President O'Bama Nobel Laureate...

[HoreTore]

So you think if we talk to the taliban they won't slaughter women who establish schools for girls or was it that what you refer to as irrelevant?

Whether you like it or not, war is to opposite to peace. Violence is the opposite of non-violence.

Only those in the latter category are eligible for the peace prize.

[Ice]

Whether you like it or not, war is to opposite to peace. Violence is the opposite of non-violence.

Only those in the latter category are eligible for the peace prize.

I'd disagree. Violence can certainly bring a long lasting peace much more than dialogue can in certain situations. I would think Europe and WWII would be a good example of this.

[HoreTore]

I'd disagree. Violence can certainly bring a long lasting peace much more than dialogue can in certain situations. I would think Europe and WWII would be a good example of this.

If you disagree, you're free to make your own prize

It's not a discussion about what is "right" or "wrong", it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.

[Whacker]

If you disagree, you're free to make your own prize

It's not a discussion about what is "right" or "wrong", it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.

Viking's post and what I've read so far consistently read as your personal interpretations being wrong. Do tell, what makes you an expert on Alfred Noble's intentions and mindset?

[HoreTore]

Viking's post and what I've read so far consistently read as your personal interpretations being wrong. Do tell, what makes you an expert on Alfred Noble's intentions and mindset?

Alright, what is it you've read of Alfred Nobel that isn't consistent with my claim that he wanted a world without war and that he created the peace prize as his contribution to that end?

[Aemilius Paulus]

it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.

And that is where I left the discussion, because it is quite pointless by now. No one is right or wrong, both sides have merit. This is no longer a debatable issue. Who knows what Nobel intended?

Given what I know of him, it is my opinion he cared more about the actual process of making the world more peaceful, and the results of that process as opposed to merely handing out elitist prizes so that the recipients can be snobby about it and bathe in their arrogance and self-pride. He would not mind the prize used as it was recently.

However, there is no guarantee Obama will do much. In fact, I have suspicions that he will not accomplish any significant deeds that would contribute to world peace. To eradicate all atomics on this accursed planet would require on single governemnt. As long as there are rivals, there will be secret stockpiles. And fanatic nutjobs like Kim-Jong Il or Ahmadinezhad taking advantage of the other power's weakness. And nationalistic, ego-addled tyrants like Putin.

Can you imagine Russia give up its atomics? I don't think so. Can you imagine US doing so when Russia did not? Hell no. Even if Russia did supposedly dump its stockpiles, only a US made of liberals would approve destroying the US share of fission and fusion warheads.

So honestly, giving prizes before the accomplishment, while seemingly being a progressive actions, is more preposterous to me. Somewhat indicative of the instant gratification culture of today perhaps. Maybe. Sort of... The point of a prize is to encourage individuals to work hard to achieve it, and when they do, the prize will be warded. The Nobel Prize Committee could have instead (possibly) let Obama know that they would consider him in the next ceremony if he actually lifts his rump and does something.

Giving an award beforehand is overtly risky, and it most certainly devalues it. What's next? Should this set a precedent? Should we give scholarships to students beforehand, to encourage them to work harder and get the good grades? Really? Politicians are no more good at keeping their promises than teenagers are at not slacking off and procrastinating. Both are notorious for their propensity to take the wrong road.



But honestly, who cares about what I say? We will never know how Nobel wanted his award to be given out.

[HoreTore]

Who knows what Nobel intended? We will never know how Nobel wanted his award to be given out.

1. A lot of people.
2. Yes we do.

It's not like Nobel kept his mouth shut his entire life and then surprised everybody with a crazy will. The ideology and intentions of Nobel is well known and documented. All it takes to find out is to read a bio.

[Aemilius Paulus]

1. A lot of people.
2. Yes we do.

Ahh, then I am so relieved to see the consensus over in exactly which situations in which the awarding of the prize is justified... Yes, indeed, it is wonderful to see people agree, is it not so?

[Ice]

If you disagree, you're free to make your own prize

It's not a discussion about what is "right" or "wrong", it's a discussion of what Alfred Nobel intended.

That wasn't in reference to the prize. I was disagreeing with what Alfred Nobel "intended" or "thought".

[Azathoth]

Yesterday morning, beloved Nike shill Tiger Woods was awarded the Nobel Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation in golf,” which was an incredible surprise for him to receive so early on in his career, except it’s pretty late in his career, so maybe it was just a surprise because no one knew the award existed. Woods said he was “surprised and deeply humbled,” putting to rest speculation that he might turn down the honor no one knew existed. The announcement was made early Friday morning and Woods said he would accept the prize as a “call to golf more.”


“To be honest,” Woods said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize I just found out about now; men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of golfing more.”

The announcement shocked many in the US as well as abroad, specifically in Afghanistan. Although many Afghans in the countryside have never even heard of the Nobel prizes, those among the educated elite are baffled by Woods’ award.

