President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize

[Jehosaphat]

So now the government debt is higher than the USA's GDP. Not the money brought in by the IRS, but the GDP as a whole. We owe more than we're worth.))

...

You DO know they've changed it to "climate change" because it's getting colder now, right? And that there are multiple scientific organizations who have come up with the theory that Earth's general temperature has a tendency to cycle and/or the organization just didn't give a crap? Get your facts straight before you generalize about scientists.

 

First off, we don't owe more than we are worth. GDP is gross domestic product, that is how much the country produces every year.

 

About the climate change, obviously there are cycles. And through an increasing warming period there can be points where it gets colder, but the general trend is it getting warmer. The report by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm shows this. http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 This link is to a paper that is the joint product from EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE of the major industrialized nations (the ones who have the most to lose).

 

So, do I trust the scientists of every major country of the world who are all experts in climate change, or some kid on a forum?

 

Yes, and currently the debt is 11 trillion versus the 10 trillion GDP. 1 trillion of that is being taxed. So if we all send all the money we make to our government's debtors, then we'll just be 1 trillion in the hole. But we'd all be dirt poor, and easily conquerable by pretty much anyone. (not to mention the fact that the government made all the loans in dollars. So they may end up just printing 11 trillion dollars to pay off the debt, and making the value of the dollar plummet to its value as toilet paper. We'd be just like Germany before WWII, sans the great-speech-making man with the possibility of becoming dictator... oh... wait.....)

 

Edit: Also, the current debt achieved this year recently passed 3 trillion. Would you like to have some politicians sending 3/10 of what you make overseas? And that's just if they decide to pay off what they're done this year, which they probably won't.

 

And the question is not do you trust the scientists, but do you trust the politicians who pay the scientists to publish results in a specific manner?

[i_love_burritos]

My thoughts, channeled through conservative commentator, Andrew Sullivan:

 

I've had some coffee now. Reading through all the reactions, compiled by Chris and Patrick, there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.

 

Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere.

 

This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face.

 

I like Shimon Peres' statement, reprinted in a useful compendium of world reaction at the Lede:

 

Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth. Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.

 

Right now, we do not know where that direction will ultimately lead. We do know that we were facing a spiral of conflict that, unchecked, could have taken the world to the abyss. I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through. In the midst of our domestic battles, and their ill-temper (from which I have not been immune lately), this is an attempt to tell us: look up for a moment, see how far we've come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears.

 

And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/all-over-the-world.html#more

 

You know, I would have swallowed all of that horse[cabbage] if not for the last sentence.

 

And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.

 

Know hope ? What do any of us know.

 

My god the overpowering hope, such a beacon in these dark times. So much hope, the world is overflowing with hope. It's causing me to cry hope. Sweet Jesus.

Perhaps the next UN convention we can all gather round', hold hands and sin [bleep]ing Kumbaya by the fire.

 

Who's bringing the marshmallows ?

[Jehosaphat]

Who's bringing the marshmallows ?

Obama, of course.

[i_love_burritos]

Who's bringing the marshmallows ?

Obama, of course.

 

Did you really need to answer that ?

[Jehosaphat]

Who's bringing the marshmallows ?

Obama, of course.

 

Did you really need to answer that ?

Yes. Yes I did.

[indy500fan]

And the question is not do you trust the scientists, but do you trust the politicians who pay the scientists to publish results in a specific manner?

 

Politicians who will have to use political capital to push through climate legislation that lowers the competitiveness of domestic companies vs those abroad who don't have climate related restrictions? Yeah, there isn't a reason for them to want climate change to be true. It's worse for them if it is true.

 

And the debt was just to point out you are wrong in saying we are worth $10 trillion, and have a debt of $11 trillion. $10 trillion is our "salary", not what we are worth. I make $15k a year but it is completely irrelevant to say I am worth $15k, the only thing it is good for is predicting how much your worth will increase.

