President Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize

[Happy Face 29]

Capitalism will fail in our lifetimes.

 

It already has once. As Bush said "'I've Abandoned Free Market Principles to Save the Free Market"

[Happy Face 29]

I'll get back to you on some of the other points later as i'm off out but i will respond to your final point now as i think that gets to the heart of the point i'm trying to make.

 

I believe that Obama is fundamentally a good man and in doing his job he will balance 3 things, his personal beliefs, the needs of his party and the complex financial, procedural and ethical minefield that is the US political process. All of his actions need to be judged in light of these things, which provide the realistic counter-points to the people who expect too much from him.

 

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter).

 

It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it.

[Park Life 71]

Capitalism will fail in our lifetimes.

 

It already has once. As Bush said "'I've Abandoned Free Market Principles to Save the Free Market"

 

Forgot about that little gem. Of course America and most of Europe are anything other than free markets.

[Park Life 71]

I'll get back to you on some of the other points later as i'm off out but i will respond to your final point now as i think that gets to the heart of the point i'm trying to make.

 

I believe that Obama is fundamentally a good man and in doing his job he will balance 3 things, his personal beliefs, the needs of his party and the complex financial, procedural and ethical minefield that is the US political process. All of his actions need to be judged in light of these things, which provide the realistic counter-points to the people who expect too much from him.

 

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter).

 

It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it.

 

I think they turn into cunts once they get behind that big oak desk.

[The Fish 10857]

Is it not a case of great ideals and an earnest and honest desire to change things, but an innocence to the quick-sand that paralyses those who get to power?

[Park Life 71]

Is it not a case of great ideals and an earnest and honest desire to change things, but an innocence to the quick-sand that paralyses those who get to power?

 

There is that of course. And DC is notorious for its quick buck sand.

[Meenzer 15531]

Plus he's inherited a country that's fucked in a world that's fucked. On the plus side, so will Cameron.

[Happy Face 29]

Is it not a case of great ideals and an earnest and honest desire to change things, but an innocence to the quick-sand that paralyses those who get to power?

 

Rahm Emmanuel is his chief of staff. He's seen it all before with Clinton. If anyone knows the pitfalls in getting things done while in the White House it should be him.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Happy Face

[The Fish 10857]

Is it not a case of great ideals and an earnest and honest desire to change things, but an innocence to the quick-sand that paralyses those who get to power?

 

Rahm Emmanuel is his chief of staff. He's seen it all before with Clinton. If anyone knows the pitfalls in getting things done while in the White House it should be him.

Well sure, but just because you know the sea is infested with sharks, doesn't necessarily mean you have a big enough boat...

 

 

 

 

God that's shit... sorry

[snakehips 0]

Is it not a case of great ideals and an earnest and honest desire to change things, but an innocence to the quick-sand that paralyses those who get to power?

 

Rahm Emmanuel is his chief of staff. He's seen it all before with Clinton. If anyone knows the pitfalls in getting things done while in the White House it should be him.

Well sure, but just because you know the sea is infested with sharks, doesn't necessarily mean you have a big enough boat...

 

 

 

 

God that's shit... sorry

 

No need to apologise; we're quite used to it.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'll get back to you on some of the other points later as i'm off out but i will respond to your final point now as i think that gets to the heart of the point i'm trying to make.

 

I believe that Obama is fundamentally a good man and in doing his job he will balance 3 things, his personal beliefs, the needs of his party and the complex financial, procedural and ethical minefield that is the US political process. All of his actions need to be judged in light of these things, which provide the realistic counter-points to the people who expect too much from him.

 

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter).

 

It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it.

 

In American culture, governments dont change or do anything, a Republican is someone who believes that the only role of government is defense. They have no role in healthcare ffs, widely recognised by the rest of the planet as a core function of government.

 

The healthcare bill (the single biggest issue facing the US) is moving forward. Thats change.

