I think what we’re seeing is a deliberate attempt by the Nobel Committee to implement the Hawthorne Effect–that aspect of reactivity which states that a subject being observed changes its behavior simply because it knows it’s being observed. More broadly, the mere act of observing an experiment can lead to having an impact upon that experiment.
Typically the Nobel is awarded after the fact, or at the very least, later into the process. I think the Nobel Committee–rightly or wrongly–is endeavoring to change the conditions of the experiment by giving President Obama their equivalent of the Seal of Approval. And it’s not just Obama who is being notified that he’s being observed. It’s a signal to the legislative branch and to Americans that the world is watching and has hope for the President even if that hope been waning at home (as polls would indicate). And it’s a signal to the rest of the world that the Nobel Committee thinks that Obama is the real deal. (And admittedly it’s a slap at the Birthers who still believe that Obama is a secret evil Muslim planning to send the world into flames, but I’ve got no problem with that.)
I can see the argument that the Nobels should have waited until he had actually accomplished something. But as Margaret Mead said, Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. And I think the Committee sees itself, in this instance, as that small, thoughtful group, and they’re trying to change the world into somewhere that’s more peaceful. You can challenge the thinking if you want, but not the positive nature of their attentions, and I applaud the decision.
PAD
• 
Certainly seemed to be the case from the email I received from the president last night:
Miriam —
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I’d been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I’ve said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won’t all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it’s recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award — and the call to action that comes with it — does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we’ve begun together. I’m grateful that you’ve stood with me thus far, and I’m honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
But don’t forget the beginning of that Margaret Mead quotation:
Never depend upon institutions or government to solve any problem.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is a ‘Birther’? Is it a reference to ‘Birth of a Nation’?
A “Birther” is someone who is still convinced that Barack Obama is not in fact a US citizen, usually because of some massive conspiracy to cover up his supposed Kenyan birth (although I have yet to see any record of his mother even visiting Kenya). They claim his Hawaiian birth certificate is faked (although I have yet to hear an explanation of how the Conspiracy knew to plant a birth notice in the Honolulu newspaper that day); sometimes, they claim that he somehow abandoned his US citizenship while he was in Thailand with his mother as a child.
.
Apparently, the entire concept of a black man being elected to high office (or, possibly, a Democrat actually achieving power again) is so horrendous to some people, they will cling to any nonsense they can find that will let them attempt to deny reality…
Hmmm… Still not sure the “We’re So Happy He Isn’t Bush” reason wasn’t the more convincing one.
Because it’s altogether TOO EASY; so naturally, this has now become the main part of ‘the Village’ narrative on the matter. The other conventional narrative of the flat-footed press keeps limiting the time frame to when the nominations were cast (when the actual vote was taken just recently, not in February).
However, Obama was striving for global nuclear weapons disarmament in other countries well before he began to run for President. He co-sponsored legislation to that effect with Ðìçk Lugar. And he did secure the support of the UN Security Council on a resolution among the nuclear nations just last month.
Dude… I was a freaking joke.
Er… It was a freaking joke.
.
That was such a wonderful typo.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I heard that Myers…
I heard that Myers…
.
Hey, you said it, not me.
I never knew that was called the Hawthorne Effect. I thought it was called the Heisenberg Effect. (Yes, I know that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to subatomic particles, but I was under the mistaken impression that it had been co-opted or expanded into a more general application of macrocosmic situations.)
.
Regarding Obama, I was surprised at the awarding of it to him, because my perception of the Nobel Prize is that it is given as a result of some specific, measurable accomplishment, much like the Nobel Prize for the sciences, and not the reasons they gave for giving it to him, which seem a bit more abstract and vague, but then again, it’s possible that this perception of mine is wrong, since I’m not closely familiar with the details of the Prize’s history.
.
Researching it, Alfred Nobel’s will indicates the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html) Obama certainly hasn’t accomplished the latter. I suppose he had inspired brotherhood between nations, but then again, I wonder how much of that is simply the fact that he’s a well-spoken, articulate democrat who can do that simply because George W. Bush made it so easy for any successor of his to do this, much as Peter joked in his previous blog entry. (And for the all the would-be ad hominers out there, I voted for Obama.)
“I never knew that was called the Hawthorne Effect. I thought it was called the Heisenberg Effect. (Yes, I know that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to subatomic particles, but I was under the mistaken impression that it had been co-opted or expanded into a more general application of macrocosmic situations.)”
I also thought it was the Heisenberg Effect. On a tangent, I think this applies not only to subatomic particles, but also to reality TV where the people *know* they’re being broadcast and try to act more dramatic, sympathetic, or interesting accordingly.
The Hawthorne Effect is that novelty creates an improvement in performance. I wrote a short “book report” on a 1967 study of it back in grad school (the study was in ’67, I wrote my report in the late 90s).
http://www.eyrie.org/~dvandom/Edu/Hawthorne
Yeah, the Hawthorne Effect, in the social sciences, is more commonly referred to as social desirability factor. It is a measurable error in sampling (like coder error, or interviewer errorO.
If the committee wanted to make a difference to world peace, they should have awarded it to Morgan Tsvangirai, who has put in more effort, achieved more and sacrificed more in the name of peace over the past eighteen months than anyone else on the planet. Sir Malcolm Rifkind makes the case well here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6868761.ece
The wording of the above letter suggests to me a worrying notion: Obama believes his own hype.
I think it’s safe to assume, unless Mimiheart knows Pres. Obama personally, that the letter was written by a staffer based on his speech yesterday. It is, in fact, their job to believe the hype. I wouldn’t get too worked up about it until he starts walking around in sun god robes with naked women throwing little pickles at him.
Why am I the only one who has that dream?
.
PAD
Pickles?
Yeah, not so much on the knowing him personally…
What exactly did Obama say that makes you think he “believes his own hype.” I don’t see anything about himself at all, other than, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”
This whole event is an explosion of silly.
OF COURSE this selection is political. The essence of bringing peace IS political. And this isn’t new (it was built into the process from the very beginning) and it’s been continued in the Peace Prize process throughout the years (look at a list of past winners and see how many of them championed causes that have failed or not finished).
A lot of folks are just taking advantage to indulge their inner Drama Queen impulses.
“A lot of folks are just taking advantage to indulge their inner Drama Queen impulses.”
.
Well said, Roger.
Not that I think there’s anything wrong in indulging their inner Drama Queen. After all, I AM in sketch comedy…
While I agree with one comment I read early on about, “it is like giving a high school diploma to a seventh grader,” I listened carefully to some of the coverage. The award isn’t specifically for a result — it is an award for diplomatic activity. And yes, I do hope this helps Obama with his agenda more than not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-to-obama-defe_n_316098.html
The committee explains itself.
They named an effect after the late Nigel Hawthorne of “Yes, Minister”?
PAD, you nailed it. They are trying to influence things. Would it be a bad thing for Obama to bring peace? Of course not — if it was real and lasting. But I doubt that it would be the case. I fear it would be an illusion like with Chamberlain before WW2.
.
Frankly, the Peace prize is already a joke. There are times when it does take war / conflict to force peace. So the concept behind it is somewhat unrealistic. (Not advocating for excessive force either – there can be a balance.)
.
But I think you didn’t point out another possibility. In their blatant attempt to influence things, they may have the unintended consequence of making it harder. Pres. Obama has been in office for nine months and what does he have to show for it? So far, just lots of rhetoric. And that is with the Dems controlling Congress. Undoubtedly he will have some accomplishments, but now the expectations are all that much higher. It would take a lot to live up the even higher expectations.
.
Bottom line: It has turned the Peace prize into being cheerleaders for a possibility rather than rewarders of those who have actually done the sacrifice and shown the leadership to truly make a difference.
.
Iowa Jim
Frankly, the Peace prize is already a joke. There are times when it does take war / conflict to force peace. So the concept behind it is somewhat unrealistic.
.
There’s a great line in the movie Wings of Desire”: “But no one has so far succeeded in singing an epic of peace. What is wrong with peace, that its inspiration doesn’t endure and that it is almost untellable?”
Yeah, I see your point…the Nobel award is a joke because they give it to intelligent, liberal people.
