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 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
"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.
I find it interesting that Obama has received the peace prize, but not Ghandi. What a joke.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
I don't see how he could even be a consideration. I think Obama has peace intentions (although an ongoing war doesn't lend itself to that) but in no way has it impacted the world enough. The only way this could be a worse choice is if they gave one to Al Gore. (Fuck!)
I used to have an enormous respect and admiration for the Nobel Foundation, but like anything with good intentions in this world, it has fallen to disgusting political prostitution.
Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.
Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking at this and wondering what the hell your country is thinking.
I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade. Some of his speeches in the middle east reflect a balanced and measured approach without historical alliances clouding the issues.
And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?
.
This is not news for nerds. It's news for CNN, Fox, etc. Please stop trying to turn this site into Digg.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
He was nominated for the peace prize, but did not win. It only takes one submission to be nominated so the bar is probably pretty low - there were over 200 nominees this year. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini were all nominated, but didn't win.
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.
I'm curious who the other nominees were that lost out to this bizarre result.. were they so unworthy?
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
"Einstein didn't even have Power Point, but that's essentially what he did too."
So you're arguing that Al Gore actually conceived the theory of global warming then? Did the science? Worked out the equations? Submitted the research to peer review? That Al Gore?
I guess he really did invent the Internet then.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I 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.