Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize

[charlou]

Seemed pretty clear to me.

Ayep, worked for me.

[charlou]

- Obama passed legislation with Republican Senator Jim Talent to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.

Not related to peace, this is domestic policy.

- After a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

Not related to peace, this is domestic policy.

- His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.

Not related to peace, this is domestic policy.

- Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

Not related to peace, this is domestic policy.

- Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.

Not related to peace, this is domestic policy.

- As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not an actual accomplishment mentioned here, just rhetoric.

- He traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world.

THIS ONE MAKES SENSE

- Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

Not an actual accomplishment mentioned here, just rhetoric.

- In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.

Did it pass?

- Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbied the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.

Did it pass?

- Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

Since when is American protectionism pro-peace?

- Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

This is very vague.

- Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.

And so did countless other elected officials.

- Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law."

Rhetoric and again domestic policy not about peace.

EDIT -
So one thing on your list is something worthy of note towards a Nobel peace prize. but of course he was nominated before he did that... So what else?

Hey Andrew, how about thanking FIO for taking the time to provide the list containing the example for you instead of demanding she do more homework on your behalf?

If you want to know, look yourself. Not doing so is pretty much akin to confirmation bias.

[Drewish]

Hey Andrew, how about thanking FIO for taking the time to provide the list containing the example for you instead of demanding she do more homework on your behalf?

If you want to know, look yourself. Not doing so is pretty much akin to confirmation bias.

I've taken the clear position in this topic that I do not believe that Obama should have gotten this award, so I doubt it falls to me to provide evidence for the opposing view point. And further, FIO and I have discussed that list over PM, as her reaction indicated that she had taken my rebuttal as a dismissive blow off. I apologized and explained that I while I had asked for Obama's accomplishment, what I was really asking for (in the context of the discussion) was what had he accomplished that validated getting this award. I made sure that there were no hostility between us (And thankfully there are not :-)) I'm not a jerk Charlou. I know that you and I have different political philosophies, but from your comment it seems you don't simply disagree with me, you think I'm a bully.

[owtth]

More than anything else this is a big "In Your Face" to the Bush administration, and I think that's fair enough. Only the most unrealistic among us would think that Bush Jr.started any war without a clearly profitable outcome.
Even the most ardent Republicans know that this war made money for certain vested interests, and those vested interests revolved around Rumsfeld and Cheney. Hey at least they were almost honest about it it. Sure they don't care enough to put their own lives on the line but rest assured when your son or daughter lays down there life to protect their profit margin that their gratitude is boundless as can be seen in their efforts re healthcare etc. Land of the free. free to fuck you in the ass that is.

[charlou]

Hey Andrew, how about thanking FIO for taking the time to provide the list containing the example for you instead of demanding she do more homework on your behalf?

If you want to know, look yourself. Not doing so is pretty much akin to confirmation bias.

I've taken the clear position in this topic that I do not believe that Obama should have gotten this award, so I doubt it falls to me to provide evidence for the opposing view point. And further, FIO and I have discussed that list over PM, as her reaction indicated that she had taken my rebuttal as a dismissive blow off. I apologized and explained that I while I had asked for Obama's accomplishment, what I was really asking for (in the context of the discussion) was what had he accomplished that validated getting this award. I made sure that there were no hostility between us (And thankfully there are not :-)) I'm not a jerk Charlou. I know that you and I have different political philosophies, but from your comment it seems you don't simply disagree with me, you think I'm a bully.

I'm glad you and FIO have it sorted.

I think if there's an opposing viewpoint and you're* the one who wants evidence, it's up to you to look. If not it shows you're inclined to dismiss something due to your own bias.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree here, though, as it's off topic.

*By 'you' I mean anyone.

[FBM]

Sorry, but being black and President of the US is one hell of an accomplishment, and if that's all he ever did, I'd be satisfied with giving him the Peace Prize. As long as he doesn't shitwreck the country, that is, like his predecessor did.

Accomplishments aren't always enough to get the Prize, and lack of them doesn't always disqualify. He symbolizes the end of racism, much like Nelson Mandela. He symbolizes a stance against oppression by hawkish military regimes (Bush's) much like Aung San Suu Kyi.

He symbolizes the superiority of carefully-reasoned judgement and wise restraint over the chest-thumping, ego-driven, fear-mongering approach of his predecessor. He's changing the tone of international relations and pointing us towards a path in which differences don't have to result in war.

I'm quite happy that the Nobel Committee decided to add their momentum in that direction.

[owtth]

Hey Andrew, how about thanking FIO for taking the time to provide the list containing the example for you instead of demanding she do more homework on your behalf?

If you want to know, look yourself. Not doing so is pretty much akin to confirmation bias.

I've taken the clear position in this topic that I do not believe that Obama should have gotten this award, so I doubt it falls to me to provide evidence for the opposing view point. And further, FIO and I have discussed that list over PM, as her reaction indicated that she had taken my rebuttal as a dismissive blow off. I apologized and explained that I while I had asked for Obama's accomplishment, what I was really asking for (in the context of the discussion) was what had he accomplished that validated getting this award. I made sure that there were no hostility between us (And thankfully there are not :-)) I'm not a jerk Charlou. I know that you and I have different political philosophies, but from your comment it seems you don't simply disagree with me, you think I'm a bully.