[indy500fan]

And those numbers are wrong anyways, our debt is $11.9 trillion and our GDP is $13.78 trillion. So even if you were right, which you weren't, it would still be wrong.

[Jehosaphat]

And the question is not do you trust the scientists, but do you trust the politicians who pay the scientists to publish results in a specific manner?

 

Politicians who will have to use political capital to push through climate legislation that lowers the competitiveness of domestic companies vs those abroad who don't have climate related restrictions? Yeah, there isn't a reason for them to want climate change to be true. It's worse for them if it is true.

 

And the debt was just to point out you are wrong in saying we are worth $10 trillion, and have a debt of $11 trillion. $10 trillion is our "salary", not what we are worth. I make $15k a year but it is completely irrelevant to say I am worth $15k, the only thing it is good for is predicting how much your worth will increase.

No it's not, it means that they can spend money on environmental things. Why they want to do that, I'm not sure.

 

Okay, so I mis-worded with the "more than what we're worth" bit. My point still stands - we're in too much debt as it is, and the government spending money like there's no tomorrow isn't helping.

 

Some of it's the fault of previous Presidents (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) but the 3 trillion this year was all passed through Congress and Obama. And I sure as heck don't want some politician saying that he's gonna pay 3/10 of the money I've made to a different politician elsewhere.

 

Edit:First, don't double-post.

 

Second, where are you getting your numbers? I'm getting mine here: www.usdebtclock.org

Edited October 10, 2009 by PieisEaten

[llamster]

It's absurd. Obama hasn't made any real accomplishments toward peace.

[indy500fan]

Second, where are you getting your numbers? I'm getting mine here: www.usdebtclock.org

 

Well there is your problem, that website shows GDP CTYD (gross domestic product calendar year to date), not GDP.

 

And yes, there is an inordinate amount of debt. Bailouts/war being the most recent causes. I am morally a laissez-faire capitalist, meaning NO government intervention in the economy. However in practice I don't mind certain things being government run (roads, schools, police, military, courts).

 

I find fear mongering about the debt to be a weak point of contention that people spout because other people on TV tell them to, and the comparison of debt to GDP being one of them. Debt and GDP can't be related like that, you need to compare debt vs total net worth (for example normal households in the US were worth a total of $44 trillion in 2000, that's not counting any business at all [many of which are worth 10s or 100s of billions themselves]).

 

EDIT: Also I know not to double post, as you may have noticed I have been around quite some time before you (a year or two on the Scapeboard before this forum). I just figured someone else would post by the time I made that second.

 

EDIT2: While $42k worth of debt per person in the US is bad, it isn't crazy bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Arrange that by per person and you can see that many other countries have worse debt problems for the sizes, and they are all modernized industrial nations.

[Jehosaphat]

Second, where are you getting your numbers? I'm getting mine here: www.usdebtclock.org

 

Well there is your problem, that website shows GDP CTYD (gross domestic product calendar year to date), not GDP.

 

And yes, there is an inordinate amount of debt. Bailouts/war being the most recent causes. I am morally a laissez-faire capitalist, meaning NO government intervention in the economy. However in practice I don't mind certain things being government run (roads, schools, police, military, courts).

 

I find fear mongering about the debt to be a weak point of contention that people spout because other people on TV tell them to, and the comparison of debt to GDP being one of them. Debt and GDP can't be related like that, you need to compare debt vs total net worth (for example normal households in the US were worth a total of $44 trillion in 2000, that's not counting any business at all [many of which are worth 10s or 100s of billions themselves]).

 

EDIT: Also I know not to double post, as you may have noticed I have been around quite some time before you (a year or two on the Scapeboard before this forum). I just figured someone else would post by the time I made that second.

Well, GDP CYTD is how much money America's made this year. America's made 10 trillion, and the government has borrowed 3 trillion. I still don't want the government essentially promising 3/10 of what I've earned this year to foreign countries.