 

'Sitting mutely' is just an absurd way to characterise Obama's first 10 months.

[Park Life 71]

I'll get back to you on some of the other points later as i'm off out but i will respond to your final point now as i think that gets to the heart of the point i'm trying to make.

 

I believe that Obama is fundamentally a good man and in doing his job he will balance 3 things, his personal beliefs, the needs of his party and the complex financial, procedural and ethical minefield that is the US political process. All of his actions need to be judged in light of these things, which provide the realistic counter-points to the people who expect too much from him.

 

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter).

 

It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it.

 

In American culture, governments dont change or do anything, a Republican is someone who believes that the only role of government is defense. They have no role in healthcare ffs, widely recognised by the rest of the planet as a core function of government.

 

The healthcare bill (the single biggest issue facing the US) is moving forward. Thats change.

 

'Sitting mutely' is just an absurd way to characterise Obama's first 10 months.

 

Isn't it heavily watered down? Not sure haven't read up on it lately.

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course it is, people dont understand that their healthcare problems are due to market failure and that the only alternative to free market allocation is some form of government intervention. Its not a simple insight, so many Americans (including democratic politicians) dont get it.

 

These people, amongst others, are the ones who will design the bill and then send it to the White House. Contrast this to the UK, where a single bill would be sent by the government (the White House) to Parliament (Congress) for approval. The US process means that every view, no matter how stupid, is accounted for in the Bill drafting process.

[Happy Face 29]

I'll get back to you on some of the other points later as i'm off out but i will respond to your final point now as i think that gets to the heart of the point i'm trying to make.

 

I believe that Obama is fundamentally a good man and in doing his job he will balance 3 things, his personal beliefs, the needs of his party and the complex financial, procedural and ethical minefield that is the US political process. All of his actions need to be judged in light of these things, which provide the realistic counter-points to the people who expect too much from him.

 

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter).

 

It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it.

 

In American culture, governments dont change or do anything, a Republican is someone who believes that the only role of government is defense. They have no role in healthcare ffs, widely recognised by the rest of the planet as a core function of government.

 

The healthcare bill (the single biggest issue facing the US) is moving forward. Thats change.

 

'Sitting mutely' is just an absurd way to characterise Obama's first 10 months.

 

I think you mis-read my post. He can't expect journalists with an once of integrity to sit mutely while his efforts bring no discernable change.

[ChezGiven 0]

I expect those journalists to bring clarity to the issues involved and not blithely dismiss lack of results as a lack of conviction.

[Happy Face 29]

I expect those journalists to bring clarity to the issues involved and not blithely dismiss lack of results as a lack of conviction.

 

I thought the article lucidly outlined the outcome of Obama administration policies. I don't see where (or why) good intentions comes into it whether or not he has them.

 

Here's another good article, this time it's coming from the climate angle rather than the war....

 

Of all the explanations for Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, the one that rang truest came from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "It sets the seal on America's return to the heart of all the world's peoples." In other words, this was Europe's way of saying to America, "We love you again"--sort of like those weird "renewal of vows" ceremonies that couples have after surviving a rough patch.

 

Now that Europe and the United States are officially reunited, it seems worth asking: is this necessarily a good thing? The Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize specifically for Obama's embrace of "multilateral diplomacy," is evidently convinced that US engagement on the world stage is a triumph for peace and justice. I'm not so sure. After nine months in office, Obama has a clear track record as a global player. Again and again, US negotiators have chosen not to strengthen international laws and protocols but rather to weaken them, often leading other rich countries in a race to the bottom.

 

Let's start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the United States by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. So while the United States increased its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, the European Union countries reduced theirs by 2 percent. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU's breakup with the United States carried tangible benefits for the planet.

 

Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the United States, the EU and the rest of the developed countries formed a unified bloc calling for Kyoto to be scrapped and replaced. Where Kyoto set clear and binding targets for emission reductions, the US plan would have each country decide how much to cut, then submit its plans to international monitoring (with nothing but wishful thinking to ensure that this all keeps the planet's temperature below catastrophic levels). And where Kyoto put the burden of responsibility squarely on the rich countries that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same.

