this amorphous community didnd't vote on the Nobel. A bunch of guys from Norway did. And they seemed to have done it more to poke George W. Bush in the eye than to actually reward any real accomplishments.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The committee awarded the prize to whoever George Soros orders them to award it to.
Which party is telling us what we can and cannot think? Which party is telling us what we can say and listen to?. Which party, rather than actually doing something to actuallly help people out of poverty is instead keeping them from that end state?
You misunderstand the notion of Republicanism in its purest sense (i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party, not RINO's who's only goal is to grow government slighly more slowly than the other guys). It is intended to create an environment where equal opportunity exists for all; it does not guarantee equal outcomes for all, nor should it. That's been tried, and it has failed dismally where ever it's been tried.
Right, because we all know the Republican party stands for "Republicanism in its purist sense." Regardless of what a few members of the party may think, the party itself promises to keep the rich, rich, and uses their ultra-religious members to pull in the poor that have nothing left other than God.
Socialist systems are meant to give everyone equal opportunity, not this de facto caste system the Republican version of an economy puts in place.
Not that the Democrats are shining examples of saintly behavior either, but, I digress.
BTW not to crazy about him getting the peace prize either. But we all know its a farce anyway, so get over it.
... this is one of the greatest awards a man can receive, and it's wording is distinctly results oriented...
Used to be, my friend, used to be... Now it is pretty much meaningless.
Stop! Dremel time!
Can you imagine the amount of positive spin Obama would have gotten if he had simply and humbly declined the prize on the grounds that he had not yet done his work and suggested they reconsider him after his term?
yeah, that reminds me of an old communist joke back in Romania during the 80's, Russia and Romania share brotherly love, the big brother gets the bigger piece of the pie :) ... fraternity, right.
"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. " -Fielding Mellish - Bananas (1971)
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
So very true. I didn't even vote in the last election because it looked like we'd get screwed no matter who won. These discussions are like dogs fighting in a pit. Everyone is too busy scratching out turf somewhere to really understand what's going on.
The Nobel Peace Prize has come from a prize to recognize the efforts towards peace to a prize trying to promote the peace. Sooner or later the Nobel Peace Prize group will win the Nobel Peace Prize for trying to promote peace. It has really become meaningless.
There are tens of thousands of homicidal people in the U.S. government. Some of them want war with Iran because they will make more weapons profits. Some of them are Jews who don't like Muslim opposition to Israel. Some of them just want war because they like violence. Some of them want war because they support their families by killing people in other countries.
The Iranian government says it has no nuclear weapons. The U.S. government has thousands of nuclear weapons, and U.S. government officials have in the past few years sometimes threatened to use them. The U.S. government bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, so the threat is credible. No other government besides the U.S. government has used nuclear weapons in war.
All governments need nuclear power. Some people in the U.S. want their companies to supply nuclear reactors. They don't like "proliferation" because that would lower their profits.
Henry Kissinger degraded the Nobel Prize far far more and a lot sooner than Obama. Kissinger caused trouble every place he got involved in. One could argue he prevented his nutty bosses from WW3.. if that is the case he deserved it.
Allowing the FAKE Nobel prize in economics has degraded the Nobel which NEVER has been or will be for economics, which is more voodoo than science anyhow. The economic one is only Nobel in name, its done by the bank to cleverly promote their economic interests.
Gore deserved his shared one; not an individual one. But Obama getting one now for going around and apologizing for the bush years might have been desperately needed, but it is not enough.
Again, I do expect most americans to not realize how much hope the world has been given with Obama sounding like the 1st adult president in a generation. The USA is part of the world who's power and influence is fading; we could fall gracefully like a jet into the Hudson or we could go down in a blaze of glory taking as many down with us as we can... Despite him being a calm pilot, giving him an award before the crash landing is premature. I think this shows how worried people are about the future; they have to promote the one they think will deliver the best result before it is too late. The highlights of news in the USA to the rest the world shows racism, crazy people, neocon "thought," tons of HATE in the opposition who want to go down in on a biblical scale.
What is needed is a TIME LIMIT like the Catholic church does with saints. They wisely had a rule to avoid momentary excitement from trivializing the promotion.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Ghandi
Gandhi. I really don't know why this misspelling is so common
Well even Kissinger received a nobel peace prize so better for Ghandi he is not in the list.
Otherwise would be a much worse joke.
Hm. Every time my taxes go up, it's Democrats doing it. I make less than $50,000/year. They raise my taxes, I have less money to support my family. Yet I "make too much" for most government-given benefits. I don't think the Democrats care about me very much at all...
You are either extremely ignorant, or intentionally misleading.
Yes, the Democrats raise your taxes to pay off the nation's debts - which are always incurred in the previous Republican administration, where they dole out generous tax-cuts, cost-plus contracts to the defense industry, subsidies to corporations etc and just stick it on the nation's credit card bill. (Yes, that's the core idea of Reaganomics, as well as the entire economic policy of the Dubya administration.)
It could be googolplexian numbers of money being thrown at healthcare;
FTFY
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
Yup. I'm an Independent and I like Obama, but it's very likely he's going to have to escalate in Afghanistan, due to hawkish things he said on the trail. This is not a man who ran on a peaceable platform. He didn't say "war is wrong," he said Iraq was the wrong war.
From the Nobel site:
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements... [in various award categories].
So, the Prize is supposed to be for achievement, not intent. Even for his intent, it's clear he intends to prosecute wars in the interests of our national security, and he has said so explicitly. He just doesn't intend to prosecute them unilaterally.
His Afghan/Pakistani policy is marginal at best (civilian casualties anyone?) and he should not be a Peace Laureate while he's considering additional troop deployments. Furthermore, he has yet to avert a war and thus achieve peace with Iran's nuclear situation. Come January, the Israelis could be bombing them with weapons they bought from us. We could be at war next year and this UPI poll claims that 61% of Americans would back a military solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
What has he done to ward that kind of "drum beat" off? Has he come out and said the American public is wrong, at risk to his political skin? Has he made clear statements against the Israeli demonization of Iran? Against the Iranian demonization of Israel? It makes no sense to award this to him as he has been a remarkable coward on the issue, hoping it will blow over, and probably praying that cooler heads will prevail. That is a good way to start a war, not "achieve" peace.
The Nobel foundation may end up looking very foolish next year.
--
Toro
The government plans on taxing insurance companies who will raise prices to cover taxes. Shifting the blame from the government as proprietor of high health care costs (regulations, etc.) to point to the insurance company as the "bad man" in the public eye.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
"In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements" Really? 'Honoring intentions'? WTF! Is there a relationship between intentions and results? I am googling away my life in search of collective enlightenment of the mankind. Great intentions. Now, dear committee, please honor me!
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party
No-one had seen that "core" in the last, what, 30 years or so. Why are you talking about something that is no longer there? You might as well be discussing Republican party as it was in 1850s...
Yes, civil revolt. An awful lot of Americans view any large encroachment by the federal govt, like Obama's health care proposals, as cause for major action. Its an American thing, we don't expect foreigners to understand since many of you gave up your basic liberties a long time ago or never had them.
Obama has not delivered on any of his rhetoric. In fact, his actual actions are more in line with Bush than not.
All this talk about "too early" and "yet"...I wasn't aware that the Nobel committee had a "People who are guaranteed to get the Nobel Prize" list. Are you sure you didn't mean to say "If his leadership and policies result in a long (several years, perhaps even a lifetime) term, large scale, largely positive effect in improving the quality of life and the state of world affairs...then he should get the prize after this has been validated.
This is slashdot. Where's the overwhelming skepticism?
Yeah, like how George W. Bush came from a middle-class family and Barack Obama inherited his fantastic wealth, right?
If you add up the monetary damages and the damage to people's lives, white crime is FAR bigger than black crime. Think white collar crime. The guys in charge in Bhopal were white. Think of all the millions of lives ruined over the years by corporate malfeasance. Sure, blacks are incarcerated at a far higher rate than whites but this is because we've criminalized the victimless crime of drug possession. And because police are more likely to stop and arrest a black person than a white person. And because we keep blacks in second class positions through institutionalized racism, they do not have the same opportunities that the dominant whites do.
You say such discussions are not possible, yet here we are having that discussion. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoid delusion and severe cognitive dissonance.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Few of the Nobel Peace prize winner match that exactly. Two guys got one for repackaging payday loans into 'micro loan'.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
All negative posts have been reported to the White House. You may or may not be contacted.
captcha: evilly
...with Obama, we get preemptive peace prizes.
Given that he got Georgie boy out of the White House, he probably was the most peace-promoting person in the world last year.
I make 50K per year (before taxes) and would like to be filthy rich someday. Under the Democrats that makes me an exploiter. Under the Republicans that makes me a hard worker.
Which seems more reasonable?
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Lets see....Mohamed El Baradi (2005) UN Nuclear arms 'expert' who kowtows to his Muslim masters to the detriment of the worlds population.
THen there's Kofi Anan (2001) - who as UN Secy General, conspired to circumvent UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein (who probably would have also won this prestigious awaerd for diktators, save for his untimely demise) for his own (and his son's ) $$$ benefit
And who can forget Yasser Arafat - a mass murderer (or is that freedom fighter?!) who got the reward for killing many humans (remember wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer - an octogenarian thrown off a cruise ship in the Mediteranean) in a terrorist attack that was planeed by the Nobel Peace Laureate...
So Hussein Obama is in good company...
Yeah, I remember the tax cut I got when Bush was in office. I got a whopping $300 dollars, which was only for one year. Before that, I didn't make enough money to actually feel a difference when my tax rate went down. And the cost to the nation of that $300? A massive jump in debt. If that's what it takes to give me tax cuts, no thanks.
If you think Democrats are the only ones who increase taxes, or are somehow responsible for you living on the bleeding edge of your means, that's your problem.
As for your "Fuck the Good Old Boys club" comment, you fail to realize that being white and male, you are already part of it. You have no idea of the benefit that that gives you.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
/.'ers hating on Obama. You Obama haters are losers. Libertarians are a joke. You know what the difference between a libertarian and a republican is? republicans actually hold power, libertarians just like to piss in the win. conservatives are a joke, and so are you obama-haters. he beat you in the election after 8 years of that horrible man, you lamers supported. anyone that supported bush hates america.
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Well, there's the Cuba thing; that's done a lot to soften up that relationship. He's backed the US off of the eastern Europe missile program, which is good. He managed to get Russia to stand beside us on the Iran issue as a result, which is huge in terms of war-prevention. He ordered the US military to end the war in Iraq. And he gave that big speech in Turkey about America's relationship with Islam, which is a decent first step on the road to accord with Islamic nations.
Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't mean he's done nothing.
I never said might makes right.
The term illegal implies the US broke law. The US followed their own law for declaring war, and following international law as well given that the UN approved both actions.
I'm checking your links. You're first one suggests Osama Bin Laden isn't responsible for 9/11. Funny, because he admits to it and no one else has claimed responsibility. We have 9/11 conspirators who admitted to it in trial as well. You link claims there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
The link also claims that no one in Afghanistan attacked the US, thusly the invasion was illegal. Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that he had formed a partnership with the Taliban. He performed multiple terrorist attacks against the United States while operating as a guest of the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden was indicted in US court, and the Taliban refused extradition.
You insist there is no proof, but even the UAE and Saudi cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and called for the Taliban to hand Osama Bin Laden over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Again, the Taliban and Northern Alliance were in an existing civil war, both claiming rightful ownership of Afghanistan. NATO didn't attack Afghanistan. NATO attacked the Taliban. I think if you ask the Afghani government, they'll tell you that NATO liberated them.
Women are just beginning to have rights for the first time even in Afghanistan, thanks to deposing the Taliban.
Your second link seems to suggest that it isn't morally acceptable to go into Iraq, because it is an act of aggression. But it is morally acceptable to preemptively attack and sabotage military bases as an act of aggression, because you're worried they will eventually commit war crimes.
That is akin to pro-lifers killing doctors in the name of life.
You can't argue for and against preemptive aggression in the same breath. Regardless, the link only suggests the action is immoral.
It never says the courts for US action in Iraq to be illegal, because it wasn't illegal.
You can't escape the facts that the UN Security council did acknowledge the war as being legal and valid.
It is legal by every definition. That point isn't in contention. Arguing otherwise merely means you wish to ignore all facts.
If you wish to say you don't like the war, or you don't find it just, then go ahead. But again, you will likely do so in the face of a number of facts.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Just an observation: everything in your post was all about you. It would, perhaps, be a better place if your well being only depended upon yourself. But, that's not the world we live in. Don't get me wrong, its not all not about you either. Also taxes are used for things. Important things sometimes, not important things sometimes. Disparaging them without regard to their use is infantile.
