Fox News: How partisan can you be?

[riddler 0]

I would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.

Unless you are an avid reader of Fox News - every lead article subtly or not so subtly slamming the award. I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American when a Republican sits in office.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Gawain 0]

Dude...when the Nobel committee admits that they awarded the prize on no real practical merit, rather on "hope" and "maybe" and "almost", I don't care who "won" it, it diminishes the whole thing. Even President Obama was taken aback by it.

Sh*t...even the Dalai Lama is criticizing it dude...

Amidst all that, it looks to me that the President has accepted this award with grace and tact. That is a better indicator than media interpretation or my personal dislike for many of his policies.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]it would be considered a great day for the country

Um, it is a great day for the man. The country did not receive it.

In fact, I happens to believe that the award is not his to receive, thanks to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. I do not think that an Unconstitutional Act is something to be proud of - especially when all he has to do is ask and receive consent of Congress.

There were plenty of people who had legitimate reasons to criticize Kissinger's award of the same prize.

Had he received the Nobel Prize in Literature then the outcry would not be huge.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I would think that when the President of the US receives the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of whether you like him, or whether you think he deserves it, it would be considered a great day for the country, and it's citizens might feel proud.

His win made the award seem as cheap as a Grammy. (But at least those musicians sold a bunch of CDs)

It's not his fault the committee was retarded, but it's not something to celebrate either.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Um, it is a great day for the man. The country did not receive it.

Um, landing on the moon was a great day for Niel Armstrong, not the US? As a country, we contributed to Obama's success, like it or not, just like taxpayers paid for the moon landing, so we deserve to share in it's pride.

Quote

There were plenty of people who had legitimate reasons to criticize Kissinger's award of the same prize.

I happen to think Kissinger was a great man, and not because he personally signed my birth certificate, and certainly not including his connection to Watergate. Despite his flaws, I am proud that he won the prize, as well.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[shah269 0]

I can't help but wonder if this is a joke gone too far?
The reason I say is that last year there was some serious talk about placing Jesus H Bush's and Lap Dob Blairs name as possible candidates. But I'm guessing since they "liberated" a country and put us on a course of spending $1Billion a day as well as the shit that went down at GITMO Abugraib.....people weren't too excited and thus maybe some one stood up and placed then candidate Obamas name up for consideration.
Now comparing Jesus H Bush and his conversations wit his higher father, the liberation of Iraq, the abuses at Abugraib and the insanity that is GITMO.....I'm sorry but Carl Marx stood a better chance.
Now that being said, I watched the entire 30min speech and I have to admit it went rather well. He hit some key points, accepting that we are a nation at war but are committed to the preservation of basic human rights. Which is pretty much where most Americans are.
We know we are at war, most of us wished we weren't, and most of us will gladly stand up and defend those that can not defend themselves because it is the right thing to do.
Now if you ask me, and this is just me speaking, Mr. Obama accepted this award on OUR behalf. Push comes to shove, we the citizens and residents of the US are very good people. We take care of each other and know intrinsically what is right and what is wrong.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[riddler 0]

Quote

The reason I say is that last year there was some serious talk about placing Jesus H Bush's and Lap Dob Blairs name as possible candidates.

Understanding that the Peace Prize committee is not perfect is part of understanding their decision. They never gave the Peace Prize to Ghandi, who probably deserved it more than any other human being. Hitler was once nominated. It's not a perfect system - thus Obama gets the prize.

Quote

Mr. Obama accepted this award on OUR behalf

I agree - this is why I feel permitted to share in its pride.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

even the Dalai Lama is criticizing it dude...

Yeah, you know when Fox News starts quoting the Dali Lama, they are pulling out ALL the guns Next, I expect them to quote Donald Ross on the environment.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There were plenty of people who had legitimate reasons to criticize Kissinger's award of the same prize.

I happen to think Kissinger was a great man, and not because he personally signed my birth certificate, and certainly not including his connection to Watergate. Despite his flaws, I am proud that he won the prize, as well.

Vietnam and Cambodia don't share your enthusiasm. They'd rather see him tried for war crimes.

But as you note, even Hitler was nominated, and you support this bastard's win.

[ryoder 1,590]

I have nothing against Obama, but I can't comprehend why the prize was given to a guy who has been in office less than a year, and who inherited two wars, both of which continue to drag on.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[shah269 0]

Quote

I have nothing against Obama, but I can't comprehend why the prize was given to a guy who has been in office less than a year, and who inherited two wars, both of which continue to drag on.

