| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Norwegian Kool-Aid? |
|
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes 
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize... for what? Oh, wait... let's turn to the ticker tape... "...his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples..." Well, doesn't that just sound so sweet? I only have one small challenge with that (OK... I have a HUGE challenge with that): He took office less than two weeks before the nomination deadline, and had done NOTHING to deserve the nomination or the award. Now, before the partisan arguments start, let me offer the following: I supported President Carter's award because he worked his backside off bringing peace to the Middle East, and brokering an agreement between Israel and Egypt. He put his reputration on the line trying to bring peace to such places as Haiti and North Korea... and he won it after almost 30 years of working to bring peace to the world. Al Gore didn't (in my eyes) deserve the award he got; however, he had been working for many years to educate people about the ecology crisis as he saw it. I can understand why they gave it to him. They were BOTH Democrats. This particular Democrat was nominated because of things he WANTED to do. I would like to cure cancer... give me the Nobel Prize for medicine. Here are a few of the nomiees that have been revealed: French President Sarkozy: Although, he hasn't really been toom successful, he has worked very hard to bring peace to Georgia and to Gaza. Denis Mukwege: a doctor who is working in war torn Congo to give medical care to women in a very difficult situation, regardless of their nationality or politics. Handicap International and The Cluster Munition Coalition: Attempting to rid the world of mines and cluster bombs, and to take care of the victims of such weapons With nominees like this who have been working for years to make this a better world, the Norwegians give the prize to someone who wanted to do something good?? Give me a break. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Bradly Stott - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year's discussions.” http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Still, the U.S. remains at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass a law reducing carbon emissions and there has been little significant reduction in global nuclear stockpiles since Obama took office. "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, a 1983 Nobel Peace laureate. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous. You expected something different, Ringo? After Gore got it for his ficticious scenarios designed to make him rich, the Peace prize lost it's validity. It's like giving a Little League player the National League MVP trophy because they want to encourage him to do well. Everything is politics these days. Maybe Norway should change it's name by removing the "r". |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Kool-aid? Let me guess, the flavor must be sour grapes?  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! I was waiting for the sour grapes from someone...didn't know it would be you, Ron Actually, I don't have anything derrogatory to say about Obama in this instance. He did not go out and campaign for this honor. As far as I know, Michelle didn't claim that her poor childhood was reason enough to give Obama the Peace prize. (Maybe she learned her lesson at the Olympics). The joke of it all lies with the selection committee who decided that a one-term congressman with two weeks in the White House was qualified for such an honor. It's almost as silly as the Democratic party listening to one smooth speech and deciding he would make a good president. It's pretty much a slap in the face to the candidates who have been out there for years actually doing something worthwhile in the name of peace. History of the award, however, does indicate that any American president with socialistic leanings is viewed very favorably by the committee. Obviously the award is based on what they hope Obama will do in the future and not what he has done up to now, which is not much. Actually it may not be as easy for Obama, carrying an undeserved title and dealing with people who know the title is undeserved. Let's hope that, at some point in time, he will actually deserve it. Come to think of it, maybe the Peace prize IS an appropriate award. Under his presidency, government has taken a piece of the banking industry, a piece of the automobile industry, a piece of the housing industry and are attempting to take over a piece of the health care industry...maybe THAT'S what they meant! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Obama was very honest in saying that the award was not for him but it was a call to action to move toward world peace. Apparently now the prizes are given, not for past accomplishments, but for what the winner may do in the future. In that case, the Nobel prize for medicine can go to the doctors who may come up with cures for cancer or Literature to an author who may write and extroadinary book in the future. It's a brave new world indeed.... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/09/tommy-seno-obama-nobel-prize-win/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nqvyBTWis&feature=player_embedded# I especially appreciated a remark by a Washington Post commentator on NPR who said he was disappointed that Obama didn't win all the Nobel Prizes since he gave speeches on all the categories involved. , |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “The Obama Prize The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is an outstanding example of European anti-Americanism. The Norwegian prize givers are evidently full of glee because in their view Obama is diminishing the standing of the United States all over the world, surrendering power on multiple fronts, abandoning missile shields in Central Europe, hesitating to reinforce the mission in Afghanistan, buckling to Iran, and much more of that kind in prospect. The motive for encouraging all possible American retreats is almost wholly malicious, spiteful. Europeans are all too well aware that their own continent is going fast down a slippery slope towards a total loss of power, with immense social and political trials in store. It becomes unbearable for them to observe the strength and vitality of the United States, that upstart who made its way by rejecting Europe in the first place. Few will say so, but most will be gloating that this award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama may look like rewarding a president but actually is a rebuke, even an insult, to the American nation. Obama would be wise to refuse the prize.” http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY4OTViNTMxMDI4Zjk5NDE0YjMwNDI1ZjdlM2 I1NTc= . Yah, that will happen . . . . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, what amusing news to wake up to. Um, this hurts the United States how? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Even the Nobel committee’s citation does not pretend Barack Obama has actually achieved anything. Rather, it was given to him “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” That’s efforts, not achievements. Reading carefully through the entire citation suggests that Obama is being celebrated for two reasons. Its chatter about “a new climate,” the United Nations, a “vision of a world free from nuclear arms,” and “great climatic challenges” points to his being the anti-George W. Bush. Second, the prize committee hopes to constrain Obama’s hands vis-à-vis Iran. It lauds him for not using force: “Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” This is obviously gibberish: Whereas Bush did not use force against North Korea, Obama does not rely on dialogue in Afghanistan. But the statement does pressure Obama not to use force in the theater that counts the most, namely the Iranian nuclear build-up.” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDgzZGQxNjkzNzBkZDBmY2ZkYmVkZDFkMGRlMjFkMjI= . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The right has taken another anti-Obama position. Refusing the Nobel Peace Prize is certainly something they would advocate. It is something that might potentially pay off in good will for the President and for the Democratic Party, and this is not the way that party politics is, for the most part played in this country. Had the award gone to a Republican, I would be somewhat startled if there were not some grumblings on the left. I know that when Henry Kissinger won the award in the early seventies, I did my share of grumbling. In the long run, I think the Nobel committee was correct, even though I still am less than fond of Kissinger for reasons that are perhaps beyond the scope of these comments. I think they were also right to give it to President Obama, though in this case I think the award was more to the American people than it was to the President himself. I think that as Americans we may have a limited understanding of what a nightmare these last two administrations have been for much of the rest of the world, and how far the high regard in which the world has generally held the United States has fallen during this same time period. Many of my friends on the Right will either disagree with me or tell me that it doesn't matter; and that is their privilege. My thinking is that the new Nobel Peace Prize is an acknowledgment that the United States is now attempting to rejoin the world community, and to build alliances within it instead of attempting to build an empire out of it. I believe that the Nobel Committee is trying to extend the thanks of the world to the American people for rejecting the course of empire. That seems to me to be an explanation that would explain and justify the presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize in a way that makes adult sense out of the decision rather than an attempt to demean the prize and the people who have gotten it and the reasons for which it has been awarded. I'd even rather think that Kissinger got it for a good reason, much as I disapprove of so much that Kissinger did. I think this reasoning makes sense of the award to President Obama as well, as a stand-in for the wisdom of the American electorate. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: --Andrew Sullivan What is perhaps the most difficult thing to understand for some Americans is the difference between Barack Obama and George Bush. Those who don't understand will always be arguing against America whether they are on the right or the left. Such sides are of course irrelevant for those of us who love our country. Bob got it right. The only thing that matters for us is whether or not our country can survive the current crisis. The distinction between black and white cannot disappear. It cannot disappear because somebody says so. As a foreigner living in another country (Korea), as a white man living in a country where most people are, by definition, racist: yes, there are times when I feel like Michael Jordan; there are times when I feel like Dred Scott. Racism is a part of this world. It is not particular to America. What the prize shows yet again is that we, Americans, should lead the world. That America is the great experiment that worked, is working, will work. We are the future. What I call the twenty-per-centers are people who simply do not have the ability to see the difference between what they think we were (an error, I assure you) and what we can be. It is time, more than ever, for us to lead. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. All this . . . about the “world” as if it were some better higher grace that the United States under Bush had fallen away from. What world, what country or countries specifically are supposedly the guiding light(s) we should be following back into the kingdom of goodness? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, Obama was not given the award for what he has accomplished regarding racial relations in the US. ctually, I can't think of anything he HAS done in that regard. What the prize shows yet again is that we, Americans, should lead the world. My opinion is what the prize shows is that we, America, should be more like Europe. I don't think they want America leading the world. My thinking is that the new Nobel Peace Prize is an acknowledgment that the United States is now attempting to rejoin the world community, Last time I checked, Bob, the Nobel prizes were given out for accomplishments, not attempts. I can't think of one given out for what someone MAY accomplish in the future, can you? Perhaps major league baseball should give out the MVP award BEFORE the season starts, based on the player who shows the most promise, instead of expecting actual performance. That would be a good parallel to Obama receiving this award. It's not difficult to understand you and grinch claiming it's a valid award, even though it's an award given, not for performance, but for hopeful expectations. It's also easy to understand the huge amount of shock felt around the world when Obama's name was announced. My complaint is not with Obama. It's for a ridiculous organization that nominated a one-term senator with two weeks experience and no accomplishments for the award. The prize has now become a joke thanks to their efforts. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: For the record Mike he wouldn't have been my choice, I can understand why he was chosen though. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Then you should look at the history of Nobel Peace Prizes more closely. They have often been given to nudge processes along in the past. Desmond Tutu was given his while South Africa was still segregated, for example. The lady in Myanmar is still under house arrest. It is possible that her Nobel peace prize is all that is keeping her alive. I suggested that the Nobel awarded the President was more to the American people than to him personally. Thank you for your comment about the President, but it is at odds with far too many of your other comments about the President to have the right sound without further clarification. It sounds flat. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, Tutu was awarded the prize for work hed had done up to that point, whether or not it was successful. The lady in Myanmar was considered for the work she had done, which caused her to be arrested. Show me one where no accomplishments had yet been made and the award given on expectations and hopes. You won't find one. Please don't bother with talking about the award going to the American people instead of Obama. The name on the prize is Obama. Obama was the one nominated two weeks after being in office. I realize that there aren't that many avenues of escape to choose from. The fact that Obama has no accomplishments up to now to warrant such an honor are irrefutable. One must suppose you feel the award goes to the American people because they elected Obama, the man who has no accomplishments to warrant such an award. Not even a good try, Bob.... My thoughts sounding flat to you are unintersting to me, sir. I stated them as honestly as I felt them without regard or concern how you would view them. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What I think you're missing, Mike, is that your perspective of "performance" versus "hopeful expectations" is a false dichotomy. Giving hope where there was none (or far too little) is no small accomplishment. Nor do I believe Obama's "performance" was necessarily judged by just two weeks in office. Critics may scoff at the Democratic Convention speech of 2006, but even they have to recognize how much that speech subsequently changed the entire world. No, the walls of racism and nationalism haven't fallen, and cynics like me have to wonder if they ever will, but Barack Obama has given a lot of people hope that maybe, just maybe, we can raise ourselves high enough to at least see what's on the other side. That hasn't happened in a very long time, Mike. Peace on Earth would, of course, be wonderful. But the honest hope that real peace is at least possible? That's worth something, too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Critics may scoff at the Democratic Convention speech of 2006, but even they have to recognize how much that speech subsequently changed the entire world. I doubt that speech changed the entire world, Ron. I would go so far as to say much of the entire world didn't even know of it's existence.What it changed was the Democratic party, thirsting for a viable presidential candidate. On the basis of that speech, they decided to disregard all lack of experience and baggage associated with him and make him their candidate. THAT fact may come to change the entire world. but Barack Obama has given a lot of people hope that maybe, just maybe, we can raise ourselves high enough to at least see what's on the other side. True enough, Ron, but, after giving hope, one has to follow through with something to keep that hope alive. As I see it, Obama has not done that. His cry of "No more politics as usual" has resulted in nothing more than politics as usual. His call for and open government has been proven to be false. His "no more pork" resulted in more pork. His "time for a change" has resulted in people being afraid of what changes he is making. The percentages of people believing in his job performance have fallen dramatically. The hope he created in his campaign is dissipating because his subsequent actions have not kept it alive. The quadrupling of the national debt, the huge rise in unemployment (which he predicted would fall), the ineffectiveness of the stimulus plan he declared was vital to American recovery....all of these these things, among others, have diluted that hope. Saying "trust me" only works so long. Something has to subsequently be done to earn that trust. Be that as it may, I doubt that the internal relationship between Obama and Americans is the reason Obama received the peace prize. It is for what he has done on a global level. What HAS he done on a global level? Our situation with North Korea is the same, as is our situation with Iran. Iraq is the same and Afghanistan is worse. A recent poll in Israel showed that less than 4% ofthe population believe Obama is concerned in their interests and do not trust him. Peace on Earth would, of course, be wonderful. But the honest hope that real peace is at least possible? That's worth something, too. Yes, it is. So what has Obama done to give a strong possibility that real peace is at least possible? What has he done to instill that honest hope? Has any violence in the world abated because of his eloquent speeches? Are nations going to disarm because he wants them to? Is there anything factual he has done to instill honest hope, with the exception of smooth speeches like the ones he used to get elected? Are they somehow more important than the other candidates who have given years, decades, endured personal suffering, hardships and even incarceration in the quest of peace? I don't really think so....the people around the world who were shocked at his selection apparently don't, either. In a strange way, one has to admire him. With no experience, no accomplishments and nothing more than the ability to give eloquent speeches and instill confidence in people like a tv evangelist or a "How to make a million in real estate" pitch man, he has managed to become president of the United States and win the Nobel Peace prize. That's quite a feat...... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: He got elected. Could the same thing happen in Japan? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's the litmus test....that it couldn't happen in Japan? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Litmus test? Huh? Do you think Japan is an extreme example? Okay, how about Russia? Norway? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm missing your point, Brad. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You overlook the fact that he managed to get elected in the United States, not a country that has had a sterling reputation in the rest of the world in recent years for willingness to be a part of the world community or to show regard for minority positions or, for that matter, for rule of law. Taking upon itself the right to conduct a preemptive invasion, for example, was something that set a good part of the globe seriously back on its heels. The fact that the United States did have its defenders spoke well of the trust it had stockpiled through a long and honorable history. The fact that its coalition was so reduced by the end of the last administration says something about how well we had managed to maintain that bond as well. It is not that Obama is a Democrat that made the difference. It is the fact that he campaigned against the last administration and its policies, for the most part, and that he drew enormous support from the American people that made the difference. If the Republicans had backed a Republican who had been willing to do the same, and had thrown the support of the party behind him, I believe the Republicans could have achieved the same result. Colin Powell would have done well, had he not been so discredited by the Republicans themselves. Even so, he still might have been rehabilitated. Olympia Snow would have made a good candidate, if the Party could have gotten behind her, and if she had been willing to speak out against the things that the Bush white house had been doing. Either one of these folks could have drawn a significant number of independents away from the the President and might have won the race. The White House would have remained Republican, somewhat further to the right than it is now, but not terribly. The same problems would still be there, and would still need to be solved, because they didn't flash into existence when President Obama took the oath of office. And Olympia Snow or Colin Powell would be getting the Nobel Peace Prize for removing the largest single global threat to peace from the table in the same way the Barack Obama has — by trying very hard to change the direction of its national policy. I hope he succeeds in working out a strategy of cooperation rather than confrontation — at least for the most part — in the coming years. There are times when confrontation is necessary, but it usually works best against the proper enemy, at the proper time and in the proper place. Not against the wrong people at the wrong time and in the wrong place. That tends simply to create new enemies, as we are seeing from having botched the last attempt to deal with Afghanistan by dropping it to deal with Iraq, which was already well under control. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bush had Iraq well under control? Thank you, Bob... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, It seems that Obama being elected may be telltale of progress in overcoming racialism already made ... but it is not personally contributory on Obama's part (not in any serious sense). Martin Luther King Jr. is much the benefactor in this regard, and Obama (and we ourselves) the recipients. That's not to take anything away from the accomplishment of being elected. Just my thoughts. I am not an Obama-basher at all. However I feel that the value/meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize is trivialized by the decision, based upon hopes and intentions largely unrealized. And we've gotten ourselves in a bad way if the only rationalization for such a thing is the perceived failures the previous administration. Just my thoughts, Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let me put it as baldly as I can: A black man was elected to lead white America. You can question the the accuracy of either adjective, you can attack the presumption that America is racist, you can argue the ethics of even thinking such a thing, but that's what a lot of people think. Hell, my first year in Korea I had more than one conversation with people who couldn't tell the difference between a termite and an ant but everybody knew what a WASP was. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see. A black man elected as president qualifies him to win the Nobel Peace prize...got it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I'm not questioning any of those perceptions. What I am asking is whether Obama is primariy an agent of racial improvement, or simply a beneficiary. I think it is the latter, though his election may inadvertently help the process along. His role is significantly more passive and quite different than the role of say, Martin Luther King Junior. He actively wanted to be president. He was passively born black. We were talking in terms of a Nobel Peace Prize. See my point? Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, Um, why not? It's not as if you had a lot of respect for the prize before this happened. When Saul Bellow won the literature Nobel, he said something like, "Great, but not that big a deal." That's my attitude. When I told my wife yesterday, she looked at me quizzically and asked, "Why?" I shrugged my shoulders and said, "Why not?" And when was being elected president not a big deal? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
why not? Should that be taken seriously? What IS the Nobel Peace Prize, on its own terms? Its okay Brad, you don't have to speak to me, seeing I'm not a regular here. I can hardly have earned the respect.  Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It appears I can relate to your wife much better than you, Brad. I'll respond, Stephanos. I think you raised a very valid point...which would explain a lack of response |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, Sure. But in order for your point to have any salience for me, I'd have to take the Nobel prize more seriously than I do. Mike says somewhere that it was a political move. Of course it was. The Peace Prize has always been political. What's wrong with that? To argue otherwise would be to assume that in years past it wasn't. And I have never seen anybody argue that here. Honestly, I find the whole thing quite humorous. It made my morning yesterday. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah, c'mon guys. I can't keep up with you. That's all. Oh, and Mike, after a moment's thought, my wife agreed with me. She said, "Why not?" and we started giggling together. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I would differ by saying yes, there has always been a political element to it, but in most cases some real merit/accomplishment as well. But you are saying that it has always been merely political. At least we can agree that this is true in this one instance. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, what was the giggle really about? I usually giggle when something is a bit comical or absurd ... but that's just me. (giggle, giggle) Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
One more thing: I really don't see a downside to any of this. Of course, I don't see much of an upside either. The article from Time argued that it was bad for Obama, not bad for the country. When 2012 comes around, will anybody bring this up? Seriously? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Are you referring to the Mayan prediction, or to the elections? If the former, then its ALL gravy ain't it? (LOL) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of COURSE it will be brought up in 2012, by the Democrats, along with all of the other Obama non-achievements he will take credit for. That's a given I'm trying to picture you giggling but it just ain't coming! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, If so, the audience will start giggling. Steven, I thought that whole Mayan thing was a mistake. Somebody screwed up the math somewhere. Easy to do given their numbering system. But, seriously, I can't think of one Peace Prize recipient that wasn't controversial to somebody. It's the nature of the beast. To think of three: Martin Luther "communist sympathizer" King Henry "surgical strike" Kissinger Mother "Missionary Position" Theresa Why did I giggle? Because like you, my first thought was 'What has he done?' And then I thought, 'Ah, a symbolic gift for a symbol.' Bob's pretty much got the immediate history nailed down here. Few of you posting here will ever really understand the depths to which Bush and company brought America's image down. But the bigger picture is this: A black man is POTUS. That's a big deal. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Unless Mike is actually trying to appear naive on purpose, yeah, the situation in Iraq was under control before the invasion. The country was under heavy sanction and essentially falling apart. If you want to credit a Bush for that, you're probably crediting the wrong Bush. But I'm not too upset. I figure it's simply Mike's way of being friendly, and ignoring the point I made in the post before, where I pointed out that presenting the Nobel Peace Prize would have appropriate even if the new President had been Republican so long as the new administration had made a point of showing the desire to work in the interests of world harmony and peace rather than against them by pursuing some of the policies I had mentioned. Such as saying that we no longer felt the need to respond to hostilities after they were initiated by other folks but felt we should be able to initiate them when and where we wished. That didn't help the peace and harmony of the world. By showing that we were willing to behave more clearly in a way that conformed with international law, at least in that regard, and that we were willing to give up torture as an element of national policy and were trying to shut down Gitmo — all of these very sore points for much of the world, though apparently of no consequence to my friends on the Right — all of which occurred very quickly after the President's swearing in, the President showed to the world that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. The Right is simply out of touch with how disgusting the behavior of this country has been in these regards over the past two administrations. They cannot believe that simply reversing these revolting practices — practices that they have been busy defending as though they were even remotely humane or normal international behavior — could have such an enormous effect. I would suggest that they have been out of touch with the norms of human conduct for so long