But surely you can agree that as the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world your president has taken steps that would seem completely outrageous to your previous president, he (Bush) would decry them as accommodationist when they are merely less of a sabre rattling bent, they do not commit to your newest recruits being thrown to the thresher that is Afghanistan or Lawd forbid the failed conquest of Iraq (again).You have a president that makes an obvious goal of reducing the ability of humanity to make a slag-heap of our planet and this virtue is vilified as a weakness!. It beggars belief, I am amazed he lasted this long. Every day he survives does nothing but convince me that he is right even if I disagree with the way he would implement his strategies, his vision is the only just outcome regardless of how distasteful his methods are to the right. At the same time I know full well that given the opportunity the right would ride over the rights of their "fellow" Americans given even a sniff of a chance. Shame on them and Gawd bless the black fella

[Drewish]

I think if there's an opposing viewpoint and you're* the one who wants evidence, it's up to you to look. If not it shows you're inclined to dismiss something due to your own bias.

Again, you have a very low opinion of me apparently. Of course I researched this topic, and arrived at my conclusion that this award was nothing more than political stunt, rather than justly deserved. Assuming that because I can't find valid reasons why my opinion is false is an indication of my own sloth and willful ignorance? That's such a treasure trove of logical fallacies, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Sorry, but being black and President of the US is one hell of an accomplishment, and if that's all he ever did, I'd be satisfied with giving him the Peace Prize.

Racist. That is SO fucking racist.

But surely you can agree that as the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world your president has taken steps that would seem completely outrageous to your previous president, he (Bush) would decry them as accommodationist when they are merely less of a sabre rattling bent, they do not commit to your newest recruits being thrown to the thresher that is Afghanistan or Lawd forbid the failed conquest of Iraq (again).You have a president that makes an obvious goal of reducing the ability of humanity to make a slag-heap of our planet and this virtue is vilified as a weakness!. It beggars belief, I am amazed he lasted this long. Every day he survives does nothing but convince me that he is right even if I disagree with the way he would implement his strategies, his vision is the only just outcome regardless of how distasteful his methods are to the right. At the same time I know full well that given the opportunity the right would ride over the rights of their "fellow" Americans given even a sniff of a chance. Shame on them and Gawd bless the black fella

Not being Bush is a good thing, but it's not Nobel Peace Prize worthy. Also, let me be clear. I'm not blaming Obama or diminishing him because of this. He has no say in who the committee selects. Saying I don't think Obama deserved this award does not mean that I'm saying Obama is a horrible person.

[FBM]

Racist. That is SO fucking racist.

Really? I thought it was anti-racist.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Racist. That is SO fucking racist.

Really? I thought it was anti-racist.

He has a point there FBM. Obama's colour shouldn't matter one jot. It is remarkable that the USA elected a black president but it is irrelevant to Obama's eligibility for the Nobel that he is black.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it racist - merely off-topic in this instance.

I will also defend Andrew on the need for evidence. The prize has been awarded and Andrew has questioned what Obama has done to deserve it - a fair point IMO. It is incumbent on those that support this award (the Nobel committee included) to justify it.

I think that Obama is a remarkable human being to have achieved what he has but I am personally unconvinced of his worthiness for this award. His efforts on the world stage are yet to show the kind of fruit that would warrant it IMO. I hope that he goes on to show that he was worthy.

[FBM]

The Nobel Committee makes no secret of the fact that accomplishments aren't the only criterion for being awarded the Peace Prize. Again, Aung San Suu Kyi hasn't accomplished squat and still sits in house arrest doing nothing more than existing as a symbol. It's the PEACE Prize and the criteria are different from those for Physics, Literature, Economics, etc, which DO depend solely on accomplishments. The difference in criteria should not be overlooked.

How can race not play an important role in overcoming racism? In a country nearly torn apart by a Civil War in which slavery was a major issue, his ascendency to the highest office is incredibly symbolic of the global need to end both racism and slavery, both of which are still problems in many countries. A white guy like Clinton can preach about the evils of racism all day and even though he's President, it elicits pretty much a ho-hum response. Obama probably talks less about racism because he doesn't have to. His race itself is the message and the hope.

It isn't racist to acknowledge the role that race plays in racism, nor the role that it will play in the end of racism.

The other things that I mentioned haven't been addressed, I notice. It seems that this one issue was cherry-picked from among several. I'm sorry, but the knee-jerk response to any mention of race is often to shout "That's racist!" without examining the initial statement itself. It has such an emotional appeal that it's often sufficient to shout down, drown out the original message. It's simply name-calling and is a logical fallacy.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The Nobel Committee makes no secret of the fact that accomplishments aren't the only criterion for being awarded the Peace Prize. Again, Aung San Suu Kyi hasn't accomplished squat and still sits in house arrest doing nothing more than existing as a symbol.