The prize was for getting rid of George Bush.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
I guess they really do aware the Nobel Prize for attempted Chemistry.
So, it's okay to rescue poor oppressed people, but if they are prosperous and oppressed, we should leave the insane dictator in place, let him continue to pull out dissident tongues with pliers, let his sons continue to kidnap and rape women, let him continue to buy weapons from western European suppliers with his food-and-medicine allowance?
I had forgotten how much cooler teenagers look when they are smoking. Oh, wait
"... 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan..."
How can a man who is actively involved in killing other people win a peace prize?
Shouldn't this read "Obama wins the Nobel Hope Prize" ?
Black female, here. I'd like to temporarily interrupt your rant to respond to this:
I didn't get this Black fund or this Woman fund that pays for college. The financial aid office didn't tell me "good news, you don't have to pay because you're Black and Female". I have about $40,000 in student loans from a bank.
I need you to imagine for a moment that you are a Black woman. You have to work with people. You have to apply for jobs. You sometimes need help from people. And all of these people are white men who have been told time and time again, they would have all the things they deserve and all the things they worked for, except that all of those things were given to people like you instead. This is in spite of the fact, they're making more money than you and they have the job you wish you had.
Better yet, imagine you finally have a chance to get a promotion that will put you over that $50,000 mark. And the person who has to decide whether to give it to you or the next guy has just finished reading some slashdot post about how the other guy deserves it and you don't. I'm just saying.
Obama is only perpetuating two illegal wars of agression and a global network of 737 military bases.
God, you are a fucking jackass, do you know that?
I have no idea how I wound up on your friends list but do me a favor and remove me so I don't have to see your dribble at +5.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How is removing anti-ICBM equipment inherently peaceful?
...awarded based on his potential, to correct for years of racial discrimination
I kid
I didn't mean to say that he hasn't done anything; I was commenting on the GP's rationale for the prize. The question marks were, "This is your reasoning?"
This award is a mistake, no matter what you think of Obama.
I agree (and I actually like Obama, for the most part). It just serves to devalue the Peace Prize further... ... but wait, is there anything left to devalue? It has always been a highly politicized award, and the recipients were always chosen by means of politicking, and not for actually having done something useful.
Or, sometimes, by conveniently ignoring all the nasty parts that came out of their decisions - as was the case with e.g. Gorbachev, whose misguided rule was directly responsible for a number of bloody ethnic conflicts and genocides in Central Asian republics of the USSR, and the economic collapse (leading to millions of ruined lives) in Russia and Ukraine. And yet the West gave him the prize because he made the Big Scary Commie Threat go away, and that's all they cared about.
I won't even go into Arafat's peace prize. That's beyond stupidity and cynicism.
Because LASIK and plastic surgery are often not held up to the same high standard as other surgeries. They are often done quickly on an industrial scale by second rate practitioners to make a quick buck. LASIK in particular is often done without proper diagnosis by many cut-rate "doctors." I have keratoconus and know others with the same affliction who got LASIK without being diagnosed properly causing irreparable damage to their eyes. There are many, many awful horror stories about (often unnecessary) plastic surgery too. Those get swept under the rug because they are not seen as worthy of complaint ("you did it to yourself").
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
What bullshit. Terrorism is probably something you believe in prosecuting harshly, but that's just a crime combined with a political position.
According to Republicans, fly a plane into a building and it's mass murder. Fly it into a plane for Allah, and it's terrorism.
You must be joking if you are criticizing hate crimes as a double standard.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
This must be a proactive move to force Obama to back up his talk with actual action - there's no other sensible explanation.
Here's a list of all Nobel Peace Prize recipients. http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html
How many other times has the prize given for wishful thinking or for merely saying the right things? I wonder when Obama will start the Iraq war crimes trials? And, uhm, how many more troops is Obama sending to Afganistan to secure the pipeline route and protect the poppy fields?
Gee, can I nominate the Rothschild family for their efforts to establish an earthly utopia for us all?
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
I maintain that anyone elected after Bush would've had that effect. The USA went from "known bad" to "possibly less bad". No matter who would've won the election, everyone would've agreed that it was an improvement. The prize was essentially given to Obama for his achievement of getting elected after Bush.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
That ought to do it. Thanks for proving my point that the Republicans are nothing but a pile of racists. Anybody decent has apparently long since left for the Libertarian party.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
This is quite transparently a proclamation of how sick much of the world was of the Bush administration, and simultaneously an endorsement of Obama's plans.
Yes, a thundering world endorsement by 5 (yes, five) Norwegians.
Affordable? So every young married couple without employer insurance is forced to pay a fine of $2000 per person per year versus $1500 if they were unmarried or versus $0 from the current situation? Remember that "Freedom" is paramount in the American mindset. Why can't I be free to not pay anything when I'm young and starting out? Properly invested, that $4000 a year can grow to pay all of the medical bills a couple will face in old age, and buy a sailing boat.
Ah, what you want is the single payer model. Government pays your health care, you pay taxes (which are supposed to be progressive, so if you're young and have no income you don't pay), and it all just works merrily, just like it has in all those modern socialist countries for decades.
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
Spending your money to help people is socialism, giving your money to people who worked for it is good.
Wrong.
Spending your money to help people is good. Spending other people's money without their consent for whatever reason is not.
Some people get a credit card in the mail, open it, and announce "hey, I just got a raise." And they're serious.
That's what cutting taxes is like. It raises the debt, because tax cuts have to be paid for.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
And that ladies and gentlemen is what we call Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm sure there is someone somewhere in the world with a body of work that shows achievements in peace. I think the committee should be worried. A lot of unintended mistakes can happen over the next 3 years that can contribute to large scale violence. I hope it doesn't but that is why these awards are usually held until *after* the accomplishment.
Don't think you're different just because you're not a conservative Republican ;) From our side, it looks just the same. I don't have a problem with, say, Jimmy Carter being recognised this way -- I seldom agreed with him (and am not sure the end result of his efforts wasn't worse than the problem) but he went forth and did his damnedest for years on end, with no thought of gain from it (being long since out of office and out of the power loop). But Obama had to have been nominated before he'd actually DONE anything... so what was the award FOR, anyway?? Per the will cited above, the award is supposed to be for actual and lasting accomplishments, not for grand visions and short-term changes.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
WTF! Barack "more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill and torture" Obama?
So next in line probably
* 2010 Pol Pot
* 2011 Benito Mussolini
* 2012 Adolf Hitler
* 2013 Joseph Stalin
Fucking incredible...
Teddy Roosevelt brokered the peace between the Japanese and the Russians. That was the sort of thing the prize was intended to honor initially. Kissinger and Arafat also were brokering or just brokered a treaty when they got the prize. The treaties, motivations, and actions afterwards can all be picked apart but they got the prize right around the time they were trying to broker peace treaties to end longstanding conflicts.
The prize has grown cheaper and cheaper over the years as the standards got more politicized.
Oh well, on the bright side, the US has gotten the prize three times now since W. Bush was elected (Carter 02, Gore 07, Obama 09). So perhaps you don't like his policies but W sure could bring home the prizes for his country.
>>They could care less about the working stiff who earns less than $75,000/year.
I think their cut-off point for respect is something north of $500,000 annually, and $100M net worth.
My opinion only.
And if you're paranoid as hell that someone with brown skin is going to take some of it, like by getting health care or unemployment from a tax pool that you paid into, you get big points for that too.
It's your basic short-sighted greed, and go right ahead and troll me for this if you need to.
Please explain your understanding of the difference between ethics and morals. I am not sure I understand what you mean from what you have written. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Also you seem the be a fan of Moral Relativism. Are you asserting that there are no universal truths? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
What a sad, sad day for America....
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Dude, unless you get a grip on reality, you're not going to make any more than you do today. These cartoon versions of the parties aren't going to serve you well.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
" According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." "
Obama is all about taking down our military might to remove the US from it's place of power and make use just one among many. While being sure to destroy as much of our economy as possible by record deficit spending and soon to come massive tax increases both direct and indirect. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see additional massive cuts to our military.
Once our economy is crippled it will be much easier to convince us all that we don't need the freedoms that we are used to, so that we can become just like the rest of the world. You know those nations that are just doing so great.
Now that's Change that you can believe in.
By pushing his radical agenda and fostering a massive peaceful Socialist revolution right under freedom loving American's noses, Obama more than fits the mold that Nobel put into place. Both in encouraging "fraternity" with other world Socialists, by becoming just like them, and by undermining our standing army's military might at every turn.
I'm surprised that they didn't give a Noble Prize to every State-ists Democrat in Washington for fostering these same goals.
Wake up America. Not everyone who posts to a BLOG is a US citizen or believes in the freedoms that we hold self-evident. Stand up for the US Constitution and stop voting for the very people who want to take away your freedoms, under the lie of giving you security.
They will provide you the exact opposite, as history has proven time and time again. Return to the core values of our forefathers. In the belief of the individual, to strive for a better tomorrow and in doing so improve the world for not just himself but all around him.
This is what has made this nation great - not clinging to the old failed systems of Utopian idealists world wide. To do so, will return us to the day's of King George with the super elite and us commoners all vying for an ever small piece of the pie. Vote for true Constitutional Conservatives not those that make their promise to the cause celeb of the day.
Welcome to a long list totalitarian shills mixed in with a smattering of individuals actually working towards a better world.
where they now have roving bands of religious police in jeeps who enforce compulsory mosque attendance, headscarf wearing, etc. plenty there also think, for example, surgical severing of some thieves hands is a good deterrent (against gainful employment and for social ostracism maybe). that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned
these are all medieval abominations, and its a negative backwards development in parts of the muslim world like indonesia and malaysia and its an affront to basic human rights and human dignity and muslims must reverse these backslidings in their societies towards barbarity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's easy for the European crowd to act high and mighty--we're the ones they come running to every time they get into trouble.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
How is being a serial apologist and kiss-ass "presenting a far better image"?
Other than setting standards and enforcing laws, health care is outside the US Federal Government's realm of constitutional duties. If this is an exercise to reign in costs, it will be a failure. All prior efforts by it to engage this industry have resulted in billions of taxpayer funds being wasted due to fraud and mismanagement. Before the US Federal Government got into the business of funding health care for the public, the US expenditures by percentage of GDP was similar to other developed nations. The more the Feds have meddled with it, the more GDP is spent on it - not to mention that the existing systems will be out of money in 8 years or less. This is nothing more than a scheme to get more people dependent on government and the "big government/nanny state" politicians that champion these programs.
Keep feeding the trolls you nigger loving faggot.
What makes you think that any of the bills currenting pending before Congress are going to make health care affordable?
I think the GP thought that we were going to a system like Canada has, in which case costs would go way down; the insurance companies are the problem. Unfortunately it looks like there's not even going to be a public option, only madatory insurance. Big boon to the insurance industry, nada for ordinary people.
The reason that health care is so expensive is because large bureaucracies (public and private) separate the consumer from the cost of the product.
The bureaucracies making it more expensive are mostly in the private sector (insurance), but that's only part of the problem. Part of it is that there is no incentive for drug companies and pharmacies to lower prices; when I was prescribed antibiotic eyedrops, the retail price varied over $20 from store to store, yet no matter where I bought it the co-pay was the same. I'd say huge salaries paid to top insurance company executives is another big reason.
Take a look at health care procedures that aren't covered by Uncle Sam and/or private insurance. LASIK surgery...
Yet a lot of procedures that are covered have come down as well. Cataract surgery was incredibly expensive when it was new, and very few people had it done, even those whose cataracts blinded them completely. But in 2006 when I had mine done, it was an outpatient procedure that cost roughly $6k. Other surgeries have also gone down, mostly as a result of technological innovations like smaller incisions, better anesthesia, etc.
Free Martian Whores!
Because insurance works by healthy people paying for the sick. If you freeload by not paying in during your healthy years, you are stealing from the people who did. Our current system allows people to do this. We just want you to pay your share, freeloader.
Barack Obama, the President of Earth, has controversially launched an attack on the Lunar Imperium the same day he received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush.
"We closely examined Mr Obama's record over the past nine months," said Nobel Prize committee chair Thorbjorn Jagland, "and have established to our satisfaction that he has succeeded in not been George W. Bush in any manner whatsoever. Also, the flying cars, moving sidewalks and robot servants he brought in are pretty cool."
The committee had initially been concerned that Mr Obama may have been, per investigations by "birther" researchers, a replicant created by the team responsible for the cyborgization of Dick Cheney, to take his place as humanity's next robot overlord after Mr Cheney's term had finished. "However, we are now confident that his documentation of Autobot manufacture is entirely in order."
