 |
|
|
|
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
how did he become such a mean spirited hate filled man? did an half black / hispanic democrat who was a gay liberal member of FETA kill both his parents not with a gun like its done in the south but by accidentally crashing his French Peugot into his parents Ford on the Sabbath while they were driving to church? |
that's funny!
|
|
 Oct-14-2009 01:50 
|
|
|
|
|
The17sss
C.R.E.A.M.
Registered: May 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
What? How are the Olympics even close to relevant to this conversation? Because people look at the United States differently as a political actor doesn't mean that the Olympic committee is going to award a poor bid. I don't know why conservatives are so hell-bent to make everything about Obama. It's some strange personality cult I simply don't understand. |
I don't see how it's not relevant. If your claim is that Obama's place as U.S. president has changed the way the world looks at the U.S., and he flew to Copenhagen with Michelle and Oprah to make a push for it, one would surmise that he would have had more pull and it would be a reflection of the foreign policy success you say he's had.
But uh... how is this NOT about Obama? We're on a subject that is exactly about him; I'm not blaming him for the price of eggs in China. But you do make a good point about the cult of personality... because that is exactly what Obama represents; soaring, rosey sounding rhetoric based on very little achievement with a band of followers in lock-step with whatever he says.
| quote: | | It took me a while to come around to understanding the logic behind the award. Now I do. You evidently don't, and that's ok. I'm not sure what you're looking for in achievement, but it would be interesting to see you throw out some benchmarks. I think a reconfiguration of global politics and the re-emergence of American soft power as a legitimate source of leverage is a pretty significant achievement in its own right. |
No no... I read your post and I fully grasp the logic behind the award in theory and where you're coming from. But it is illogical to give it out based on intentions; I don't know how you can defend otherwise... nothing he has done has lead to any tangible peace agreement. And, the award finalists were locked in after he had been in office FOR 12 DAYS. Therefore, you must conclude that it is about his lefty belief system that the lefty Nobel committee stands for and certainly not anything he had achieved.
Usually, awards are given out when something has been achieved, no? If this is how the Nobel committee wants to do it, then they should be honest about it. Why don't we just wax poetic about military plans still on the shelf rather than accomplished victories, and pre-season football rankins rather than crowned national champions?
Edit: do you really want me to dig up the scores of documented corruption, theft, and unethical things that have happened internally with UN officials and agencies in recent times? Not sure if I have the energy for that.
|
|
|
Oct-14-2009 01:52
|
|
|
|
|
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I don't see how it's not relevant. If your claim is that Obama's place as U.S. president has changed the way the world looks at the U.S., and he flew to Copenhagen with Michelle and Oprah to make a push for it, one would surmise that he would have had more pull and it would be a reflection of the foreign policy success you say he's had.
But uh... how is this NOT about Obama? We're on a subject that is exactly about him; I'm not blaming him for the price of eggs in China. But you do make a good point about the cult of personality... because that is exactly what Obama represents; soaring, rosey sounding rhetoric based on very little achievement with a band of followers in lock-step with whatever he says. |
I really don't understand how trying to promote Chicago's Olympic bid has anything to do with foreign policy.
| quote: | | No no... I read your post and I fully grasp the logic behind the award in theory and where you're coming from. But it is illogical to give it out based on intentions; |
Re-read the Levy piece - I don't think it was given on the basis of intentions at all. There has been real change, and while it may not be based on empirical data, it is a pretty hard charge to refute. You can't claim that the world doesn't look at the United States differently, and that the leverage the US can exert hasn't increased. I know you have two tried and true anecdotes of leaders doing their own thing despite US requests, but even in Iran and North Korea there's some shift. Take recent Iranian concessions on enriched uranium, for instance. Or North Korea's willingness to discuss the recent hostage release. Neither of those events happened in a vacuum, but the re-positioning of American soft power is the key ingredient to having made both possible.
I know you're a fan of big stick diplomacy; but what Obama has done is to have supplemented that stick with imbuing the United States with the legitimacy of once again acting on behalf of morality and justice. And that's pretty tangible, in my opinion.
| quote: | | And, the award finalists were locked in after he had been in office FOR 12 DAYS. Therefore, you must conclude that it is about his lefty belief system that the lefty Nobel committee stands for and certainly not anything he had achieved. |
Er, not sure about the conclusion. Yes, the nomination was certainly premature. But are we to believe that the committee also made the decision in February? Because that simply isn't the case.
| quote: | Those candidates are then reviewed by the Nobel Institute's director, research director and a team of advisers, usually university professors. Those advisers draw up reports on each candidate, a process that takes a few months, and present those reports to the committee.
And then the committee "embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates." They sometimes request more information, especially when, like Obama, candidates are involved in current affairs. The committee usually makes its decision by mid-September, but has been known to take until the final meeting in early October.
The decisions are almost always unanimous. But when committee members can't get a consensus, they use a simple majority vote to determine the winner.
So while Obama was indeed nominated less than two weeks after becoming President, the decision was made several months later. We won't know who nominated him, however, unless that person (or people -- thousands of nominators have been known to gather behind one candidate) comes forward. The committee keeps details of nominations secret for 50 years. |
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...l-laureates.php
| quote: | | Usually, awards are given out when something has been achieved, no? |
Like? I would put forth the argument (again) that Obama has achieved a great deal in re-ordering global politics and America's relative standing in world affairs.
| quote: | | Edit: do you really want me to dig up the scores of documented corruption, theft, and unethical things that have happened internally with UN officials and agencies in recent times? Not sure if I have the energy for that. |
Go for it, and I'll compile a list of the ways in which they've fostered technological innovation, improved standard of living, furthered the cause of social justice, and saved lives. While you're at it, exclude anything from the Secretariat and General Assembly and we'll compare lists. That gives you roughly 40 other agencies and institutions that get 90% of UN funding, so I'm sure you'll have plenty of examples.