“I’m not sure I understand — this isn’t for golf here, is it?” said bank worker Irfan Hazin. “Because we haven’t got any.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose relations with golf have been distinctly chilly, congratulated the U.S. golfer, expressing the hope that with Woods’ “leadership of the backswing and vision of the perfect putt… peace and normalcy will return to Afghanistan and our region.” He added, “Then we can golf.”

Even the Russians are weighing in, claiming Woods has “not been active in world golf long enough” to deserve the prize.

“The awarding of the prize to Woods testifies to the deep disappointment caused by the golfing of Jack Nicklaus,” Mikhail Margelov, foreign affairs committee chair in the upper house of the Russian parliament, told a journalist. “He is golfer, yes?”

Woods will be celebrating this amazing honor by taking Michelle Obama and her two children putt-putt golfing. Her husband will not be present.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/tiger-wo...rize-for-golf/

[Subotan]

One point Four million Bucks ($425K, after taxes). Any bets on what Mr. O will do with the prize money?

Maybe try and get across a cliff?

Fortunately, we're all atheist social democrats, so religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't concern us

Well, at least two of us are

[Banquo's Ghost]

Robert Fisk delivers a crushing analysis of why awarding President Obama the Peace Prize is an act completely out of touch with international reality - even if one is arguing that it's all about the hope.

His Middle East policy is collapsing. The Israelis have taunted him by ignoring his demand for an end to settlement-building and by continuing to build their colonies on Arab land. His special envoy is bluntly told by the Israelis that an Arab-Israel peace will take "many years". Now he wants the Palestinians to talk peace to Israel without conditions. He put pressure on the Palestinian leader to throw away the opportunity of international scrutiny of UN Judge Goldstone's damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza while his Assistant Secretary of State said that the Goldstone report was "seriously flawed". After breaking his pre-election promise to call the 1915 Armenian massacres by Ottoman Turkey a genocide, he has urged the Armenians to sign a treaty with Turkey, again "without pre-conditions". His army is still facing an insurgency in Iraq. He cannot decide how to win "his" war in Afghanistan. I shall not mention Iran.

...

Oh, go on then, it's good:

Then, after stroking the Iranian pussycat at the Geneva nuclear talks, the US president discovered that the feline was showing its claws again at the end of last week. A Revolutionary Guard commander, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, warned that Iran would "blow up the heart" of Israel if Israel or the US attacked the Islamic Republic. I doubt it. Blow up Israel and you blow up "Palestine". Iranians – who understand the West much better than we understand them – have another policy in the case of the apocalypse. If the Israelis attack, they may leave Israel alone. They have a plan, I'm told, to target instead only US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their bases in the Gulf and their warships cruising through Hormuz. They would leave Israel alone. Americans would then learn the price of kneeling before their Israeli masters.

For the Iranians know that the US has no stomach for a third war in the Middle East. Which is why Mr Obama has been sending his generals thick and fast to the defence ministry in Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis not to strike at Iran. And why Israel's leaders – including Mr Netanyahu – were blowing the peace pipe all week about the need for international negotiations with Iran. But it raises an interesting question. Is Mr Obama more frightened of Iran's retaliation? Or of its nuclear capabilities? Or more terrified of Israel's possible aggression against Iran?

But, please, no attacks on 10 December. That's when Barack Obama turns up in Oslo to pocket his peace prize – for achievements he has not yet achieved and for dreams that will turn into nightmares.

[Lemur]

And that is where I left the discussion, because it is quite pointless by now. [...] Who knows what Nobel intended?

In fairness, the europeans on the Org have listened to us yankees debating the will of the founding fathers a quadrillion times, so it's only fair we should have to suffer through a little of our own medicine. Turnabout is fair play.

[Husar]

I love you, Lemur.

[Lemur]

Thanks, Husar. And since the Nobel Peace Prize is all about symbolism, I think it should have gone to Neda.

[Chaotix]

I didn't know he was Irish, either.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Thanks, Husar. And since the Nobel Peace Prize is all about symbolism, I think it should have gone to Neda.

Hmm, I would agree with that likewise. She did much more than Obama, even in her few moments of death. What is Obama going to do? Bring peace to the Middle East or eliminate all atomics? Both seem like impossible goals, along with his promise he uttered in one evangelical church to "create Paradise on Earth" - am I the only one who thinks that was a tad over the top?? And I do not believe I took his words out of context either...

[Louis VI the Fat]

his promise he uttered in one evangelical church to "create Paradise on Earth" - am I the only one who thinks that was a tad over the top?? And I do not believe I took his words out of context either...

I have the secret hope that O'Bama echoed the famous word of Voltaire: 'we must build a heaven on earth'.

