Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Photo by Pete Souza/White House
President Obama became the third sitting President to win the Nobel Prize for Peace. Obama was awarded the honor for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The Nobel committee specifically cited Obama's election as creating "a new climate in international politics," his outreach to Muslim nations, a return to multilateral diplomacy and use of the United Nations to the world stage as determining factors for the prize, which can (and most likely will) be seen by some as a rebuke of the policies of former President George W. Bush.
Some expressed surprise and shock at Obama's win, as he was in office less than two weeks before the nomination deadline. Others acknowledge that Obama was awarded for the prize for an agenda that has not yet produced concrete results. Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said of Obama, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
Jagland added, "Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
amazing! but if he wins best new artist at the grammys and best picture at the oscars, i'm gonna start asking some questions.
Wow! What a well-deserved accomplishment. Its very difficult to read generality and platitude-riddled speeches off of a teleprompter. I can't think of anything else he has really done besides speak and be omnipresent on TV.
The cult of personality continues. I'm waiting for an award to be invented for him. SOmething like "The Greatest Human Being in the History of the World."
The Nobel Prize has become a liberal popularity contest. Whoever is hot at the moment in elite, liberal circles. Al Gore won it for pushing junk science and enriching himself, and now this.
Congratulations, Masked Marauder. You win the award for most intelligible reposting of Fox News talking points. Your Bozo Button is in the mail.
The Nobel Prize has become a liberal popularity contest.
I guess you're right, insofar as it seems that non-conservatives are the only ones remotely interested in peace.
"junk science"
Hehe.
I push your mother's "junk science" every night.
No, seriously.
Didn't we just bomb the fucking Moon?
+1
Does hurling NASA satellites into the moon count?
It does seem a bit premature, given that we're still in 2 wars and facing a nuclear Iran.
When he steps up to accept the award, Kanye West will interrupt and say that, no disrespect, but Beyonce had the best plan for peace this year.
The Nobel Peace Prize is routinely given to people who have not helped the cause of peace. Just look at some of the recent recipients.
Furthermore, Obama, has simply not yet done anything one way or the other to merit any kind of prize.
See "Kissinger, Henry."
I'm also slightly perplexed by Obama's win. His initiatives are not even past their infancy and the results would take years to gauge.
You could honestly make an easier case for George Bush winning this based solely on his administration's policy toward Africa. President Obama himself has recognized it and advocated its continuation in his presidency.
Now that I think about it, Bush's policy toward Africa does kind of cancel out the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the wars he started.
+1
Two for two today, my man.
Well, many significant* leaders in history has had his or sometimes her share of war deaths and humanitarian work. Churchill, by your apparently narrow definition, was an butcher. So were Lincoln and FDR. And Napoleon, one of the worst killers in history, managed to enact good legal reforms and take other at least semi-humanitarian measures. For fuck's sake, see the reality of the world and the true costs of power, and get away from childish black/white crap.
One could indeed argue that Bush's efforts will end up saving as many lives in Africa as "his" wars took in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Thanks for making me defend Bush. I feel real good now.)
*not good, not bad, just significant by historical standards.
While some leaders, for good or ill, may have saved millions by bringing about the deaths of thousands, I would not argue that these people should receive a peace prize. Noble as the actions of Churchill, FDR, or even Napoleon or Bush may or may not have been, they still involved war. A peace prize by its very nature should measure peace. War that brings about a greater peace doesn't count in my book.
Good points.
Then again, I never got too excited over the Peace Prize. Cynical, I guess.
On that, we can agree. By my standard, I honestly wouldn't have thought Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres would have qualified, either. The thing's too subjective to mean anything.
Hence the phrase "based solely on his administration's policy toward Africa"
For the wars George Bush started, were you referring to the one in Iraq that enjoyed wide bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, including 111 Democrats, 263 GOP, and the Democrat controlled Senate?
On the subject of civilian casualties, is there one area in the United States with a crime rate substantially higher than the national average that doesn't overwhelmingly vote Democratic?
"On the subject of civilian casualties, is there one area in the United States with a crime rate substantially higher than the national average that doesn't overwhelmingly vote Democratic?"