 

These kinds of weak proposals were not altogether surprising coming from the United States. What was shocking was the sudden unity of the rich world around this plan--including many countries that had previously sung the praises of Kyoto. And there were more betrayals: the EU, which had indicated it would spend $19 billion to $35 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change, came to Bangkok with a much lower offer, one more in line with the US pledge of... nothing. Oxfam's Antonio Hill summed up the negotiations like this: "When the starting gun fired, it became a race to the bottom, with rich countries weakening existing commitments under the international framework."

 

This isn't the first time a much-celebrated return to the negotiating table has resulted in overturned tables, with hard-won international laws and conventions scattered on the floor. The United States played a similar role at the UN conference on racism in Geneva in April. After extracting all sorts of deletions from the negotiating text--no references to Israel or the Palestinians, nothing on slavery reparations, etc.--the Obama administration decided to boycott anyway, pointing to the fact that the new text "re- affirms" the document adopted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa.

 

It was a flimsy excuse, but there was some kind of logic to it, since the United States had never signed the original 2001 document. What made no sense was the wave of copycat withdrawals from around the rich world. Within forty-eight hours of the US announcement Italy, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland had pulled out. Unlike the United States, these governments had all signed the 2001 declaration, so they had no reason to object to a document that reaffirmed it. It didn't matter. As with the climate change negotiations, lining up behind Obama, with his impeccable reputation, was an easy way to avoid burdensome international obligations and look progressive at the same time--a service the United States was never able to provide during the Bush years.

 

The United States has had a similarly corrupting influence as a new member of the UN Human Rights Council. Its first big test was Judge Richard Goldstone's courageous report on Israel's Gaza onslaught, which found that war crimes had been committed by both the Israeli army and Hamas. Rather than prove its commitment to international law, the United States used its clout to smear the report as "deeply flawed" and to strong-arm the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing a supportive resolution. (The PA, which faced a furious backlash at home for caving in to US pressure, may introduce a new version.)

 

And then there are the G-20 summits, Obama's highest-profile multilateral engagements. When one was held in London in April, it seemed for a moment that there might be some kind of coordinated attempt to rein in transnational financial speculators and tax dodgers. Sarkozy even pledged to walk out of the summit if it failed to produce serious regulatory commitments. But the Obama administration had no interest in genuine multilateralism, advocating instead for countries to come up with their own plans (or not) and hope for the best--much like its reckless climate-change plan. Sarkozy, needless to say, did not walk anywhere but to the photo session to have his picture taken with Obama.

 

Of course, Obama has made some good moves on the world stage--not siding with the coup government in Honduras, supporting a UN Women's Agency... But a clear pattern has emerged: in areas where other wealthy nations were teetering between principled action and negligence, US interventions have tilted them toward negligence. If this is the new era of multilateralism, it is no prize.

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/klein

[Park Life 71]

Ain't done bad for a black bloke tho eh?

[Happy Face 29]

Ain't done bad for a black bloke tho eh?

 

This is what affirmative action leads to

[ChezGiven 0]

Haven't Goldman Sachs identified 'climate change' as their next bubble?

 

Jimmy Carter agrees with me about the award too.

[ChezGiven 0]

I expect those journalists to bring clarity to the issues involved and not blithely dismiss lack of results as a lack of conviction.

 

I thought the article lucidly outlined the outcome of Obama administration policies. I don't see where (or why) good intentions comes into it whether or not he has them.

 

 

No, the Pilger article tried to claim that Obama had somehow reneged on his promises about Guantanamo but failed to detail the Senate voting against his wishes, or his comments decrying their decision. It also is a static analysis of his administration, rather than a comparative dynamic analysis of what came before and which direction he is moving the US in now.