The surprise attack on the moon came after a CIA report indicated the Taliban had set up shop in the old Nazi moon base, based on intelligence gathered from secret mass phone tapping. The Obama administration denied it was merely an excuse to invade the Lunar Imperium and steal its water.
"It grieves us terribly that our lunar brothers have let us down so," said Mr Obama today. "But with mutual respect and communication, I am confident we can work through our differences. We'll teach them to love again DESTROY ALL HUMANS DESTROY ALL HUMANS SOCIALIZE HEALTH CARE I'm sorry, I'm having a minor glitch. I'll get back to you."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Competition in the marketplace is required to have a true, capitalist economy. Healthcare does not have this due to government regulation.
Not government regulation, insurance companies' regulations. Take my insurance, for example: my co-pay is the same no matter where I buy a prescription drug, even though the price per pharmacy can vary by 50%. I have no incentive to find a cheap drug store, my incentive is to get the best price by saving gasoline and buying it at the closest pharmacy -- which happens to be the most expensive.
Can you give me an example of any government regulation that makes health care more expensive?
As a final note, I have a pre-existing condition, and I am extremely pleased with my insurance provider.
It's a good thing you're pleased with your current provider, because if you wanted to switch, your pre-existing condition wouldn't let you.
Free Martian Whores!
1. Alan Greenspan appointed to chair the Federal Reserve
2. Ben Bernanke reappointed to chair the Federal Reserve
3. Sarah Palin paid a handsome fee to lecture group of Chinese on macroeconomics
4. President Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize with resultant spontaneous dancing and celebration in the streets of Honduras, Afghanistan and Iraq.
(O.K., just kidding about that spontaneous dancing and celebration thing!)
FUTURE PREDICTIONS
1. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee renames award to "Not George Bush Prize"
2. Sarah Palin is awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics.
3. Timothy Geithner comes down with severe depression after attending his monthly meeting with Kissinger and Obama and realizing he is only non-recipient of Nobel Peace Prize. Geithner devotes remainder of life to overturning Medicare Section D so that he can afford his massive doses of anti-depressant meds.
4. The Moon retaliates against the Earth by sending a rocket to crash into the Earth to determine whether there is sentient life - or water - there.
5. S&P, Fitch and Moody's create a new bond rating: Senior-tranche AAA Mega-Junk.
6. The Onion News Network Global Conspiracy is exposed: they admit to being the only news distribution network on the planet -- and all the other networks are just fronting for them.
I suggest you watch a 60 Minutes interview where FBI Agent George Piro managed to get a lot of truth in regards to Iraq's nuclear program directly from Saddam Hussein.
It was revealed through this special interrogation that Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction after being disarmed in the 90's. He misled the world into believing that he had WMDs to not appear defenseless in front of Iran. He was afraid the Iranians might attack again.
The FBI was so proud of what George Piro accomplished, they considered it, "probably one of the top accomplishments of the agency in the last 100 years."
Not to mention that the Frontline documentary "Bush's War" pretty much debunked every single piece of "evidence" that Bush used to justify the invasion. And Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary from '03-'05, explained in his book What Happened that Bush only went as far as finding "evidence" to justify his war; he never bothered to verify its validity.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. Even Bush, in his later years as president, finally began to admit that his "evidence" was not valid. Please stop feeding this conspiracy theory.
in which case costs would go way down
What are you basing this assumption on?
the insurance companies are the problem
That's a very liberal way of looking at the problem but it doesn't begin to even scratch the surface of the problem.
Unfortunately it looks like there's not even going to be a public option
Good. Replacing private sector bureaucracy with public sector bureaucracy is no solution at all.
only madatory insurance. Big boon to the insurance industry, nada for ordinary people.
Mandatory insurance doesn't represent a "boon" to the insurance industry. The argument behind mandatory insurance is to get healthy people in the risk people so the average cost of premiums comes down. I don't happen to agree with the notion of the Government taking away my freedom of association but to say that the mandate represents a "boon" to the insurance industry is missing the point.
I'd say huge salaries paid to top insurance company executives is another big reason.
Then you'd be missing the point yet again I'm afraid. You could confiscate the profits of every single health insurance company in this country and you'd only be able to pay for four days of health care for the American people. The health insurance companies themselves are not the problem. The structure of the underlying marketplace is the problem.
Think about it. Would you expect your car insurance to pay for your gasoline and routine maintenance? That'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? So when then do people expect their health insurance to pay for routine physicals? Why is it necessary to put that layer of bureaucracy between the consumer and the cost of the product being consumed?
Go read this article. I had it featured in my journal for awhile. It talks about the structure of our health care system and explains a lot of these concepts better than I can.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Have so many of you been asleep for the last fifteen years? Since 1996 you are ineligible for federal welfare unless you're working or disabled. Or are a giant multi billion dollar corporation.
And I hate to tell you this, but the worst paying jobs are also the most disgusting jobs. Guess whose doing those jobs? Yep, mostly black people. I don't know where you get your bigoted ideas from, GTFO slashdot and go back to Stormfront where you belong.
Free Martian Whores!
It makes no difference how he won. On behalf of the rest of the world: Thanks to whoever/whatever got rid of the evangelicals.
Supply vs. Demand. There is a large number of people, and limited healthcare resources. The demand for healthcare far outstrips the supply.
Spending billions of dollars killing people reduces the demand. When demand goes down, supply goes up, and you have lower prices.
Basic economics.
I swear, Malthus will have the last laugh yet.
> This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives,
> who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image.
This is putting it all wrong as if they had some sort of rational ideal that they strove towards.
In fact, they were (and still are of course) sociopaths who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
I knew this about G.W. Bush the first time I saw him. This was the first election, with the counting problems going on and Bush said (paraphrased): "Let me get on, I have a administration to form". Of course, as the votes were close, Gore could have said exactly the same thing so I was disgusted. I became more disgusted when news media (papers, TV) never made any comment about this, which really made me aware of how poor a job journalists do.
In general, such reversible non-arguments are typical for the most anti social nutters there are, such as in corporations (management positions are a good hiding place for sociopaths).
Thanks, Shakrai, for pointing out what should be obvious to that poster.
No doubt there was spontaneous jubilation, dancing and celebration in the streets of Honduras (latest coup supported by the Obama Administration, business as usual), Afghanistan and Iraq. (Nope, just kidding.)
They probably are equally unaware that President Obama has appointed the most anti-worker, anti-union people possible: Diana Farrell, Laura Tyson, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Robert Hormats, Richard Holbrooke, Gary Gensler, Herbert Allison, Peter Orszag, Stephen Friedman, Gary Locke, Henry Kissinger, etc., etc., etc.
Obama, like Clinton, Carter and all those neocons before him, is in the pockets of the banksters. And would all those Americans who work to remain as ignorant as possible please realize they, too, are completely responsible for his perfidy.
The problem is that we have two primary political parties, and about two million different political views. Both parties are essentially extremely broad coalitions all under the same name. In many other countries they start with several small parties and then negotiate to form the coalitions without actually pretending they're all united. In the US however, there is this fiction presented that we have only two major political views.
What's even more messed up really, is that if you get simplistic and just view things as one dimensional left versus right, the bell curve will likely show the big hump between Republicans and Democrats. Which is why you see the candidates lean strongly left or right during primary elections, and then switch and lean towards the center during general elections. The situation seems perfect for a centrist party, except that the election rules and inertia conspire against that idea (the Reform party didn't count, it was more of a "we hate politics" group than any coherent platform).
After all, if you think about it logically, why should the views on gun ownership and prayer in schools be even remotely linked together? Why wouldn't someone who thinks that the government should keep its hands off of their guns also believe government should keep its hands off sex lives as well, and vice versa? Why should a belief for or against a strong economic regulatory system in any way correlate with view points on abortion? Why should opinions about whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" are valid have anything to do with a belief about whether climate change is a problem?
How can we take seriously opinions of people who have no grasp of spelling or grammar.
Well maybe if they don't live in an english speaking country? How good are you at foreign languages? Probably ten time worse then I am. I for one would like a (-1, not repleying to content but a person) moderating option. Maybe that's the problem with the USA; Bush got elected for his humor in debates and not his politcal view. How does that sound, asshole?
Here be signatures
Before he was elected to the US Sanate he was a state Senator, and indeed did speak out against the war when it was being proposed. It may have been one of the things to get him into the US Senate.
The real reason Obama was elected to the US Senate is the Republicans, and it's an interesting story. The Republicans were running Jack Ryan (Seven of Nine's husband), and Ryan was thought to be a shoe-in. But Ryan got caught in an ugly sex scandal and divorce from his Borg wife (ok, Borg actress wife) and dropped out of the race. The Republicans scrambled to find a replacement, who they insisted muct be black, and came up with some black neocon who had criticized Clinton for running for New York Senate when she was from Arkansas, even thugh he had never been inside Illinois' borders even once himself, not even for a visit.
Obama was inexperienced even in state politics, and had the Republicans nominated someone other than a sex-crazed pervert, Obama might not be President today.
The wags quipped "those Republicans! First they can't find Osama Bin Laden, then they can't find WMDs in Iraq, hell now they can't even find a black man in Chicago!"
Free Martian Whores!
I get my information from a country (the Netherlands) that has:
a) Good journalism available;
b) Is looking at the USA from a distant view and is therefore more capable of judgement (just as much as the USA is probably better at doing so for the Netherlands).
Here be signatures
The moon is just the child of a knocked up mother earth, little wonder there is some love/hate relationship.
You are clearly not capable of comparing things; Obama is justa s much getting the USA into the Afganistan war.
Here be signatures
Feel free to cast stones once you've done something for international diplomacy and peace or are in a position to do so.
Otherwise, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
... collateral damages be damned.
Social security, medicaid and medicare are already 44% of the total federal budget. Both programs are going to be insolvent soon, so if you think the government is going to be able to make healthcare affordable you are probably mistaken.
Yeah, like how George W. Bush came from a middle-class family and Barack Obama inherited his fantastic wealth, right?
Joke all you want, but liberals can't argue with the fact that Jimmy Carter was a privileged member of the peanut farming elite, and Barack Obama was an elite community organizer. The poor, grass-roots, salt-of-the-earth self-made lawyers, Ivy Leaguers and oilmen on the Republican side can't possibly compete with that. It's unfair, I tell ya.
Because if you think that is a wise course of action, you need a nanny state to take care of you, because you are not mature enough to take care of yourself. If you think you can do without health care you are insane, and therefore by definition in need of health care.
Now, I would not mind if only you were to pay the consequences. But no man is an isle, and if you develop a serious condition and end up in the ER, other people will have to foot the bill (people who where smart enough to pay for health care). Your spouse will have her/his economy wrecked trying to save your myopic ass. If it's not your spouse it will be someone else in your family. Your children may miss out college (let alone the psychological scars), which may confine a few generations of your descendants to the proletariat.
My father was a similar brand of idiot. He had his insurance alright, he was even an insurance agent. Yet he did not fasten his seatbelt, in the name of "freedom": no shit, that's what he says when I try to get him to buckle up in my car. No, seat belts are actually compulsory where I live. Well, I was almost made an orphan by your brand of "freedom". He crashed into a truck and was hurled into a corn field after a stupid attempt to overtake a car at a highway junction. His right talus bone was shattered in literally a thousand little pieces, and he has been unable to run ever since. It could have turned out much worse: my mother was a housewife, and my dad the only breadwinner. Had he gone, I have no idea what would have been of us (well, yes, he did have life insurance too, but still).
On the other hand, I think the fair system would be paying $0 in direct insurance and paying everything through a share of your income tax.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
In my distinction between ethics and morals, I look more at their source than their effect. Meaning, I take ethics to be a set of rules or ideas that require thought and logical justification which make up a framework of how we would like behavior to be. Morals, on the other hand, I take to be more like the universal truths you mention. I consider morals to be fundamental right and wrong concepts that we accept as given. Then, going on from there, many of the morals people accept as "given" are given to them by their chosen organized religion, and yes - those morals often do vary from religion to religion and cannot be considered universal truths, though they are accepted as morals because there is no logic or justification (it may be possible to logically justify a moral, however it may not be and need not be).
For example, hypothetically speaking, I might consider killing to be morally wrong, but I could also accept that doing so might be ethically right in some situations. Or one religion may call it morally wrong to have sex out of wedlock while another may not. These are morals because they are taken on faith without thought or justification - the religion simply says so and it's believed. But you certainly cannot say that sex out of wedlock is a universal truth.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
I glanced at your posting history, and I'm not sure if I believe you when you say you get lots of mod points. But just in case you do, I intend to mod down any subsequent posts of yours in other threads, regardless of merit. If any other like-minded mods are reading this, I encourage you to help me- it doesn't take very long get someone posting at -1 by default.