Yes, I think it's called The South.
And that's not even factoring in all the rural/exurban areas with high rates of alcohol-related driving fatalities, which no one ever seems to consider part of the crime rate but I do. In that regard drunk rural folk are much more of a scourge on this nation than any inner city gang.
dino78, that was the flimsiest response I have ever read. It is so bad, I almost think you are joking. Drunk drivers in rural areas are worse than inner-city gangsters?
And you are wrong, wrong, wrong about crime rates. The areas in the South with high crime rates (Atlanta, New Orleans, Memphis) are as solidly Democrat as Chicago.
Wow, what is like to live in such a Fantasy Land?
No, I live in the reality-based world of statistics.
Number of drunk-driving related fatalities in 2008, according to MADD: 11,773.
Number of juvenile gang killings, according to the FBI: 711. If you include "gangland killings" the total goes up to 826.
Drunk drivers are a far bigger public health/safety problem than inner-city violence, but keeping coddling the rural and suburban skewing drunk drivers if it fits in with your liberal tolerance for crime Marauder.
A. What difference does it make who supported the war when we're talking about a Peace Prize?
B. Houston
Oh, come on. You know that Bush, who the Democrats called stupid for 8 years, tricked and misled every single Democrat into voting for that war. It wasn't their fault that they believed him, despite having called him stupid for so long.
Nothing Democrats do wrong is ever their fault. They have a supermajority in Congress and are still blaming Republicans for the lack of a health care bill.
Yeah, because screaming lies and other assorted bullshit about death panels--on top of the whole he's a Nazi from Kenya crap--sure helped the debate.
As did the emergence of a solid GOP health-care plan, complete with numbers and projections.
Uh, wait .... yeah, that's right, the GOP has no solid plan beyond let's make everyone feel this president is not legitimate, country be damned.
Man, how I miss Reagan. At least he gave a shit about the country.
He may have given a shit about the country, but not about the people in it. He's where all this crap starts.
I used to think that to, until his letters and diaries were released, as well as deeper historical insights about his presidency. Not to get into a debate about Reagan on this thread or anything, but I think--despite my serious disagreements with most of his domestic policies and significant parts of of his foreign policies--he was, at heart, a decent and civilized man, a classic gentleman, even. Yeah, you probably won't believe it, but spend some time reading what I've read.
You sound more n more like a typical Democrat, kneeling before the cult of Reagan.
I ain't swayin'. He may have been a nice man--to some, but he and his crew made the modern neo-con world of shit.
One of the biggest ironies is the perception of Reagan vs. Carter. Reagan is loved, Carter routinely vilified, but look at their lives post- (hell, pre-) office, who concerned themselves directly with big-picture, human issues? Reagan? phphllpph!!
Wheres his peace prize?
", kneeling before the cult of Reagan."
Show me exactly where I kneeled
I'll wait.
And show me exactly how you are sure I'm a Dem. Or a Republican, for that matter.
Merely seeing the humanity in one's opponents apparently is frowned upon these days, right?
I am so fucking sick of this attitude in our country. It is making us weaker by the day, and helping to rot our society and culture.
By the way, Reagan, for all his bluster, was scared to death of nuclear war, and did significant work reducing the number of nukes in the world. Don't believe me--look it up.
thanks for waiting...
Its a figure of speech -- your willingness to let Reagan's personal "decency" override his morally questionable and destructive policies.
I know someone who met Rumsfeld. Said he seemed like a nice guy. eh? Pass that on to several hundred thousand Iraqis and US soldiers.
sorry to keep you waiting..
I didn't say you are a dem but that you "sound more n more like" a dem. Alright, you're not a democrat, sorry for getting all marauder on you. I know its not cool to take sides anymore.
I agree with you re: attitude, etc. don't lay that on me, read some of your own comments. i reserved the right to bitch on a blog.
as for Reagan's fear of nuclear war... that earns him what? who the fuck--in their right mind--isn't afraid of nuclear war?
oh yeah, read Gorbachev's accounts of the Reykjavik summit sometime.. thats some scary shit.