No, the Nobel is a joke because they gave it to Rigoberta Menchu (“Who?” Exactly.), Al Gore (environmental activism != peace), and Henry Kissinger (yes, Henry Kissinger), but didn’t give it to Gandhi (nominated 5 times). They give it to agencies of the UN a lot, because of all the peace and freedom the UN has brought to… um… because the UN uses a really nice color of blue. It’s a joke because the first time the Nobel was awarded to a sitting President, it was for Teddy Roosevelt’s assistance in negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War, but the second time it was for the potential to be really cool. It’s a joke because they gave the prize to Gorbachev for his role “in the peace process,” but not to his partners in the peace process Reagan and Bush (in contrast to 1994, 1995, and 1998, when they gave it — correctly in my opinion– to both sides in the South African, Israeli/Palestinian, and Northern Irish conflicts, respectively). It’s a joke because they give it to “intelligent, liberal people,” but not to intelligent conservative people. (Go ahead, deny that such people exist, I dare you.) It’s a joke because in 1946 they gave the prize to the chairman of the YMCA and the Honorary President of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom instead of, oh, I don’t know, Winston Churchill perhaps. It’s a joke because the awards committee has spent most of the last century making it one.
“It’s a joke because the awards committee has spent most of the last century making it one.”
.
If it has been given this way for a century, perhaps you just don’t understand why they give it the way they do. Do some research.
.
But I think I’m beginning to understand your viewpoint: “Just say no!”
“If it has been given this way for a century, perhaps you just don’t understand why they give it the way they do. Do some research.”
.
Ah yes, because the fact that I disapprove of their methodology implies that I fail to understand it.
.
You don’t work in a logic-related field, do you?
.
Incidentally, the brief for the Nobel is supposed to be an award for people who “have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Perhaps one laureate in three actually meets the criteria. Don’t blame me for criticizing their selection: blame Mr Nobel for drafting unused requirements.
I don’t work in any field. I’ve been unemployed for over 2 years.
.
Why do you hate Obama?
Why do you hate Obama?
.
Yes, David, why *do* you hate Obama? Also, when did you stop beating your wife? Furthermore, can anyone vouch for your whereabouts at the time Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?
I don’t hate Obama. I don’t even hate Nancy Pelosi. I seriously dislike Senator Reid, but not for being a liberal. I disdain Read for complaining about the horrible decision the Supreme Court handed down on partial birth abortions a while back in upholding a law… that he voted for. Of course, he voted for it when he was merely a moderate senator from a purplish state, at which point it was an ok law. When he was the Democratic majority leader, the law was an affront to all that is just and decent in the world. Things change. But I digress.
.
I am disappointed in Obama. I have seen precious little of the “there are no red states or blue states, just the United States” reconciliation that he campaigned on in 2004 and 2008. He’s governed very much like a generic Democrat. Occasionally he’ll do something really cool, like when he wrote a note for a girl at one of his rallies to excuse her for missing school, or when he was caught on tape calling Kanye a jáçkášš. Really I think the best thing for him would be for the GOP to win the House next year, so he could spend the balance of his Presidency doing a Clinton-in-1995-style reinvention of himself as a moderate. But my basic opinion of Obama hasn’t changed much: I still think he’s the best candidate That Other Party has fielded in my lifetime, and I appreciate that he’s hit the reset button on much of the rest of the world’s irrational feelings about America, but I still voted for McCain and wish more people had voted with me. That’s a long way from hating the man.
“I am disappointed in Obama. I have seen precious little of the “there are no red states or blue states, just the United States” reconciliation that he campaigned on in 2004 and 2008.”
.
David, to be fair to Obama, and I’m not his biggest fan by far, that kind of thing is a two way street. Most of the Republicans have treated any opportunity to work with Obama on just about anything as a chance to grandstand and/or inform the Democrats that they won’t vote for “it” (whichever bill is being debated at the time) unless it’s basically done their way.
.
You have sitting Republicans talking about “working with” the Obama Administration on health care reform while being caught on film adding full to the disinformation fire by telling crowds that the Obama health plan will involve killing grandma. Would you keep dealing with someone like that in good faith?
.
Even where they promise an alternative to the Democrats plans they just turn around and offer… nothing. The Minority Leader and the Whip stood in front of the news cameras and declared that the Republicans had a health bill alternative. When they actually let the press see it the thing was a few pages of talking points. They then said that it was just their outline and that they would have their alternative to “Obama Care” for the public to see and compare in 100 days. 100 days later they produced… Nothing.
.
And, trust me on this, I’m in a position to tell you that the same Republican Whip who stood there talking to the TV cameras about the urgency of needing their plan and their positions taken seriously hasn’t exactly been taking the idea of actually doing anything about them (beyond telling people that they can, once they go bankrupt paying medical bills, apply for federal assistance programs to help cover some of their continuing medical expenditures) all that seriously.
,
Again, Obama ain’t exactly thrilling me all that much, but it’s hard to fault the man for not working with “The Opposition” when “The Opposition” is holding the position that working with them means doing it their way in every way.
Bottom line: It has turned the Peace prize into being cheerleaders for a possibility rather than rewarders of those who have actually done the sacrifice and shown the leadership to truly make a difference.
.
I don’t see why they can’t be both.
.
PAD
It’s inherently a political award and interacts directly with political processes. That’s different from being a humanitarian award.
It can be both, of course, but complaining that the Peace Prize has become political is like complaining that water is wet.
” but didn’t give it to Gandhi ”
But they did give it to Martin Luther King, Jr, who was heavily influenced by the work of Ghandi. There are plenty of really good people who are (and were) deserving of the NPP and haven’t gotten it. However, I’d say most of those people are so noble(no pun intended) that they frankly don’t care.
And one always must love the irony of an award created by the person who created dynamite. The ironic attempt at rdemption there always amused me, even as a kid…
Ðámņ, Peter. To paraphrase Robin Williams, Armisen just stole your gøddámņ line.
Geez, PAD… There you go with a reasonable response and explanation to this whole thing. Even if one disagrees with your thoughts on it, they should at least consider them (and one thing people are lacking in the political sphere these days is a willingness to consider other points of view).
I still think the jokes are funny though.
Technically he stole Kathleen’s line, as I noted when I first posted it. That’s nothing; Robin Williams took an entire joke from her.
.
PAD
Via Harlan, wasn’t it?
Ah. I didn’t know this, as you placed the parenthetical “Observation by Kathleen” after the part about him getting the award for not being Bush, so I thought that she only came up with the Charlie Brown reference. 🙂
I find myself disagreeing with PAD and agreeing, at least in part, with Iowa Jim. I think the Nobel Committee isn’t so much attempting to encourage aspirations as it is showing its contempt for George W. Bush. After all, the committee awarded the prize to President Carter not when he brokered a Middle East Peace deal but more than two decades later, and just hours after the U.S. Congress authorized George W. Bush to wage a war in Iraq that Carter opposed. That speaks volumes.
.
The award is cheapened by such naked politicization. Especially when there are those who have earned it by truly making the world a more peaceful place.
.
Still, I find it amusing that some conservatives (not necessarily Iowa Jim, mind you) take umbrage at another country attempting to influence U.S. politics. We’ve been doing the same to other nations for centuries by using both our military and economic might. Now that both of those are on the decline, it is arrogant in the extreme to think we don’t deserve our comeuppance.
.
Also, while Iowa Jim has a point about military force sometimes being the only realistic option, it is worth noting that the technology of mass destruction continues to progress at an alarming pace. We may no longer have the luxury of simply resigning ourselves to violence being part of the human experience. Not when nuclear proliferation along with shifting borders and unstable governments has created the possibility of a terrorist group obtaining a nuclear bomb. We may be at a point in human history when we need to get serious about determining how to create real and lasting peace. I’m not suggesting we lay down our arms and surrender. I am suggesting we begin to consider the possibility that perhaps we can create a world where we don’t have to.
“The award is cheapened by such naked politicization.”
.
To me it doesn’t seem any different from what they’ve always done, no different from the core purpose of the award. It has always been political, in that seeking peace is a political process.
.
In some cases the prize is used to say, “that was the right thing to do.” In other cases it is used to say, “this is what you should be doing.” Both of those are attempts to affect behavior. In the first case it’s an attempt to make the award winner an example to others, thus affecting those others’ behavior. In the second case it is an attempt to affect the behavior of the winner, or the person who is specifically *not* the winner. Either way, it’s an attempt to encourage the behavior they approve of. Either way, it is political.
