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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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."
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 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
"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.
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.
So by somehow not stumbling into a war after 8+ months of being president and keeping the current wars going with no signs of an exit means he's worthy of the peace prize?
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
It seems everyone realized at once.
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.
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...
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?
The Peace Prize committee generally gives awards for either of two reasons:
1) As a backward-looking life-time achievement award for someone who has a long history or some key game-changing accomplishment on their resume. e.g. Mother Theresa, Elie Weisel, Jimmy Carter, Mandela/de Klerk.
2) As a forward-looking attempt to focus global attention on something/someone/somewhere, and to endorse ongoing efforts to (hopefully) accomplish something. e.g. Arafat/Peres/Rabin, Aung San Suu Kyi, Wangari Muta Maathai, Gore et al.
This is an example of the latter. Is it political? Of course it is; the Peace Prize has always been political.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
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.
They did that when they gave it to Arafat.
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."
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
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.
Which pretty much permanently canceled whatever prestige or symbolic value the prize might have had.
you had me at #!
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.
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
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.
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 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
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
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
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 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.
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!"
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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.)
Yeah, like how George W. Bush came from a middle-class family and Barack Obama inherited his fantastic wealth, right?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!
"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!