 

And yes, businesses and households were worth trillions, HOWEVER, those can move overseas. A company sees "Oh ****, this government's going bankrupt! Let's move overseas as to not get caught while it falls." Same thing for citizens. Except that companies seem to be looking to the bankrupt people to pull them out of bankruptcy.... :blink:

[MirageOfDeath]

I respect the man... but a Noble Peace Prize? For what exactly? Meh, shouldn't be that surprised. I mean someone like Arafat has won it but not Mahatma Gandhi.

[i_love_burritos]

Did some more research on this, and lookee.

 

The Norwegian guy you see on the televison prasing Obama is Thorbjørn Jagland, the Chairman of the Nobel Committee.

 

This guy's a goon. His only previous experience seems to be being a bencher in the Norwegian Parliment. Not only this, but was only appointed this role in February of this year.

 

Found out some more by the way. This clown intended to give the European Union, yes the whole of the European Union the Nobel Peace Prize. Translated Article here

 

Another thing. There were 205 nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. They were due the 1st of February. Which is just 14 days after Obama was sworn in.

 

Ridiculous.

[Tact]

The reasons they gave to justify awarding Obama the prize are all too vague. Beyond bringing "hope" and "change" to the forefront of Americans' vocabulary, he hasn't really done anything to earn this prestigious honor.

 

I mean, Gandhi never got the Peace Prize, yet Obama bags one before his first term is halfway through?

[michel555555]

I stopped actually paying atention to who got the nobel peace prize after the abortion doctor or whatever he was got it and caused the big controversy a while ago.

 

But ya, giving it to the guy who's running a country that uses torture, and is fighting in two wars... that pretty much takes away whatever meaning was left in the award.

[Giordano]

This is like a producer buying a big studio, actors, and props and just because the set looks nice, he's getting an Oscar.

 

It really is ridiculous.

[____]

This is like a producer buying a big studio, actors, and props and just because the set looks nice, he's getting an Oscar.

 

It really is ridiculous.

My comparison would be:

 

Winning an Oscar for having crude drawings of what a single set will look like, a heavily edited list of people to star in the movie and a script which isn't complete.

[Kriegsmier]

I'm already in Iraq, and am on the possible hit list of those new 40,000 troops that might get sent to Afghanistan and he's collecting a Peace prize??? UHHHHHHHH. No, this is stupid. Way to go world, you're now drinking the koolaid most Americans were drinking when they elected him. Buying into his underachieving, lying, hopeful attitude. Congrats.

[i_love_burritos]

No, this is stupid. Way to go world, you're now drinking the koolaid most Americans were drinking when they elected him.

 

I bet it was the red type.

[Plugpoint]

It's official: George Bush was such an arsehole, you can win the Nobel Peace Prize just by not being him.

[Barihawk]

Let's look at recent US politicians who have won recently:

 

Jimmy Carter...Al Gore. No, the committee isn't practicing any kind of political pattern here, are they?

 

I would have gone with the female Afghan doctor.

 

Edit: On the other hand, Jimmy Carter does actually deserve the award for Habitat for Humanity. But I'd like to see him out in the fields helping on some of these projects or motivating volunteer teams rather than sitting in his mansion making videotapes.

[1_man_army]

Barihawk, didn't Kissinger get one as well?

 

Edit - That being said, I know it was a while back that he got it.

[magekillr]

Let's look at recent US politicians who have won recently:

 

Jimmy Carter...Al Gore. No, the committee isn't practicing any kind of political pattern here, are they?

 

I would have gone with the female Afghan doctor.

 

Edit: On the other hand, Jimmy Carter does actually deserve the award for Habitat for Humanity. But I'd like to see him out in the fields helping on some of these projects or motivating volunteer teams rather than sitting in his mansion making videotapes.

 

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, as was Henry Kissinger. Please stop with your usual partisan hackery, and be happy for your president...for once. It's not the world's fault that the GOP has been nothing but war mongering trash since Ronald Reagan.