Also, I'll try not to laugh when you get to Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
___________________
|
|
Oct-14-2009 02:07 
|
|
|
|
|
The17sss
C.R.E.A.M.
Registered: May 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I really don't understand how trying to promote Chicago's Olympic bid has anything to do with foreign policy. |
Are you serious?
| quote: | Re-read the Levy piece - I don't think it was given on the basis of intentions at all. There has been real change, and while it may not be based on empirical data, it is a pretty hard charge to refute. You can't claim that the world doesn't look at the United States differently, and that the leverage the US can exert hasn't increased. I know you have two tried and true anecdotes of leaders doing their own thing despite US requests, but even in Iran and North Korea there's some shift. Take recent Iranian concessions on enriched uranium, for instance. Or North Korea's willingness to discuss the recent hostage release. Neither of those events happened in a vacuum, but the re-positioning of American soft power is the key ingredient to having made both possible.
I know you're a fan of big stick diplomacy; but what Obama has done is to have supplemented that stick with imbuing the United States with the legitimacy of once again acting on behalf of morality and justice. And that's pretty tangible, in my opinion. |
As Hitchens said in that video clip, it's the Nobel's first "virtual award"... based on affect, not effect. So while the perception may be that there has been real change, I fail to see any hard evidence to support it, especially in terms of deserving a Nobel Peace award. What Iranian concessions are you referring to by the way? As I said, just a couple weeks ago they were found to have secret uranium enrichment facilities and today, were found sneaking weapons/ammo to Hamas via a German ship... they are moving full steam ahead as always, with their plans. The N. Koreans hooked up Bill Clinton which was cool... but we can't say they wouldn't have done it if Clinton went over there while Bush was president. They'd probably be more likely to do that because it would have upstaged Bush even more.
I'm not a hard line "big stick" only guy- I'm all for diplomacy and negotiations if they work, and with conditions of couse. I still think it's too early to tell if supplementing the stick completely with precondition-less diplomacy is/will work. History tells us it does not. But we'll see. So far, there have been no real results worth mentioning IMO.
| quote: | | Er, not sure about the conclusion. Yes, the nomination was certainly premature. But are we to believe that the committee also made the decision in February? Because that simply isn't the case. |
???
| quote: | | Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1, only 12 days after Obama took office. |
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ...rize/index.html
| quote: | | Like? I would put forth the argument (again) that Obama has achieved a great deal in re-ordering global politics and America's relative standing in world affairs. |
Come on man... EVERYONE was surprised, including the Democrats, that he got the award because he has not achieved anything. For a day, the entire blogosphere was united. What you are talking about, in terms of achievement, are actually aspirations, intentions, and things in the abstract. It's easy to say he has re-ordered global politics and improved our standing in the world, but where are the results to back this up outside of words, hope, and philosophical discussions?
| quote: | Go for it, and I'll compile a list of the ways in which they've fostered technological innovation, improved standard of living, furthered the cause of social justice, and saved lives. While you're at it, exclude anything from the Secretariat and General Assembly and we'll compare lists. That gives you roughly 40 other agencies and institutions that get 90% of UN funding, so I'm sure you'll have plenty of examples.
Also, I'll try not to laugh when you get to Wolfowitz at the World Bank. |
Give me some time on this one... I may have to just PM you or start its own thread 
|
|
|
Oct-14-2009 02:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I'm not a hard line "big stick" only guy- I'm all for diplomacy and negotiations if they work, and with conditions of couse. I still think it's too early to tell if supplementing the stick completely with precondition-less diplomacy is/will work. History tells us it does not. But we'll see. So far, there have been no real results worth mentioning IMO. |
I think we're viewing events through drastically different lenses (unsurprisingly), but I don't see Obama's diplomatic efforts as being devoid of conditions at all. But you can't deny that dialogue is a more effective agent of change than sanctions.
I'm not disputing the nomination date (or that it was a bit premature as nominations go). I was merely supplying the information that the Nobel committee collects information on all nominees through October, when the final decision is voted upon. So while Obama was nominated after 12 days in office, there were roughly 9 months of his Presidency used in making a decision.
| quote: | | Come on man... EVERYONE was surprised, including the Democrats, that he got the award because he has not achieved anything. For a day, the entire blogosphere was united. What you are talking about, in terms of achievement, are actually aspirations, intentions, and things in the abstract. It's easy to say he has re-ordered global politics and improved our standing in the world, but where are the results to back this up outside of words, hope, and philosophical discussions? |
There may not be many, but we do have different benchmarks here. Shirin Ebadi won a Nobel for blazing a trail for women in Iran. Note that very few people are making the argument that Obama is winning it for blazing a trail for minorities, though one could certainly be made for his transformation of race relations in (some segments of) this country.
That said, I'll agree to disagree on this one.
| quote: | | Give me some time on this one... I may have to just PM you or start its own thread |
Hehe, the UN is flawed, yes. But I will defend its existence to my death by virtue of the contributions of the UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEP, and (recently, at least) World Bank alone. 
___________________
|
|
|
Oct-14-2009 02:41
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:12.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
man I need to make this my new sig. 