That's why I think it's a joke gone too far.
Compared to the previous guys...he's a freaking saint!

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Fox News

I try not to care. They're not news; they're entertainment barely better disguised as news than, say, The Onion. If they can qualify for White House press credentials, so should The Onion.

[shah269 0]

Yeah but the girls who work there are HOT!

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Yeah but the girls who work there are HOT!

Mmm... I never particularly went for Plastic Painted Blondes. They look (and act) like talking heads on the 700 Club. Pass.

[billvon 3,120]

>I guess the right-wingers there are only proud to be an American
>when a Republican sits in office.

Until then - when America loses, they win.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

As a country, we contributed to Obama's success, like it or not, just like taxpayers paid for the moon landing, so we deserve to share in it's pride.

What success are you speaking of?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Fox News

I try not to care. They're not news; they're entertainment barely better disguised as news than, say, The Onion. If they can qualify for White House press credentials, so should The Onion.

As opposed to networks that, oh, call West Point cadets and 'enemy camp", or says things like "Why would you ride the ref when he‘s calling all the plays for you? What‘s he out there bashing the media for?" (Hardball, 4 Dec 09) in response to Obama talking about media coverage.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

As a country, we contributed to Obama's success, like it or not, just like taxpayers paid for the moon landing, so we deserve to share in it's pride.

What success are you speaking of?

"I won"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

[W]hen the Nobel committee admits that they awarded the prize on no real practical merit, rather on "hope" and "maybe" and "almost", I don't care who "won" it, it diminishes the whole thing.

When did they admit such a thing?

The only comment I read from committee members regarding the fairly secretive selection process was that, in the past 12 months (not sure if it is 12 months previous to nomination or announcement of winners), the only time period relevant for consideration of the award, it was their opinion that Obama contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year of all nominees.

I'd be interested to read comments from committee members stating otherwise. Please post a link.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The only comment I read from committee members regarding the fairly secretive selection process was that, in the past 12 months (not sure if it is 12 months previous to nomination or announcement of winners), the only time period relevant for consideration of the award, it was their opinion that Obama contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year of all nominees.

Pretty neat trick, when he'd only been in office 12 days when the ballot went in....guess the committee was blinded by the Hopenchange.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,589]

The Nobel prize committee doesn't make the nominations, I'm pretty sure. Which is how idiotic nominations like Adolf Hitler come about. There were 205 nominations this year (several thousand people are eligible to nominate). I'll bet there were some doozies in there.

And the selection is made based on what's going on at the time of the selection, not the nomination.

Does that mean that Obama is the best of all possible Nobel Peace Prize nominees or winners? Nope. But let's argue on the real merits, rather than picking straw men.

Probably not the best selection possible. Maybe this wasn't a strong year. But their rationale isn't the worst I ever heard, and their news release seemed to indicate they were standing behind their pick.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Probably not the best selection possible. Maybe this wasn't a strong year. But their rationale isn't the worst I ever heard, and their news release seemed to indicate they were standing behind their pick.

Well, you can hardly expect them to say something like:

"Yeah, we were too tired to come up with a quality pick this year." To admit anything of the sort would do even more damage to the reputation than was already done.

[downwardspiral 0]

Less than a week after Obama was awarded the peace prize he refused to meet with the Dalai Lama in order to gain favor with China. Ironically the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 in recognition of his nonviolent campaign over nearly 40 years to end China's domination of his homeland which continues to this very day. Also note in the first link that in April of 2008 Obama and Hillary called for Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies due to China's treament of Tibet.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The only comment I read from committee members regarding the fairly secretive selection process was that, in the past 12 months (not sure if it is 12 months previous to nomination or announcement of winners), the only time period relevant for consideration of the award, it was their opinion that Obama contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year of all nominees.

so what actions do you think he took during his election campaign that contributed most to the development of peace? Aside from preventing McCain for giving us 100 years in Iraq, and an idle pledge to make a non nuclear world, nothing happened.

[434 2]

Congratulation, your president is a great leader who will make good allies with Europe. He will be the leader who will repair old bounds, and make new friends.!

Presentation Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee

Your Majesties, Mr. President and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Your Royal Highnesses, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

On the 9th of October this year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 was to be awarded to President Barack H. Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world free from nuclear weapons".