.
Really, nothing has changed. The only thing that can cheapen the Noble Peace Prize is not paying attention to it. As long as people are reporting on it and debating it, it’s notoriety grows. That notoriety is the real power, not the disk of metal and the cash prize.
I think the Nobel Committee isn’t so much attempting to encourage aspirations as it is showing its contempt for George W. Bush.
.
Can’t it be both?
.
PAD
Can’t it be both?
.
Oh, sure, it *could* be. Awarding the prize to Obama, however, makes it appear to be less about aspirations and more about ideological agendas.
.
I understand that issues of war and peace are inextricably linked to politics and ideology. It’s not an issue of either-or, but one of degree. The Nobel Prize committee is giving the appearance of trying to support the U.S. Democratic party rather than supporting more lofty ideals, which seems petty to me. Building peace transcends partisan politics. After all, the Democratic party was pretty spineless when it came to the Iraq war, with most of them willing to hand a loaded gun to W. and then do nothing but whine when he pulled the trigger.
.
Granted, Obama was against the war when it was unpopular to take that stand. He’s certainly said the right things about international cooperation. Still, I don’t see the point of giving him an award as encouragement. Not when others have already achieved things worthy of recognition. Not when there are still so many questions about Obama’s ability to deliver.
.
I’m still a solid Obama supporter, by the way. Just so we’re clear.
“less about aspirations and more about ideological agendas.”
.
I don’t understand the distinction between those two things. They seem pretty close to synonymous to me.
Hëll, yes!
A plow horse is plowing a field. A fly comes and sits next to his ear, buzzing happily. After several hours of plowing the fly looks around at the plowed field and says: “wow, look at how much work we did today.”
Who’s the fly? The Nobel Prize committee? Or are they the horse and all of us are the fly?
Who’s the fly?
.
The Human Fly! And he’s the wildest super-hero of all — because he’s REAL!
.
(That was for you, Bill Mulligan.)
Bless you.
And here I thought I was the only one who remembered him.
Ðámņ, I loved that comic as a kid…
The committee are the fly.
They are not helping Obama, and he certainly doesn’t need their encouragement or money. If anything they are only harming him.
I find this disturbing on so many levels. First, it is the ultimate sign of the “everybody gets a trophy” mentality in which genuine achievement – and even competition -is frowned upon.
As someone else said, “When everyone is special, no one is”. And when someone can win such an arguably “prestigious” prize based on speculation rather than any tangible achievement, it diminishes that award.
Because, really, if you are going to give out an Nobel Peace Prize based on speculation or hopeful influence, then why wouldn’t the same criteria have applied to Bush?
For if a genuine purpose of the award is now to persuade instead of recognize genuine achievement, then why didn’t they award it to Bush? They could have awarded it to him based on freeing 50 million people from dictators and oppressive regimes and to HOPEFULLY dissuade him from invading Iran. In all seriousness, Cheney admits now he lobbied hard for that to happen and Bush resisted. So for that alone, Bush should win the prize, right?
Also, as much “contempt” as the committee and it seems PAD and others have for Bush, it is fact he saved milions of lives in Africa. Bono and Bill gates have acknowledged as much and Bob Geldof calls it “Bush’s miracle”. So why not acknowledge him for such a genuine achievement? Beyond personal bias against the man, is it because making that part of the world not only more peaceful and more inhabitable doesn’t count in many people’s eyes? After all, how many fine wines and cheeses is Africa known for? It’s like pìššìņg øff the “cool crowd” (the Europeans) counted more than saving the lives and improving the quality of life of the misfits nobody really wants to know (the Africans).
Plus, Bush didn’t toot his own horn regarding this. He did it quietly – and I’m fairly certain that if Clinton had done the same thing he would have received the prize.
Oh, and I wonder how our 42nd President feels about being the only Democratic President in the last four decades to NOT win the prize, despite his efforts at a legacy, while the new, hip, cool kid on the block gets a trophy for accomplishing nada. Of course, Clinton and Bush 41 have done great good, especially working together to help the tsunami victims and subsequent humanitarian efforts. And who brought these former rivals together to use their power and influence to do good? George W. Bush.
“For if a genuine purpose of the award is now to persuade instead of recognize genuine achievement, then why didn’t they award it to Bush? ”
Maybe because Bush never showed ny interest in Peace or treating other nations with the same respect he demanded of them?
“And who brought these former rivals together to use their power and influence to do good? George W. Bush.”
More like, tradition and a desire to actually do something good.
I’m surprised the Nobel Committee didn’t ask the United Nations to put Bush the Lesser on trial for crimes against humanity.
That is wrong on so many levels.
1) The UN doesn’t have authority to try anyone, and UN instrumentalities don’t have authority to try US nationals. The US withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in the World Court, which can’t try criminal cases even involving nations that haven’t withdrawn. The US isn’t subject to ICC jurisdiction, either.
2) The Nobel Committee is an awards granting organization. It has precisely the same authority to commence prosecutions as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. “I hereby present you with an Oscar for Best Documentary, and an indictment for crimes against humanity. Well done.”
.
You’ve crossed the line into open trolling now, haven’t you? Come on, you can admit it. We’re all friends here.
Are we?
.
I am on friendly speaking terms with most people here, but I am not friends with any of them. The one person I know the most about is PAD, and I have actually met him at one convention, and was in the same room with him at another convention or two, but I would hardly say we are friends. In fact, I seriously doubt if he would recognize me if we met again, as I would be just another face in the crowd.
.
At best, I am an online acquaintance of a few people here, but certainly not friends.
.
And certainly not with all.
.
And I still maintain that there are two reasons most of the people who hate that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. They are Republicans, who have proven lately to hate everything that is not Republican, and/or racist bigots. And according to my Venn Diagram, the two sets overlap.
Because, really, if you are going to give out an Nobel Peace Prize based on speculation or hopeful influence, then why wouldn’t the same criteria have applied to Bush?
.
One would think the whole starting two wars pretty much put Bush out of the running.
Alan,
“And I still maintain that there are two reasons most of the people who hate that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. They are Republicans, who have proven lately to hate everything that is not Republican, and/or racist bigots. And according to my Venn Diagram, the two sets overlap.”
Sure Alan. Only Republicans and bigots – which to you are increasingly the same thing – are upset Obama got the prize. Which is why even far-left groups were stunned or even angry because even THEY feel he hasn’t DONE anything to DESERVE it yet. You might disagree with that line of thought, but it is certainly reasonable.
Playing the race card every time someone disagrees or criticizes our President is getting really old, really fast.
Craig,
First of all, I was referring to when he was first elected in 2000. Why not try to persuade the leader of the most powerful nation on earth then?
And Democrats have been saying for years – while Bush was in office – that Afghanistan was the GOOD war. Because it was actually a retaliation to an attack on our soil. You may remember the time and place of that attack.
Even so, ARAFAT can win a peace prize, but Bush can’t? What is your logic and justification in that? Of course, Obama has pretty much bashed Israel while in office. So I guess the Nobel committee feels Israel is a roadblock to peace, and killing a few Jews or putting them in their place makes the world more peaceful. I don’t know.
And again, Bush saved millions of lives and spent billions in dollars in Africa. But I guess they aren’t important enough to take into consideration either in some people’s view..
“First of all, I was referring to when he was first elected in 2000. Why not try to persuade the leader of the most powerful nation on earth then?”
Perhaps because in the eyes of many, here in America and around the world, he stole the election?
Just a thought.
Why not try to persuade the leader of the most powerful nation on earth then?
.
It’s simple: Bush didn’t come into the situation from Clinton like Obama came into the situation from Bush.
.
Let’s face facts here, if Bush didn’t go to Iraq, Obama isn’t given a Nobel Peace Prize.
Quite likely the truth, Craig.
Since Arafat keeps coming up this needs to be addressed.
Here is what happened. arafat, the head of the PLO, which was the leading but not only Palestinian organization fighting Israel, Rabin, the Israeli prime minister and Peres, the foreign minister, got the peace prize for starting a peace process back in the mid 90s which resulted in the establishing a a Palestinian Authority in part of the West Bank and Gaza ruled by Arafat.