 

Did Kissinger deserve it? Not really, so why'd they give it to him? They gave it to him in 1974 to reinforce the notion of peace: the withdrawal from Vietnam. Henry Kissinger is perhaps the most amoral man the US government has ever had at its helm, but it was given to him in hopes that he would follow what he started in Vietnam: strength through peace, not the opposite.

 

Did TR deserve it? No, not really. Although Teddy Roosevelt would be considered far to the left of the current Democratic party, he was still a bit of a war monger. However, once again, to reinforce the notion that he'd continue being peaceful, he won it for his efforts in Japan and Russia.

 

And then you can go to the other people who frankly didn't accomplish anything when they were awarded it, but it was what they stood for that mattered. Desmond Tutu was awarded it 10 years before apartheid ended in South Africa. He didn't accomplish anything, but they gave it to him to bring awareness to the issue, and to give him momentum in what he hoped to achieve. Maybe it worked, as apartheid ended in 1994, but it doesn't matter.

 

There are other examples, but I'm sure as a history teacher, *ahem*, you should already know the history of this award.

 

So why was Obama given this award? Well, as always, something happens and Americans cannot for once see the world through a lens that's not their own. For one, he's not George Bush, and has changed the way America is viewed in the world. America is now the most admired country on Earth, and that changed because of him and what he represents: hope. For two, for his efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from this Earth, something not pursued with even lip service that Ronnie Reagan gave it. For three, he's been the only American president to go to a Muslim country, give an amazing speech about peace in their lands, admit our involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian government, and just be real to them; he reached out his hand to a community who frankly doesn't want to know we exist. He did it anyway, and it was well received despite a few errors. If one wanted to be nit picky, it was a flawed speech. However, when you view it in its scope, it was a tremendously brave and well written speech with great intentions; and the audience would say the same.

 

Last, it’s not about him. It’s about us, and about this hour in history, “the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.” Take a look at his speech; he recognizes that he alone doesn't "deserve it," but he also understands what the committee is saying. The prize is an honor to someone who is actively pursuing peace with nuclear weapons, with Israel and Palestine, with Iran, with Cuba, and most of all, he's shown that the US can lead again and it doesn't have to saber rattle every 5 seconds someone doesn't agree with our views. The prize is a challenge to him, and to America, to show that we can walk the walk just as well as talking the talk. They, too, are trying to organize the President.

[indy500fan]

While I believe there are others who are more deserving of it, there is a point to giving it to someone before they really do much, but are capable of doing a lot. Anyways, who knows how important starting talking with the countries like Iran will be in the future? It's possible if he didn't open up talks now something could have happened in the future that made it too late.

[magekillr]

Exactly. I mean, there probably *were* people more deserving, but that's not how the award always works. Frankly, I probably wouldn't have voted for him if I were in the committee, but I can still see him as worthy of the award, even if he wasn't the *most* worthy.

 

As usual, Rachel puts everything into perfect perspective. Go, Rachel!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o

 

And here's some quotes:

 

"What wonderful recognition of someone who has already made such an impact on our planet with regards to the Muslim world, nuclear disarmament, climate change and, to some extent, the Middle East. He has reached out to the Arab world, including Iran, and North Korea.

 

In a way, it's an award — coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young President — that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all. It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope."

- Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

 

“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”

 

We congratulate President Obama as a fellow Nobel Laureate and welcome this recognition that achieving a nuclear weapons free world is critical.

John Pastore, physician, co-recipient of the 1985 Nobel award to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

 

I am happy. What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal — he gave hope. In these hard times, people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision, commitment and political will, should be supported.

- Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader and 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

 

Under your leadership, you have begun making peace a reality and making it a key issue on the agenda, which must be realized. From Jerusalem I express my confidence that the bells of understanding and dialogue between the nations will start ringing again.

Shimon Peres, Israeli President