Commenting on the award, President Obama said he did not feel that he deserved to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honoured by this prize, and whose courageous pursuit of peace has inspired the world. But he added that he also knew that the Nobel Prize had not just been used to honor specific achievements, but also to give momentum to a set of causes. The Prize could thus represent "a call to action".

President Obama has understood the Norwegian Nobel Committee perfectly. We congratulate him on this year's Nobel Peace Prize!

This year's award must be viewed in the light of the prevailing situation in the world, with great tension, numerous wars, unresolved conflicts and confrontation on many fronts around the world. And, not least, there is the imminent danger of the spread of nuclear weapons, degradation of the environment and global warming. In fact, Time Magazine recently described the decade that is coming to an end as the worst since the end of World War II.

From the very first moment of his presidency, President Obama has been trying to create a more cooperative climate which can help reverse the present trend. He has already "lowered the temperature in the world", in the words of former Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu.

The Committee always takes Alfred Nobel's will as its frame of reference. We are to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the person who, during the "preceding year", meaning in this case since the previous award in December 2008, shall have done the most or the best work "for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" – to quote from the will.

The question was actually quite simple. Who has done most for peace in the past year? If the question is put in Nobel's terms, the answer is relatively easy to find: it had to be U.S. President Barack Obama. Only rarely does one person dominate international politics to the same extent as Obama, or in such a short space of time initiate so many and such major changes as Obama has done. The question for the Committee was rather whether it would be bold enough to single out the most powerful man in the world, with the responsibility and the obligations that come with the office of the President of the United States.

The Committee came to the conclusion that it must still be possible to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a political leader. We cannot get the world on a safer track without political leadership. And time is short. Many have argued that the prize comes too early. But history can tell us a great deal about lost opportunities.

It is now, today, that we have the opportunity to support President Obama's ideas. This year's prize is indeed a call to action to all of us.

The Committee knows that many will weigh his ideals against what he really does, and that should be welcomed. But if the demand is either to fulfil your ideals to the letter, and at once, or to stop having ideals, we are left with a most damaging division between the limits of today's realities and the vision for tomorrow. Then politics becomes pure cynicism. Political leaders must be able to think beyond the often narrow confines of realpolitik. Only in this way can we move the world in the right direction.

Obama has achieved a great deal. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld said that "the U.N. was not created to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell". The U.S.A. is now paying its bills to the U.N. It is joining various committees, and acceding to important conventions. International standards are again respected. Torture is forbidden; the President is doing what he can to close Guantanamo. Human rights and international law are guiding principles. This is why this year's Laureate has earned the praise of the leaders of international institutions. New opportunities have been created.

Your Majesties, Mr. President, Your Royal Highnesses, ladies and gentlemen,

The vision of a world free from nuclear weapons has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Under Obama's leadership, the U.N. Security Council gave its unanimous support to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The new administration in Washington has reconsidered the deployment in Eastern Europe of the planned anti-missile defences and is instead looking at other multilateral options to secure the region. This has contributed to an improved atmosphere in the negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons between the U.S.A. and the Russian Federation. A new agreement between them will, we hope, soon be on the table.

We can see how the vision of a world without nuclear weapons is encouraging even the smaller nuclear powers to make cuts. And we can certainly not prevent the spread of nuclear arms to new countries unless the established nuclear powers meet their obligations. That was the clear premise underlying the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it still applies today. The important Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is being held next year. Either the nuclear powers will clearly signal their willingness to disarm, or the conference may prove a fiasco, with the danger of a new arms race. President Obama has sent his signal.

In today's Washington, dialogue and negotiations are the preferred instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The United States is no longer on the sidelines regarding the nuclear program in Iran. As the President put it in his inaugural address: "…we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist". There is no guarantee that negotiations always succeed, but in Obama’s opinion the U.S.A. is obliged to try. If the outstretched hand continues to meet a clenched fist, the global community will then stand more united in its further response.

Obama has insisted that the U.S.A. has to build coalitions and make friends rather than to create enemies. He is pursuing this strategy also in Afghanistan. The struggle against violent extremism in Afghanistan rests on broad international foundations and is supported actively by many governments around the world. In the long run, however, the problems in Afghanistan can be solved only by the Afghans themselves. This is also the basic logic behind the President's new strategy there.