Hitler also wanted 'piece'... a piece of Poland, a piece of Switzerland, a piece of ...
Do you have any evidence for that statement? DoD statistics at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm would seem to refute your claim but perhaps you have some other source of information on training casualties.
Enigma
It sounds like you misunderstood my comment, and didn't read my response to Quothz. Or maybe you're just saying something really weird. I can't quite tell; you can clarify.
My point was that the GP's rationale for Obama receiving the prize didn't involve any accomplishments other than people liking & trusting him. I wasn't casting stones at the award; I wasn't saying that Obama hasn't done anything. If I was casting stones at anyone, it was the GP.
But even if I had been casting stones at Obama--if I was saying that he's done nothing--your response wouldn't make sense.
If someone says the president hasn't done anything, and he has, you can correct them, like Quothz did. You didn't. You actually seem to think that average citizens lack the standing to criticize giving the Nobel Peace Prize for promises & intentions. You seem to think, "Unless you're an achiever on the international scene, you should shut up about the whole subject." And that's pretty silly.
France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife
"Riots claim at least 34 lives, France appeals for calm"
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/109/article_2753.asp
Please allow me to complement you on your straw man argument. Well done.
Money is as important as you make it to be. If the health care system UTTERLY DESTROYS the economy in a way impossible to fix, then what happens? Do we all fall over and starve? No, the system changes. If war UTTERLY DESTROYS a country in a way that is impossible to fix, guess what? It's gone. You can't regrow the people that lived there, all you can do is inject foreign populations if you truly wish to repopulate it. Money is a currency, a middle man in bartering. When money fails, it's simply bye-bye middle man.
Honestly, I am not aware of any party in the world today that tries to guarantee that. This is coming from someone who lives in a country where the rightmost party in the parliament is pretty far to the left of the Democrats in the US. And who doesn't want there to be equal opportunity for all?
So what you're saying doesn't really tell what signifies "Republicanism" as an ideology.
During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Yeah! And those racists who voted for Obama skewed the election results for John Kerry and Al Gore as well. (Disclaimer: I only read text-based political news, and eschew images due to my slow connection, so I'm assuming those candidates were both black, too.)
Obviously it was a mistake to give them the peace prize. The obvious solution is for the Swedes to compel Norway (with dynamite, if necessary) to give it back.
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" by Time magazine in 1938. We all know how that turned out.
I bet the editors at Time magazine a couple of years later were thinking "Gee guys, you think that award was a bit premature?" :) ...and yes I am comparing Obama to Hitler... I should win the biggest Troll award!
It could be googolplexian numbers of money being thrown at healthcare;
Ftfy
Fixed that for you, unless you are either failing at grammar And Capitalizing Every Word, or you are SHOUTING THAT YOU FIXED IT. It's hilarious that you have the time to reply, quote me, and fix the spelling error, but you don't have the time to type out "fixed that for you".
Maybe I'm alone in finding the humor in someone correcting minor errors in chatspeak format.
you fail to realize that being white and male, you are already part of it. You have no idea of the benefit that that gives you.
Yeah, I keep hearing people saying stuff like that, but they never say what the benefit is. Sure, tell me the benefit, tell me why I'm so lucky, because I'm sure not seeing it.
Qxe4
Horsecrap. The procedures and surgeries you describe have come down in price because they are UNNECESSARY and because those choosing to have them actually get to choose. If you get cancer, your choice is die or pay millions of dollars. That's not choice, that's extortion. In fact, I'd rather be extorted. I'd rather be robbed at gunpoint! Why? Because when you get robbed at gunpoint, at the most all they can take is what you have. When you get cancer, they can take all you have, and everything your family has, and everything your family ever WILL have, AND you might still die.
why don't you just think of it as a "war on the flu" and get on board? jeez you republicans just need everything turned into a war before you'll fall in line
"in which case costs would go way down". What are you basing this assumption on?
The insurance companies have to pay their stockholders, and their executives make far more money than even the most expensive politician (POTUS makes less than half a million per year, what's the CEO of a large insurance company make?) They're money-draining middlemen, not entirely unlike record labels.
"the insurance companies are the problem." That's a very liberal way of looking at the problem but it doesn't begin to even scratch the surface of the problem.
Liberal? No, realistic. They're in business solely to make money for the stockholders. With my insurance, I pay the same co-pay no matter where I buy a drug, no matter what the retail price of teh drug is. There's another waste right there.
The mandate is a boon to the industry because people will HAVE to buy medical insurance. The mandatory car insurance laws are the same; although I do in fact agree with mandatory auto liability insurance, it too was a boon to the insurance companies. Healthy people who really don't need insurance being forced to buy it is certainly a boon to the industry.
I agree with the rest of your post, and have read that article, it's avery good one.
Free Martian Whores!
It could be googolplexian numbers of money being thrown at healthcare;
Ftfy
I fixed that for you, unless you
I FIXED THAT FOR YOU.
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet."
~Lech Walesa, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
"He has achieved nothing. He's stumbling. He hasn't achieved any of his promises and nothing is working. He promised to close Guantanamo and now that's not going to happen, and the Arab-Israeli conflict looks like it's going to get very nasty."
~Hisham Qasim, Egyptian democracy and human rights activist
"While it is OK to give school children prizes for 'effort' -- my kids get them all the time -- I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard."
~Gideon Rachman, foreign affairs columnist for The Financial Times
"The president has done nothing to push forward peace between Israeli and Palestinians."
~Ahmed Yousef, Hamas
Regards;
I wish more of our politicians understood the point you just made about the effects of our society's skin-color-based benefit-giving.
The direct recipients may benefit at first. But not everyone gets them, and the practice hurts everyone of the same color who has to endure people wondering whether they got where they are based on their accomplishments, or based on some racial scholarship or employment scheme.
While I, an "overrepresented" white guy in engineering, generally thinks "white privilege" is nonsense, I wouldn't trade everyone second-guessing my accomplishments for the scholarship money I might've gotten by being a different color.
Maybe someday society will wise up and we can stop putting people in these bad situations.
Seems you're trying to be misleading. The link you give isn't about limiting what you can think. (Until mind reading is a scientific reality, that will never be possible.) It's about telling you you can't be violent.
Actually, it's already a crime to be violent. Hate crime laws add additional penalties for what you are thinking while being violent.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Seriously.
Do the teleprompters run Linux?
Secretary: Mr.President press is waiting for you sir.
President: Wait Damnit. I am reading through the slashdot article and figuring out if I deserved it or not.
-- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
You idiot. They don't want the fairness doctrine to counter Fox News. They want it to shut up conservative political pundits on the radio because they've been completely unable to penetrate that market.
The fairness doctrine wouldn't even affect Fox News because cable TV programs aren't under the domain of the FCC.
During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.
That is a just stupid phrase here on Slashdot. You're implying that all of 95% of African-Americans are stupid and only voted Obhama due to the color of his skin. Although some may have done just that, it's surely not 100% of the 95%.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America
If he wined the elections with the majority of votes he does represent the majority of America. Or perhaps you are simple racist and just count white people as the mainstream America.
You are a dumb person.
PS: I'm not an American.
Thank you, I made him myself.
Carving the pumpkin head to look like Algore was difficult.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
I suppose it's a matter of political opinion, but there's two issues to consider. First, is that it's supposed to be a defense against Iran ICBMs. But since Iran has no (current) ICBM's, it's *perceived* as a disingenuous way for the US to place a missile shield against Russia in its own neighborhood. Thus, we have the "lie" aspect. Second, it encourages Russia to keep up or increase its stock of nuclear missiles. The more defenses there are, the more offense you need to counter it. It thus can create a proliferation, meaning more total nukes in the world. It's hard to argue that a strategy that results in more total nukes is "peaceful", at least in the short and mid-term.
Table-ized A.I.
Before 9/11, many Americans were ignorant of the fact that they are largely hated around the world. The media spun the situation, claiming the world hating Americans is a new phenomenon due only to Bush.
Taking a look at some of the international polling data:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264
I'd have to say that calling it spin is unjustified. The media was perhaps simplified as usual, but did indeed reflect accurately what was happening abroad. To say that America-haters existed before Bush is entirely correct, but misses insight into the magnitude of the shift; the degree to which it affected the mainstream public in various countries, and how it included countries that historically had been friendly or at least neutral.
Individual America-haters have always been able to make a spectacle; perhaps make some embarassing speeches, set off a few bombs. In a few countries, they even happened to be the head honcho in charge. In either of those cases I'm sure nothing much changed.
However, when the countries we're dealing with are democracies (we like those, right?), such major opinion shifts can have large impacts indeed on how foreign policy works, or doesn't.
In his will Alfred Nobel stipulated that the prizes should be awarded to young people that during the year before the prize is given have done something that will benefit mankind.
A. Nobel wanted to give young people, that started to do good deeds, more of a chance to continue to do good deeds.
Obama isn't exactly young, but he is younger then most previous Noble Prize receivers. With his progress in nuclear disarmament and in general creating a more relaxed relation between US and the rest of the world, he fits Alfred Nobels descripiption better than most other Noble Prize receivers.
And I believe the Norse Nobel Comity is trying to push the world in the right direction. They did a similar stunt when they gave the prize to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Despite the fact that those three historically had acted like raving war dogs than peace doves.
Obama's in good company
.
Wilson created federal reserve and income tax
Roosevelt created the new deal.
Obama bailed out wall street and is socializing medicine.
now future generations are not only doomed to poverty, but illness and slavery as well.
Aaaah lovely. You think they're taking the taxes and putting it in their pockets? They're trying to undo the deficits most governmental bodies incur, which skyrocket under the Republicans. Just look at the national debt - see how nicely its rises and falls fit in with the current party in power? Rising taxes are not a bad thing. Sure, you might have less money, but you'll have more of a future, and the country that has been so nice to you throughout your life, and the lives of all your ancestors who lived in it who eventually made you, will have more of a future to do the same for other folks. Your post is nothing short of massively selfish. They do care about you. They're trying to get you decent health care right now that's not going to fuck you over on the slightest error in your paperwork or for whatever whim they feel. That's just one thing. But please - continue to labor under the impression that because they raise your taxes to buy you civilization, they must be bad. Genius. I guess if the Republicans sold off every aspect of the armed forces, sold off all the police equipment, tore up all the roads and sold them to Mexico, and pawned every last asset they had just to give you a check, you'd be the happiest person alive. Because of what you wrote, it seems exactly how you'd be. Even though you no longer lived in a country that could take care of you, you had a nice big lump of cash. Yay the American dream in action.
When industries and sectors donate money, they're not necessarily giving it to the party that better represents them, but to the party that doesn't, in order to get them to do so. Your argument, while impressive on the surface, is hollow. Whereas lovely gestures like Bush's tax cuts for the rich are a slap in the face, as they plainly help the rich, and piss on the working stiff for all to see.
But as for positive discrimination, I totally agree. It's bullshit.
Remember: taxes are not bad. Squandered taxes are what's bad, and you don't have to look further than the Republicans to see masters of that art form at work. Especially when they're helping people who earn considerably more than you pay less than you do.
Add to my list the closing of the "secret overseas prisons", and denouncing torture.
Table-ized A.I.
I'd say the disproportionate amount of black people in prison isn't directly due to drugs, but to the disproportionate amount of poor black people. Level the playing field for long enough and you'll see the racial make-up of prisons level, also.
This is the first time I can remember seeing anything negative about the democrats modded up on slashdot.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
So, wait, if democrats raise taxes to pay for republican debt, who's going to raise taxes to pay for Obama's massive, soul-crushing debt?
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
... but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade.
So you prefer image over substance? I would rather he be responsible toward US citizen sensibilities and the US economy since, you know, he's the US president. What do I care what you think of my country? Take care of your own mess of a nation and I'll do the same for mine.
/me wishes his president weren't a european floozy
Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?
Are they dying of blood loss? If so, they'll pay $40,000 if they have it.
If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.
I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market.
I'm sorry, I was unclear. I meant that you should try to gain a basic understanding of free market economics, not the healthcare system. And really, you should.
Go read this article in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
I find it very interesting and fairly informative. However, it lacks a sense of global perspective. Thank you for your contribution, though.
How exactly do you propose we "add up" the "damage to people's lives"?
Suppose one criminal kills my friend or family member. A different criminal embezzles money from my employer, thus preventing my employer from giving me a Christmas bonus. How do we add those? Does the embezzlement count as a murder? A half? A tenth?
It's ridiculous to compare vastly different categories of crime in such a way. Speaking of incarceration rates for each given offense would make more sense.