Eventually this peace process collapsed and a pretty bad cycle of violence erupted. Without absolving Israel, including Peres, of responsibility, it is safe to say that Arafat has shares some of the responsibility for the failute of the peace initiative and the bloodshed afterwards. Rabin was assassinated from persuing peace so he’s in the clear.
The conclusions:
1) the Nobel Committee did not give Arafat a prize for being a terrorist.
2) Obama is nothing like Arafat. I do believe he actually wants to promote peace, but like Arafat he hasn’t done it yet. Moreover, he might have to use violence too, although I believe for more justified reasons than Arafat did.
3) Giving a prize to leaders for a peace that has not yet been reached is neither helpful nor smart. It is mostly arrogant and stupid. They didn’t do any favors to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or to Obama by sticking their fat fingers into situations that are difficult enough as it is.
4) I think Obama has stepped into a difficult situation and made several mistakes and miscalculations with regard to Israel, but he has not bashed it or harmed it and certainly did not promote the deaths of Israelis.
Okay, enlighten me. What has Bush done in Africa that no other American president did before? How did he save those millions of lives?
Keep in mind, Jerome, that all of this “if you aren’t with the president you’re a racist” nonsense is NOT coming from Obama, just from people who would like to share in his success and can’t think of a better way to do it (which may explain why he is president and they are, well, what they are). It’s kind of like how the biggest douchebags in sports tend not to be the athletes but the athletic supporters.
.
Obama is smart enough to not play the tactics of a loser. Some of his fans…eh, not so much.
Oh, yeah.
“Oh, yeah” is a place keeper. Like a string around a finger.
.
Bill, when you approach the edge of name calling, you lessen the effects of your arguments. “they are, well, what they are” followed by “douchebags” followed by “loser” are clear indications of what you wish to call those arguing against your viewpoints.
.
You may disagree with me about the amount of racism there is. That’s fine, because I realize that not everybody will think the same as I do. But this indirect name calling should be beneath you.
Alan, if you really believe that “if you aren’t with the president you’re a racist”, then we have a far far greater disagreement than just how much racism there is in the world and any name calling I would do would be the very least of your problems.
.
If that is not your position–and I, for one, thought your “Why do you hate Obama?” to David was meant as parody–then I wasn’t calling you a name.
.
As for the substance of what I said, I stand by it. The biggest douchebags are often not the people who matter but their rabid advocates and pretending (or worse, actually believing) that one’s opponents are motivated by hatred and/or racism, with absolutely no evidence given other than their opposition…well, it’s A- a losing strategy and B- a sign that you probably are afraid of what might happen if people are not intimidated from opposing you. Either way “loser” would be a kind description of such a person.
By and large, Conservatives in the US are not racist.
Their distrust of Obama is based on culture, not skin color. If anything, most current Conservatives are more color-blind than Liberals. They’re so fixated on certain cultural traits as Good and American (such as Christianity, belief on free market, rugged individualism, small town charm, anti-intellectualism, a love for guns, contempt for environmentalism) that they don’t really give a dámņ about skin color.
If a black man can have those traits, then he can be as “American” as any white man. Implicit in the Bush doctrine is the desire to export this cultural paradigm (under the label of “democracy”) to the whole world. Race is not an issue.
Their distrust of Obama is based on culture, not skin color.
.
And yet, this still happens:
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff?
.
Remember, folks, think of the kids if you’re going to have an interracial marriage!
And yet, this still happens:
Within my lifetime this has gone from something that was codified in law–interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, including Louisiana–to something that brings shame, disgrace, and probably censure upon the man who espouses it. That’s progress if there is any meaning to the word. let’s not see the glass as half empty when, in face, it’s almost full.
.
Racists will always exist. What matter is that they can no longer openly profess their racism without the majority of people condemning them for it. And I don’t think that will change. (Unless those who see racism in every comment that dares to differ from their own manage to so weaken the term that it no longer stings. But I think most people, right and left, see that foolishness for what it is.)
Yeah, I’ve read that. F*cking depressing.
I’m really tired of people using “think of the kids,” to justify any repellent, repressive agenda they might have.
I thought of the kids. Our daughter got her autism from me, sadly, but thankfully she takes after her mother in appearance (except that her skin is more cafe au lait than dark chocolate, and her hair is more like mine – okay, like mine used to be). And judging from the comments our son gets, when he gets up to dating age I’m going to need to keep a weather eye on that boy (and make sure he knows what condoms are for, just in case…).
.
Why, are they supposed to be having some sort of problem or something? 🙂
Judging from my own family and more than a few friends, the biracial kids seem to be doing extremely well. (depending on how one classifies “race”, I suppose. I can’t keep up with this nonsense. Is someone who is half Persian/half Italian biracial? What if they are half Persian/half Puerto Rican? Is a kid who is 1/4 Japanese 3/4 Caucasian biracial or does that classification peter out faster for Asians than it would for African Americans? Does anyone know? If so, please send all replies to someone who gives a rat’s ášš.)
Rene,
While I don’t have the specifics at the moment, from what i recall it was a concerted effort that humanitarians ranging from Bono to Bob Geldof to Bill Gates referred to as a miracle.
One thing was giving billions of dollars. But rather than just give it and accept the headlines – which were obviously few and small, since not only were you unaware of what he did but so was I – he made sure there were strings attached. For example, I believe in order to combat AIDS the people doling out aid preached abstinence first and I believe even condom use second,which would make sense with a population in which AIDS had reached epidemic proportions. I believe it was as high as 20% in some places – yet despite such a dire situation Bush was still criticized for imposing “Western values” as a condition of giving the money. As if common sense things like what was demanded were more offensive than the thought that a true AIDS epidemic was in danger of growing.
The other thing I recall he did was provide nets and medicine to combat malaria. Basketball player Dikembe Mutombo made headlines when he donated $6 million to help combat malaria, yet Busk gave billions to an unprecedented effort to stop what is still a deadly disease in Africa and few people know about it. Amazing.
OK. Here is part of a story on bush’s achievements in Africa from those Bush apologists at….MSNBC, from January of this year:
“AIDS battle burnishes Bush’s legacy in Africa
Many praise the president’s $15 billion effort to prevent, treat the disease
Image: Sweetness Mzolisa
Schalk Van Zuydam / AP
Aid worker Sweetness Mzolisa poses Friday for a portrait at the Nocingile day care center in Khayelitsha, South Africa.
NBC World Blog
NBC News correspondents and producers around the globe share their insight on news events.
Interactive: Forgotten conflicts
Learn about some of the oft-forgotten clashes simmering across the globe.
Text alerts on msnbc.com
Breaking news alerts (about 1 per day)
Click here to sign up or text NEWS to MSNBC (67622).
Find more alerts at alerts.msnbc.com
Most popular
• Most viewed • Top rated • Most e-mailed
Official in interracial couple flap under fire
Guru in spotlight over sweat lodge deaths
Pilot survives crash, hikes 20 miles to safety
Baby OK after train hits stroller in Australia
Sheriff: No indication balloon ordeal was hoax
Most viewed on msnbc.com
‘Dr. Joe’ treats uninsured patients with dignity
Okla. mom charged with locking son in closets
Rare disease turns 3-year-old’s muscles to bone
School goes from worst to among best in 3 years
FAA proposes historic fines against 2 airlines
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Guru in spotlight over sweat lodge deaths
Pilot survives crash, hikes 20 miles to safety
Official in interracial couple flap under fire
20 years after earthquake, is the Bay Area safer?
Recliners a bright spot in furniture industry
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 2:25 p.m. ET, Sun., Jan. 11, 2009
CAPE TOWN, South Africa – In her AIDS-scarred South African township, Sweetness Mzolisa leads a chorus of praise for George W. Bush that echoes to the deserts of Namibia, the hills of Rwanda and the villages of Ethiopia.
Like countless Africans, Mzolisa looks forward to Barack Obama becoming America’s first black president Jan 20. But — like countless Africans — Mzolisa says she will always be grateful to Bush for his war on AIDS, which has helped to treat more than 2 million Africans, support 10 million more, and revitalize the global fight against the disease.
