I think most Americans just don't realize how scary the last 8 years was for the rest of the world.
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.
It is a political move. It is at once a condemnation of his predecessor in the office and a rallying cry for the social programs, movements, and change that he represents.
Right, except for the parts which were translated into Latin & Greek & sent back in time to the medieval church.
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.
According to BBC Radio 4, he was favourite until about 24 hours ago. Simply surviving Mugabe's murder attempts doesn't quite earn him that distinction in my mind, given he hasn't proven he's any less corrupt that that the current genocidal thug in charge.
How about Sir Bob Geldof, who has spent the last 30 years fighting famine worldwide? Bono would have been another good choice. Just pick someone who who has accomplished something in terms of world peace!
Barack Obama is not the first blood-soaked war criminal to get the Nobel Peace Prize, and certainly not the worst. The prize has been meaningless, and utterly uncorrelated with peace, for a long, long time.
Has no one considered that this award is based on the facts that -a- he's the first Black President in a nation that not that long ago had laws telling its citizens that Blacks and Whites couldn't marry, and -b- even before the guy was President he was pushing for reforms and communication rather than dogma and isolation?
I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but that would seem to be the Big Two, right there.
Loving v. Virginia was ruled on in 1967, when Barack was six. Add in that it was individual states, not the nation that had the miscegenation laws, and that theory goes down the drain. Just being black doesn't cut it.
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.
Well, if you're Huerta Miller, you also get one for writing poetry about the homeless. Oh, sorry. "The dispossessed."
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.
It's not astounding to the Pakistani civilians his Predator drones have been murdering since his third day in office, continuing the tactics of his war criminal predecessor.
I strongly disagree. This is a war, and in wars, people die, sometimes innocent ones. The Taliban represent a threat not only to us, but to sane cultures everywhere. I personally think that B-52 strikes would be more effective, but that's just me.
This is a war? And when did Congress declare this war? Just kidding! I know we don't bother with silliness like that old Constitution any more. And the Taliban regime represents no threat to the United States whatsoever, and never has. Perhaps you're confusing them with Al Qaeda, who would have posed no threat had it not been for our unbalanced, intrusive foreign policy over the past five or six few decades on behalf of another paranoid, nuclear-armed, aggressor nation in the region.
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?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
no subject
no subject
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".
no subject
I thought everybody knew that.
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
That would be presumably the Bible which was subsequently translated into aramaic and transcribed onto the Dead Sea Scrolls.
no subject
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
no subject
no subject
no subject
Just a thought.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but that would seem to be the Big Two, right there.
no subject
no subject
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
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
no subject
no subject
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
This.