Oh, right. I forgot. Only liberals care about the little people. This is why they keep them trapped in a never-ending cycle of poverty, only reappearing around election time to promise them more goodies.
People like you love to sit around and pat yourself on the back for being so caring, yet you refuse to look at the consequences of the policies you and other liberals champion. You will turn a blind eye to the failure of the New Deal, Great Society because its really all about you feeling good about yourself. You judge yourself on intentions, not results.
I used to think liberals were good intentioned but misguided. I am finally realizing you are just stupid.
Well, I guess both sides think the other is stupid. No new story there, but what the fuck are the right wingers going to do about it, huh? All this talk about revolution and Minute Men and tea parties--what the fuck are you going to do about it, just bitch on a blog?
Bring it on, Sam Adams. I look forward to your pathetic revolution.
Just because right wingers have more guns doesn't mean you know how to win.
Bring it on, cowboy. Let's do this thing. I'm sick of all this teasing talk.
Wimps.
You're quite the forgetful little fuck aren't you? Is that the Reagan in you?
Thank you for proving my point by blaming this on lies and the lack of a GOP health care plan. I know you lib Dems like the back of my hand.
You libs refuse to believe that maybe health care hasn't passed because there might be things in the bill people don't like. Rather, you must blame it on boogeymen because in your minds, liberals are so brilliant that they are incapable of putting together a bad bill.
Its always someone else's fault. Fitting coming from the party of trial lawyers.
I didn't assign full blame to the GOP, you hopeless fucking idiot. And you continue to think I am a lib or a Dem, both of which are untrue, you hopeless fucking idiot.
While the Dems are always good at circular firing squads, you hopeless fucking idiot, you apparently don't know much about parliamentary procedure, which in the US Senate, especially, still gives the minority party significant powers of delay, you hopeless fucking idiot.
Drop the right-wing martyr act, you hopeless fucking idiot. You are not Jesus, only some hopeless fucking idiot.
Now, go jack off to the sound of Glenn Beck's voice, or the sight of his near daily cry-fests. (Quite a manly hero the right wing has these days, huh?)
Yes, you could.
The Nobel Peace Prize is about as useless as the UN Security Council. Always has been. I mean, Kissinger and Arafat have won.
And this seems nothing more than "Hey, you aren't Bush."
Not that I liked Bush much, but let's be honest.
Hey, Obama got a cop to sit down with two black guys and drink beer. What more do you people want from the man?
An article about on the Politico website about the Nobel for Obama appropriately noted:
"...the whole thing seemed a bit premature, like a fan letter from the European elite to the notion of Obama as a man of peace rather than a concrete recognition of anything in particular he’s achieved....At this point, Barack Obama is like the kid who gets a Porsche for his 16th birthday. It's wonderful, but where can you go from there?” William Jelani Cobb, Professor of History, Spelman College...."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28129.html#ixzz0TSSTYJTR
Some sites with well rooted lib stances--Salon, for instance--also are expressing skepticism about this award.
I think that's a nice passage, too.
Poor guy. This doesn't help. I can't imagine he's too happy about it... talk about pressure.
Maybe he should get the "Thanks for Fixing U.S. Healthcare" award now. Provide some incentive.
Ward Up, you're starting to scare me! Getting all scholarly on us and brining a women professor from Spelman College( I'm sure this is the first time Spelman has been mentioned on Chicagoist) into the mix. I thought (besides for George Will) all the thoughtful Republicans had been ran underground?
And needless to I agree with the "Barack Obama is like the kid who gets a Porsche for his 16th birthday"
Does this mean that Dennis Kucinich is Cameron from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth by the right is pure joy to me. John Bolton, a man so vile his own mustache seems to be trying to escape his face, demanded Obama turn it down and Rush Limbaugh sobered up enough to say "we (nutters) agree with Iran and the Taliban".
Watching these clown shove each other aside to skewer themselves on their own swords is a thing of beauty.
Yes, it's a bit silly, but having been abroad and seen how much Obama's rhetoric has changed the tenor and tone of international politics, even while he was simply a candidate, it's not a shock.