Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize 1721
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.
personally (Score:5, Insightful)
For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.
Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.
Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
The Nobel *Peace* Prize was always a joke.
Isn't the cut off for nomination February 1st? (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)
I'm an Obama supporter but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone said on TPM, this sounds more like a 'Congratulations for not picking McCain' award.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
> I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it
> many years after tremendous accomplishments.
At least for the Peace Nobel Price that all finished the latest, when Henry
Kissinger was awarded wih one. Still boggles my mind.
A little Chinese wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
"When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.
All in a week's work.. (Score:1, Insightful)
One week after Obama was elected, the possibility to nominate someone for the nobel prize was closed.
So he basically got nominated for a week's work.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:1, Insightful)
A Bold Move (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.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Turning back the doomdsday clock (Score:3, Insightful)
A Nuke-free world... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Yasser Arafat won a nobel prize then anyone can.
Obama Ghandi? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobel Foundation is hemorrhaging reputation. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:proletariat (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?
Here we go again. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not news for nerds. It's news for CNN, Fox, etc. Please stop trying to turn this site into Digg.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
So by somehow not stumbling into a war after 8+ months of being president and keeping the current wars going with no signs of an exit means he's worthy of the peace prize?
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (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.
Re:personally (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.
Re:What a Croc OF Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A little Chinese wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
You ignore the content of that PowerPoint presentation. The software app chosen was a little dicey, but the message was clear.
Re:proletariat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:5, 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".
Re:personally (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 [cnet.com] pretty early on.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (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.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, 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.
Re:All hail his Most Worshipful Obama! (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?
Re:proletariat (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.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
So, in other words, the premise of the '09 award is a sham? The committee has lowered itself to making trivial political statements?
Nevermind, they already trashed their credibility with Arafat and Gore. Give him an Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Grammy, or Razzi for all I care. Do it to spread your political view and you're an imbecile.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone you worked with broke something that is really hard to fix and refused to fix it themselves even with being given more time, would you hesitate to thank the person who steps forward and fixes it? When you thank them, would you be looking spitefully at the wrong doer rather than at the person you are praising? That's a really sad view.
They are praising what he has accomplished in such short a time. He may still accomplish more but make no mistake, he already has changed the negotiating environment of the world and that is what he is being awarded for.
The affect a person has on a given subject is just as relevant as the amount of effort. Don't forget Al Gore won this award for simply doing a power point presentation based on the many years of hard work and scientific deduction of dozens of people around the world. Basically, he talked in front of a screen. But the fact that HE did it brought so much attention to the subject of climate change that it moved it forward in global priority. That's what got him his award.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, Obama got the prize for <i>being in office for two weeks</u>.
Even my 8 year-old knows this is a sham! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
The Illinois Governor who won the peace prize [wikipedia.org] is in prison for selling CDLs to people who couldn't drive or speak English and who ultimately killed a fmaily in a fiery death on the highway.
That one wasn't a joke, it was just pathetic.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, 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.
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
Premature? Hah. They gave Arafat the peace prize 1994, and he was later one of the biggest hindrances for peace, more interested in his political survival than actual peace.
They have given the prize to a lot of really worthy winners, but they also have a tendency to hand it out to encourage continued effort rather than based on what someone have actually achieved.
I rather like Obama, but so far, he really hasn't achieved anything (unless you count starting the cleanup after the mess left from the last president).
This nobel peace prize was not really deserved.
Best joke of the year! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:proletariat (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
But it would have been so much clearer if he'd presented it with Beamer!
Look at it from a different angle (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Congratulations, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The emperor has no clothes! (Score:2, Insightful)
The road to hell is paved with what now? (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.
Re:proletariat (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.
Hey OVER HERE!... I'll take one too! (Score:2, Insightful)
OMG! The day has come...
The Nobel Prize has become a pawn of the economical political system we live in. So, now it's only a farce for the weak minded masses. You know, the same people who think that being in "Who's Who" is an honor and not a money making scam to sell you a false sense of recognition.. right?
To me, they have given him this for not being George W. Bush. Hey, I'll take one.. I'm not him either! I can prove it, I have a backbone! *chuckle*
So, when I invent a energy / mater sequencing device (a replicator) I'll just have to be happy with the knowledge that I ended world hunger and poverty because I'll just get another Nobel to add to my paperweight collection then? (LOL)
Strange days!