“It has done a lot for the people of South Africa, for the whole of the African continent,” says Mzolisa, a feisty mother of seven. “It has changed so many people’s lives, saved so many people’s lives.”
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Mzolisa, 44, was diagnosed with the AIDS virus in 1999 and formed a women’s support group to “share the pain.” In 2004 she received a U.S. grant to set up office in a shipping container and start a soup kitchen from the group’s vegetable garden. She stretches her $10,000 in annual funding to train staff to look after bedridden AIDS victims, feed and clothe orphans, and do stigma-busting work at schools and taxi ranks.
Hundreds of projects get funding
Hundreds of similar small grass-roots projects are being funded by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, alongside higher-profile charities and big state clinics.
Bush launched the $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world’s estimated 33 million AIDS infections. The initiative tied in with a World Health Organization campaign to put 3 million people on AIDS drugs by 2005 — a goal it says was reached in 2007.
Congress last year passed legislation more than tripling the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with Republicans and Democrats alike hailing the program as a remarkable success.
But the task remains enormous. More than 1.5 million Africans died in 2007 (the U.S. death toll is under 15,000), fewer than one-third had access to treatment, and new infections continued to outstrip those receiving life-prolonging drugs.
In most African countries, life expectancy has dropped dramatically, and only a few, like Botswana, have started to turn the corner again.
And with no end in sight to the global financial crisis, there are fears about whether all the funding approved by Congress will be delivered.
There continue to be detractors who say the U.S. administration should have channeled the money through the U.N.; that it has placed too much emphasis on faith-based groups and abstinence; that it has trampled on women’s health by shunning anything associated with abortions; that it has concentrated on AIDS treatment at the expense of prevention; and that it has diverted attention away from bigger killers like pneumonia and diarrhea.
Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for the U.N. and the World Bank, says both the U.N. and PEPFAR have failed disastrously on prevention by preaching abstinence until marriage and failing to recognize that in some African cultures it is the norm to have several simultaneous long-term relationships.
Critics say money could be better spent
She says the money would be better spent on strengthening African health care systems rather than focusing on a single disease.
Johanna Hanefeld at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says her research in Zambia indicated that the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was more effective in using HIV programs as a lever to improve health care and staff training, rather than scattering cash among many non-governmental groups, faith-based or other.
PEPFAR ambassador Mark Dybul dismisses criticism that the funding is too narrowly focused.
“In Africa you can’t tackle development goals unless you tackle HIV/AIDS,” he says, citing the devastation wreaked on professions like nursing and teaching.
Besides PEPFAR, Bush has launched a five-year, $1.2 billion initiative to cut malaria deaths in 15 African nations by half.
Dybul also says it is unfair to accuse the U.S. of overemphasizing abstinence because PEPFAR is a major supplier of condoms to the targeted African countries. For instance, PEPFAR figures show 60 million condoms going to Zambia, 40 million to Rwanda, 145 million to Ethiopia in the past five years.
Some critics, like rockers-turned-advocates Bono and Bob Geldof, have become admirers.
“The Bush regime has been divisive … created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives,” Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.
“The administration and Bush himself deserve a lot more credit than they received for getting this job done,” says Josh Ruxin, assistant professor of public health at Columbia University.
OK here’s a more readable version.
AIDS battle burnishes Bush’s legacy in Africa
Many praise the president’s $15 billion effort to prevent, treat the disease
I
CAPE TOWN, South Africa – In her AIDS-scarred South African township, Sweetness Mzolisa leads a chorus of praise for George W. Bush that echoes to the deserts of Namibia, the hills of Rwanda and the villages of Ethiopia.
Like countless Africans, Mzolisa looks forward to Barack Obama becoming America’s first black president Jan 20. But — like countless Africans — Mzolisa says she will always be grateful to Bush for his war on AIDS, which has helped to treat more than 2 million Africans, support 10 million more, and revitalize the global fight against the disease.
“It has done a lot for the people of South Africa, for the whole of the African continent,” says Mzolisa, a feisty mother of seven. “It has changed so many people’s lives, saved so many people’s lives.”
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Mzolisa, 44, was diagnosed with the AIDS virus in 1999 and formed a women’s support group to “share the pain.” In 2004 she received a U.S. grant to set up office in a shipping container and start a soup kitchen from the group’s vegetable garden. She stretches her $10,000 in annual funding to train staff to look after bedridden AIDS victims, feed and clothe orphans, and do stigma-busting work at schools and taxi ranks.
Hundreds of projects get funding
Hundreds of similar small grass-roots projects are being funded by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, alongside higher-profile charities and big state clinics.
Bush launched the $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world’s estimated 33 million AIDS infections. The initiative tied in with a World Health Organization campaign to put 3 million people on AIDS drugs by 2005 — a goal it says was reached in 2007.
Congress last year passed legislation more than tripling the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with Republicans and Democrats alike hailing the program as a remarkable success.
But the task remains enormous. More than 1.5 million Africans died in 2007 (the U.S. death toll is under 15,000), fewer than one-third had access to treatment, and new infections continued to outstrip those receiving life-prolonging drugs.
In most African countries, life expectancy has dropped dramatically, and only a few, like Botswana, have started to turn the corner again.
And with no end in sight to the global financial crisis, there are fears about whether all the funding approved by Congress will be delivered.
There continue to be detractors who say the U.S. administration should have channeled the money through the U.N.; that it has placed too much emphasis on faith-based groups and abstinence; that it has trampled on women’s health by shunning anything associated with abortions; that it has concentrated on AIDS treatment at the expense of prevention; and that it has diverted attention away from bigger killers like pneumonia and diarrhea.
Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for the U.N. and the World Bank, says both the U.N. and PEPFAR have failed disastrously on prevention by preaching abstinence until marriage and failing to recognize that in some African cultures it is the norm to have several simultaneous long-term relationships.
Critics say money could be better spent
She says the money would be better spent on strengthening African health care systems rather than focusing on a single disease.
Johanna Hanefeld at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says her research in Zambia indicated that the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was more effective in using HIV programs as a lever to improve health care and staff training, rather than scattering cash among many non-governmental groups, faith-based or other.
PEPFAR ambassador Mark Dybul dismisses criticism that the funding is too narrowly focused.
“In Africa you can’t tackle development goals unless you tackle HIV/AIDS,” he says, citing the devastation wreaked on professions like nursing and teaching.
Besides PEPFAR, Bush has launched a five-year, $1.2 billion initiative to cut malaria deaths in 15 African nations by half.
Dybul also says it is unfair to accuse the U.S. of overemphasizing abstinence because PEPFAR is a major supplier of condoms to the targeted African countries. For instance, PEPFAR figures show 60 million condoms going to Zambia, 40 million to Rwanda, 145 million to Ethiopia in the past five years.
Some critics, like rockers-turned-advocates Bono and Bob Geldof, have become admirers.
“The Bush regime has been divisive … created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives,” Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.
“The administration and Bush himself deserve a lot more credit than they received for getting this job done,” says Josh Ruxin, assistant professor of public health at Columbia University.
No one has responded to “Bush’s miracle” yet and are still obsessed with Iraq. shocking.
But does no one else see a trend her by the Nobel commitee – one that is not altruistic but extremely political?
In recent years Jimmy Carter was awarded for criticizing the Iraq War and Al Gore was awarded for his “crusade” against alleged global warming. oth of these instances and Obama’s victory make it obvious that the Norwegian Parliament – which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace prizes has sought for a while now to use the award as a political tool to influence American politics. It’s prestige and supposed moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of what they see as the dominant nation in the world, the nation beyond their seas that controls a quarter of the world’s economy and most of its military power.
Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe.
European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States. If the European Union has high taxes and the US keeps its levies low, business and brains will flow to America. If the EU’s labor standards require long vacations, high benefits, and proscribe layoffs and ours’ do not, employers will migrate across the ocean to do their business in the States. If the Old World curbs ambition by taxation, regulation, and social opprobrium, the ambitious will flock to the New World as they have done for four hundred years.
So, Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country – or one continent. It must dominate worldwide or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality and it makes Obama’s election as president of the United States all the more welcome.
The Nobel Prize is really Obama’s payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations. Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding.