I did cover that aspect: "And because we keep blacks in second class positions through institutionalized racism, they do not have the same opportunities that the dominant whites do." But blacks use of drugs is targeted much more harshly than whites. Cocaine and crack are the same damn thing, yet crack, which is seen as a black person's drug, will get you longer mandatory sentences than the same amount of cocaine. Blacks are also far more likely to be stopped and searched than whites.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What you are saying, then, is that affirmative action laws are actually detrimental to your success. I don't think I'm misinterpreting that.
It IS true, it's just government-mandated favoritism. People being what they are, often chafe at parental control, and will try and do exactly as little as they can if they can to comply without drawing punishment.
For the record I know qualified white folk who have not been given jobs so that minority quotas could be filled by unqualified applicants (best story, white guy with 25+ years in the company was denied a promotion so a black friend of a manager could be given a job he's wholly unqualified for because the company has trouble hiring minorities and needed numbers -- their minority employees are so few not because of discrimination but because most employees there were hired 20-30 years ago when there was practically no minority populations in the area).
I also know minorities who were denied promotions because "hell, the only reason they even got hired in the first place was to fill a fucking quota". Which, actually, is partially true -- regardless of their qualifications.
Affirmative Action was a failure from the day it began, and its legacy is only continued racial tensions in the work place. Do away with it and those tensions will loudly disappear. My racist redneck half-uncle has no issues with hiring people of any race or religion, so long as they're qualified for the job -- in other words, the only color that matters is green.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
What I'm saying is that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution is specifically designed to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government, and this is the ideal notion of Republicanism to which I was referring. The framers recognized that there were necessary and just functions of government that were needed in order to maintain justice and order and to preserve the integrity of the nation from external forces. The U.S. Constitution was intended to prohibit the Federal government from overstepping these limits.
Unfortunately, elected officials in both major parties in the U.S. have lost sight of that ideal, and have instead emarked upon a mission of extracting as much personal power as they can by tapping into the economic activity of the most productive portions of the U.S. economy to prop up the least productive portions. This can be seen by any of the number of social and corporate welfare programs each of which creates in those receiving it, an artifical dependence of government, sacrificing their potential for the almighty dollar.
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
Health care is literally a life-and-death issue. Yes, people will get up in arms if there is political lock-in to unworkable policies.
Are you arguing that black criminals do more harm to society than white criminals? Or are you arguing that we simply can't compare the amount of damage done, and therefore it is as ludicrous to say that whites do more than blacks as it is to say that blacks do more than whites? Either way, I win the argument and OeLeWaPpErKe loses...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Really.
ideology is just as funny as a mixed breed mostly Native American man joining the KKK or the Aryan nation
Never forget, Gandhi hated black people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi#Early_South_African_articles
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Your children. Or since this is Slashdot your sister's children.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
The financial aid office didn't tell me "good news, you don't have to pay because you're Black and Female". I have about $40,000 in student loans from a bank.
Where'd you go for college? What were your test scores? I was shown the quota sheet. I was shown the criteria for entry - you could get into the colleges with about 150 less SAT just by having different color skin or boobs instead of a penis. I was shown the list of scholarships that listed gender or race as a criteria for even applying.
I need you to imagine for a moment that you are a Black woman. You have to work with people. You have to apply for jobs. You sometimes need help from people. And all of these people are white men who have been told time and time again, they would have all the things they deserve and all the things they worked for, except that all of those things were given to people like you instead. This is in spite of the fact, they're making more money than you and they have the job you wish you had.
I need you to imagine you're a white teenager for a moment. You're the son of parents who are not rich, grandson of grandparents who are both not rich (they're TEACHERS for fuck's sake), great-grandson of people who came across the ocean with nothing but the clothes on their back and a dream to raise their kids with more than they could have in the "old country."
You've worked your ass off in school. Studied hard for every test, worked hard on every paper and project. Practiced and practiced, ecstatic when your SAT and ACT scores came in high. Ecstatic when you qualified for scholarships based on your hard work. Worked your ass off in multiple school extracurricular groups, worked your ass off tutoring other students as a volunteer, worked your ass off in Scouts, did everything you needed to do.
So you walk in to the college you wanted to get into and get the big slap in the face. We can't take you, you see. Your scores are higher than most of the incoming freshman class. You have more extracurricular and leadership and community service experience as well. But, you see, your application wound up getting reviewed after most of them in the random shuffle, and we've run out of spaces for "your type". All the spots we have left are for someone who's got nowhere near your qualifications, hasn't worked half as hard, but has a different skin color or different urinary plumbing.
Think about that for a second. Think hard on it. I don't know how hard you worked or not for college. From the sound of $40,000 in debt, I hope it was pretty hard. But I don't know. What I do know is that the lesson I learned in the college application process is that hard work means precisely two things when faced with skin color quotas: jack and shit.
Better yet, imagine you finally have a chance to get a promotion that will put you over that $50,000 mark. And the person who has to decide whether to give it to you or the next guy has just finished reading some slashdot post about how the other guy deserves it and you don't. I'm just saying.
In other words, I have to wonder: did one of these people get a free pass? Which one worked their ass off to get here?
I'd rather not have to wonder, thanks. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said: "The best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."
Very good... but ol' boy's such an easy target. You get 'im every time. Fuckin' love it. Now go pick on somebody yer own size.
Maybe this is the sign that portrait a nice peaceful u.s. president invading iran. That obama, will not put end to any war, is just another face with the same agenda of the global oligarchy. ...dont really care who is "in charge", because he doesnt even know who really is "in charge".
For the record I'm strongly democrat. This is basically supposed to be the highest international honer you could ever earn. Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice, not a good one, but better. At least she has some done real leg work in the awards statement ""to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.".
Heck, why not give it to Bill for his past efforts in the former soviet block
Let's say this while I'm logged in...
What I'm saying is that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution is specifically designed to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government, and this is the ideal notion of Republicanism to which I was referring. The framers recognized that there were necessary and just functions of government that were needed in order to maintain justice and order and to preserve the integrity of the nation from external forces. The U.S. Constitution was intended to prohibit the Federal government from overstepping these limits.
Unfortunately, elected officials in both major parties in the U.S. have lost sight of that ideal, and have instead emarked upon a mission of extracting as much personal power as they can by tapping into the economic activity of the most productive portions of the U.S. economy to prop up the least productive portions. This can be seen by any of the number of social and corporate welfare programs each of which creates in those receiving it, an artifical dependence of government, sacrificing their potential for the almighty dollar.
[Insert "Yes, you can" joke here]
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance." Isaac Asimov
you forgot to mention that liberals are more likely to believe in ghosts
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Actually since both of those statements could probably get you convicted for hate crime (whether it's white or black criminals doing more damage, surely one of the groups will have "hurt feelings" that seem to entitle people to monetary damages) ... which was the whole point. You can't have a discussion about anything related in the slightest to groups of people without "being racist". Since we obviously need these discussions, we obviously cannot have hate-crime laws.
How exactly do you propose we "add up" the "damage to people's lives"?
Do the math, and then you buy insurance. But usually the courts will end up deciding...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Again, it's absolutely impossible to punish people for what they think, and will be until the invention of mind reading technology. It is only possible for the criminal justice system to act on what the criminal DID or SAID at the time of the crime, not what they thought. Is it possible to make a crime of violent worse by saying or doing racist things at the time. Absolutely.
It's not about what people THINK, it's about the effect of their ACTIONS on the victim and wider society. Just like virtually every other criminal law.
Impossible. Mind reading technology not yet invented. Additional penalties can only be added for additional ACTIONS, including vocalising racist comments. Therefore the punishment is not for what the criminal THINKS, but for the effect of the criminals ACTIONS on the victims and on society.
> He's obviously a Republican. Or someone who's actually read the constitution.
I'm not even American, and recall there being a bit in in it about "promotion of the general welfare". Sounds like healthcare would come under that to me.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
I didn't even know Slashdot had a second page for comments. My little scroll bar on the side is so small...
The Obombinator has mass murdered innocents including many children with his terminator death predator drones dropping bombs from the skies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, those children and other innocents are resting peacefully rotting in their freshly dug graves. It's appropriate that the Obombinator receives the Nobel Peaceful Death Prize which was created by a notorious Arms Merchant of Death who invented and then sold his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) across the world powered by dynamite. Very appropriate that the Obombinator wins a prize funded off of blood money. A blood money prize for a mass murderer committing crimes against humanity.
Um, you don't know. I don't know. I don't want to find out either. What makes you think that that particular failure won't result in the same kind of "war" that you are trying to avoid elsewhere?
Yeah, I'm a pessimist with regard to Government Controlled Economies, and the Human Rights that are violated by them.
And last time I checked, we pretty much wiped Germany and Japan during the last world war. The German and Japanese people still exist. Only time people are exterminated are by totalitarian regimes.
War sucks, but war by totalitarian assholes is worse. But what do I know?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
To be fair, curing people just gives them a chance to get sick again. Whereas dead stays dead (and even if they don't, a proper public policy for zombie outbreaks still involves liberal applications of firepower).
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Who deserves this better than the man who ended the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and closed the Guantanamo prison camp?
Oh, wait, that didn't happen in this universe.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
A heck of a lot of Norwegians (roughly 70% in a quick poll I saw at a major newspaper) are as puzzled, incredulous, and shocked as the rest of you and are opposed to awarding the prize to Mr. Obama for all manner of different reasons both good and bad. In addition many of us are ashamed of the choice made by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee as it's nothing but politically corrupted sycophancy (as on many earlier occasions). The Prize has lost all its value over the past decades and should simply be ignored. So yes please ignore the prize as it's not worthy of any attention and is being decided and awarded by some of the biggest fools in our country many of whom could be considered enemies of freedom. Many Norwegians feel ashamed to be Norwegians today, I am one of them.
That would be the debt incurred in cleaning up GWB's messes?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
This video sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nqvyBTWis
Show me one case where someone in America has been convicted of a hate crime for speech. Just one case and I will not only admit I am flat out wrong, but work to correct that injustice. You can not find a single case, though, because it has never happened except in certain people's paranoid persecution fantasies.
Please confine your criticism of our government to real injustices. Fighting imaginary injustice is best left to the Unicorn Brigade, that's what they are there for, so you can focus on the real injustices, of which there are plenty.
To try to stay on topic, let me just say how proud I am that our president has won the Nobel Peace Prize. All real patriots are proud when their president wins such a prestigious award, whether he deserves it or not. Really, we all know this was a political decision because Obama has not really done anything worthy of the award. If he had done half the things the Republicans accuse him of, it would be different. But unfortunately for us leftist socialists, he's a fairly hawkish centrist who hasn't done any of the things he promised us he'd do. Still, the world is happy that we have elected someone better than Bush, and this is their way of saying 'thank you, America.' Who are we to reject their heartfelt thanks?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
American citizen might be puzzled or even shocked (mainly GOP affiliates) to hear the news from Oslo. As an European (Swiss), I must say that Barak Obama stands for the America we love, as much as George W. Bush and his administration stood for the America we hate.
We have a dream of America. An America witch stands for freedom and democarcy. An America where everybody gets his chance, even the offspring of an affair between an African student and a white anglo saxon.
We have the dream of an America which stands for the firm belief "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence)
Barak Obama gave us hope. The hope that America will stand for its basic values and that America will accept Europe as an equal partner.
That is what the price is for. A prize for a promise not a price for an achievment. Surely Barak Obama will disappoint us from time to time, as America has allways disappointed us from time to time. But, we have to admit that disappointment belongs to love as hope belongs to love.
So the real laureate of this years peace price is not Barak Obama - it is the United States of America which elected him for president and made the world believe that there is hope.
-- chribo
You should be modded +5 insightful; I don't know what kind of drugs the person who modded you offtopic is on.
I am a liberal. I vote for Democratic party candidates 99% of the time not because they represent my views, but because the Republican candidates usually represent the antithesis of my views. There are a few true liberals like Russ Feingold in the Democratic party, but in truth it is dominated by Blue Dogs rather than liberals. Which is why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and why we won't get the health insurance reform we deserve.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
"The conservative party caters to BIG FUCKING BUSINESS"
"Oh yeah, they overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democrats..."
You seem to be confusing what companies do for what the government does. I know, it must be hard to think of a valid argument, you probably had to stop thinking entirely to actually accept the arguments given by republican candidates, it's an easy mistake. Just, in the future, try to use your brain.
"I make less than $50,000/year. They raise my taxes, I have less money to support my family." You don't seem to be reading what Obama's tax policies are actually doing. Your taxes aren't going to increase unless you make more than something like $75k a year (might have been $100 k, I don't remember the number exactly, but it was way over $50k).
