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.

62 of 1,721 comments (clear)

  1. personally by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:personally by rwv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. But then again, Al Gore essentially won the Nobel Peace Prize for making a Powerpoint presentation. If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in, then power to them.

      Between the troubles faced in the US domestic economy, the conflicts in the Middle East and Asia, health care reform, and setting a good example for his daughters, Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.

    2. Re:personally by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in

      Your kidding me, right?

      Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.

      Which accomplishments would those be? Closing Gitmo? Nope, haven't done that yet. Health Care Reform? Nope, haven't done that yet, and it's not really "reform" anyway. Creating a transparent White House? Nope, we gave up on that one pretty early on.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:personally by nutshell42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I hope he bombs Iran and North Korea before invading Pakistan together with India.

      Perhaps then the retards at the Nobel Peace Prize committee will stop handing out that thing like it's the Politically Correct Popularity Contest. Thousands of people work their asses off and often risk their lives trying to stop all the conflicts around the world and Obama gets it for...what, exactly?

      "Efforts to strengthen international diplomacy?" In other words for holding a bunch of grandstanding speeches. It's not like his approach to international relations is that different to Clinton or many presidents before him, even Bush's later years were pretty mellow.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    4. Re:personally by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I always thought that it was traditional to have to accomplish some significant shit to win a Nobel Prize. Apparently not, though. All Obama has really done that tons of common citizens haven't is be elected president (which, yes, is an accomplishment, but not a Nobel-worthy accomplishment). Where the hell are the Nobel Prizes coming our way?

      This degrades the award so much it's laughable.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    5. Re:personally by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fair enough. So what are his accomplishments on the international scene? He's given a few good speeches. Other than that, exactly what has he accomplished?

      This award reeks of political calculation. He was in office for less than two weeks and got nominated? WTF? You can't even really say that they gave it to him because of his grand speeches before the World stage -- because I don't think he had given any of them yet.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:personally by alexj33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, he made us all feel fuzzy inside. That's got to count for something.

    7. Re:personally by gtbritishskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:personally by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So he gets a peace prize because people around the world who don't understand how the US Government works are surprised when the US Government changes its approach? You know, like it does EVERY. FOUR. YEARS?

      In any case, why is "the US President acted only in the interests of the US" a bad thing? At worst, it's a neutral thing.

      All this shows is that the world community is entirely ignorant of how the US Office of the President works. No big surprise there. The real shame is that somebody who truly deserved this award didn't get it, because it was given to Obama instead. The second-to-last thing Obama needs is more inflation of his already-huge ego, and the last thing he needs is more excuses to shirk his job and appear on fucking TV.

    9. Re:personally by nahdude812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The international community is in love with BO because of his constant apologies for how evil the USA was in the last decade

      That's funny, that's part of why I like the guy too. We were pretty evil in the last decade.

    10. Re:personally by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The pace of missile strikes by US drones against Taleban targets in Afghanistan has picked up since January. There's a good chance that 40,000 to 60,000 more US troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. The military option against Iran's nuclear program is still not off the table. What exactly has been more peaceful? US troop withdrawal from cities in Iraq? That was negotiated under Bush, and would have been carried out whether it was Obama or McCain in the White House.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:personally by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, when terrorists kill innocent people for over 3 decades and we finally get someone willing to do something to try and stop it, that's pretty evil. I'll never understand why idiots like you support terrorism so hard core and why you believe it's better to allow terrorism to continue unchecked than to make the hard decisions and try and stop it.

      The appropriate response to terrorism isn't terrorism. You present a false dichotomy: it is indeed possible to be against war (especially unjustified as in the past decade) without being for "terrorism," the generic catch-all enemy du jour. In the past it was the Russians or the Communists, or something else. Always a nameless shapeless threat which is used as excuse for committing unspeakable acts. This is exactly how it works on the other side of the fence too, this is exactly the same sort of failure to reason which leads to actual terrorism.

      Invoking terrorism as an excuse for absolutely any deplorable behavior furthers the problem rather than culling it.

    12. Re:personally by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kissinger and Arafat got Peace Prizes.

      I respect the Prize as little as I respect the United Nations, which is not at all.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:personally by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow.

      First, that's not true. Bush did more to stop AIDS in Africa than any person in the world, anywhere at any time. The US has spent and done more on this front than any other country on Earth. Tell me how the US directly benefits from that? Shouldn't Bush get a Nobel Prize for that? Obama got one for merely talking about doing stuff.

      How many women in the world legally voted for the first time in their lives thanks to America? Tell me how those feminine purple fingers benefited the US directly.

      Next, there is a logical flaw in your argument:
      The US is still on Earth. That meas that anything the US does for the WORLD (which as I previously stated, the US is still a part of), the US benefits from.