that they have no idea how truly repugnant these practices are, and how crazy it seems to the rest of the world that a country that presents itself as a bastion of liberty could pretend to defend such practices. The amount of basic acceptance and love the world bears this country shows in how quickly so many are willing to embrace our best efforts. This may well be another set of reasons to award President Obama a Nobel Peace Prize. It certainly makes sense as well. The difference between figuring why he did get the prize and why he didn't is that most folks will tolerate a more limited number of reasons to explain why Obama did get the prize. And most folks want those reasons to be limited by a certain degree of sense. While those reasons for explaining why Obama should not have gotten the prize are not limited to the realities "why" and "how" but are free to drift off into the speculations of "should" and "shouldn't" or "does deserve" and "does not deserve." There is no strict criterion to judge by at the end to compare the chain of reasoning against, so it can be as florid and baroque as one can manufacture. It doesn't have to say at the end: And so, as a result of this, the Prize was won. All it has to say is: So the man didn't deserve it. But of course the conclusion says nothing about whether the prize was won or lost. It's about another subject entirely, isn't it? It's hard to win an argument like that. As to whether he deserved it or not, I guess I'd be curious to know what the conditions would be for you to believe that somebody did earn it, and then compare your criteria with the winners the Nobel Committee has chosen since Teddy Roosevelt. Do you think that Yasser Arafat qualified? And so on. I think you'll find overall that the qualities you want in a Nobel Peace Prize Winner are not the same as the qualities that The Nobel Committee wants. And that the experts in picking Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are probably on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, and that the rest of the folks are all wannabes. That would have included me when I complained about Dr. Kissinger. [This message has been edited by Bob K (10-11-2009 03:10 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
According to the U.S. Code Obama can't accept the prize as his own. It must be accepted on behalf of the United States and becomes the property of the United States: quote: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00007342----000-.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
by dropping it to deal with Iraq, which was already well under control. The country was under heavy sanction and essentially falling apart. Nice to have it both ways, I suppose. The Right is simply out of touch with how disgusting the behavior of this country has been in these regards over the past two administrations How can we be out of touch when we have you to constantly remind us? I would suggest that they have been out of touch with the norms of human conduct for so long that they have no idea how truly repugnant these practices are, and how crazy it seems to the rest of the world that a country that presents itself as a bastion of liberty could pretend to defend such practices. Like maybe the Patriot Act, Bob? Hey, that's a question I wanted to ask. SInce those alleged terrorists now going on trial for having plans to commit terrorist bombings in the US were caught by wire-tapping, intercepted messages, and stolen computer information, should they sue Bush? The amount of basic acceptance and love the world bears this country shows in how quickly so many are willing to embrace our best efforts. The world loves this country now? I had no idea.... When you use the word "world", exactly who are you referring to? Ah, yes, the old past eight years chant once again. Let me summarize. During those past eight years, the US decided to engage in "repugnant practices", became "out of touch with the norms of human conduct", adopted "torture as an element of national policy" and all because of the evil right wing, who has become so desensitized to the Caligula-like tactics employed under the tyrant Bush that they lost the ability to distinguish good from evil. Thank God the left is back in control to save the country... That should cover it, I guess..... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“A black man was elected to lead white America.” Who Charles Krauthammer described as possibly the least qualified candidate in living memory by white guilt, nurtured for at least a generation, novelty, and an anti Bush stupidity, (more than a third of Democrats actually believed he consciously and knowingly allowed if not participated in the successful attack on the United States on 9/11), worthy of the third world we seem to be so concerned to win the approval of. Oh, let’s break out the champagne. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, He gave the money to charity before he actually ever got it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Still haven't responded to my comments above. I believe now, as I did when I wrote the comments, that anybody who made a clear break with the policies of the last eight years, Democrat or Republican, would have probably earned the same Nobel prize. I suggested two fine Republicans by name who might certainly have fit the bill, both of which had more experience than President Obama, and either of which might have given him a run for his money with the Independent voters who were the ones who proved to be the ones who swung the race. This is not a Democrat versus Republican issue, much as I believe you would like to paint it that way. Much as I believe Ringo may see it that way. The non-issues you would have me respond to above are pointless distractions. I use the past eight years so often because I actually believe that this was a watershed time in American history, not because I'm trying to drive you nuts. I don't believe that's in my power to do anyway. There are norms and standards of action that Americans have always made at least a sincere attempt to follow. At times we've been better at these things than other times, but at least we've made an effort. We've always had reason to think of ourselves as the good guys, the white hats, the cowboys, much as these ideals have suffered over time. It's one of the things that the rest of the world has found to be so appealing about us. During the twenties and thirties, during times of great global hardship, the thing that was the most widely read in Europe — yeah, even in Germany — were the westerns of Karl May, a German who'd never been to the United States. The American spirit has always been appealing. (I was listening to NPR the other day and heard that the French had taken a poll. Before the administration changed, the United States was apparently their 7th favorite country; now it was once again in the number one spot. You shouldn't put any store in the poll since I can't give you a more solid reference than that, and I'm not inclined to go searching at this point, so I can't give any data about how the information was gathered or processed. If you think it's wrong, that's fine with me.) It has not been so appealing over the last eight years. Many of our long-term allies such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan have been not so thrilled with us or have outright been critical of our foreign policy, especially around issues such as torture and our claim that we now had the right to indulge in pre-emptive attacks on foreign powers. Many of them have not been thrilled with the way we have dealt with the Geneva convention, and large parts of their populations have from time to time taken to the streets to voice their displeasure. This has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. Ike was a Republican. I don't believe he would have tolerated behavior like this. I am unhappy to say that I believe that Nixon might well have, but perhaps I am not giving the man the benefit of the doubt. The behavior is simply wrong. It was wrong when we condemned it on the part of the Nazis and the Japanese during the second world war. When the North Koreans and the Chinese did it during the Korean War, it was wrong. The the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong did this sort of thing to our troops during the Viet Nam War, we said it was wrong. I thought we actually meant it each time. When we could, we put people on trial and put them in prison of executed them for waterboarding or torturing or mistreating prisoners. I believe yoga is good for the body. I am not certain that this sort of flexibility of the morals is entirely healthy. Apparently we've been lying hypocrites for the last sixty or so years when we condemned these other people; and the folks who condemned our enemies to death were performing extra-judicial executions and should then be put on trial for war-crimes for what we did to the poor Nazis and Japanese and North Koreans and Chinese and North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Or what we've been doing over the past eight years has been wrong. Perhaps there are loads of other options that I haven't yet understood. I keep reminding you, Mike, because you have never taken responsibility. Because you have never said that the policies of the past two administrations have been wrong, and because when I bring it up, you act as though it's my fault that the past eight years actually happened. If only I kept silent, everything would be fine. That wouldn't be a problem, except it leaves you completely puzzled when the President of The United States get The Nobel Peace Prize. Then, because you haven't understood the history, you are completely puzzled, and you are convinced that there has been some complete rupture of logic and reality, when the train of events is actually pretty straightforward and logical. The world is happy to welcome the United States back to the community of nations. When Obama made reference to paying off the debt in his speech to the U.N., that was part of what he was talking to. He had paid off some back dues the United States has owed the U.N. for years. That's not a bad way of rejoining the community of nations, you know — ponying up your old debts. We've been throwing our weight around for years on other people's dimes. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution, found in Article I, Section 9, was designed specifically to protect our republic against any foreign influence. quote: Is it possible that Obama is not familiar with this clause? Or does he just consider it one of those pesky irrelevent Constitutional requirements to be ignored at will? It doesn't seem to me that it was his right to give it to anybody, if it wasn't his to accept in the first place, Bob. He should have declined it. But not having declined it, it seems it should go to the Treasury, not to Obama's favorite charities. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Apparently we've been lying hypocrites for the last sixty or so years when we condemned these other people; Only a democrat could make that statement, Bob. According to your words, apparently we have been no better than Hitler, North Koreans, the Viet Cong and the Chinese. I repeat, only a democrat could make such a despicable statement. Thank you for sharing the fact that we are now France's favorite country. You have no idea how much that means to me. Perhaps one day we can be like them, if we are lucky and work hard. I see your latest entry. No, Bob, I hadn't responded to you comment up until now. I actually have a life outside of this computer at times and, if time passes that I don't respond promptly, I may actually be involved in that life. Don't hold it against me, please.... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Regardless of what Obama succeeds at or fails at in the future, I think he has already succeeded by far at showing better judgement than those judging him. It is not he that treats himself as a dictator here or awards himself the Noble Peace Award there. It is the people exaggerating him, from one extreme to another. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly, essorant. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, If we justify the same behavior with the same excuses, Mike, and suggest that we are above having to act according to a civilized standard for some sort of specialized reason, Please tell me how only a Democrat could make such a statement. There were plenty of Republicans who worked in the war crimes tribunals and issued statements about the behavior of the Nazis and the Japanese. If you haven't seen any world war one recruiting posters, perhaps you should take a look. It doesn't take a Democrat to wish to defend the rights of others or to defend others against atrocities. If you tell me that our soldiers signed up to commit atrocities, I will roundly disagree with you. I would doubt even somebody as Partisan as you would insist on that. I have been at pains to try to be kind to the Republicans here. I have even said that the Republicans could have gotten the same Nobel Peace prize as President Obama if they had chosen to run perfectly respectable Republican candidates. I even named the candidates. Once again I say that this isn't a problem between Democrats and Republicans. This is a problem between people who think it's okay to torture people and people who think it isn't. This is a problem between people who look for ways to allow them to torture people under flimsy legal excuses and people who don't. I don't think that all the JAG people who set up a fuss about what the administration was doing or the FBI people who did the same were Liberals or Democrats — do you? You don't have to be a Democrat or a Liberal to have your stomach turn over at6 the thought of water-boarding somebody, or of allowing someone to be tortured to death when they are under the protection of your custody. So yeah, we can mean one thing or we can mean the other or we can do a large amount of very rational and absolutely clear and totally convincing explanation that will make everybody instantly understand why we aren't hypocrites. But Mike, there aren't a heck of a lot of other choices. Standing on the fact of our common nationality and crying shame suggests that you haven't even begun to understand the depth of the betrayal that the last two administrations have palmed off as normal on the American people. As to how much better we have been than the various people we have fought, what makes us so much better? I love my country, but what we've done to Iraq has been less than Praiseworthy. Your attempt to cast it that way is understandable, but it is not to my mind connected with a clear vision of the facts of the situation. You say to me, only a Democrat could make that statement (though your use of the small "d" makes me feel a certain pride in the accusation, I must confess), and I ask you to explain the logic behind a statement such as that. I understand the venom behind it, and the possible wish to flail out, but I see no sort of factual basis. And you should not confuse the despicability of the statement with the despicability of the behavior the statement is describing, which is despicable indeed by most any measure. Thank you also for revealing your disgust with the French. You ought to try reading some of their literature some time, eating some of their food, looking at some of their paintings, reading some of their philosophers or visiting some of their sculpture. In case all of this leaves you cold, you should try giving up the part of the language you've gotten from them. I doubt any of this will budge your thinking however. They aren't better or worse, they are different, which automatically makes them unamerican, doesn't it? quote: Actually, you haven't responded even now. You've simply substituted a personal attack for an answer to my questions and comments. You've then told me that you're too busy to respond, which you believe lets you off the hook and allows you to retire from the field. You are free to retire from the field. You are free to call me names. You are free to make comments about the amount of time I spend talking here — though I suspect you spend more — but I think that you might at some point actually wish to think about whether this is a Democrat versus Republican issue at all. It's pretty clear to me that there are Republicans in the party who would disagree with you about how well the past eight years have gone. It's not a foul conspiracy that's gotten the Republicans out of office, you know. The Democrats on the whole are not as good politically — at least in my opinion — as the Republicans. The Republicans had to have really made some fairly large mistakes, and they will need to face them or they will make them again. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, of course it's a political issue. Of course you will deny it with dying breath but the fact of the matter is that, with a Democratic president, there would have been no Abu Ghrab in the headlines, nor any mistreatments at Gitmo....and, if by some chance there were some small mention of them, democrats would have downplayed it to the point it would have been a non-issue. Tell me that the ridiculous actions of a few low-ranking soldiers at Abu Grabh would have caused you to go after Clinton, had he been president at the time, with the same venom you went after Bush. Tell me that it would have caused you to refer to our military and country on an even keel with Hitler and the Viet Cong. Please tell me how only a Democrat could make such a statement Simple. That's the democrat standard m.o. You want to know why conservative talk shows get all of the ratings, Bob? It's because they are positive about America. It's because they speak of the good points about the country and why people should be proud to be a part of it. Hannity conducts continual Freedom tours (non-political) that attract millions to enjoy music from top groups singing songs about the goodness of America. Beck goes on tour with the same typle of thing. Should you ever listen to Limbaugh or any of them (and I suspect you do) you will hear pure support for our military and America. What does one hear from the democrats? One hears what is bad about the military, what is bad about the country, how our fighting soldiers are no better than the Nazis who rounded up Jews and shot them in the streets. One hears about all of the things that are wrong with the government (as long as a Republican is in power, of course), how hell is waiting for our handbasket, how we are an uncaring mob of elitists, preying on the misfortunes of the poor and how we should be ashamed of ourselves. Check it out for yourself sometime. Listen to an hour of a liberal talk show and an hour of a conservative talk show and keep count of how many times negativity has been said about the country, not the government in charge, but the country itself and it's people. The comparison won't even be close. How only a democrat could male your statements? Easy...they are the only ones who feel that way. I love my country, but what we've done to Iraq has been less than Praiseworthy. To you, maybe but there are actually quite a few Iraqis who disagree with you. Right now millions are not living under the terrorist regime that consisted of knocks on the doors in the dead of night, secret prisons, mass graves, gassing towns to kill thousands at a time. Are there still problems? Of course, but in a situation like that, successfully remaking the government of a country does not come overnight. Based on history, it takes well over a decade and yet, according to your earlier statement, Iraq seems to be well under control already. Less than praiseworth? Once again, it would take a democrat to say that. Under a democrat president, it would have been a wonderful achievement. You don't have to be a Democrat or a Liberal to have your stomach turn over at the thought of water-boarding somebody, or of allowing someone to be tortured to death when they are under the protection of your custody. How many instances of that do you recall happening, Bob? How many people were tortured to death under protection of custody? How many waterboarding issues were there and what were the consequences to the prisoners as a result of such tactics? You have no problem throwing around rhetoric