"I was rejected so they could meet minority-quota" Minority quotas are unconstitutional as per the supreme court ruling University of California V. Bakke. Being given extra consideration isn't illegal, but it wasn't a quota. You probably didn't bother to actually pay attention to why you were rejected, or you're making up bullshit. I don't know which, but you weren't denied due to a quota.
And what exactly were all of these discriminatory places? You didn't mention a single one.
Why don't you actually go read up on and do some research about the democrats' policies. And no, watching FOX news doesn't count as "research". You'll find that the republicans usually outright lie about or, at the very least, spin what democrats actually plan to do.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
There are things which are legal, but not moral and others are moral, but not legal. To complain about the legality of a morally good choice, is to be a coward who doesn't want to be known as an immoral person. What would you be saying it if it was explicitly in the constitution?
Just so you know. The point of this thread was to discuss how hate crime laws influence talking about different groups. Presumably stating "white people" do more damage should be equally racist to stating "black people" do more damage.
Add to that that I find your argument dishonest. Yes white collar crime does more financial damage, obviously. The single crime that Enron represented probably did more financial damage than 5 years of "normal" crime in the entire US. Nevertheless nobody died from it. Nobody still has nightmares from it. So you might want to go out to the street and decide for yourself which kind of crime actually damages people's lives. I know we assign monetary damages to things like rape, beatings and murder, but in reality obviously nobody recovers from murder, and it is difficult recovering from the other 2 as well. Add to that the intimidation and terror those crimes cause.
I'd much rather live in a place with a lot of white collar crime than in a place with even a little bit of blue collar crime.
But that's obviously just because I'm racist, right ? Not because I think my nose is currently perfectly positioned on my face and dread the thought of remodeling in that area.
So you won't distinguish between first- and second-degree murder based on things like whether it was premeditated?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
You idiot, it's not "Obama's debt". He's been in office for about 8 months now, he wasn't the one that fought two useless wars and gave fuckloads of contracts and tax cuts to military contractors and allowed shitloads of money to exit the country via outsourcing.
The debt was incurred by Bush. I mean, I can understand people not understanding the intricacies of global economics, but did you seriously forget how to use a calendar or have you just been brainwashed by FOX?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
You ignore the content of that PowerPoint presentation. The software app chosen was a little dicey, but the message was clear.
According to this article, it was Keynote, not PowerPoint. Don't know if it's skipping over some older rev or whatever, but I'd heard that it was in Keynote...
You're wrong. That's not past tense; it's future perfect tense, for actions occurring up until some future point in time, as in "I shall have murdered at least 10 people before I turn myself in next year." So the prize is not a mistake, at least not based on that argument.
Show me one case where someone in America has been convicted of a hate crime for speech.
That's because the U.S., unlike most of Europe, does not in fact have hate crime laws.
In Europe, you find tons of people and convictions. And hate crime laws are used to destroy public debate. Just look to figures like Geert Wilders. Even in Canada you find these cases.
Still, the world is happy that we have elected someone better than Bush, and this is their way of saying 'thank you, America.' Who are we to reject their heartfelt thanks?
Actually most European newspapers are saying it is a way to pressure Obama into making his (rather absurd) campaign promises into reality. The nobel committee specifically stated that they wanted the president of the US to ignore the feelings of US citizens and instead "respect the prevailing norms and values of the international community" (presumably they mean themselves, as this type of idiots always do). Further in the text they also emphasized extending UN sovereignty over US citizens, primarily because of the "global warming" issue.
Well I'm sure that since Obama promised both palestine and Israel the same land (I mean the city of Jerusalem), just to name one example, that without some serious help from all gods involved he's going to fail.
These articles in euro newspapers are generally buried under a torrent of comments about how he doesn't deserve it, because he's fighting 3 wars (apparently the us is fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel). Apparently that Obama got the price is mainly "proof" of the "US domination" of the nobel prize committee ("ahmed" and "mohamed" named persons seem to make this "Jewish domination" of said committee)
Frankly if the world is about to start liking the US, they're doing a VERY good job of hiding those feelings.
Yeah, surprising to me to that this happened at this early phase, but it's their right to acknowledge someone who moves in the right direction as far as they are concerned.
For those who haven't seen it, he deserves the Nobel Prize just from his speech reaching out the Muslim World. Most Americans have not seen the whole thing beginning to end. But the world saw it, and you bet your bippy that lots of the Muslim world saw it. It was amazingly awesome.
Absolutely brilliant, strong, and a genuine attempt to promote real peace. I'm proud that we have a leader like that.
Yes, a big change from the bullying, belligerence, and ignorance, from the last 8 years, and probably him winning had some relationship with their dissapproval of his predecessor in terms of a powerful nation doing so much to devalue international cooperation, the UN, and international mutual respect.
At inaugeration he said that the USA... "we are ready to lead once more"...and he seems to be selling it to the world. he's not selling domination and war ***as an end to themselves*** like leaders seemed to do before. Instead he's selling leadership and trying to get along with each other, and then cooperating on zapping the violent extremists of every type. And he even tried to address the rifts between Israel and Palestine, promoting a 2state solution, and explicitly calling out BOTH sides to stuff they did wrong (condemning both sides), and explaining in straightforward language how both side's recent strategies are losing strategies, and laying out a plan for peace.
So, yeah, people who want vocal powerful advocates of peace probably respond well to his speech reaching out the Muslim World and his comments about hoping (eventually) for a world without nuclear weapons.
And btw, the Nobel group has also expanded its role over the years to include promotion of causes that relate to poverty and health, so his domestic healthcare work probably is something they approve of also.
And that's why he got the award. And that's why he deserved it. They want more of that, even if you don't agree with him or think he hasn't delivered yet. They want to make it easier for him to get stuff done by giving him some public kudos at a time he needs it because he's under attack and they want to give him some cred to help him do so.
The US followed their own law for declaring war
You realize that the US has not declared war in almost 70 years, don't you?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
We DO have hate crime laws. They just don't trump the Constitution, thankfully. We aren't Europe. Some times, like with health care, I wish we were. But some times I am glad I don't live over there, free speech is kinda important. Even Nazi skinheads deserve free speech.
But we already change criminal sentences based on motivation. A crime of passion is not considered as serious as a premeditated murder. Someone who kills in a fit of rage and jealousy is less likely to do it again than someone who plans a murder in cold blood and carries it out. With hate crimes, we know the person is potentially more dangerous in the future, as their motivation to kill minorities is not likely to just go away.
It's good that you read so many foreign newspapers. Most Americans would just watch, say, the biased Faux News coverage of what 'the rest of the world' is saying and believe that. I'm curious as to which paper's coverage you found the most enlightening?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Nice dishonesty there. He didn't start those wars (one of which is perfectly legal). He got them handed over to him from the guy who started them. Basically, he has to clean up the mess, and unlike idiots like you, he realizes it isn't just a matter of snapping his fingers.
Clever signature text goes here.
Unfortunately, I think there are some here in the US that are that insane. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32991672/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
How about this, for example :
"Mehr Bürde als Ehre"
(translates to : "more a burden than an honor")
Let's take a paragraph from it :
"The prize was not awarded today to a real life American president, who has to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions. It was awarded to the symbol of the 2008 election campaign in which the world* has placed it's trust. But Obama demanded to be seen as a superhuman in the campaign. Now he has to satisfy those expectations in the real world, a task which will prove impossible. The award from Oslo will not help him there. It is a burden, much more than an honor."
After this, the next 3 paragraphs talk about 3 "failures" of Obama : he hasn't implemented any healthcare and it seem unlikely it's ever going to happen. The war in Afghanistan has gotten worse and there are grave concerns for the evolution of the situation in Iraq after Bush's surge was de-facto recalled by Obama.
* I take exception to these assholes speaking for me, by the way
Yep, they only once awarded it posthumously, and they'll never do it again. Let this be a lesson, if you want your Nobel prize, don't get shot dead so soon after accomplishing Nobel-worthy things.
You just got troll'd!
I wasn't under the impression I was making an argument. I'm merely skewering all this mental masturbation. Don't look for things that aren't there.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The Illinois Governor who won the peace prize is in prison for selling CDLs to people who couldn't drive or speak English and who ultimately killed a fmaily in a fiery death on the highway.
That one wasn't a joke, it was just pathetic.
Mod parent down, as it's main claim is false. The dude did not win the Nobel Peace Prize, and your link to wikipedia is misleading, and even that wikipedia page does not even claim that he won.
He merely was nominated in 2005. You can trivially confirm that in 2005 the Peace Prize went to Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency shared the price in 2005. That's this guy, btw.
You can also find out on that site that the nominations are the result of their requests to thousands of people...."send individual invitations to thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists from numerous countries, previous Nobel Laureates, members of parliamentary assemblies and others, asking them to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year". So, seriously, as News For Nerds, we need to honest about distinguishing between "nomination" (one of thousands of people said yeah him) versus "winning" the Peace Prize. Which he didn't do.
A basic google search would find you this page that lists all the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. And obviously George Ryan is demonstrably not on the list.
Mod parent down.
Another headline from Spiegel (mirror) :
"Former Nobel Peace Prize winner calls choice 'sad'"
Apparently Mairead Corrigan Maguire did this. Can't you just feel the love of Europe ?
Simply by applying the standards upheld at Nuremberg.
"...To give a peace prize to the commander-in-chief of a war machine now churning its way through the populations of three countries (Iraq/Af-Pak), with innumerable black ops, lightning raids and drone shots on the side .... to a man who even as we speak is deciding just how he wants to kill even more civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan ... a man who has enthusiastically embraced as "an extraordinary achievement" one of the most heinous and barbaric acts of military aggression since Hitler rolled across the border into Poland ... a man who blusters about leaving "all options on the table," including the use of mass-murdering nuclear weapons, to bully other nations into compliance with American wishes ... to give a peace prize to such a man, while all over the world, there are men and women who have devoted their entire lives to non-violence and reconciliation, many of them suffering imprisonment, torture and ruin for their efforts ... well, like I said, it's beyond words.
But it's good to see that the spirit of arms merchant Alfred Nobel -- purveyor and profiteer of death and destruction -- is being honored so perfectly with today's award..."
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1856-well-nobel-was-the-inventor-of-dynamite-after-all.html
"Almost no one will acknowledge the single, fundamental truth about Barack Obama, the truth of greatest and most terrifying consequence:
Barack Obama is a war criminal.
Many facts overwhelmingly and conclusively compel this judgment, and no other. Not because I say so, but because an honest application of the relevant language of international law, as well as of the Nuremberg Principles, necessitates the conclusion."
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/10/depraved-obscene-absurdities.html
Oh! My Surprise! "WAR IS PEACE!"
Barack Obama just used his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to reiterate his threats against Iran.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Building-a-World-that-Gives-Life-to-the-Promise-of-Our-Founding-Documents/
That's change you can deceive in.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
The Solomon Islands appears as one of those names. Trouble is the Solomon Islands deny they gave any such support.
Afghanistan is on the list. This being shortly after America had invaded the only "government" Afghanistan had was the puppet one the US government had installed there. How does that qualify?
Then there is complete basket cases like Angola and Eritreya.
How is it you haven't realised that the Bush administration played you like a chump? Are you being willfully stupid?
This was never a list of governments that supported the invasion of Iraq. This was a list of 30 countries the US government considered it had enough power over to make them say whatever was demanded of them.
His name is a killing sound.... ...but he has never ridden the worm!
TAKE HIS WATER, NOW!
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Do you have evidence for any of your three assertions? Or like so many people here are you just happy to make s**t up?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I agree with you. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a little bit right of center, and I voted for McCain (although I'm not a Republican). I'm willing to give Obama a fair shake for what he does while in office, and if he does wonderful things over the next few years, then give the man a truckload of awards. But really, let's wait and see what he does first.
Of course, now the Nobel Peace Prize folks have shot their wad, so what will they do in a few years if Obama really does bring us world peace?
All told, this was really their way of giving G.W. Bush negative-one Nobel Peace Prizes. They should have just *said* that (and maybe "fined" Bush a million dollars or whatever the prize is now, just for grins), instead of further misusing the actual prize.
There is no past tense in the passage you cited. It is in the future perfect.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Don't forget Poland!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
There are those that don't understand how truly nice this is. Somehow, an early negative reaction tried to steal the glory from the announcement, and was good doing it. Seems they don't want the ideals expressed. Or they think it's too early for such a prize.
Yet the wounds caused by Bush are deep. There's a way to go in the healing process. And there's peace to be had, if people can drop their shoulders and embrace, instead of holding themselves in the exaggerated fear campaign and propaganda from Cheney and Rove. Reaching out is a new way to feel in the US.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
For ending Saddam Hussein's rule.