Does the United States let its entrepreneurs run wild, coming up with fanciful new ideas and making billions from them? Obama will regulate and subdue business just like they do in Europe. Do U.S. businesses compete by slashing prices, aggressively pursuing markets, and jockeying for market share? Obama will make them behave themselves and stay in line just like European companies do. Do Americans work hard and push aggressively to make as much money as they can? Obama will raise taxes, emphasize community values, and narcotize their ambition by offering government largesse.
And does the United States still believe in a sloppy, contrarian democracy in which ordinary people can directly affect their government, states have powers, and courts can reel in executive authority? Obama will use his rubber stamp majority in Congress to pass new laws regardless of public opinion and make us obey.
In foreign policy, is the United States still willing to stand up, alone if necessary, to protect human rights in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan? Obama will curb this unruly independence and mold it within the fabric of appeasement that has dominated Europe for the past half a century.
All this heavy lifting, this conversion of America into a European state, deserves a reward. And what is a more fitting one than to give Obama than the Nobel Peace Prize? He obviously doesn’t deserve the award for economics or, given his health care ideas, for medicine. But the Peace Prize expresses Europe’s longing: to take back the nation its overly ambitious and uppity children founded.
“No one has responded to “Bush’s miracle” yet and are still obsessed with Iraq. shocking.”
.
Perhaps nobody cares to respond any more. Perhaps you are the one who is obsessed.
Wow. You seriously believe Obama = jackbooted opression? I suppose you think he’s going to station armed troops on every streetcorner and start euthanasia camps for the elderly, too? And I thought some of the more extreme left fantasies about Bush were paranoid delusions…
And Bush still started two wars, which far outweighs any of his other ‘accomplishments’. Iraq was the biggest disaster in decades, both in lives and money spent.
.
It’s a miracle he didn’t find a way to start a third.
Here’s the comic book explanation:
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/terminatrix.gif
Just to digress from the topic of the Nobel award for a moment….
I can only say that I personally find the whole business of “if you disagree with the President then you are a racist” is incredibly funny and ironic.
…. people, please… this is all nothing more than a game… with the uninformed and ignorant masses drinking their koolaid from watercoolers painted in the political colors most appealing to you…
Let’s take a trip in the way-back machine, shall we? We’ll journey back to the olden days of 2002… when the President was a Republican and any criticism was met with a harsh cry of “traitor” and “unpatriotic!”
And now we’re back… to 2009. Where the President is a Democrat, and any criticism is met with a harsh cry of “racist” and “bigot!”
Funny stuff… even funnier when I point this out to people and their eyes go wide with realization!
… all just a game…
What the (insert your choice of colorful metaphor here)!
Alan Coil,
I am far from obsessed. I simply presented information that it seems few were aware of. One poster specifically asked me what Bush did that others haven’t. I provided a detailed explanation.
And you know what? It would be refreshing if somebody who is predisposed to not liking Bush simply said, “That’s interesting” or “I had no idea he did that” or even did some critical thinking and asked themselves WHY they don’t know that.
But it seems so many are determined to dig in their heels in defense of (or attacking) certain individuals, policies, parties, etc. – new evidence be dámņëd. It’s the old “don’t bother me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind.”
I prefer to engage in a rigorous debate rather than recycle the same talking points over and over. You seem to place more value on being snarky and holding onto your preconceived notions. Which is your right. It’s just unfortunate.
Patick Calloway,
“Wow. You seriously believe Obama = jackbooted opression? I suppose you think he’s going to station armed troops on every streetcorner and start euthanasia camps for the elderly, too? And I thought some of the more extreme left fantasies about Bush were paranoid delusions…”
Please, if it’s not too much trouble, respond to what I actually post. Where, in my post that you are obviously referring to, did I ever use the phrase “jackbooted oppression”?
Again, in a very detailed way, I explain why Europe would actually want to encourage the direction it seems Obama is taking America. Yet instead of picking a point you disagree with and refuting it, you find it easier to talk about “paranoid delusions” and assume things I’ve never actually said.
Why, if you look at my argument in it’s entirety, do you not see that Europe theoretically has much to gain from an America that acts less in it’s own interest, less unilaterally, adopts more of “appeasement” foreign policy; and reduces it’s economic advantages over Europe by, well, adopting many of the policies of Europe – as a good thing for Europe?
And just to respond to your assumptions, a government that has too much power is MORE scary than having troops on every corner. Because a government that you increasingly depend on to give you everything is therefore in more of a position to take everything from you. That’s just logic.
And it is simple math that even our public school students could solve, to say that if you add 30 million more patients and implement a policy that not only does that but does nothing to increase the number of doctors and indeed has 45% threatening to leave their profession if it’s passed, that SOMEONE is going to get shortchanged. And if you actually read parts of the bill, the people who are going to be shortchanged the most are the elderly. You don’t need “death panels” in name. But it will inevitably lead to care being rejected based on “quality of life” issues. Which means the government will HAVE to make choices on whether it is cost-effective to provide certain people with care. They will necessarily have to reject or limit care to certain people, regardless of an individual’s desire to pay. A huge proportion of these will be the elderly.
“And Bush still started two wars”
OK. For the record, you are stating that 9/11 was not the provocation for Afghanistan. Just want to be clear.
“which far outweighs any of his other ‘accomplishments’”
In your opinion. And seeing as how you have saving 2 million lives as an accomplishment worthy of mocking quotes, it is obvious the man could have cured cancer and you still would hold to your rigid views. Can’t you disagree with one part of his legacy while acknowledging others as significant and possibly positive.
And Obama’s “accomplishments” towardworld peace are what exactly? Besides worthy of a “Saturday Night Live” skit?
“Iraq was the biggest disaster in decades, both in lives and money spent.”
Bzzzt! Sorry. Thank you for playing. We have basically won Iraq, which was confirmed at the meeting between Bush and the government that showed the benchmarks Congress wanted to see met were almost all being met. You and many others might have missed that since all the media – even Fox for the most part – wanted to focus on was the guy who threw his shoes. That made Bush look bad visually, and was therefore deemed more important than incredible progress that has been made in a major war we have been fighting for years – especially since Rumsfeld was shown the door.
Again, did no one ask why the two were there together in the first place? These are easy questions unless you (meant in the general sense – not you specifically Craig) . As far as lives lost, this has always been wildly exaggerated. There are more murders in major cities each month than soldiers that have been killed in Iraq.
.
“It’s a miracle he didn’t find a way to start a third.”
He could have easily. Cheney wanted him to take strong military action against Iran and Bush rejected the idea, despite the fact that Cheney pushed for it hard.
I realize this goes against the caricature of Bush as warmonger and Cheney’s puppet, but facts are inconvenient that way.
BTW, when Iran gets nukes we may wish Bush had taken Cheney’s advice.
Jerome Maida: “No one has responded to “Bush’s miracle” yet and are still obsessed with Iraq. shocking.”
.
Jerome, maybe no one is mentioning it because, as nice as it was in its way, it was one speck of dust VS the mountain of things Bush did that rubbed most of the world (and not a few Americans) the wrong way. And, frankly, when you lie your country into a war that had zero need and create the humanitarian disasters (the millions of refugees, the issues that created with countries neighboring Iraq, turning Iraq’s 3rd world infrastructure into a 10th world infrastructure, setting loose an army of undisciplined private security contractors and exonerating them in advanced of any crimes they might commit, etc…) that it created and then further revising justifications for war after each old justification fell apart, sending members of the administration out to redefine words (such as “Imminent Threat”) as part that justification , basically flipping the bird at the world in every way over the matter, justifying torture, and rendition as right and moral choices…
.
Well… Let’s just say I don’t see any committee, especially one comprised of many people not of the Republican Party, looking favorably on Bush.
.
Jerome Maida: “In recent years Jimmy Carter was awarded for criticizing the Iraq War…”
.
Nope. Sorry. Wrong answer.
.
That may be the popular Right Wing talking point on it, but it’s not what Carter was given the award for. He was given the award for decades of work seeking to deal with conflicts and for humanitarian causes that he was involved in like Habitat for humanity. There’s also a problem with simply regurgitating the casual Fox News/Hannity/Rush talking points. That problem is that they’re usually ten pounds of $&!^ in a five pound bag.
.
Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in October of 2002. He would have had to have been nominated January of 2002. The Iraq War started on March 20 of 2003. When he was nominated (and certainly when he got the award) there was no Iraq War to criticize. At most, just looking at the time frame he was given the thing, there was a September 12, 2002 U.N. speech by Bush outlining his complaints about Iraq. Hëll, we didn’t even have 1441 to kick around debate-wise until November 2002.
.
Jerome Maida: “… and Al Gore was awarded for his “crusade” against alleged global warming.”
.
You don’t do yourself any favors calling it “alleged” global warming. Global warming (or global climate change) is pretty much universally excepted as fact by everyone but the kook scientist. The only dispute is how much we are contributing to it and the rate at which it is occurring.
.
Jerome Maida: “Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe.”
.
“European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States. If the European Union has high taxes and the US keeps its levies low, business and brains will flow to America. If the EU’s labor standards require long vacations, high benefits, and proscribe layoffs and ours’ do not, employers will migrate across the ocean to do their business in the States. If the Old World curbs ambition by taxation, regulation, and social opprobrium, the ambitious will flock to the New World as they have done for four hundred years.”
.
“So, Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country – or one continent. It must dominate worldwide or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality and it makes Obama’s election as president of the United States all the more welcome.”</B?
.
“The Nobel Prize is really Obama’s payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations. Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding.”
.
“Does the United States let its entrepreneurs run wild, coming up with fanciful new ideas and making billions from them? Obama will regulate and subdue business just like they do in Europe. Do U.S. businesses compete by slashing prices, aggressively pursuing markets, and jockeying for market share? Obama will make them behave themselves and stay in line just like European companies do. Do Americans work hard and push aggressively to make as much money as they can? Obama will raise taxes, emphasize community values, and narcotize their ambition by offering government largesse.”
.
“And does the United States still believe in a sloppy, contrarian democracy in which ordinary people can directly affect their government, states have powers, and courts can reel in executive authority? Obama will use his rubber stamp majority in Congress to pass new laws regardless of public opinion and make us obey.”
.
“In foreign policy, is the United States still willing to stand up, alone if necessary, to protect human rights in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan? Obama will curb this unruly independence and mold it within the fabric of appeasement that has dominated Europe for the past half a century.”
.
Holy $&!^, Jerome… I have no problem with saying that 90% of the reason Obama likely got the thing is that he’s seen as the Anti-Bush by most of the world, but that little rant looks like it’s from someone cruising into Glenn Beck Land. You seriously believe that Obama, the Democrats and the people that voted them into office want to destroy capitalism, enact complete and widespread “European Socialism” in the United States and Obama is going to strip courts and states of power and force all to bow to his will?
.
I’m sorry, but that’s just nuts.
.
Jerome Maida: “I am far from obsessed. I simply presented information that it seems few were aware of. One poster specifically asked me what Bush did that others haven’t. I provided a detailed explanation.”
.
Jerome, it’s not new news. It’s certainly not new to anyone who has been here any amount of time since it’s been brought up here before. But, as I said above, it was a speck of dust against the overall negative image mountain that Bush created for himself. Insofar as an achievement over the years of Bush’s presidency it’s certainly more substantial than anything Obama has yet done, but everything else Bush did just buried that in the court of public opinion.
.
Seriously, it’s like saying that Crazy Larry down the street may have been kidnapping women and torturing them to death in his basement the last few years, but we should still give him an award for the good work he did beatifying the neighborhood. Most independent outside observers would look at you like you just grew a third arm out of your forehead.
.
Patick Calloway: “Wow. You seriously believe Obama = jackbooted opression? I suppose you think he’s going to station armed troops on every streetcorner and start euthanasia camps for the elderly, too? And I thought some of the more extreme left fantasies about Bush were paranoid delusions…”
.
Jerome Maida: “Please, if it’s not too much trouble, respond to what I actually post. Where, in my post that you are obviously referring to, did I ever use the phrase “jackbooted oppression”?”
.
Jerome, that’s a wee bit of an extreme interpretation by Patrick, but it’s also a wee bit disingenuous of you to act as though you were not saying something along those lines. I again refer to these statements of yours that I quoted above.
.
“Does the United States let its entrepreneurs run wild, coming up with fanciful new ideas and making billions from them? Obama will regulate and subdue business just like they do in Europe. Do U.S. businesses compete by slashing prices, aggressively pursuing markets, and jockeying for market share? Obama will make them behave themselves and stay in line just like European companies do. Do Americans work hard and push aggressively to make as much money as they can? Obama will raise taxes, emphasize community values, and narcotize their ambition by offering government largesse.”
.
“And does the United States still believe in a sloppy, contrarian democracy in which ordinary people can directly affect their government, states have powers, and courts can reel in executive authority? Obama will use his rubber stamp majority in Congress to pass new laws regardless of public opinion and make us obey.”
.
So you state that America under Obama will likely see capitalism crushed beneath his heel, harshly tax American citizens and break their independent spirits, question whether we believe in an America under Obama where things like contrarian democracy, states rights and checks and balances exist and end it saying that, basically, the evil Obama will pass laws to shove his will down our throats and make America obey him. And then you seriously can’t fathom how Patrick could see that and not shorthand it as you saying that Obama = jackbooted oppression? You just put forward a serious of question/statements that portray Obama as the destroyer of American values and casts him very much in the role of dictator wanna-be.
.
Jerome Maida: “In your opinion. And seeing as how you have saving 2 million lives as an accomplishment worthy of mocking quotes, it is obvious the man could have cured cancer and you still would hold to your rigid views. Can’t you disagree with one part of his legacy while acknowledging others as significant and possibly positive.”
.
Or it could be recognition that he destroyed far more than two million lives. By 2006/2007 reports the numbers in the refugee crisis caused by our attack on Iraq had surpassed the two million mark. By 2007 the war that Bush pushed for and unnecessarily started had killed more Iraqis in total than the dictator he stated needed removing had killed in decades of rule. Bush’s shortsighted vision for his war, his foreign policy and that region have also made matters there worse for the overall stability of that part of the world and for peace in general.
.
Again, bravo for whatever Bush did that wasn’t true to form to his usual bungling, but it was far, far outweighed by everything else he did.
.
Jerome Maida: “We have basically won Iraq”
.
Yeah… Just so long as we don’t look at all of the pesky details and ramifications of what was “won” over there.
er.. He would have had to have been nominated by January of 2002.
Oops! In the post above, I meant to say “unless you have a narrative already in mind and are determined to stick to it, the facts be dámņëd.”
It’s late and I need to go to bed.
Jerry Chandler,
Thank you for responding. I would like to address each of your points, but for now let me say that I really do wish the message was presented to America – and the world – that we have won Iraq and what entirely, good and bad, that means.
All the press seems to care about for the most part is the number of deaths and how they have/will affect Bush and now Obama politically.
I WILL grant you that part of the reason was Bush’s inability to articulate the goals, means to achieve them and cost we should expect to bear.
I just get a funny feeling that if the economy was turning around and Obama and his supportive media no longer wanted to continue to blame that on Bush, we would see more positive coverage of what has been going on in Iraq. But since he can’t blame Bush for the economy while accepting credit for the positive news coming out of Iraq, he has decided that since the economy is now at the forefront of everyone’s minds and Iraq is not since the media has basically stopped covering it since the news has turned positive, that he will wait a while to claim credit for Iraq while continuing to blame our economic problems as those he “inherited”.
Smart on his part. Just sad in a way. Our troops have been doing a hëll of a job and deserve a fraction of the recognition they get for the positive things they have done as they would if a photo leaked of another soldier with a prisoner on a leash. And it would be nice if that recognition was led by our Commander-in-Chief.
That may be the popular Right Wing talking point on it, but it’s not what Carter was given the award for. He was given the award for decades of work seeking to deal with conflicts and for humanitarian causes that he was involved in like Habitat for humanity. There’s also a problem with simply regurgitating the casual Fox News/Hannity/Rush talking points. That problem is that they’re usually ten pounds of $&!^ in a five pound bag.
.
Jerry, it may not be wise to use this example of how Fox leads you astray. Was Carter’s award in part given for his critisizm of the United States Iraq policy? I guess we’ll never know, unless Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said something like this:
.
“With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq.”
.
(That was from CNN, though I’m sure Fox reported it as well.)
.