      Finally, why the hell else would we do it? It's not the US's job to make every place other than the US better. You want your country to be better? Make it that way yourself. What has the world done to make the US better? Maybe I've missed the food and medicine packets from Somalia being dropped on poor areas of our country.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:personally by nahdude812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The appropriate response to terrorism is to find those responsible and kill them.

      Eye for an eye, eh? How's that working out for us so far in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have we caught Bin Laden yet?

      Afghanistan was a response to the government of that country harboring an organization that murdered 3,000 people.

      And how is this approach working out for us so far? Half that number of civilians has died to the war just this year. Now there are 4,500 innocents dead instead of 3,000.

      someone from Poland or the Baltic States if Russia was a "nameless, shapeless threat".

      So you're saying that US policy in the 80's was based on a threat to a few slavic states in Europe? Wow, that is not how I remember it. We were told the Russians were going to nuke the crap out of us. Pragmatically speaking the cold war in America wasn't about any countries but the US and Russia. Besides, the point is that there's always a shapeless threat. Today it's "Terrorism," previously it was "Drugs," and "Russian Nukes," and "Communism." Just something for the plebes to get worked up about so political leaders can manufacture clout.

    15. Re:personally by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Public broadcaster NRK reported that US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were among the nominees.

      Well now I see the CALIBER of the people who win these prizes. French President Sarkozy. Wow. Actually Sarkozy probably would have been a better pick, since he mediated a peace settlement between Georgia and Russia last year. Obama... he uh... um... well he... gave good speak?

      There were 203 other people up for the prize. Surely one of them would have been a better pick - like French-Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt and Chinese dissident Hu Jia. Or maybe the Cluster Munitions Coalition for getting nearly 100 countries to sign a treaty last year in Oslo banning cluster bombs.

      Last year's winner was former Finnish president and career diplomat Martti Ahtisaari for his efforts on several continents, over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts. This year's winner... um... uh... not really sure.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:personally by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one has flown planes into any buildings in Europe that I know of.

      Yeah, Europe has never suffered an incident of terrorism. It just doesn't happen. Everybody loves them.

      I can't believe you got a +5 for this nonsense.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:personally by feepness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and our citizens in a terrible situation with a government that does nothing. HALF of which is out to slay Obama politically because they're babies.... The republicans i'm speaking about.

      At this point the Republicans are significantly less than half.

      They do not control the executive at all, and they have no ability to block any legilsation in the Senate.

      They are, in fact, nearly powerless. Any lack of progress is solely due to Democrats.

  2. For being the opposite of Bush by mozumder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.

    1. Re:For being the opposite of Bush by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be difficult, given your obvious alienation, to understand the award for what it is. Richard Lugar, who's also been an advocate for nuclear disarmament was also ignored.

      But if building a bridge to the Muslim community across the world-- which numbers one in four inhabitants on this earth-- counts, then the combination of the two is somewhat extraordinary, given the prior administration's complete polarization of most of the world, three wars, and the possible nuclear proliferation of frightening proportions.

      Ganhi might have been a good recipient. Posthumously, he can't get it. Bummer. I doubt he'd have accepted it anyway.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:For being the opposite of Bush by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Henry Kissinger won in 1973. The committee was not nearly so left-wing back then (neither was the appointing body).

      Mother Teresa rarely stepped into politics and her work was about charity towards the poor. What's your basis for calling her "about as far right as they come"? Especially since if you read the official Catholic Catechism (the teachings and stated opinions of the Catholic Church, which she held as her guide for morality) they actually come down left-of-center as well.

    3. Re:For being the opposite of Bush by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The largest part of the Muslim world isn't the picture you painted. There are large ideological differences between Muslim and 'western' ideals. His first act, if you'll recall, was to let the Muslim world know that the US wasn't at war with them, rather the factions that support terrorism.

      Your specific grievances with various Muslim factions can also be translated to various Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Jainist, and Buddhist factions. Orthodoxy sucks. Yet condemning an entire culture because of the warts within it does no one good.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:For being the opposite of Bush by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You condemn by anecdote. Can I tell you about Leviticus, or perhaps Jim Crow?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  3. Lowering of standards? by stevev007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Lowering of standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Yasser Arafat won a nobel prize then anyone can.

    2. Re:Lowering of standards? by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. I mean the guy hasn't even been in office for a year yet. He hasn't been able to get anything peace-prize-worthy done. Not that the prize has actually meant anything for quite a long time now anyway.

      Honestly, if I were him, I'd be pretty pissed about this. He really doesn't need this kind of controversy right now. They've essentially used him to make a political statement, and it's just going to cause problems at a time when he's got more than enough to deal with. It'll get the conservatives all bristly and the libs all full of themselves, and then it becomes even harder to get anything done. All for a prize that I'm sure he knows is bullshit, and will be completely hollow for him.