Nick Powers
Re:personally (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.
Re:personally (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.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Where's Mine? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have every intention of ending world hunger. Do I get a prize, too?
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, 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.
Re:For what? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Peace Prize committee generally gives awards for either of two reasons:
1) As a backward-looking life-time achievement award for someone who has a long history or some key game-changing accomplishment on their resume. e.g. Mother Theresa, Elie Weisel, Jimmy Carter, Mandela/de Klerk.
2) As a forward-looking attempt to focus global attention on something/someone/somewhere, and to endorse ongoing efforts to (hopefully) accomplish something. e.g. Arafat/Peres/Rabin, Aung San Suu Kyi, Wangari Muta Maathai, Gore et al.
This is an example of the latter. Is it political? Of course it is; the Peace Prize has always been political.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A little Chinese wisdom (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, when the sun is about to rise, it's dark. There are no shadows. It would be just after the sun rises that there would be big shadows. But that doesn't flow worth a damn. So... like the OP was saying, the sun is setting.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.
And instead of just saying "congratulations" and moving on, they have to keep gripping about how undeserved it is. Trying to tear down the award because it makes them look bad.
I'm sure they'll take the opportunity to remind everyone how relentlessly negative they are.
Bill Gates is more deserving. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the most ignorant comment I have ever read on slashdot. Big shocker that it's AC.
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
he's managed to blame America for everything. He's good a pandering towards the hate that the world has towards us.
I wish we were isolationist.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if that's true, how much of that was done by February, when the deadline for nominations was?
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A Nuke-free world... (Score:3, Insightful)
But thats the rub (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
The international community would seem to disagree with you and agree with GP.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a fan of Obama, but to deny a left-wing influence is to deny the facts. The Nobel Peace Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, which is (at least currently) left leaning. 3 of the 5 members of the committee are considered left of center -- and that is in Norway...on the US spectrum, that means they are pinko, commie, hippies.
I am not sure what the politics of Norway were like back when Kissinger won, but the political leanings of the committee will clearly change as the political leanings of Norway change.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
by HangingChad (677530)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who honestly believes that Obama won this on merit and not because of partisan politics, no matter their political leanings, is a fucking moron or just kidding themselves.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:personally (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.
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
"It's now possible to hope for something other than WWIII?"
With the nutcase Ahmadinejad going full speed ahead with a nuclear arms program - and Obama talking about "multilateralism" rather than kicking his ass back to the Stone Age?
Last fucking thing this world needs is a homicidal jackass with his finger on the proverbial button.
Re:To a US viewer, the BBC is biased to the left (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:2, Insightful)
A little premature? (Score:5, 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 [iaea.org]
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which party is telling us what we can and cannot think? [myway.com] Which party is telling us what we can say and listen to? [politico.com]. Which party, rather than actually doing something to actuallly help people out of poverty [schoolchoices.org] is instead keeping them from that end state? [cnn.com]
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.
Well, they gave it to Kissinger (Score:3, Insightful)
Which pretty much permanently canceled whatever prestige or symbolic value the prize might have had.
Re:proletariat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
You condemn by anecdote. Can I tell you about Leviticus, or perhaps Jim Crow?
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, like it does EVERY. FOUR. YEARS?
I think you'll find that's 8 years.... occasionally 12
All this shows is that the world community is entirely ignorant of how the US Office of the President works.
Understand it pretty well thanks; it works very badly.
Re:Missed opportunity (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.
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
The international community would seem to disagree with you and agree with GP.
The international community is happy anytime an American President falls all over himself apologizing for how horrible our country supposedly is. That doesn't mean he's actually done anything to advance the cause of world peace.
And as much as I disagreed with him, you've got to admit that GWB was dealt a pretty shitty hand. Those who remember the 2000 campaign may well remember that he ran on domestic issues. God forbid if we suffer another mass casualty attack -- you think the idealism and international love fest for Obama would long survive the American response to another attack on the scale of 9/11?
Re:Even my 8 year-old knows this is a sham! (Score:1, Insightful)
I say the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded by a committee of 8 years old.
I'm certain we would end up with better choices!
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
This degrades the award so much it's laughable.
You do realize who, and for what reason, the award was given to in 2007, don't you? This prize has been a joke, in my opinion, since 1994 [wikipedia.org].