Regarding the fight against climate change, we can see the same underlying idea: the U.S.A. cannot be indifferent to global challenges; while it cannot solve such challenges alone, they cannot be met without the U.S.A. Obama has presented concrete proposals for what the U.S.A. will do. This has improved chances of reaching an effective global agreement, if not this year then, we hope, at least next year.

China is steadily moving to the forefront of international politics and the global economy. There has been a sense in America that many of the greatest challenges can only be met in close cooperation with the People’s Republic of China. For instance, no country has polluted more than the U.S.A., and no country will pollute more than China in the future. The economies of the two countries are closely intertwined. The rise of new Great Powers often leads to war and conflict. There are those in America who fear that history may repeat itself in that respect. The Obama administration's cooperation with Beijing means that we have little reason to fear such a repetition.

Obama's diplomacy rests on the idea that whoever is to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population. That was how they put it, those earlier American presidents who, above all others, were seen as world leaders also outside the United States: Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. America's ideals were the world's ideals: they lived, in Reagan's words, "not only in the hearts and minds of our countrymen but in the hearts and minds of millions of the world's people in both free and oppressed societies who look to us for leadership".

Obama's ideals coincide to a large extent with the ideals that have underpinned the activities of the Norwegian Nobel Committee throughout our 108-year history: to strengthen international institutions as much as possible; to advance democracy and human rights; to reduce the importance of arms and preferably do away with nuclear arms altogether; to promote dialogue and negotiations; and, in the last few years, to adopt effective measures to meet the climate threat.

Looking at the history of the Nobel Prize, we can see several examples of awards to persons or institutions that have achieved fundamental agreements or other results which have stood the test of history. We will find at least as many awards that have gone to those who tried to bring about fundamental changes in international politics, but where the results were still unclear at the time when they received their awards. Woodrow Wilson's prize came when he was at his weakest both politically and personally, after suffering a stroke. He had created the League of Nations, but the United States would not join. Wilson was a hero to the world, but not in the U.S.A. The American Secretary of State Cordell Hull received the award after the establishment of the United Nations, but so early that no one could be sure how significant the U.N. would be.

Many have been awarded the Peace Prize for their courage, even when the results for a long time seemed modest: Carl von Ossietzky, Andrej Sakharov, Lech Walesa and the Dalai Lama, to name a few. When Albert Lutuli received his Peace Prize, the struggle against apartheid was in its infancy: there were few results to point to. When Martin Luther King, Jr., received his award, he had proclaimed his dream that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", but there was still a long way to go from dream to reality.

Mr. President, we are happy to see that through your presence here so much of Dr. King's dream has come true.

In the Middle East, there have been many wars, and many Peace Prizes have been awarded. Why does the Nobel Committee not wait until final peace agreements have been concluded? Nothing is final in history. It always moves on. Peace must be built again and again. The Norwegian Nobel Committee can not award a Peace Prize where nothing has been achieved. If the principles are important enough, however, and the struggle over them is vital to the future of the world, the Committee can not wait until we are certain that the principles have won on all fronts. That would make the Prize a rather belated stamp of approval and not an instrument for peace in the world.

Your Majesties, Mr. President, Your Royal Highnesses, ladies and gentlemen,

Mr. President, in both the First and the Second World War, your great country came to Europe’s rescue. We will never forget that. After the First World War, Woodrow Wilson sought to build a world founded on international cooperation and democracy. His success was limited. During and after the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman took initiatives to create the United Nations and other global institutions. Their creation still lives on today. The lesson was that the power of nation states could not be unlimited. States must commit themselves to international law and universal rights. The world moved away from unrestrained nation states and towards greater internationalism.

Today yet another American president is trying to renew internationalism. He reaffirms that the U.S.A. must lead together with others. Walls must be torn down. As he put it in his speech in Berlin in July 2008: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down".

This must surely be Nobel's "fraternity between nations".

Your Majesties, Mr. President, Your Royal Highnesses, ladies and gentlemen,

President Obama is a political leader who understands that even the mightiest are vulnerable when they stand alone. He is a man who believes in the strength of a community, be it the local community where he started his career many years ago or the global community which he leads today. Obama has the audacity to hope and the tenacity to make these hopes come true.

This is what makes him so important. By his own behaviour and leadership he is demanding that we all "take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges".

We congratulate this year's Laureate, President Barack H. Obama, on what he has already achieved, and wish him every possible success in his continuing efforts for a more peaceful world. May you receive the help you truly deserve!