Frankly, If I were carter, I’d have been miffed to have had my award somewhat sullied by the perception that it was, in part, a snipe at the current office holder as opposed to being purely an affirmation of my good deeds.
Full Quote-
.
____________________________________________
.
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 5:48 PM EDT (2148 GMT)
.
In an interview with CNN, Carter declined to address the situation with Iraq, saying instead he would rather focus on the peace prize.
.
Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: “With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq.”
.
The committee made reference in its citation to current world events that may see the United States take military action against Iraq.
.
“In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development,” the Nobel Committee said.
.
____________________________________________
.
Yes, they referenced current events and, yes, Carter had spoken in favor of diplomatic means to deal with Iraq. However, again, if you’ll note the date of the CNN story, it would be hard to give the man an award in October of 2002 for “criticizing the Iraq War” when the first day of that war was yet to be waged and we had not in fact even made an official declaration of war.
.
Also, while the head of the committee answered a question about events that had transpired the same day of the announcement (just a few hours before the already prepared announcement the Congress authorized use of force against Iraq) of Carter’s win, the all ready prepared statement by the Nobel Committee read as follows-
.
____________________________________________
.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
.
During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.
.
Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents. He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world. He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries. Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.
.
In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.
.
Oslo, 11 October 2002
.
____________________________________________
.
Missed the bit about criticizing the Iraq War in there. The closest thing you’ve got is the line pointing out that he was, during the then current climate of the U.S. pushing for war with Iraq, standing by his principles and advocating peaceful resolution of the situation.
.
And, given how many justifications for the war turned out to be “mistakes” and “misjudgments” by the Bush Administration, how wonderfully mismanaged the war was beyond the concept of getting Saddam, how badly things have gone since then and how big of a black eye this country now has over that entire mess… Seems to me that Carter was on the right side of the issue back then.
I would not and have not argued that Carter’s award was entirely a criticism of the Bush administration. But clearly, there was more to it than merely his “decades of work seeking to deal with conflicts and for humanitarian causes that he was involved in like Habitat for humanity.”
.
And there is no doubt that Carter opposed the Iraq War long before his nobel…if one refers to the first Iraq War (Desert Storm). Carter’s antipathy for GW Bush has rehabilitated him in the eyes of those who forget what a meddling pain he was to the two previous presidents (Clinton evidently can’t stand the guy).
“And there is no doubt that Carter opposed the Iraq War long before his nobel…if one refers to the first Iraq War (Desert Storm).”
.
Since he has been anti-war then, yeah, he wasn’t a fan of Desert Storm. However that is not “The War” that critics of his (or Obama) winning the Nobel are talking about. In full context they are always talking about the current conflict and W’s stewardship of it.
.
In the context of what Jerome wrote above and in the context that it’s thrown about on Fox and by guys like Rush and Hannity it is a reference to the conflict started in 2003.
.
Now, I have no doubt that the Nobel Committee saw the chance to award Carter the prize as a way to say that they felt that the correct course of action was diplomacy rather than a mad dash to war and hoped to sway some of the fence sitters in the US debate on the matter to that side. But it is quite frankly incorrect to state that he got the award in part for criticizing a war that had not yet even been declared and totally without bases in reality to say that the only reason he got it was for that. It certainly wasn’t what he got nominated for it for since I don’t believe the debate was serious enough on the matter prior to February 1, 2002 to be justifiably cited as a major reason for the nomination.
.
Now, I have no doubt that the Obama award was in no small part (as seen by some of them) a symbolic thumb to the eye of the Bush legacy. I have no doubt that some on the committee saw giving the award to Obama as a way of saying that “THE WORLD” was thankful that Bush was gone and that the US had seemingly elected the Anti-Bush. However, I seriously doubt that it was the primary reason. I think their stated reason (somewhat goofy as it was) really was the factor in this year’s vote.
.
By the way, Bill… Been by Walmart lately? They’re selling some shirts called “Character Shirts & Bandannas” that have screwball Halloween designs on them. One of them (the one I picked up after the doctor visit today) is like the classic skeleton bones shirt that’s everywhere, but it’s designed to look like a seriously decayed (but slightly cartoonish) zombie torso. Under $10 a tee.
.
🙂
Thank you, Bill Mulligan. facts and actual quotes can be powerful things.
Yes, they are. But so is context and timing.
Jerry Chandler,
“Yes, they are. But so is context and timing.”
I agree. Thank you for providing both. I still strongly with your OPINION that Carter was ever or is today worthy of a Nobel, but I thank you for providing actual information to support your belief. I still think you are technically incorrect, but at least it is obvious you are interested in having a serious discussion rather than regurgitating talking points or calling people names – and I fully respect that.
Jerome, I really don’t think he deserved it all that much. I simply find fault in the critics of Obama’s win (who I also feel didn’t do a whole lot to deserve it) claiming that Carter won it for criticizing the war and referencing it in such a way as to specifically mean Gulf II and W.
.
He was critical of US foreign policy under Bush that at that point seemed hellbent on going to war at all cost and facts be dámņëd, but he was not in fact critical of “the war” and could not have been since he was given the award before the war started and had to have been nominated for year 2002 well before there was any true public discussions about launching invasion into Iraq.
.
But facts are facts and the facts are that Carter did do a number of things over the decades that many people respect. Even I have respect for his work with Habitat for Humanity. I just don’t think that his work “brokering peace” has been all that and a slice of fried gold or that his occasionally antisemitic seeming stances in regards to Israel made him candidate #1 that year. But, hey, other people’s mileage varies…
Antisemitic seeming stances in regards to Israel will not hurt your chances of getting a Nobel. Not at all.
.
I haven’t seen the t-shirts you mentioned but our Wal-Mart has been rather slow in rolling out the Halloween merch. Where are the $5 “Bottle-o-Blood” I depend on (I call it “Blood helper” since, on its own, it’s dreadful fake blood but with a few additions it’s GREAT fake blood. I expect to be going through that stuff like a crackhead through crack and I don’t want to pay full price.)
The rule for the accusation of antisemitism is the same as with the accusation of racism. Sometime it exists (in varying degrees), but you shouldn’t use it as an accusation unless it is a clear cut case.
In Carter’s case he doesn’t seem to be antisemitic or even (the more acceptable) anti-Israel, he’s just not very smart.
Micha, do note that I said that his comments are “occasionally antisemitic seeming” rather than flat out antisemitic. Some of his comments have been borderline to me, but some have been close enough that I won’t argue the interpretation with another person.
.
Mulligan has made the statement about Carter many times here. A few I’ve disagreed with. A few I’ve not wanted to touch with a ten foot pole.
I’ll send you a photo of the thing. The Walmarts around here haven’t been great about the Halloween stuff either. Both of ours have the shirts in the men’s wear section and not in the Halloween section.
.
Oh, and their half completed Halloween sections are dwarfed by their almost completed Christmas sections. I mean… WTF? What kind of sick mind prioritizes Christmas over Halloween?
my opinion of carter is colored by actions of his that caused harm to some people that in no way shape or form deserved it and impacted my family. In all honesty, it was the sort of shabby thing that probably most president do from time to time and it obviously has more resonance with me than it would with most. But them’s the breaks. You can build a bridge, a house, a road but shag just one sheep and you’re Macgregor the Sheep Shagger for the rest of your life.
OK, that’s fine.
Now, about that sheep. It was a misunderstanding. She looked much older.
Huh…
.
I thought he was directing that one at Sean. Who knew Micha had that one in his closet?
Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes!
Yes, that Micha… He’s such a baaaaaaaaaaaaa-d boy.
Foreigner, English no good. By Sheep mean model that is super, no? 🙂
No, it means inexpensive. Jeez!
I don’t see why you need to take shots at the Birthers… I don’t kick retarded children in the soft parts and ripping on the Birthers is essentially the exact same thing… picking on the lame and helpless.
That said, I always hope my President is not immensely influenced by ten or so North Europeans whose respective national interests have no… genuine overlap with the American Presidents’.
I’d rather see the American President swing to the wishes of American Leftists, for example, then an other-national small-club of Rightists…
That may be my main point, but it should not be. My main point should that there are people this cycle who indisputably deserve a Peace Prize of some sort, and that money…. and they got passed over for a well-meaning world leader that was one the job ten days.