like "stomach turning despicable torture tactics that compare us to the most vile henious in history....due to what? I can tell you what, Bob...politics, pure and simple. You ought to try reading some of their literature some time, eating some of their food, looking at some of their paintings, reading some of their philosophers or visiting some of their sculpture. ...and you should try inquiring before making such a statement. I lived in France, Bob, in Strassbourg. I've slept on the Left Bank. toured the Louvre, gone to Notre Dame and marched in parades on Bastille Day. Can you say the same? I also spent a lot of time in the small towns, far away from the bright lights of Pigalle. What do I think about the people? I like them very much. They are like people everywhere with the same wishes to live a happy existence. They love their food, love their wine, and have a joy of life. Would I like for America to live under the same government the French do? No. Would I trade my life for theirs? No. Does it concern me whether they like me or not? No. If you wish to call that disdain, go ahead....just another insult missing it's mark. Actually, you haven't responded even now. Bob, I'll respond to any questions I feel valid and any comments I consider worthy of a return comment. You, of course, have the right to do the same. If you want my participation in a Bash the Military campaign or Nazi-like comparison with our troops and commanders, you're wasting you time directing comments towards me. If you want to paint America as a torture-loving society run amok that should be ashamed of it's existence, you'll have to do it without me. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: Bob, Bob, Bob..... I have intentionally stayed out of this. I started the argument, and then sat back to enjoy the fur flying... much like the referee at a mud wrestling match... As YOU have brought me back into it.... let's go back to the unadulterated, unabridged, unvarnishede history and see what Ringo believes. Actually, as you know Ringo so well, perhaps we don't need to. You have given his viewpoint for all the world to see... hmmm.... What to do... what to do... Roll Tape quote: Bob, my dear sir, before you give others the opportunity to think you the fool, please do a quick check of the facts so as to prevent it from being so. Now, it's back to the sidelines for me. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I would dare say none of those examples of yours compares to this one really. Like them or not, theirs was more rooted in accomplishment than sheer anticipation and potentiality. The proof?, most on the left are saying the very same thing. Even Michael Moore said something to that effect. This was a precedent for what the prize is all about. And that's a whole separate discussion of whether it is a great thing that a black man is president (and I think it is) ... speaking rather of what he has done as president. We can agree to disagree here. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I don't buy the Black Man bologna. I'm more inclined to believe that the prize givers became starry-eyed over Obama's apologies. You know, the ones that painted America as too big, powerful, "arrogant, dismissive, derisive," and so on and so forth... The Peace posers fell in love with the idea that our Prez might liken America as powerless or less powerful than the countries who are not free to be so. Humble is one thing but weak is another. Many black persons are upset over Obama's flimsy apologetic nature, which is another reason I'm not buying the whole race based distraction. The Nobels are wacked, and that we can't blame Obama for. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You're absolutely right, Regina. Obama's "apology tour" was a big hit on the European stage. BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ringo, I am always a fool. It's simply part of the risk I take for trying to be reasonably open. Personal dignity tends to be a bit on the rigid side and sometimes means you have to take positions that you feel obligated to defend even when they're wrong. I try to avoid that. Sometimes more adeptly than others. I believe that Carter and Gore certainly earned their Nobel Peace Prizes, and in exactly the ways that you explained them. Did you actually read my explanation for why I thought that President Obama had gotten his? Because it simply doesn't sound that you have. I also said that anybody who had made something of a break with the policies of the last eight years, Democrat or Republican would probably have earned the Same Prize, and that it was more of a prize given to the American people for repudiating the policies of the past eight years than a prize specifically to Obama himself. I don't believe that's such a foolish point of view to take. If you do, perhaps you might take a moment and put into words how that might be so. Indeed the achievement is very large, it is an achievement of the American people as a whole, and the President has been more or less selected a their representative in this. The process has begun but has not finished, but that is the case with most Nobel Peace Prize winners, including Begin and Arrafat, Carter, Gore, Ghandi, King, An san soo ky — I have never been able to figure out how to spell her name — in Myanmar and most of the others. At no point did you hear me say that Obama had brought world peace. The trouble he is getting ending the torture policy in the U.S. government is very troubling to me, however. And the fact that he wants to end it, though isn't doing a great job of that as yet, gives me at least some hope. Efforts to close Gitmo are in improvement over opening it. Giving up a right to preemptive first strikes is an improvement of asserting the right and the willingness to use them. All these things may perhaps feel like nothing to you, and at times they feel like very small steps to me; but for such small steps they have provoked very large cries of anguish from the far right. So, either it's nothing, as the far right says, and not worthy of recognition, or a world class disaster, as the far right says, and is hugely important. About this, you will forgive me if I find the far right a less that trustworthy judge of President Obama's record. My personal take is that the award is actually to the political sea change in the american electorate, and that's how the award should be accepted. You might make a case for his personal worthiness, but you'd have to take that discussion up with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Tell them that America doesn't deserve it yet. I might cosign the letter. I think we have a way to go, too. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: This isn't true, is it? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Gandhi never won the NPP. He was nominated 5 times, but never got the award. However, more notably and perhaps more noble are the prizes given in his name: The Gandhi Peace Prize, given annually from India with a 10 million dollar cash award, and the American Gandhi Peace Award. "It has been issued since 1960 and consists of a certificate, a ceremony, and the presentation of a bronze medallion inscribed with a quotation by Gandhi, "Love Ever Suffers/Never Revenges Itself." Wiki~ Mother Teresa was a NPP recipient, and even she has her critics. Go figure. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Re: Ghandi not getting Nobel Peace Prize so I guess in the eyes of the Norwegians Obama has accomplished more than Ghandi. oh those crazy Norwegians! Why, they're almost mainstream! Here is a great story on WHY Ghandi was nominated 5 TIMES but deemed not worthy of winning it. (cached result, so it won't show up cookies) "http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:2J74Gma2LzEJ:nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html+ghandi+nobel+peace+prize&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" Obama won it simply because He wasn't Bush. Gore won it because the Nobel Committee changed the term: 'global warming' to 'climate change' (which is a win win for Gore: so ANY climate change will be attributed to ECO-violations. Brilliant. ) Carter won it because he made sure Israel didn't get their way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not true. it seems... OSLO – Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president. Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism. Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment. "We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama Apparently it did not go the the American people, as Bob suggests. Nor is it because he is not Bush. He EARNED it, at least according to three of five members of the committee. Go figure |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Einstein didn't get his for relativity, either. It was for something reasonably less important. Also I think a lot of their Nobel Prizes in Literature choices don't go where I think they should, or do go where I think they shouldn't. I don't know why they keep asking for my opinion if they never listen to my advice. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, let me know when a scientist gets one for a formula he didn't produce or an author for a book he/she didn't write and I'll agree |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Gore got one for a book that didn't make sense. And he's not even a scientist. Same diff, right? By the way, Gore, how's that Global Warming idea-thingy working out for ya? Record low temperatures in Nort.America this season, as well as earliest low temps. oh yeah, forgot: that's why they changed 'Global Warmin' name to Climate Change. For a minute there, the sunspots blinded my perception. Gore got the PEACE award for his Global Warming work. HUH????? and warming has exactly WHAT to do with peace? OTCN again (Oh those crazy Norwegians) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How's Gore doing?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U Typical Gore... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Based on instrumental measurements taken since 1850 the average global temperature trend is upwards. The data doesn't tell us why it's rising, just that it is. quote: I hear that the arctic is pretty cold too, France is comfortably moderate but in Africa the heat is unbearable. Ever wonder why they call it global warming? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Climate change, grinch, climate change to be politically correct |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Climate change, global warming, it doesn't really matter what you call it Mike. The average global temperature trend is upwards. It's getting hotter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I wasn't referring to what I call it, sir. I'm trying to keep up with what the politicians call it....not always an easy thing to do. I would make a guess that Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods throughout it's history.....just a guess. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That would be a good guess Mike. There have been numerous periods of warming and cooling throughout earth's history; the most severe of them culminating in mass extinction events. Periods of temperate stability are, as strange as it sounds, not the norm, the earth is generally in either a cooling or warming cycle. Climate change, when you look at it like that, is a bit of a redundant statement - the climate is almost always changing. If the global temperature is on an upward trend Global Warming is a more accurate term, obviously if the temperature declines for the next 200 years Global Cooling might be more apt. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yeah, even the Nobel committee seems desperate to come up with reasons for their choice. Okay, let's agree to disagree. I'm not convinced that this color-blind approach, which seems like a kind of self-censorship at best or a form of denial at worst, is the best way to go. And of course I'm as guilty of that as the next American, but I can't think of one person from a different country (except Canada) who holds such extreme views on the complete and utter impossibility of discussing racial and ethnic factors in, well, anything. Most people I talk to know who Neil Armstrong is, fewer but some know who Buzz Aldrin is, but almost nobody knows who "Pete" Conrad is. And as far as I know, that 'first' wasn't based on anything other than the luck of the draw. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We don't disagree, grinch. As I said before, the politicians changed it to climate change, not me. Perhaps they enjoy redundancy [This message has been edited by Balladeer (10-13-2009 10:30 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Put down that loaded term, Mike. Place it carefully on the floor, and slowly back away. Don't make any sudden moves.... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Brad~ Not many know of George Washington Carver, either. He saved the south from becoming really dirt poor. Jimmy Carter has much to thank him for If the plains farmers had heeded his research, the Dust Bowl might have been avoided.He promoted racial harmony and had no interest in politics, other than that which promoted the benefits to all in his discoveries. My point is: Carver never focused on his color so much that the worldview of him impaired his vision. Obama has. And it's a cheap shot to his own standing, because he is in the utmost position to promote racial harmony with many fine fine fellows who have done more in their sleep than he has as examples. The moment he accepts the worldview of a race based achievement, he loses power as a human being, with dirt in his eye, imo, and he re-empowers the belief that America has so much to apologize for, the America he stands for...or against. I'm still deciding. but red yellow black or white, sight is precious. Aye.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I thought Carver was fairly well known but that may just be me. But if you are arguing against a race based world view, why the comparison? At any rate, I think you're missing my point. My point is not that he should claim special status because he's black, it is that he has special status because he's black, and before Mike jumps in in order to miss the point even more , he has special status because he is the first black president in a country that is internationally perceived both as a white country and as country with a particularly violent history of racism.All countries are racist. Or if that is too general a use of that term, the people of the world all tend to support their own ethnic group and demean others. They also have hierarchies when dealing with different ethnic groups (N.E Asians, for example, think that whites are superior to say Indians and S.E. Asians). As long as you recognize that, you can work within it. If you don't, you will be continually disappointed by just about everybody on the planet. Or you can ignore it. But that also means you should ignore the Peace Prize as well. The only significant leader in modern history with a similar symbolic value (and therefore power) would be Mikail Gorbachev. Unfortunately, that doesn't always translate into domestic popularity. Look what happened to Gorby. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Because, as the world now knows, and I’ve stated it before, the White House is no longer white, and everyone needs to get over it, including Obama. And as you somewhat state, race can be an issue in many instances, but it doesn’t have to be THE issue. quote: I don’t feel that Obama is all that special as the first black president, because he isn’t the first black man that should have been president. Imo. But if a female were Prez? Hmmm…the odds are more against that degree of special than Obama’s. And wait. Do you mean we’re not perceived as “The Melting Pot,” anymore??? I mean we do have to press #1 for English and we do have to check off the stupid little ethnicity boxes on so many entry/applications/legal forms, and Spanish is now mandatory in TN schools, yada yada, so is it just the White House that internationally projects us all White?? Not any more. Yall’ve been whitewashed. I agree with you about our history of racial violence. In fact, we’ve got A history of all kinds of horrible violence that began well before any African stepped foot upon our soil. But we have NO history when compared to other long inhabited continents. So maybe other countries aren’t only racist, as quoted below, but hypocritical and assuming, as well. And I understand your view: quote: I’ve experienced this, but I don’t agree with it nor promote it. I’m much more inspired and wow’d by the Man who invented the unimaginable from peanuts than I am the Man who invented Windows. I think I’d feel this way no matter what color I was. It’s who I am on the inside. Perhaps, if Carver were alive, they’d speak to each other on a level that was very admirable of the other for lending each other a new way to look at the world. As far as symbolic value? Hey! What about Margaret (Iron Lady) Thatcher??? Did she take a sledge hammer to the glass ceiling for all? Nope. Not yet, at least not here….in America. However, I pray it remains since Obama may shoe-in Hillary for the 2012 ticket. Or maybe even Sarah Palin!!! whoopee!! |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
err.... excuse me for a second: Obama is not a black man He is a white man. . . . . . . . See how dumb that sounds. He is half/half. His skin color is more white than black. This racial bruhaha is boring to me because the question is moot. Mom was white and father was black. He represents the best America has to offer in so far as diversity in races. He is neither black nor white: He's both. I am struck by the ironies, especially during Census time as to what to call each race, especially the mixed ones. What is confusing is that Obama can accurately call himself an African-American since his father was Kenyan, but unless he is 51% black, he really is something else. This just underscores the need in America to have a third classification of race: Mixed. Right now the government forces people to say they are either black white or Hispanic, and actually Hispanic is not a race. It is a nationality or culture, if you will. See how blurry this whole mess is? I think most people KNOW that Obama is mixed, but to continually call him a Black Man just to get agendas accomplished or to play the race card against detractors is truly disingenious. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well said. quote: No comment. Not talking about 'should's. quote: Now that's funny. quote: Yeah, but if you understand it, you can see why Obama might be special in other people's opinions. quote: Damn, I was hoping to avoid this one. I do think we can universalize about perceptions of race. I do think we universalize about that perception and its relationship to nations and governments. I don't see the same thing with sex or gender. Here's a short list of women leaders: Women_in_ Power Magaret Thatcher is number three. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
threadbare- be REALLY careful about throwing out the fact that President Obama is actually half white... I did it and was publically lynched by every single liberal on the Blue Pages, and by many of the conservatives. It seems that no one is allowed to be half- ANYTHING. If your mother is Japanese, and your father is an American serviceman, then you are Japanese (except, of course, to the Japanese); if your mother is white, and your father is, say... oh, I don't know... Kenyan, then you are BLACK 9or African-American, or whatever phrase people wish to use at the time); if your mother is white, and your father is Cuban, then you are Hispanic. End of story... just ask those who are more than willing to denounce racial profiling at the top of their lungs, unless it helps them in some substancial way. Oh, yeah... didn't someone call President Clinton the first black president? Skin color notwithstanding? Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
TB and Ringo, Phenotypes, not genotypes. The whole idea of race falls apart at the genetic level (they're called genetic cluster groups and the genetic variation within each group is always larger than the genetic variation between groups). But nobody cares. Just because an idea is incoherent doesn't mean that people won't act and react to it. Um, that aside, what follows from what you're talking about? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