How can race not play an important role in overcoming racism? In a country nearly torn apart by a Civil War in which slavery was a major issue, his ascendency to the highest office is incredibly symbolic of the global need to end both racism and slavery, both of which are still problems in many countries. A white guy like Clinton can preach about the evils of racism all day and even though he's President, it elicits pretty much a ho-hum response. Obama probably talks less about racism because he doesn't have to. His race itself is the message and the hope.

It isn't racist to acknowledge the role that race plays in racism, nor the role that it will play in the end of racism.

The other things that I mentioned haven't been addressed, I notice. It seems that this one issue was cherry-picked from among several. I'm sorry, but the knee-jerk response to any mention of race is often to shout "That's racist!" without examining the initial statement itself. It has such an emotional appeal that it's often sufficient to shout down, drown out the original message. It's simply name-calling and is a logical fallacy.

I didn't call racist. I simply said that I didn't think that his race should have any import in deciding whether he received the award (the point in question here.) All that you say about the racial symbolism of his taking the highest office in the US is true but it is not justification for a Nobel peace prize. It is a smokescreen - a logical fallacy itself.

I don't agree that you were being racist to bring it up - not at all - but I think you were straying off-topic in citing it as a justification for the NP.

[FBM]

I didn't call racist.

Right. That was directed at andrew. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I simply said that I didn't think that his race should have any import in deciding whether he received the award (the point in question here.) All that you say about the racial symbolism of his taking the highest office in the US is true but it is not justification for a Nobel peace prize.

I acknowledge that it's not the reason given by the Nobel Committee and that my statement was both rhetorical and hyperbolic. I was just trying to make a point. Now if only I could remember what it was.

It is a smokescreen - a logical fallacy itself.

A smokescreen to hide what?

I don't agree that you were being racist to bring it up - not at all - but I think you were straying off-topic in citing it as a justification for the NP.

You're probably right about that. I'll STFU about it now.

[charlou]

I think if there's an opposing viewpoint and you're* the one who wants evidence, it's up to you to look. If not it shows you're inclined to dismiss something due to your own bias.

Again, you have a very low opinion of me apparently.

Not at all ... for a start I don't even really know you yet. What I've seen of you outside 'serious' discussion, I like. So far it seems our political opinions differ but I don't hold that against you, and I assume that is mutual ... ? I misunderstood the situation here initially because of your post that I quoted, but I accept it was my misunderstanding.

As I said, the 'you' in the above is a general 'you', ie anyone, and the view is my view about it, generally. If you (Andrew) already do this, obviously I'd agree with what you're doing.

[Drewish]

The Nobel Committee makes no secret of the fact that accomplishments aren't the only criterion for being awarded the Peace Prize. Again, Aung San Suu Kyi hasn't accomplished squat and still sits in house arrest doing nothing more than existing as a symbol. It's the PEACE Prize and the criteria are different from those for Physics, Literature, Economics, etc, which DO depend solely on accomplishments. The difference in criteria should not be overlooked.

How can race not play an important role in overcoming racism? In a country nearly torn apart by a Civil War in which slavery was a major issue, his ascendency to the highest office is incredibly symbolic of the global need to end both racism and slavery, both of which are still problems in many countries. A white guy like Clinton can preach about the evils of racism all day and even though he's President, it elicits pretty much a ho-hum response. Obama probably talks less about racism because he doesn't have to. His race itself is the message and the hope.

It isn't racist to acknowledge the role that race plays in racism, nor the role that it will play in the end of racism.

The other things that I mentioned haven't been addressed, I notice. It seems that this one issue was cherry-picked from among several. I'm sorry, but the knee-jerk response to any mention of race is often to shout "That's racist!" without examining the initial statement itself. It has such an emotional appeal that it's often sufficient to shout down, drown out the original message. It's simply name-calling and is a logical fallacy.

I completely disagree, for 3 reasons:

1) Race shouldn't matter one way or the other. To say that ones race enables one to receive such an award is racial bias. If you disagree, then I'm sorry that you're unaware of your own prejudice. I am always astounded when I meet whites who (I don't know if you are white) feel that some racial group or another should be given some kind of special privilege based on a notion of "original sin/" To hear that kind of sentiment from an atheist is truly mind boggling.

2) If the American people no longer care about race enough for it to matter in national elections, than that is their victory and achievement, not Ovama's.

3) This may be something that isn't apparent to people outside of the states, but the cultural logos in the United States has actually become more tense regarding race as of late. Racism has effectively been changed from meaning, "Favoring one race over another or belittling people of a certain racial ancestry," to, "Something whites do to non-whites." Basically, in left leaning areas, moderates were being impressed with the idea that if you didn't vote Obama, you were a racist, but nobody said anything when exit polls showed that over 97% of blacks voted for Obama. Racism in this country is by no means over, it has simply been rebranded as "Racial Pride." It's sad really, all forms of racism are simply underground here, but it's okay only to talk about one kind of racism.