Page Summary
cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sharrukin.livejournal.com - (no subject)
john-appel.livejournal.com - (no subject)
twfarlan.livejournal.com - (no subject)
capplor.livejournal.com - (no subject)
stevegreen.livejournal.com - (no subject)
melchar.livejournal.com - (no subject)
nsingman.livejournal.com - (no subject)
jemstone.livejournal.com - (no subject)
jonathonbarton.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Style Credit
- Base style: Marginless by and
- Theme: Mars by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 00:28 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 00:37 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 01:40 (UTC)Don't think it was a great decision on the Nobel committee's part, but I'd lay money that changing the nation's course, even a little bit, had a lot to do with their thinking.
no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 05:14 (UTC)There were times during my stay in the USA back in August when I wondered if certain parts of the nation realised there was a "rest of the world".
I thought everybody knew that.
Date: 10 Oct 2009 05:18 (UTC)I really did get into a discussion once (LONG ago) with someone who thought that only the King James translation of the Bible was valid.
no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 05:52 (UTC)That would be presumably the Bible which was subsequently translated into aramaic and transcribed onto the Dead Sea Scrolls.
no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 06:04 (UTC)I once met a very lovely lady, while traipsing about Europe, who refused to even consider going to the US, because of all the crime here. When I tell this tale to some of those who can't even find their home state on a map they find it difficult to believe me.
no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 19:54 (UTC)Just a thought.
no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 01:48 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 05:12 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 03:48 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 05:16 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 06:06 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 06:30 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 23:18 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Oct 2009 11:10 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 02:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 05:13 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 11:39 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 14:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 14:58 (UTC)Yes, people die in war, and sometimes civilians (all presumed innocent by the Geneva Conventions). There are still rules to warfare, and they include taking care when it comes to hitting suspected targets surrounded by civilians. Plus things are a bit different when the evil aggressor nation (in Afghanistan and Iraq, that means US) is doing the killing. The fact that the current war criminal in the White House isn't as bad as his predecessors yet doesn't change the facts. Barack Obama has the blood of innocent men, women and children on his hands. He inherited two aggressive wars, one of which he is ramping up, and he is saber-rattling against another country. And he has done nothing to pursue his predecessor war criminal, itself a war crime.
B-52 strikes? Nuclear, perhaps? "Kill them all, Sire - the Lord will know his own?"
no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 02:55 (UTC)I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but that would seem to be the Big Two, right there.
no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 05:17 (UTC)Yes, he's pushing for changes and an end to nuclear weapons and Mideast peace and all these groovy things, but last time I checked, awards are usually given for accomplishments, not the promise of accomplishments.
It was simply another political decision. And a bad one.
no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 06:20 (UTC)Only the actual Nobel committee can say for sure, and they've spoken their peace - to whit: “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation."
Political or not, their decision is their decision and casting aspersions on it does nothing but engage in armchair politicking and second guessing. It's done. Better to figure out what to do when the inevitable backlash comes down from the oft-alluded "other side."
And for the record, I'm well aware that Loving Vs. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, and I'm well aware that it was individual states, not the Federal Government, that carried the miscegenation laws - you've actually made my point for me. 1967 is the very definition of "Not that long ago." Multiple states said "Y'all cain't do that!" and were allowed to continue to do so despite the Federal Courts saying "Hey, discrimination is bad!" It took an act of the Supreme Court to get all those states that still had it on their books as illegal to strike such things off of their books. It was not until the Supreme Court stepped in and said to the nation "Look, knock this shit off," that it took hold.
We can nitpick about whether or not a large portion of the states themselves plus a plurality of citizens in the country holding on to racist and segregationist viewpoints until the mid 1970's (and even in to today, much as it disgusts me) counts as "a nation" if you want, but I see no reason to. I don't disagree that the award was politically motivated. I'm just of a different mind as to the exact nature of that motivation, is all.
no subject
Date: 11 Oct 2009 16:43 (UTC)This.