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
"reeks of political calculation"? It's pretty blatant but should it come as any surprise from an organization who's major goal is to change world politics? For the better yes, but to change it never the less.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not Fair (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:proletariat (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 [theatlantic.com] in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Last fucking thing this world needs is a homicidal jackass with his finger on the proverbial button.
You voted bush out, remember?
Did you find the WMD's in Iraq? No
The same people are telling you there are WMD's in Iran. You should know better than to blindly believe it.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny, that's part of why I like the guy too. We were pretty evil in the last decade.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
If I had to guess (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that the current POTUS is nominated by *someone every year, as a matter of course.
Re:Missed opportunity (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.
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.
Re:personally (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.
Sad (Score:1, Insightful)
I feel sad on behalf of the scientists who where awarded the nobel prizes in physics and chemestry. They recieve the award for a lifetime's work, that truely change the world, and they can look over to the guy who recieved it for being a black man sitting in a white house for 11 days.
One Nobel Laureate Refuses to Meet Another? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute. Obama, a Nobel laureate, just refused to meet [washingtonpost.com] with the The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), another Nobel laureate [wikipedia.org]. Does that mean he will have to give his medal back?
Re:A little Chinese wisdom (Score:3, Insightful)
If you live on the moon (or somewhere else with no appreciable atmosphere), but otherwise no.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Insightful)
This is funnier than hell. A "working man" buying into the republican - especially the neoconservative republican - ideology is just as funny as a mixed breed mostly Native American man joining the KKK or the Aryan nation. (Yes, I've seen such foolishness). The conservative party caters to BIG FUCKING BUSINESS. They could care less about the working stiff who earns less than $75,000/year. Maybe you haven't noticed just how many "working men" are out of a job right now? The "official" unemployment rate in America is closing in on 10%. Shadowstats puts that at 21%. I could easily make an argument that the real, unadulterated unemployment rate has reached 30%. It's great to be a politician, so that you can decide which people you're going to count, so that your statistics are palatable to the general public. (For general public, read mindless idiots.)
If you have more than 5 million in the bank, and your income is over 1/4 million, yes, I can see why you would prefer the republicans. But, don't tell me that you're a "working man". That bird don't fly. Graduating from an Ivy League college, just to join the Good Old Boy's club doesn't qualify you as a "working man". Never has, never will.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair enough. So what are his accomplishments on the international scene?
Opening a dialogue with Burma and getting the military Junta to let Suu Kyi speak to western diplomats. Talking to Iran rather than threatening Iran. That's all I got before the coffee kicks in.
Re:Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Another "compassionate" liberal scumbag posting on slashdot (surprise, surprise). To call mother Teresa's work "ghoulish" is about as low as one can go. She did what you lazy, scumbag liberals never want to do, actually help people personally. You all want "someone else to do it". Of course, if they dont work for your GOVERNMENT GOD, they are somehow "ghoulish".
You know what the greatest irony is. The parent is modded +4 interesting, and I will be modded "troll" or "flamebait". But oh please, let us call people who do GOOD THINGS "ghoulish" and mod them up.
Whoever modded parent up is a scumbag too. Just like the scumbag who wrote that post.
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
...why is "the US President acted only in the interests of the US" a bad thing? At worst, it's a neutral thing.
No. At best it's a neutral thing. In the worst case, the US President acting only in the interests of the US comes at ruinous expense to other nations. That is definitely not neutral.
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Laughable? NO, pathetic! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Charity is not antithetical to a conservative philosophy.
Compulsory charity executed through governmental redistribution of wealth is what is opposed by conservatives.
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
The appropriate response to terrorism isn't terrorism.
The appropriate response to terrorism is to find those responsible and kill them.
it is indeed possible to be against war (especially unjustified as in the past decade)
What war was "unjustified"? Afghanistan was a response to the government of that country harboring an organization that murdered 3,000 people. Iraq was a response to a decade of ignoring UN security council resolutions and international law. Neither was "unjustified". I'd make the case that Iraq was unwise but unjustified seems like a bit of a stretch.
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.
Ask someone from Poland or the Baltic States if Russia was a "nameless, shapeless threat". I understand the sentiment that you are trying to express but dismissing the USSR as a non-threat is naive at best and trolling at worst.
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The road to hell is paved with what now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're not in a position to solve hunger, clean up pollution, and bring peace. Obama is.