To sum it up: That the racial is overblown, simply because Obama is perceived by many to be neither black nor white, and they don't harbor much prejudice toward him the same way they might if he had both black parents. The Left-left throws down the race card FOR Obama! They are speaking for him, even when he says himself that the alleged comments (like Joe Wilson's YOU LIE) were not racial. These empty shell charges harmlessly bounce off conservatives when Obama says the statements are NOT racial. So again, I say, Obama is not black enough for the Right...either that, or the Left sees him as a man first, and a black man second. Either way, I'd like to take the 'black' out of the equation and just refer to him as a man. I'm sick of townhall people being called racist simply because they disagree with him. I've yet to hear ONE person tell me their opinion that they hate Obama because he is black. It's a trumped up charge, empty, and vacuuous. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, Thank you for putting my mind at rest about that. Not. The President looks black to me. He looks black to loads of his constituents. People make different meaning out of that, depending on who you are. Thank you for telling me that you don't see any major racism problem that the President has to deal with in this country, and that it has little to do with his style of doing so. I still have difficulty dealing with the racism I grew up with in Ohio as a kid, and I'm a Liberal and support of a lot of the man's policies. I'm glad to hear that people who don't support him have no problem with race at all. My problem is that I don't believe your analysis. I think that they don't understand the sociology and anthropology around the subject, especially around exogamy, and I think they don't understand the social psychology. My feeling is that racism is something that you can be aware of and that you can consciously attempt to work around, but it is not something that in most cultures doesn't exist. In fact, I'd be pleased if you could give me a single example of a culture where it doesn't. Lack of awareness and denial doesn't make it go away. The President's willingness to blame various racist comments on other things is a useful way to approach the subject, because it isn't him that's chucking the term around. That doesn't mean that racism isn't real. Trying to link The President with being a Muslim terrorist made during the election by folks on the right were only one example of the use of this tactic. The word "Black" wasn't attached to "muslim" in my recollection explicitly. The implication was fairly clearly there. And on and on. I doubt you, threadbear, are as inherently prejudiced as I am, but you ought to know that there is considerable racial tension going on in the country today. And religious tension as well. It is unpleasant and unnecessary. It obscures strategic thinking and intelligence gathering. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
YOU SAID: Thank you for telling me that you don't see any major racism problem that the President has to deal with in this country... Carefull, Bob....i never said nor meant the words you just stuffed in my mouth. Hurling racial cards at their political opponents is what many Democrats do. It's their most often-pulled card from the deck, and I'm sick of it. The waters are so muddy anymore on what is and what isn't racism, that people have given up trying to have a discourse. Coupled with the fact that if they express their personal viewpoint they will get race-card slapped. It's impossible these days to even have an intelligent discussion about race due to the overplaying of the racial charge. Everyone is either prejudiced or racist in some way. I've yet to meet a person that didn't have a preconceived notion about Muslims, the French, red-haired people, whatever, but there is always at least one group of people that makes a person 'a little bit jumpy.' It's our maturity as adults that keep 99% of our feelings in check and gentlemanly. I can live with that percentage. It's unreasonable to expect people who never grew up with Muslims, red-hairs, or French to understand them. That is where much of true racism is born: out of geographical isolation from exposure to another group. Racism is within our culture, that's certain. The real question, the crux of the biscuit, is whether it affects our quality of life in a major way. There is NO way to eliminate all racism, and no race in the world that has done it. I don't see race riots anymore....I don't see whites beating up blacks all over the country, I don't see the N* word plastered everywhere like it was in pre-'69 days. What does that mean? It means that racism in America is under control, for the most part. Can it be improved upon? Definitely. But racism is not even in the top 25 problems that people say are Most Important problems in America. You couldn't say that in 1930, 40, 50, 60 or even 1970. If the Dem's have a REAL case of Racism, don't just throw the card out: show concrete proof of the charge, or don't lay down that card. There hasn't been a real major racial news issue in this country in many a year (if so, name one...I'm listening.) |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I agree with your point, but need to add: Race can be universally benign; but I think Fear is what causes malignancy. And I agree it’s not the same thing when gender enters the equation. It’s the perception of power. I don’t bite about the female thing as Prez, because there hasn’t been one in the queue that I’d vote for, yet, but when one arrives and she’s got the proper creds, I hope people, in general, will focus on those creds and not just her personal appearance and choice of wardrobe. I mentioned Thatcher because she’s really the first female in power that wasn’t born into a royal or politically influential family, unless I’ve missed someone prior to her post. If so, please, let’s hear it for those girls!! quote: Actually, stirring up fear based upon race is a very strategic and intelligent leverage tactic, which works, The same way fire and brimstone might fill the church pews in religion. I agree it’s unpleasant, but for people who NEED “The Village,” it’s necessary. They feel safe there for whatever personal reasons. But, if people venture out of the village and embraces whatever’s out there, they’re not always out of control. They’re just out of the village. I’m sure that will make sense to some and absolutely no sense at all to others. I’m leaning toward threadbear’s assessment: quote: Or such isolation/withdrawal/detachment, etc…is simply a personal choice. It helps that I take my notions straight to the source, if possible and within reason (not the likes of Hannibal Lecter. Someone at that level of villain deserves someone more qualified for an interview. Ha.) If I want to know something about Muslims or the French? I make a point to talk to them. Because I’m a redhead!!! LOL. And I’d like for the Muslims or French to talk to me and get the facts if they have any preconceived notions about “Red-haired” people, for example. They may be delightfully surprised as I often am when opening up to someone who’s different from me. This tends to soothe many tensions, so I don’t deny the existence of racial issues. I just don’t allow such issues to control my chances and choices in life with other human beings. If I fail to make friends with a cheerleader due to some incompatibility, I’m not going to take issue with her whole squad and the team she cheers for, even if they did gang up on me and kick me off the field.  Anyway, President Obama is fully aware of his leverage. I just pray that he uses that leverage symbolic of the Peace he was highly awarded for. Or he can lean forward on the outdated notion of the oppression of the black man. What higher office can he reach, now??? And yes, the race card is so old now that many black persons are calling it "Racial Buffoonery." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The ones basically touting it are the ones making a profit from it, like Jesse Jackson, Sharpeton, and the like. They do a disservice to those who actually are victims of it. A housewife was watching her son playing in the yard with another little boy. When he came in she called him into the kitchen.. "Was that boy black?",she asked her son, Who was only three. "Gee, I don't know", the boy replied. "Next time I'll look and see." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Maybe Santa Clause will win it next year. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Oh, you're good. Very good. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, Just some basic stuff: http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR2688.aspx http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/openpage.htm http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=255 http://mediamatters.org/research/200406180005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pmc/articles/PMC1113412/ The last article has to do with health care. It's from one of the major British Medical journals and it talks about how racism affects the distribution of health care. It talks about the effect it has in this country, and the effect the author is afraid it may have over there as well. I believe that would fit as a single issue that racism affects in a large way that is in the news right now. That is what you asked for, isn't it? The other references are a scattershot of books and references that come to bear on the subject in various ways. One of the is a reference to Bill O'Reilly during one of his medium offensive moments making comments about the Iraqis, another is to what appears to be An Encyclopedia of American Racism, past and present, which should provide some interesting data if I can get my hands on it — or if you can, for that matter. Take care, and it's good to have you back in the discussion. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