Didn't have to look it up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The US has not moved forward, economically, since 1970. The only thing the US has done since then is accumulate debt and manipulate accounting rules so that the debt looks like a product export to strengthen our GDP.
Let me introduce you to my friend, basic economics. Everything in this example will be in 2005 dollars, as that's how the Bureau of Economic Analysis has the data:
Our annual GDP in 1970 was $4.27 Trillion(T). Our 1970 Gross Federal Debt was 37.6%, or $1.6T. That means our non-debt economy in 1970 was $2.66T.
Our 2008 debt was 67.5%, or $8.98T of our $13.3T annual GDP. Which means our non-debt GDP for 2008 was $4.32T. That's a total non-debt inflation-adjusted growth of 270% and an average compound annual growth of 2.65%. It's not stellar, but it's definitely not stagnant like you claimed. Of course, the idea of the debt-to-GDP being the only measure of economic growth is absurd, but even by that metric we've been chugging along at a good pace.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
A lot more than Arafat did before he got his. Arafat made strong efforts towards peace after he got the award as distinct from being pretty well nothing but a warlord prior to that. After a while it could sort of be argued that he might have deserved it if you ignored his past.
Think of it as an encouragement award. Also the world has stopped hating the US government almost overnight. Hillary in the same place would have got it, McCain too if he could keep the loonies out of his administration and calm world leaders down. I agree with your opinion that not much has been done, but think of the prize as "the best hope for peace NOW" instead of an award for a lifetime.
Yet strangely, the average American actually made the same or less in 2006 than he did in the 70s, in terms of 2006 dollars, as per the US Census. So, what growth has an American really seen in this growing economy?
"A peace prize, really? Screw the people who actually promote peace and settle conflict"
One billion refugees from the Yangzee and Ganges basins will be WW3 in the making. Curbing sea level rise and conserving the hymalayian glaciers is the most efficient way to PREVENT future conflict.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I'm not talking about that debt.
That IS Bush's debt.
I'm talking about the massive debt Obama's incurred under the economic bailout.
Feel free to wait and blame it on the next republican president if you wish, though. Bush may have hit the economy with his car, but Obama came up and said he could end its suffering. And did. He killed it. All that money to all those companies and it accomplished nothing.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
If naivety were the only compromise needed to cure all of the other ills you mentioned, I say let it be made.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
That insane? Maybe, but we'll never know, his health insurance wouldn't cover the psychiatric care.
--Quote
October 9, 2009
Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on October 9, 2009 08:31 AM
So Obama joins Woodrow Wilson in the pantheon of American presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize (Wilson won it in 1919). I learned this morning that nominations for the prize had to be in by Feb. 20, about one month after Obama was inaugurated. That means that the prize went for his rhetoric during the campaign, not anything he could have actually accomplished. As I recall, his two most memorable foreign policy pronouncements during the campaign were 1) advocating that the U.S. bomb Pakistan; and 2) escalating the war in Afghanistan. He did order the murder of some people in Pakistan by bombardment shortly after taking office. I’m still surprised, though, that he won the prize after killing so few people. Usually, one must be a major league murderer like a Wilson or a Teddy Roosevelt to win such a prize.
--End Quote
What had the s.o.b. done by Feb. 2009? Show up for work.
The prize is a fraud, a political ploy!
Maybe it happened long before, I just have not noticed.
Winning it??? seems more political than anything else, gotta hand it to the monies/people/politicians behind the nobel prize yeah let's nominate him --what 18 days after his inauguration-- oh well the prize kinda lost it's grandeur a long time ago.
;)
just my --->.02 now there is some change
FragHARD or don't frag at all
I just read a comment on FoxNews about how Obama doesn't deserve the Peace Prize because of an involvement with two wars.
Um, hmm.
Did that commentator forget that it was BUSH Jr. who started those wars, not Obama?
The Corporate owned news media employees travel around in a bubble cut off from the world.
I see. So having a sense of entitlement is a good thing for the country? Thinking your government owes you and is supposed to take care of you from the cradle to grave is good for the country? Just how is that? Mind explaining how thinking that your government owes you builds a strong nation?
Too bad so large a segment of our population today doesn't think like JFK did. He made sense when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." That paradigm makes for a strong, vibrant nation as its citizens are looking to build/contribute_to something greater than themselves, rather than looking for a handout, and is the same paradigm held by the founding fathers of our nation.
I wonder just how the Revolutionary War would have progressed with everyone asking for a handout rather than making sacrifices for the common good. Well, I really don't wonder, as I already know. There would have been no volunteers, except to criticize the Continental Congress for not feeding, clothing, and taking care of everyone's medical costs, and the British army would have sliced us up like a hot knife through butter.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Anyone who would put Doctors without Borders on a list of those undeserving of a Peace Price has been brainwashed into such right wing extremist freak they are incapable of speaking on any subject as without spewing right wing talking points over and over
Actually, I think the OP meant that Tina Fey was near declaring war on Russia. :) This is especially true since many among the left-leaning crowd on Slashdot have a propensity for getting the two confused.
He who has no
Perhaps this is all a clever scheme by the EU: give Obama an award which he obviously does NOT deserve yet, to make sure he works extra hard to EARN it. Guilt trip him into earning it.
Pretty smart move if you look at this another way.
I still think that it was given to him bogusly.
Well I certainly hope this news story doesn't start an incendiary flamewar!
How do you win the peace prize if you invade another country. I would think a political prisoner or someone struggling against oppression would win a "peace prize".. not someone who authorizes billions of $$$ to invade another country so oil corporations and contractors get rich.. That's why they put him in there, because they knew the public would not stand for anyone like Bush again to invade more countries with their tax dollars, plus the economy was going to shit, so they needed someone to distract everybody from the real deal. A marketing technique that worked. A business plan. Obama was the perfect candidate. Right before all the shit hit the fan. The best idea yet!
But also, at least Obama is a man that deserves respect, his more nuanced approach on international politics leaves with less ammo all the guys around the world that used and abused the fact that the USA under Bush was ruled by mad militaristic coward oilmen driving and Express train to fascist hell. More than Obama, the prize goes for the tenuos mayority of american people that want peace and a change; this is a obvious way to strengten the hand of the americans that think that is better to use the taxpayers money providing health care to the american citizens than using it to blow up houses or cities or to put even more puppet regimes around the world.
That means a lot for the rest of the world, because even if we like it or not, America still is the most influential and powerful country in the planet.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Religion and cultural inertia.
Le français vous intéresse?
"I make 50K per year (before taxes) and would like to be filthy rich someday."
They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to belive it. - Carlin
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yup, looks like there is a significant minority of really mad people in USA. When an american citizen can get better and cheaper health care in a fucked up hell hole like Mexico than in USA, really its time to give a hard look to the state of the american health care industry. If the current bills are bad, well, write to your congressman to suggest changes to improve them. Its really pathetic to see the americans argue about how they can't build a better health care system than the mexicans, canadians, british or french.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Agree, the best ting he an do is to refuse the prize and ask if he can pick it up in 4 to 8 years, that if of course if they still think he deserves it then. That would perhaps get the selection process back on its true track and stop downgrading its value.
Your reasoning for why he deserves the Peace Prize seems to be, "Because many people in the world like and trust him," right?
Trust may be the most important factor in promoting peace.
Focusing in on the "fraternity between nations" part of the definition? With the hope that, since people like him a lot more than Bush, he'll be able to do something toward reducing standing armies and promoting peace?
Yes.
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Yes.
Which basically means, any time we have any national leader who is broadly well-liked, we should give him the prize?
Y... Whoah, wait... What??? Oh, I'm sorry. For a second, I thought you were trying to make a rational argument. Now I see you're just prone to pointless hyperbole. My apologies...
Now that it's pretty clear that no intelligent person can justify Obama's winning a Nobel - there are two points we can take away with reasonable assurance : 1 - The PR reverse that Obama suffered with the Olympics 2016 pitch has been offset by some extent 2 - The Nobel Prize decisions can be influenced. It is possible Obama would not have won the Peace prize if his pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago was successful.
Since nobody in the top 200 posts seems to have posted it:
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
WTF is wrong with you people!?!? Are you so blinded that you cannot see what a significant change this is? Thit alone is worth the Nobel prize!!! A BLACK MAN has become PRESIDENT of one of the most racist counties there has ever been! The FIRST BLACK MAN to become ruler in ANY G8 country! Mr. Obama could screw up the politics for the next 8 years and that would still be a significant change in the world!
Wake up people! It's later than you think!
Peace out!
Let's face it: Obama won the prize simply because he is not a member of the same American political party as Bush is.
He was nominated for this in FEBRUARY. He held the presidency for less than a month when he was nominated. IIRC for most of that month he was dealing with the economic meltdown.
He does not deserve this prize. Even the FRENCH are chiding him for being so damn apologist.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Half to Barack Obama for demonstrating the leadership to advocate diplomacy as a means of settling and avoiding international conflict.
And half to the American People, for having the guts to choose to try for peace even though we were inundated by the claims of the powerful in both American politics and American media that only those eager for war could protect us from war.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Thanks for also proving the point that Liberals want to believe in lies so badly that they'll actually use a Slashdot troll to "validate" them.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Better yet, imagine you finally have a chance to get a promotion that will put you over that $50,000 mark. And the person who has to decide whether to give it to you or the next guy has just finished reading some slashdot post about how the other guy deserves it and you don't. I'm just saying.
LOL
And they will find this post!
This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
Have so many of you been asleep for the last fifteen years? Since 1996 you are ineligible for federal welfare unless you're working or disabled. Or are a giant multi billion dollar corporation.
And I hate to tell you this, but the worst paying jobs are also the most disgusting jobs. Guess whose doing those jobs? Yep, mostly black people. I don't know where you get your bigoted ideas from, GTFO slashdot and go back to Stormfront where you belong.
I think you ought to watch the TV show Dirty Jobs. You'll see the most disgusting, dirtiest jobs are split pretty evenly by race. Black people have no monopoly on having jobs that require them to work in conditions that are just plain filthy and disgusting. To even suggest that blacks are the only ones doing nasty jobs shows that you have a rather tenuous grasp of the facts.
When I was still in school I had one of the nastiest jobs you can have every summer. I scraped moldy seed and dried mud off the inside of 4'x4'x4' metal bins during the months of July and August for an alfalfa seed company when they were getting ready for harvest.
Ever worked inside of a metal box that's been sitting in the sun all day when it's 100 degrees in the shade? It's like sitting in an oven. The sweat runs off you and mixes with the mold, dirt, and alfalfa seeds and sprouts, that fall on you while you're scraping the inside of a bin so hot if you don't wear heavy leather gloves, a long-sleeved shirt, full length pants, and knee pads, the contact with the bin will blister your skin in less than an hour. Plus, as an added bonus, you get to breathe that wonderful concoction you create when scraping the inside of those bins.
You go home at night with a muddy face and your pants and shirt stiff with dried mud from your sweat mixing with crap you scraped from the bottoms and sides of the bins. Your nose is so full of the junk that you had to breathe inside those bins that the first few times you blow it everything comes out black.
Driving by that same business 30+ years later it's still mostly white boys out there doing that same job. There's also a lot more black people living in the area now than there were when I was a teenager. If your racist view was correct then not only would I have never done that job, but the only people I'd see out there now doing that absolutely nasty job would be black people, and that's simply not the case.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
OR, you could stop being a dishonest shill.
Minority quotas are unconstitutional as per the supreme court ruling University of California V. Bakke
Yes, that happened in 1978. Unfortunately, we keep getting cases back to the Supreme Court. Why? Because the Bakke decision doesn't ban having minority quotas, it bans the college itself establishing a strict numerical quota on paper.
If, on the other hand, some asswipe racial supremacist organization sends them a letter threatening to sue if they don't reach a certain percentage number, and they forward it to everyone involved in admissions, their ass is still covered and the quota still exists.
You probably didn't bother to actually pay attention to why you were rejected, or you're making up bullshit.
I was shown, on paper, exactly what was going on, by the admissions office. They hated the policy but that was that. Fuck you.
Reagan end the Cold war, a decades long conflict between two power who would likely end the world if they opened fire on one another. No Peace Prize. A parade of people get the Peace Prize for "bringing peace to the Middle East". (After all that trouble you'd think one would have left it there.) Now Obama get the Peace Prize effectively for showing up to work 8 months in a row.
I know people who have done less. I think they lean left if it's needed. I've got to let the committee know because their time must be soon if it isn't already upon us.
Taleban offered a hotel for OBL. Before that it was SUdan.