Obama isn't in a position to "bring peace". Peace, like marriage, requires that both parties are willing to work towards it.
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, It's already been degraded so much it's pretty much a joke.
By and large, the Nobel has been a "member in good standing with the Far Left Club" award for DECADES. The Algore and 0bama awards are just the icing on an already very left-leaning cake.
The Nobel is joke.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Kissinger and Arafat got Peace Prizes.
I respect the Prize as little as I respect the United Nations, which is not at all.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, as an American citizen, I could give a rats fuck what the international community thinks about us.
Awesome. And I'm sure you wonder why we got attacked in the first place. Personally, I like traveling, and I'd rather not be spit on when I venture abroad for sightseeing.
The sad thing is before his 1st term is over, we will be hardly distinguishable from most of the European countries in terms of economics and social and political policy.
And that's intrinsically bad, because...? If you have some example of where they're failing and we're following, then maybe bring that up. But I don't really see how emulating someone else is a "sad thing" in and of itself.
No one has flown planes into any buildings in Europe that I know of.
Re:Heh... (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.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
he is correct (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Skornenicholas, meet <br>,
<br> meet skornenicholas.
Of course,
they can
be
abused, so use
with discre
tion.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I am.
It is a great accomplishment in itself, to be the first Black American President.
That is honestly the only thing I have seen him do that is could warrant such an award. He has not accomplished anything else significant, certainly nothing to the magnitude of being the first black president!
He has failed so far on just about everything he ran on, and I'm holding him to it. I want Universal Single Payer Health Care. I pay for my own plan, ($1,110 a month). I see corporate America getting away with murder.... 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. They're traitors out to destory any solution good or bad.
Its disgusting!!! AND OBAMA is gets a Nobel peace price... for what????????????
These are serious times, and things must be accomplished before we pat ourselves on the back.
WE HAVE DONE NOTHING yet.
Re:Lowering of standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I think the smart thing for Obama would have been to refuse the award. Make some comments thanking the committee for their vote of confidence, but about how he doesn't feel that he has yet accomplished anything worthy of the award and asking them to consider him again in a few years.
Americans are willing to forgive a LOT in their presidents if they feel the men have integrity, honor and fortitude. That's why JFK was so loved, in spite of the fact that his presidency was basically a series of screwups. Elections in the US are more about the man than about his politics. Obama was handed a golden chance to prove his integrity and strength of character.
Re:personally (Score:2, Insightful)
So far he has pissed off military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq by refusing to listen to their advice on how to best end conflicts in those nations.
He promised to improve relations with Iran, and yet Iran has said that Obama is worse than Bush. Yet, conversely, by giving creedence to Ahmadinejad, we have former (supposed) allies like France bashing us and calling us out.
Under Bush, Iran and North Korea gave us the finger and persued nukes. We were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Under Obama, Iran and North Korea gave us the finger and persued nukes. We were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
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. Bush certainly didn't help our global image in many ways, but the media won't tell you how he preserved peace in Liberia, or how many people in Iraq thank him for being a liberator. They won't tell you that it was uncovered that many of our detractors (France, Germany, Russia) that didn't want us going into Iraq had something to hide, and were dealing weapons illegally to Saddam for oil.
They like to cover up that Bush at the G8 summit pledged to double our world-leading relief packages we send out. Even when we're hurting financially at home, we continue to send money around the globe, even to many countries who profess to hate us. We send relief to Palestine, despite being led by a terrorist organization at the moment, and despite the fact that on 9/11 people in Palestine were literally celebrating the deaths of innocent Americans.
Bush was a terrible speaker, and he made people uneasy by drawing lines in the sand. However, he wasn't Hitler. He wasn't a warmonger.
Obama isn't the second coming. He isn't the next Kennedy. He hasn't made the world love us.
Despite what the media claims, I think you'll find in the long run, they'll likely have similar legacies. Americans want immediate satisfaction. When Americans realize war doesn't end overnight, that the economy doesn't repair itself overnight, and that most things they elected Obama for won't happen overnight, they'll turn. His approval ratings are already really low.
He publicly blasts Washington for being selfish and corrupt, but he filled his cabinet with selfish and corrupt Washington politicians. The entire system (both parties) is pretty fucked up. In rooting for one party over the other blindly, we ignore the fact that none of these guys are serving us well. It is a disgrace. But people seem to enjoy the show.
