Ig Nobels

[rich]

right before a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan?

we're still fighting two wars, killing civilians, selling arms to
pretty much anyone, letting the israelis continue to build
settlements, backing a weak Palestinian politician in Abbas, spending
more on our military than is defensible by any moral standard, etc etc
etc

maybe he will change things but potential is just that--he's gotta
claim his mandate. he seems a bit unsure at times beyond all the fancy
speeches

he should decline the award

On 10/9/09, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020349.php
>
> For all the recognition of George W. Bush's unpopularity, it's easy to
> overlook the ways in which the international community was truly
> mortified by the U.S. leadership during the Bush era. The
> irreplaceable leading nation could no longer be trusted to do the
> right thing -- on use of force, torture, rule of law, international
> cooperation, democratic norms, even climate change. We'd reached a
> point at which much of the world was poised to simply give up on
> America's role as a global leader.
>
> And, love him or hate him, President Obama changed this. I doubt
> anyone on the Nobel committee would admit it, but the Peace Prize is,
> to a certain extent, an implicit "thank you" to the United States for
> reclaiming its rightful place on the global stage.
>
> It's indicative of a degree of relief. Much of the world has wanted
> America to take the lead again, and they're rightly encouraged to see
> the U.S. president stepping up in the ways they hoped he would. It's
> hard to overstate the significance, for example, of seeing a U.S.
> president chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council and
> making strides a nuclear deal.
>
> This is not to say Obama was honored simply because he's not Bush. The
> president really has committed himself to promoting
> counter-proliferation, reversing policies on torture, embracing a new
> approach to international engagement, and recommitting the U.S. to the
> Middle East peace process. But charting a new course for American
> leadership, breaking with the recent past, no doubt played a role.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> obama getting the nobel is pretty stupid in my opinion
>