      Thanks a lot assholes.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  4. I think he may possibly deserver the prize by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far. He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect (even if the opposing country does not deserve it).

      I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.

      --
      And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    2. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by NoYob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far. He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect (even if the opposing country does not deserve it). I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.

      But to get the Peace Prize for it?

      Do you honestly think what he's done is on the level with Martin Luther King? Or Mother Theresa? Or Linus Pauling?

      Please, this prize is getting cheaper by the year.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    3. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think my 9 year old son may possibly deserve the prize, but it's too early to say.

      Seriously? 8 months in to an administration which has failed to do most of what it promised? With a supra-majority? After a senate "career" which to be GENEROUS would be to claim it was nearly worthless (how many "present" votes did he cast? How many did he miss?)

      Obama will no more bring "peace" to the middle east than Nixon brought peace to Vietnam and Cambodia -- but I agree, if he DOES pull this particular hat out of a rabbit, then yes -- he would deserve it.

      If the award was about intentions, why not award it to Lenin, Hoover or the Pope? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

    4. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by bheer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > he's only 8 months into his first term.

      It's worse than that. The deadline to be nominated is Feb 1. Even assuming he was nominated right near the deadline, he had been in office barely _10 days_ when someone, impressed with all that he has accomplished, nominated him for this award. Jeez. Obviously, someone clearly thought the election of an Democrat/African-American with good oratorial skills was a major contribution to world peace in and of itself.

      This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.

    5. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if that's true, how much of that was done by February, when the deadline for nominations was?

  5. Joke by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.

    1. Re:Joke by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama didn't start the war in Afghanistan, he was left with it, and just abandoning the country to the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be irresponsible and move the world the opposite way of peace.

  6. Isn't the cut off for nomination February 1st? by Lester67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  7. I'm an Obama supporter but... by arkham6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. A little Chinese wisdom by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
    1. Re:A little Chinese wisdom by robably · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or rise.

  9. A Bold Move by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  10. What? by StayFrosty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  11. Obama Ghandi? by Giometrix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Missed opportunity by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Missed opportunity by xednieht · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very true, a noble man makes noble plans, and by noble deeds he stands.

      Dear Mr. President, if you don't give it back at least find some balls and earn it. We have two war criminals that sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 troops on the Altar Of Lies. If America is to lead the world we must do so on a foundation of honor and justice. Restore America's honor.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    2. Re:Missed opportunity by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, this news was only announced within the past few hours and I don't hold the president to any obligation to speak on the subject at 4:00am. I would not be surprised if he wisely commented on it to some degree today or this week and dropped in a "I clearly have a lot to live up to" or something of that nature, since he and his advisers clearly are aware of the massive wave of "what the hell for?!" from the lunatic fringes, the supporters and the rest of us who simply don't care one way or the other.

      It's a shame that the award couldn't be given to some people who had truly accomplished real quantifiable contributions to humanity through determination, leadership, and selflessness. CNN has a great award show every year where they showcase just a few such people and in my opinion, all of them are more deserving than any politician ever has or will be.

    3. Re:Missed opportunity by Rary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      How has he already missed this opportunity? How do you know he won't do just that? The announcement was only made this morning, and he hasn't even issued an official statement yet.

      I'm not saying that I think he will refuse the prize, but here we all are criticizing the Nobel committee for being premature, and now you're saying he's missed an opportunity to make a statement by refusing the prize when it's only been a few hours since he found out about it and we don't even know what his response is going to be.

      Give the man a chance to eat his breakfast and put his tie on before you criticize him for what he didn't do.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  13. Re:proletariat by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    .
  14. Re:proletariat by Rennt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  15. Re:proletariat by nutshell42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, with private insurance for all we've done the first step that leads to being a socialist hellhole like the Soviet Union, or Germany. 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.

    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
  16. Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:proletariat by ZekoMal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Even my 8 year-old knows this is a sham! by Morris+Thorpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. The road to hell is paved with what now? by Follier · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

  20. Re:proletariat by lzed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars by gnud · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This award is a mistake, no matter what you think of Obama.

    The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:

    [...] 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.

    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.

  22. To a US viewer, the BBC is biased to the left by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:To a US viewer, the BBC is biased to the left by Etrias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. Just because this is the way American news has gone doesn't mean it is the status quo for the rest of the world. Also, just because you disagree with what they're reporting doesn't mean there is bias. The BBC World News service is unparalleled in it's coverage.

  23. Nothing new. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  24. A little premature? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
  25. Re:proletariat by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  26. Re:Heh... by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  27. Al Gore = Einstein? by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  28. Re:Heh... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Black female, here. I'd like to temporarily interrupt your rant to respond to this:

    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.

    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.