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
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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?
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
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"
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.
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!
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.
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.
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'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.
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
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.
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?
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.
BUT the reason no Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1948, the year of Gandhi's assassination, was because he was the winner, and it's never awarded posthumously.
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.
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
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
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
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 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"agree to your general's request for 40,000 aditional peacekeepers."
There, I fixed it for you. Now, I don't mean peacekeepers in the sense of, necessarily, UN Peacekeepers, but more in the sense of troops whose mission in Afghanistan is to keep the peace. Sometimes, the world needs strong men and women who are capable soldiers, in order to prevent *worse* violence and bloodshed. Our forces aren't over there gratuitously slaughtering Afghani's. The fighting they do is in response to agents of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who are attacking them, attacking the Afghani government, and attacking civilians.
Would the U.S.A. have accomplished *more* for peace by staying out of WW1 and WW2 than they did by entering into it? It's hard to say for sure, but I think that Hitler and Mussolini would have probably finished conquering Western Europe and the U.K., and once they were fighting a one-front War against the U.S.S.R, they would have used the resources of Europe to make the war against the U.S.S.R drag on for a lot longer, costing many more lives. Who would be victorious in the long-run is unknowable, and not important in this case. The point is, U.S. intervention in World War 2 helped to end it sooner, and establish a world order which, while not perfect, quite probably was far more peaceful for the last 60+ years than the alternative (of course, we'll never know for sure).
Sometimes, the greatest benefactors of Peace are those who are willing to make War.
On a more personal level, is someone who steps in to prevent, say, domestic violence against a woman by her boyfriend or husband, a violent person? A perpetrator of violence? Of if they end up having to fight with the violant spouse/boyfriend to protect that woman and/or her children, are they *peacemakers*?
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.