 

You can poke holes in lots of US policies, always have been able to, their current economic position is under severe threat and they are trying to shore up their domestic economy. Same in the EU.

[Happy Face 29]

Haven't Goldman Sachs identified 'climate change' as their next bubble?

 

Yes, but that's not to say that Obama has any plans to curtail the money making schemes of the past for the sake of the environment. Destroying the environment while encoraging the public to invest heavily in saving it is a win win for industry.

 

Jimmy Carter agrees with me about the award too.

 

He's wrong too

[Happy Face 29]

I expect those journalists to bring clarity to the issues involved and not blithely dismiss lack of results as a lack of conviction.

 

I thought the article lucidly outlined the outcome of Obama administration policies. I don't see where (or why) good intentions comes into it whether or not he has them.

 

 

No, the Pilger article tried to claim that Obama had somehow reneged on his promises about Guantanamo but failed to detail the Senate voting against his wishes, or his comments decrying their decision. It also is a static analysis of his administration, rather than a comparative dynamic analysis of what came before and which direction he is moving the US in now.

 

You can poke holes in lots of US policies, always have been able to, their current economic position is under severe threat and they are trying to shore up their domestic economy. Same in the EU.

 

I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.

 

It's still open. America does torture.

 

Whether or not he's happy with that after almost a year in the job is irrelevant. I'm sure Graeme Souness wanted us to climb the league. He was still a cunt.

 

Obama's still allowing rendition too and has made no attempt to put a stop it, never mind meeting resistance.

[ChezGiven 0]

Ok, will Guantanamo still be open when Obama's presidency comes to an end? Do you believe it will still be open? Will that mean that the same torture policies inside the prision will be being followed as under Cheney/Bush?

 

Its significant that getting a vote on the Senate floor on this issue came with months of him being President.

[Happy Face 29]

Ok, will Guantanamo still be open when Obama's presidency comes to an end? Do you believe it will still be open? Will that mean that the same torture policies inside the prision will be being followed as under Cheney/Bush?

 

Its significant that getting a vote on the Senate floor on this issue came with months of him being President.

 

It might be. The prisoners could be moved elsewhere, and he'll have rectified that failure, but there'll still be torture and rendition to a host of other locations.

 

You seem to be diluting your point with each post though....

 

He deserves a nobel prize for what he's done, Pilgers article is plain wrong

 

He deserves it for what he's inspired, Pilgers article distorts the truth

 

Ignoring all the other stuff, he WANTS to close one torture facility, Pilgers article lacks clarity

 

I agree 100% that he's changed the face of American politics, but like that other loony lefty wooly liberal Noam Chomsky said in the article I posted here....

 

Bush and his cohorts addressed the world as "our lieutenants." Thus, in announcing the invasion of Iraq, they informed the United Nations that it could follow U.S. orders or be "irrelevant." Such brazen arrogance naturally aroused hostility.

 

Obama adopts a different course. He politely greets the leaders and people of the world as "partners," and only in private does he continue to treat them as "lieutenants."

 

Foreign leaders much prefer this stance, and

the public is also sometimes mesmerized by it. But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric and pleasant demeanor.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

No i'm not diluting my points, Pilger's article was full of shit, calling the nobel committee reverse racists, blithely mis-representing the facts on Guantanamo, blaming Obama for centuries of US involvement in Latin America and generally demonstrating zero understanding of the US political process.

 

Obama wants to build a consensus across parties on the main issues and to be inclusive in the deliberation process, this is a direct reaction and change to the previous regime. This does mean he will not unilaterally change US policy on key issues, so lots of the status quo will be retained.

 

As for that Chomsky quote, what the fuck would he know of how Obama treats other world leaders in private? I dont care if he's clever, thats just utter bollocks, no one in the right mind could think that mainstream political aides are briefing Chomsky on Obama's personal style behind closed doors. If these commentators dont want empty rhetoric, perhaps they should think about publishing less of it themselves.