The ancient watchword for theists and atheists. Not fullfulling the work of God, or living a life with the afterlife firmly in mind, must be the goal, but this life, this earth.
It is telling that O'bama used the phrase to speak to evangelicals - the group that has such a stifling effect on America's policies.

I suspect O of being a closet atheist.

By applying what the evangelicals will perceive as a phrase of devotion, he could make common ground with them, direct their energy away from rapture and 'what would Jesus do' politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have the secret hope that O'Bama echoed the famous word of Voltaire: 'we must build a heaven on earth'.

The ancient watchword for theists and atheists. Not fullfulling the work of God, or living a life with the afterlife firmly in mind, must be the goal, but this life, this earth.
It is telling that O'bama used the phrase to speak to evangelicals - the group that has such a stifling effect on America's policies.

I suspect O of being a closet atheist.

By applying what the evangelicals will perceive as a phrase of devotion, he could make common ground with them, direct their energy away from rapture and 'what would Jesus do' politics.

I suspect Obama is a very vague agnostic, I doubt he has the conviction to be an atheist.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I suspect Obama is a very vague agnostic, I doubt he has the conviction to be an atheist.

Yes, normally men of his characteristics are agnostic nowadays, even despite the fact that blacks are more religious in US than the whites.

[AlexanderSextus]

I know a fair few black agnostics, AP.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I know a fair few black agnostics, AP.

Well, that is what I said: men of Obama's characteristics tend to be agnostics, even if they are black or Southern, or so... I have two black professors, both of them are agnostic/atheist (in between those two). A great deal of doctors of science tend to lose their faith - there is normally a inverse correlation between education and faith.

[Subotan]

I suspect O of being a closet atheist.

Well, his father was an atheist, which makes the birthers comments of "His dad was a Muslim" all the more entertaining.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im sure I heard of some poll where Americans said they would vote for a muslim over an atheist... maybe the Republican attack machine picked the wrong angle....

[Aemilius Paulus]

Im sure I heard of some poll where Americans said they would vote for a muslim over an atheist... maybe the Republican attack machine picked the wrong angle....

Yeah, I saw it too. Out of all the various "handicaps", atheism was by far the most serious.

Here is one Gallup poll from 1999, which measured the percentage of Americans not willing to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" with one of the following characteristics:
Catholic: 4%
Black: 5%
Jewish: 6%
Baptist: 6%
Female: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38% (yeah, I know, it is probably much worse right now, with the 9/11 behind us)
Homosexual: 37%
Atheist: 48%



Here is a 2007 Gallup poll, albeit with slightly different categories:
Catholic - 4%
Black - 5%
Jewish - 7% (slightly worse than in 1999)
Female - 11% (quite noticeably worse than in 1999)
Hispanic - 12%
Mormon - 24% (very noticeably worse)
Married for the third time - 30
72 years of age - 42%
Homosexual - 43% (very noticeably worse)
Atheist - 53% (quite noticeably worse than in 1999)


So Americans are growing less tolerant ? Especially against gays, Mormons and atheists…

According to this Gallup article, it is true that Americans are growing less tolerant in the past few years

[LittleGrizzly]

Wow.... 53% thats a crazy amount of people.... I can somewhat understand some of them... albeit thinking in an intolerant mindset...

Atheists are baby killers without morality but 53% is quite high...

Muslims and Jews, see ME... (it wouldn't suprise me if conspiracy thoeries somewhat drove up the Jewish figure, red hot since 9/11)

Gays and Hispanics have major issues surronding them so paranoia there too...

The married for the third time doesn't suprise me too much in a country like America (i wouldn't care though)

I can somewhat understand the 72 one, although if he was in fairly good health for his age and had the right policys i would still vote for him...

I can't say I fully understand Mormon(ism) but from what I have heard its kind of looked down upon somewhat... whats the problem with catholics ?

The 11% against women strikes me as quite odd though... I could only think maybe Palin and Clinton with thier polarising effects somewhat increased this number...

TBH this makes me happier about voter apathy... sure theres some determined intolerant people but most of them are to busy blaming or criticising groups of people to go vote....

I hope....

[Lemur]

So Americans are growing less tolerant ? Especially against gays, Mormons and atheists…

Why does this make me really, really want to see a gay atheist ex-Mormon win an election somewhere?

[Aemilius Paulus]

What is yet worse is that 53% will absolutely refuse to vote for an atheist. The majority of the other 47% may vote, but will still prefer a religious candidate to a non-religious one...



And I have to say, I find it disturbing Muslims are preferred over atheists in America... What have we done to earn so much hate? And compare that to what Muslims did (mostly radical ones, but the point remains).

[Beskar]

This is why American politics is completely different to European politics (in general), you can't imagine our elected leaders "Preaching" like a priest, like the American leaders do. If they did, they probably would get sidelined into the raving loony party.

[rvg]

to each their own, right?