Re:To a US viewer, the BBC is biased to the left (Score:3, Insightful)
In US terms, it's basically the news coverage out of NPR or PBS. It's excellently realist, though as always, there's very slight bias towards whichever way society leans in general. But there's more educated discourse there than in private-owned news outlets simply because they're not trying to make a quick buck by sensationalising every little thing and causing general panic.
Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite ... what has been accomplished? What has Obama done to change the world and promote peace?
Go ahead, google for it, I'll wait while you try to find something.
Al Gore won based on the exact same thing Obama has won on, ignorant morons making the selection based on political agenda.
Obama was nominated 2 weeks into his presidency, before he'd even got the chair in the oval office warm yet. This has nothing to do with what he accomplished, if you think it does you need to get a seeing eye dog or uncover your eyes because you're completely blind.
Re:personally (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.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.
What exactly is a person of color, and how is that different from any other person that is lacking color?
The fact that you're referring to yourself as a "person of color" says you're still firmly in the "I'm being discriminated against by the white man" mentality. It's self-serving. While discrimination exists at all levels, I think you'd find yourself accomplishing much more if you didn't think in terms of "us vs. them" but simply in "us."
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
Did he apologize for entering World War Two and oppressing the German, Italian and Japanese people? For bombing France, the Low Countries, Eastern Europe and North Africa?
Did he apologize for Operation Crossroads? MKULTRA? Cause those all need to go up on his teleprompter.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
The keyword was: universally. It's not universal at all.
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
Eye for an eye, eh? How's that working out for us so far in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have we caught Bin Laden yet?
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.
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.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
Lessee:
- Catholics are (based on church teachings) for government-provided healthcare.
- Catholics are (based on church teachings) for government-provided welfare programs.
- Catholics are (based on church teachings) for as little and non-harsh punishment of criminals as can be managed.
- Catholics are (based on church teachings) for government-provided support to families who deliberately have more children than they can afford to support.
- Catholics are (based on church teachings) for the abolition of immigration law and the elimination of international borders.
That all seems pretty left-wing. Yes, they're against birth control and condoms, but so are (at least on paper) the major Baptist conventions, most Lutheran denominations, and most Muslim factions.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Appropriate quote (Score:1, Insightful)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
My opinion is simply : yes they're the same. But it'll take the republicans longer to destroy America than the democrats. Potentially postponing said collapse till after my death. If that's the best I can have, I'll gladly take it.
Re:Heh... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This is nuts, and this is from an Obama supporter (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Al Gore = Einstein? (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.
All of the programs you say (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Changing positions (Score:2, Insightful)
But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics.
I wasn't aware you got a nobel peace prize for screwing over Poland. Where's Hitlers Nobel Prize? (Goodwin! I called it first!)
Or perhaps the position change you are talking about, is bending over for Iran.
I don't think there's anything he has done that hasn't acted to decrease peace over the next decade. Watch and learn.
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
We would have Health Care Reform except for a few lying neo-cons causing issues.
The "few lying neo-cons" had zero to do with Health Care Reform being stalled. The Democrats had an unstoppable majority in both houses up until Kennedy died, so if they couldn't get it done there was something fundamentally wrong with the legislation.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
GWB was dealt a shitty hand? Are you serious? After the attacks he had the kind of national solidarity and unity that any president would dream of having. The attacks were a terrible tragedy, but they put him in a nearly unprecedented position both domestically and internationally, where everyone almost had to get behind him and go with his plans.
He then proceeded to completely fuck it all up, in every way imaginable.
And yes, I remember the 2000 campaign. We got exactly what I expected - an incompetent, religio-fascist idiot - and we paid for it in the years following 9/11.
That said, I can't believe Obama was even nominated for the prize after only 2 weeks in office. Maybe if he had accomplished something prior to his run for president, but he really doesn't have any credentials that would put him on the radar for the prize. This seems to be a clear use of the prize to give Obama some more political firepower to try to ram through his agenda - not what I would think of as the purpose of the prize, but it is an interesting development.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
The conclusion is:
His merits for nomination were non-existent, other than intent. This is important because the work done since the nomination usually isn't factored into the final award.
The President was nominated before any actions were taken to possibly deserve the nomination for any work done. If this had happened a year later, then there could be some sort of argument of whether or not he had accomplished anything. Right now, the argument is, "What exactly did he do in those 14 days?" I, for one, don't remember him taking a lot of action during his term as a senator either... But I'm open to any list of actions that I'm ignorant of.
What's tragic is that, based on the timing, it just reeks of politicism. This is unfortunate since this is a very distinguished award. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and Tenzin Gyatso all earned this award for a lifetime of effort and work... To hand this to someone who merely "Seemed the opposite of someone that wasn't liked" is disappointing at best.
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Hm. Every time my taxes go up, it's Democrats doing it. I make less than $50,000/year. They raise my taxes, I have less money to support my family. Yet I "make too much" for most government-given benefits. I don't think the Democrats care about me very much at all...
You are either extremely ignorant, or intentionally misleading.
Yes, the Democrats raise your taxes to pay off the nation's debts - which are always incurred in the previous Republican administration, where they dole out generous tax-cuts, cost-plus contracts to the defense industry, subsidies to corporations etc and just stick it on the nation's credit card bill. (Yes, that's the core idea of Reaganomics, as well as the entire economic policy of the Dubya administration.)
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:2, Insightful)
Well OK then, he maneuvered his way into the presidency without corruption or favours or an army of spin doctors, and has significantly changed the style with which the U.S. engages with the rest of the world.
I still feel this is a significant shift of the Nobel committee from observer and awarder to well established figures, to influencer of current affairs. This is either just pandering to populism or out-and-out lobbying, and we don't need another lobby group.
Re:personally (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.
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, like how George W. Bush came from a middle-class family and Barack Obama inherited his fantastic wealth, right?
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
And to think, those purple fingers came at the low, low cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives! It's also really great that, since Bush fucked up the prosecution of one "just" war (Afghanistan) to try and not fuck up a completely unprovoked one (Iraq), that in a few years we might get to go back in there and liberate whatever Afghanis have survived the first liberation ALL OVER AGAIN!
Isn't that just marvelous? I know all the people with purple fingers (and their children, many of whom don't have fingers, hands or arms thanks to Bush the Liberator) will be just totally thrilled when we come back! Yay! That is, unless they come over here, first, to let us know how happy they are having lost mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, daughters and sons in exchange for a few purple fingers and an elected puppet.
Seriously, if you think Bush waged war to get women the vote, you're stupid and/or insane. If you think those votes actually counted, you're a bit naive. And if you think that anything stable was created over there as a result of Bush's intervention, you're living in an alternate reality.
The AIDS in Africa thing I can sort of agree with, but you should have left it at that.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
All this shows is that the world community is entirely ignorant of how the US Office of the President works.
Understand it pretty well thanks; it works very badly.
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Other than Switzerland, which has been free since 1291, could you point out a Democratic Republic that has been around longer the US?
Every four years, we have passionate but free and orderly elections that result in the peaceful transfer of power, often between two very different groups of people. Perfect? Nothing is. Better than everything else? I'd say so.
For a system that you think sucks so badly, a lot of countries seemed to have emulated our model from one degree to another.
Re:Heh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Which seems more reasonable?
Re:personally (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has flown planes into any buildings in Europe that I know of.
Yeah, Europe has never suffered an incident [wikipedia.org] of terrorism [wikipedia.org]. It just doesn't happen. Everybody loves them.
I can't believe you got a +5 for this nonsense.
Re:Heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:personally (Score:5, 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.
Re:proletariat (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Heh... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:personally (Score:4, Insightful)
Cite please.
I see England has despised of the ending of the "special relationship".
I see the French president considers Obama to be a noob.
I see the German chancellor rejecting Obama's policies.
I see Poland and the Czech Republic feeling abandoned.
I see Russia and China condemning US monetary and trade policies.
I see Iran saying Obama is just like his predecessor.
I see Pakistan condeming US activity within its borders.
I call bull on this supposed lovefest. The world does not respect/love America any more or less than before.
In fact, most of those nations considered to be on the "side" of the US are despairing of the new reek of cowardice and anti-capitalism coming from the White House.
"The world" recognizes that the end of "Cowboy Diplomacy" need not mean that the US does a deep dive into equivocation, isolationism and protectionism.
The world - if it could be so simply encapsulated - simply views the USA in light of its own interests. As it always has, and always will.
Re:Waitaminute. Didn't we just bomb (Score:3, Insightful)
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!"
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
To which "people who murdered 3,000 innocent people" are you referring? I know you don't mean Iraq civilians, because that number is two orders of magnitude higher. I don't have a total overall, but in 2009 the Afghanistan civilian death toll (as a result of the war there) was half that number as of August, so I know you don't mean that one either.
If our objective is saving innocents, we've done a really abysmal job since far more innocents have dies as a result of our "self defense" than in the events to which we retaliated. And that same money could instead be being used to save tens of thousands, maybe millions of lives.
You can't claim our wars are anything so noble as you try to. We're the big kid on the playground, some little squirt kicked us in the shin, and we put him and a dozen other kids in the hospital in response, most of whom weren't involved in the initial shin kicking. We're so pissed that someone doesn't think we're just the bee's knees, just wait till I tell my God on you!
It's no wonder the world hates America. The fact that they're warming up to us again with attitudes like yours still out there tells me Obama really does deserve this award.
Re:proletariat (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
This is totally different than an imploding financial sector due to cowboy 'investors' legally run up tabs of a couple of trillion. The cowboys need to be leashed in and kicked to a hedge fund where they can only kill off investor money, not wreck the economy, and banking should become boring again. But also that is not what's being done.
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't think of a single one, which is why I try to sample as many as possible, preferably with different political editorial leanings. I'd trust the BBC more than most, but I just think if you're going to run a story about an Australian, a US newspaper, even the most reliable and trustworthy, isn't the way to go.
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the Nobel Foundation is perfectly within their rights to aware their prize to whoever they wish. Nobody's saying they can't.
Folks are simply pointing out that by turning a once deeply-respected "Peace Prize" into a prize for "Politics With Which The Committee Happens to Agree", they cheapen the value of the prize. That mild criticism in no way undermines anyone's right.
And this cheapening is not new - they've been going down that unfortunate road for years. Picking a President who's so early in his term that he hasn't had a chance to enact any of his initiatives just makes the farce even more obvious.
Even the recipient seemed embarrassed by it (to Obama's credit).
Re:personally (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:personally (Score:1, Insightful)
While military actions do cause loss of life, pacifism doesn't seem to be a wise course of action, either. The world respects strength and decisive action, and little else. I, for instance, think it is foolishness to allow Iran nuclear weapons right now, and I doubt anything but military action, or the credible threat of it will dissuade them from developing nuclear capabilities. I offer up the last 20 years of engagement with Iran as proof of the useless nature of diplomatic discourse with them.
Diplomatic engagement works when both parties have similar interests and compatible goals. Humanitarian aide helps when the aide is able to be delivered effectively with low levels of corruption, and when it does not create dependance on that aide. When Diplomatic engagement and Humanitarian aid fail, and when the stakes are high enough, military action is what you are left with.
Military action was the only course left to us in Afghanistan after 9/11. Leaving Al Qaida to operate freely in Afghanistan under Taliban rule was unacceptable to the US from a security standpoint, and because the Taliban where unwilling to negotiate, we were left with military action.
Do you dispute this? And on which points?
Re:For being the opposite of Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
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
"Building a bridge"? He gave some very pretty speeches, sure, but hasn't wavered from Bush's actual policies and actions towards the "Muslim Wold" (for lack of a better term). In this country, we're so accustomed to our supposedly rival ideologies, whose elected representatives differ only cosmetically in reality, that it feels natural to us to see change in nothing but words. What we've learned from this episode is that the rest of the world is accustomed to US politics in the same way.
Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize (Score:2, Insightful)
Are _you_ fucking stupid? A president in office for about _10 days_ (and a thin resume as junior Senator before that) does not deserve to be nominated, except by ass-lickers.
He has done nothing before the nomination date to justify the nomination, except inducing good feelings in folk who're impressed by the fact that a black man is now president of the United States.
Worse, he has done nothing since -- brokered no treaties, reduced no arsenals, peacefully endured no hardships at the hand of a tyrannical state -- to deserve the award. Oh yeah, he has given some more speeches around the world. Big whoopin' deal. If that's what it takes to win a Nobel Peace Prize, someone should tell Morgan Tsvangirai, who endured being beaten to a pulp by Mugabe's thugs that he's too fucking good for the award, because these days it's awarded to gasbags as opposed to those who actually effect tangible change through peaceful means.
It's great that Obama was very modest in his speech about the Nobel the other day. He has much to be modest about. And I say that as a guy who voted for him.