You believe in fairy-tales. If you buy the official 911 story, then yje US should have attacked Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
I think they should have invaded Israel - as the home of "Al-Qaeda".
Well here's another clue for you all. The Walrus was Paul.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2086-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Breaking-News-Algerian-daily-confirms-Mossad-training-camps-for-alQaida?cid=email-this-article
http://www.ennaharonline.com/en/news/943.html
Just begin your day, each morning, with the admonition: "Everything you know is wrong."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Or one religion may call it morally wrong to have sex out of wedlock while another may not. These are morals because they are taken on faith without thought or justification - the religion simply says so and it's believed. But you certainly cannot say that sex out of wedlock is a universal truth.
Hmmm.... No moral or ethical problems with sex outside of marriage? Any acceptance of sex outside of marriage being a moral or ethical problem is done so with no thought or justification? It seems to me you're the one lacking in critical thinking skills.
Problems with sex outside of marriage:
1. Most single parent families live at the poverty level or below. This leads to lowered life expectations and lost opportunities for most kids in that environment. Yes, some do succeed, but they are the exception, not the rule.
2. Sexual promiscuity has led to the explosion of STD's that could never have happened in a world without sex outside of marriage. How many lives are lost and billions are spent due to HIV/AIDS alone? HIV/AIDS as societal problem would never have existed without sexual promiscuity as it can only be spread through sexual contact.
3. Young single mothers, or even guys who became fathers too early, who once had dreams for their lives that they will never reach because of a moment of passion. It's a very common story.
4. Kids abused because of the frustration level of single/young parents who must raise their children in very tough financial situations that would not exist if they had not had sex, and do not have the maturity to deal with the situation as they became a parent at far too young an age.
5. Government resources being used to support people who would otherwise be supporting themselves had they not had a child outside of marriage. I'm not saying it's bad that single mothers/parents get help, only that the entire situation could not exist without the practice of having sex outside of marriage.
6. Men and women look at sex differently. What a man can leave behind with little or no emotional issues can, and often times will, cause great emotional harm to a woman.
That's just a few of the moral/ethical justifications for restricting sex outside of marriage. There are more, but these few are enough to show logical reasons exist as to why at least some religions have moral objections to sex outside of marriage.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
You know, I got home last night and my wife, who's at least as liberal as me, was incensed that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. "Cheapens the institution," was the phrase she used. We've been disappointed in the man for months.
Like it or not, America touches the entire world, the decisions we make impact everyone, so they feel like they get to comment.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
wow. not only did you totally not get what he said, you also made yourself look like an idiot by being confrontational and unnecessarily insulting. a double win for you, jackass.
Obama was sworn in on January 20th and Nomination had to be submitted by February 1. He sure did a lot in 11 days!
Lets continues to degrade a once significant award with idiotic recipients who have not earned it, Obama, Carter, Arafat, Gore...
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Peace is clearly getting easier to 'do'. Al Gore had to invent the internet!
Anyone who suggests that the United States controls puppet governments has no clue what they're talking about. The United States has had their hands in regime changes, but many of those leaders have acted in direct opposition to American wishes.
People claimed for years that the United States had direct control over Iraq and Saddam because they helped place in power. Perhaps you don't pay any attention to Congress, where they routinely discuss how they want nothing to do with long-term nation building and control. It was a key point in approving troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the citizens of those countries would have complete control in determining their future destiny.
The Afghani government was formed by the Northern Alliance, which existed for years before we went into Afghanistan. They held democratic elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
That is a list of 39 nations that actually deployed troops. There were other nations that offered logistical support, naval ships, etc. but did not deploy ground troops.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Poland actually deployed troops.
How were they not part of the coalition?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Are you arguing that black criminals do more harm to society than white criminals?
No.
Or are you arguing that we simply can't compare the amount of damage done, and therefore it is as ludicrous to say that whites do more than blacks as it is to say that blacks do more than whites?
Essentially. If you really wished to attribute a damage measurement by race, you would have to do it on the basis of each type of crime. I don't think any unified measure that combines all crimes would make sense, because some crimes are not comparable to others.
I would also ask what the goal of the comparison by race is. To me, having a "which race does more damage" question does no good to society - it's just going to inflame people.
If OTOH the goal is to identify at-risk communities so as to target public policies to help those communities reduce crime, then looking at the demographics for a given type of crime (say murder, or fraud, or whatever) could provide insight. But you would have to look at all sorts of demographics - not just race - to tease out what the cause and effect relationships may be.
But we already change criminal sentences based on motivation. A crime of passion is not considered as serious as a premeditated murder. Someone who kills in a fit of rage and jealousy is less likely to do it again than someone who plans a murder in cold blood and carries it out. With hate crimes, we know the person is potentially more dangerous in the future, as their motivation to kill minorities is not likely to just go away.
That is the first time I've heard anyone give a logical justification for hate crimes legislation. So thanks.
But if likelihood of re-offending is the justification for hate crimes laws, it seems wrong to me that you have to be a member of a Congressionally-approved group for your murder to be considered evidence of likelihood to reoffend. If someone murders me because they thought I was flirting with their girlfriend, that guy is likely to reoffend too. If he kills me because I bumped into him walking on a crowded street, he's likely to do that again too. But we don't apply extra penalties for that.
If the goal is to lock up those who are likely to reoffend, why don't we make that part of the sentencing criteria? Doing this "hate crimes" stuff seems like a poor way to solve the problem since it doesn't cover all sorts of circumstances.
And now we've gotten ourselves into the business of saying a murder isn't as bad as another if it wasn't committed against a politically-protected group. That doesn't seem right. If someone murders my friend, it doesn't hurt any less because they weren't on Congress's list of protected groups.
no comment
Am I the only one getting up an advertisement for Sarah Palin's new book next to this article?
of course there are good evidence based reasons for abstinence. The problem is that these are not the reasons that religions use. The reason they use is that "god says so".
If the reasons were known, instead of divine edicts, we could modify our moral positions when conditions change. For instance, today there is no reason any woman who does not wish too should get pregnant. We have extrememly effective birth control these days -- a very recent development. Our religious morals have not caught up .
In a very backwards form of reasoning, many religions now say that birth control is immoral.... only because it would invalidate the moral rules that they have internalized without question for so long.
summary: of course most "moral values" have reasonable evidence based rationales. The problem comes when we do not understand that these are real reasons, and instead attribute the moral rules it some absolute rigid moral standard.
Haven't read the rest the previous discussion but...
of course there are good evidence based reasons for abstinence. The problem is that these are not the reasons that religions use. The reason they use is that "god says so".
If the reasons were known, instead of divine edicts, we could modify our moral positions when conditions change. For instance, today there is no reason any woman who does not wish too should get pregnant. We have extrememly effective birth control these days -- a very recent development. Our religious morals have not caught up .
In a very backwards form of reasoning, many religions now say that birth control is immoral.... only because it would invalidate the moral rules that they have internalized without question for so long.
summary: of course most "moral values" have reasonable evidence based rationales. The problem comes when we do not understand that these are real reasons, and instead attribute the moral rules it some absolute rigid moral standard.
Ummmm.... In my experience, you're wrong about your assumptions, and so was the original poster to whom I replied. I grew up going to a Christian church and not once were moral standards such as no extramarital sex, i.e. the 10 Commandments, ever said to exist "just because God said so".
I learned, from the church as a kid and agree with it as an adult, that God's rules have always been for protecting those people who follow Him from the consequences that come from initiating evil/immoral actions. Take a look at the last 6 commandments and you'll see what I mean. They are designed to keep us out of a lot of trouble with our fellow man. Follow those six principles and you'll never find yourself in a situation in which you are causing a problem with anyone you know.
The first 4 are similar, but much harder for someone who doesn't believe in God to understand that the same rationale lies behind them too, as they define the individual's relationship with God.
Are there some churches that do say that their moral standards are there "just because God says so"? Probably, as so many people seem to have that mistaken perspective. However, I've never been in one that actually taught that. I'd also say that any church that says God's standards are arbitrary doesn't really understand who God is.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
It sounds like he was indeed shocked, and I don't envy the awkwardness this places him under:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Building-a-World-that-Gives-Life-to-the-Promise-of-Our-Founding-Documents/
Ah, Bill Dog. Nice to see you again. Funny how you call me a troll, but you ignore your brethren who are writing the filthiest racist drivel seen anywhere. I'd rather be a troll than a gooddamn racist like yourself.
Your problem (actually the problem of the entire right) is that you don't think, you have emotional reactions. And the emotion you react to most of all is fear.
I'm just pointing it out, thanks for watching.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Actually, the correct answer to his post would have been, "What conservative party?"
For that matter, "What liberal party?"
We have two parties in this country. One is right-wing. The other is a coalition of various flavors of middle-of-the-roaders. Neither party conservative. Neither party liberal. We lose on both counts.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Recovery was going to cost us one way or another. Inflation, taxes, pick your poison. In fact we'll probably have some of both.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Jackass. Your response had nothing to do with the points in GP's post.
Good grief, I didn't call you a troll, I called the A/C doing the n-word trolling a troll. I called you a Liberal. Read it again.
But thanks for calling me a racist. And totally misunderstanding my simple sentence, and then in the next sentence claiming that it's others that are guilty of not thinking and instead just reacting emotionally.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Is killing an answer to killing? Seems as though some analysis is needed. Violence in response to violence brings more violence.
A gross insult to people who actually deserved the award. This guy went from a nothing to the president of the United States and has DELIVERED nothing but scripted speeches. People who actually did things for years or lifetimes were passed over because the "potential" is there that this guy MIGHT deliver something. Another group pandering to Hollywood. My disgust has reached a new level.
If you believe the Democrats are "a coalition of various flavors of middle-of-the-roaders", you obviously don't have any clue.
Whatever, making excuses for racists is the same as being a racist.
I stand against racists. You stand against me. This reflects worse on you than it does on me.
Thanks for volunteering to be the example.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
OK, clue me in, Mr. Genius Man.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
You mean, apart from the sheer number of left-wing shibboleths one must parrot to appease the various "coalition groups" that make up the so-called "democrat base" to have any hope of nomination for anything significant?
I suggest re-taking Political Science 101 and going from there.
You are a frikkin' genius, I'll tell you.
Everything about the Democratic party has become so amazingly bland from appeasing the coalition groups. Thanks for proving my point.
There is no "democrat [sic] base". Both major US parties are seeing their so-called bases erode very quickly.
Sorry to see you are too stuck in the rhetoric of the 1980s to see that.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I am sure they have been debunked. SO what about you use Google?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And pretty much all the main points have been answered to the agreement of most scientists and politicians (who have to make the hard choices).
There is a point where you have to take all the evidence available and make a decision about your course of action, otherwise you will be overwhelmed by the events while you continue the unproductive questioning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Bush and his cronies wrecked so badly the international stand of the US in the world that the Nobel committee is thanking the US, by means of its President, for deciding to come back to the arena of international diplomacy.
You forget that in recent years most people around the world rated the US as one of the greatest threats to international peace. You USians may not like the indictment, but should keep it in mind when judging the warm welcome Obama has received abroad.
This Nobel Prize is the equivalent to an international sigh of relief.
Many say that Obama was awarded this for not being Bush, this has a great grain of truth.
What I find distasteful is how during Bush presidency so many people equated disagreeing with their President to something akin to treason, but now it seems those same people snipe at Obama at every single opportunity, even if it is not his fucking fault.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And baring your ass, I can't imagine where did you pull those stances from.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Proof of this is that routinely parties from all the political spectre complain about bias from the BBC.
Also if you understood how it works and how punctilious they are about this, you would know better.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People in the US will be paying 50% of their income soon in health insurance, many will go bankrupt.
That is unsustainable, but clearly Maths is something that don't grace the brains of most people fighting to keep the status quo.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The content may be rather passionate, but that doesn't make it a troll.
Nobel prizes are supposed to be awarded for actual demonstrable achievements, not what might the candidate MIGHT accomplish some day...!
Hell! Where's my Nobel Prize? After all I might do something astounding some day...
Will they give out a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?
Most likely it was the Palestinians.
If the "Lockerbie Bomber" appeal would have continued the likelihood of him been acquited is quite substantial (if the evidence was flimsy the Scottish courts would have not allowed the appeal to continue).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Of course there are rights amongst nations, and most importantly obligations.
That is what treaties are all about.
Some countries may be strong enough to ignore them, that does not mean they were not signed, or that they were not legally enforceable, somebody may still come back to the US and try that one against the war mongers of the Bush years.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think that is enough without being undiplomatic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the amount of comments and interest probes it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He has not done anything yet.
He called Kanye West a jackass, didn't he?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Whoooosh!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno