I was more disturbed by the tv news style sensationalism of suggesting Neda for the Nobel Prize, but, no, the prize cannot be awarded posthumously. Also. How hard would it have been for Fred Hiatt to look this up?
Reader Interactions
118Comments
Comments are closed.
DBrown
That would require an IQ with a value about the numerical value that exists for a fall day.
Emma
What? You want them to face facts? Communist! .
You know, when I arrived in this country my first history teacher told me to read my hometown newspapers (2 in Chicago), the New York Times for the view of the opinion makers, and the Washington Post for politics. I think it would grieve him to see how the mighty have fallen.
Peter J
What did Neda do for peace? She got shot and died.
Would it be irresponsible not to speculate that that would be the thing that the morons at the WaPo (or VaPid) want to happen to Obama? Maybe that’s how he can earn his prize in their view?
Ash Can
Why would Fred Hiatt let facts stand in the way of an opportunity to take a swipe at Obama?
beltane
Facts? Please, a good neocon like Hiatt answers to a higher authority. His Truth need not have any relationship to reality.
Interesting that he wanted the award to be given to a dead symbol rather than any living leaders of the Iranian opposition. Dead people are so much easier to manipulate for one’s partisan purposes.
JHF
How hard would it be for people like Fred Hiatt to STOP TRYING TO RUN THE WHOLE GODDAMNED WORLD? The Nobel Committee had good reasons to do what it did, and the last time I looked, ol’ Fred wasn’t a member.
This isn’t even worth discussing.
cleek
good enough for Hiatt, good enough for Sully
calipygian
Or Sully and his elves?
The Grand Panjandrum
Andrew had the same ridiculous suggestion, but I think his idea of awarding it to Mousavi and Karroubi wasn’t bad. It really is just a game of mental masturbation at this point. The prize was awarded to Obama.
I’m sort of hoping they give it to Bill Clinton next year. Nothing like the screeching jackals of wingnuttia to cheer up my Sunday morning. Of course, the massive butthurt would probably knock the Earth out of its orbit, but hey, I’m willing to risk it.
Peter J
Fixed.
malraux
Not to sound all elitist or anything, but I thought it was common knowledge that Nobel prizes were never awarded posthumously. Or at least common knowledge among anyone college educated, because in your field of study there’s always a question of why one person in a team did not receive the prize when the rest of the team did.
beltane
@The Grand Panjandrum: How about jointly to Bill and Hillary Clinton? The wingnuts would be spinning around just like a dog with worms chasing its own butt.
linda
the host of the abc sunday morning program in promo-ing george steph’s show, asked him if he thought obama at any point considered rejecting the award. george s, said probably for about 10-15 seconds. that even that idea is not confined to the extreme unhinged, and is now a casual throw away line is a frightening display of how saturated the cables and networks are with rightwing propaganda.
Peter J
But maybe Fred Hiatt doesn’t share my view of Bush’s eight years as a lot of dark hours…
Koz
Gawd you people are retards sometimes. Like the exclusion (or not) of some other plausible candidate makes Obama’s selection any less laughworthy.
The Grand Panjandrum
@beltane: THAT is true evil genius my friend. Hoo boy … that collective butthurt would be heard ’round the world.
Cat Lady
OH NOES KOZ CALLED US RETARDS I HAZ A SAD!
Corner Stone
@beltane: I was thinking Chelsea Clinton.
Of course, during any usual day I’m thinking Chelsea Clinton at some point.
Sentient Puddle
Add to that the fact that she didn’t even enter the world spotlight until months after the nominations closed.
I think that one gets me a little more. These idiots are whining about how Obama got the prize for ten days of presidency, yet they still think Neda could’ve been eligible.
Ash
@Koz: When do we go “full retard” though? When we start using gawd in a serious manner?
Va Highlander
Neda? Why is this a serious suggestion at all?
I am so over this topic right now.
I am pleased and proud that Obama won the prize. He deserved it. We deserved it.
End of story.
AhabTRuler
@Sentient Puddle: At this point I think that the entire American population has internalized the lesson that it isn’t about facts, it’s about winning the day’s, or perhaps hour’s, argument.
Alex
I think giving the award to ACORN next year would induce
more paralytic strokes among wingnuts.
AhabTRuler
I would say that DNA was talking about Americans in this quote, but I realize that Britain has its fair share of ‘useless bits of skin ’round the genitals’, too.
Koz
“When do we go “full retard” though?”
Well, when somebody says “I am pleased and proud that Obama won the prize. He deserved it. We deserved it.” and apparently means it, we’re pretty close to the abyss.
Zach
The Iranian election was also several months after the nomination deadline; at least Sullivan acknowledges this issue. I suspect that the list of nominees did include an Iranian dissident or two, though… the committee probably could’ve gone that route if they’d wanted. Probably some expat though and not really all that germane to what’s going on now…
Q: Andrew Sullivan applauded the Axis of Evil speech in 2002 that started a chain of American action that led to the election of a conservative Iranian President in place of one of the reformist candidates (with reformist Khatami having served two terms), correct? Has he ever acknowledged that the revolution in Iran today, if successful, would get us back to where we were on Iran a decade ago before Bush messed everything up w/ AS’s support as well as the support of a ton of people supporting Mousavi today?
JasonF
Add to the fact that 1) they can’t be given posthomously, and the fact that 2) as Sentient Puddle points out in Comment 19, Neda was an anonymous Iranian with no special claim to having furthered world peace at the time nominations closed (the nominations closed in February and the Iranian election and her death came in June), there’s a third reason she can’t be nominated: Iran is still a religious dictorship, Khamenei and Ahmedinijad are still in charge, and nothing has changed — by the wingnut “What has Obama done for peace!?” standard, Neda is an abject failure unworthy of any prize.
By the way, as to point 2, I just love Sully’s “Oh, well. Maybe they missed the deadline for nominations” statement about Neda, Mousavi, and Karroubi. Gee, maybe they did. If only there were some way to figure out when was the deadline for nominations in relation to the Iranian elections.
Zach
Also, awarding Neda would hurt the revolution:
1. It would reinforce the regime’s claims of external meddling in Iran
2. Neda was shot by a militaman who’d retreated to a roof of a building that was being burnt down by protesters. This wasn’t a targeted killing or part of some orchestrated massacre. It was a tragedy that works a lot better as an abstract representation of what Iranian protesters are facing than a specific example of heroism.
calipygian
I am pleased and proud that Obama won the prize. He deserved it. We deserved it.
Ash
@Zach:
That would require him to half some self-awareness. 95% of the things he’s said in the past have been wrong, but he’s very careful about choosing which ones he apologizes for.
Brick Oven Bill
Islam is an example of Natural Law. The Alpha Muslim becomes the Ayatollah, and then surrounds himself with capable Clerics and the like. He then passes judgment on society, and holds things together. If someone gets out of line, he can label them an Infidel and whack ‘em.
This is a stable system of government, and allows for most people to live a more or less stable life.
Neda sought to overturn this stability, and impose Artificial Law on Iran. There are those who think this was a compassionate act, and that she should be rewarded for it. But in the final analysis Artificial = Unstable = Bad things happen to lots and lots of people. Despite her bravery and sacrifice, her cause was misguided.
People confuse striving for equality with striving for happiness. Our goal should be to strive for happiness.
Va Highlander
@Koz:
And that’s the best you can do?
How pathetic!
Zach
@Koz: More than anything, I think the Nobel committee recognizing that Americans decided to replace an administration that sent an ambassador to the UN whose lifelong dream was to dismantle the UN with one who elevated ambassador the UN to a cabinet-level position. The impact of that move alone on the immediate future of international diplomacy is huge. Also, Obama’s already engaged in personal diplomacy that’s borne more fruit than the entirety of Bush’s presidency.
Well, I guess Obama hasn’t gotten token support from Eastern European republics or tiny island nations in exchange for bribes to create the illusion of international support for his policies yet. Bush was totally a trailblazer on that one.
superluminar
@Ash
Sully doesn’t even have that.
calipygian
Don’t forget Poland!
Lola
@Koz:
Get over it. Obama did deserve it and was selected unanimously. Obama has been working on nuclear non-proliferation for years before he was president and has made great strides for the world.
People who follow the news closely get a skewed opinion. I told my friends who don’t watch or read the news or blogs and they thought it was really awesome. They saw it as what it was–a huge honor that is good for the USA.
James
Well, it’s clear that the Norwegian Nobel Committee doesn’t know how to give out its own awards. Next year, let’s hope they consult Fred Hiatt, Andrew Sullivan, and John Cole before they have the unmitigated gall to consider which person has “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” in the past year.
God knows the Nobel Committee doesn’t realize that it’s all about the USA!!! USA!!!! USA!!!! BOOO-YAHHHHH!!!!
Because, you know, Iran’s presidential election was held on 12 June 2009. But that’s actually irrelevant, see, because they SHOULD have been nominated by February 1.
James
NOTE: interesting that extra exclamation marks are stripped from one’s text when submitting a comment. Kind of takes the edge off the point. Each USA! had three extra exclamation marks, in my comment above.
Corner Stone
@Brick Oven Bill:
Not that I expect any sort of internal consistency from you BoB, but can I surmise from this comment that you are coming out of the closet once and for all and stating you are objectively pro-Islamic Theocracy?
SenyorDave
“Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts”. Yeah, I know they don’t actually say the line, but the scene when the Mexican bandit and his gang confront Fred Dobbs (Bogart) is still one of my favorite all-time movie scenes. And the movie is on TCM today at 1M EST.
JGabriel
Liz Cheney:
Hmm, I wonder how Liz would feel about Obama sending Cindy Sheehan in his stead?
It could be fun to watch wingnut heads explode when Obama said, “I was only following Liz Cheney’s advice.”
.
Jason Bylinowski
They wanna give the Nobel to Neda, why? My understanding was that she wasn’t even out there in public to protest so much as to be a gawker. And I’m not criticizing that, but please, don’t turn her into Paul Revere (in other words, another manufactured legend) just because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This discussion wouldn’t be taking place, if not for two things:
1. She died on camera
2. She was really cute
(By the way, I really admire Neda from what I’ve read about her: she seemed like a really sweet, modern person. People like her could be really great stewards for Iran and I hope to see it go to people like her in the future. It’s too bad her luck ran out so soon, but I’m not going to advocate giving an award to her for what she might have become.)
LD50
@Lola: Koz is still pissed because his “US CONSERVATIVES DON’T DISLIKE OBAMA PERSONALLY OBAMA DERANGEMENT IS LIKE TOTALLY MORE REASONABLE THAN BUSH DERANGEMENT” argument was shredded so bad yesterday he had to run away without responding. So now he’s back sliming around pretending he still has credibility. I have no idea who he thinks he’s making a good impression on.
Brick Oven Bill
I am not against it Corner Stone. But I would prefer a 1789-style Representative Republic instead. This is as those who are willing to give up liberty for self-esteem, are destined to lose both.
Awesom0
And the WashPost continues its slide into irrelevance. Pity too, I used to enjoy reading them, even if they pissed me off from time to time.
Jason Bylinowski
@JGabriel: WINNAR!
Corner Stone
I’m slowly but surely building a deck of cards with people on them who I refuse to listen to, and have only disdain, disgust, etc for.
Kind of like when Hillary Clinton laughed out loud that one time she was being interviewed and Fareed said, “John Bolton says..” and HRC busted out laughing like it was the most ridiculous thing in the world to even mention something that clownshoe said:
Laughing at Bolton
So far I have most of the Bush Administration, a few of the prominent neo-cons, and Sullivan.
Anytime someone mentions, “So and so said…” I just LOL and skip it.
JGabriel
linda:
To be fair, it’s not an uncommon reaction. Feynman wrote in one of his memoirs that he considered turning down the Nobel Prize for Physics for about an day, until he determined that turning it down would create even more publicity.
I think for some people who are sufficiently well-off and happy, the prize just brings a lot of attention they’d rather not deal with. Certainly in Obama’s case, the prize has engendered as much or more criticism than praise, and doesn’t particularly help him domestically.
So it wouldn’t be at all surprising if he briefly considered turning it down before deciding that would cause more problems than just graciously accepting it.
.
gypsy howell
In what alternate universe would it be appropriate for the US Military to be accepting the Nobel Peace Prize?
AhabTRuler
@gypsy howell: Wingnutistan. SATSQ.
rachel
@JGabriel: “Dear God, please make this happen. Amen” :D
@LD50:If I recall correctly, koz lost all credibility about two minutes after his first post at Balloon Juice.
Corner Stone
@Brick Oven Bill:
You do understand that it was Cheney and the Bush Admin who essentially implemented the 1% Doctrine, right? They played to the fear, and stole away liberties of US Citizens while promising it would make us “safer”. They are proud of that tradeoff, and trumpet it every time they attempt to justify their heinous acts against humanity.
They were the living definition of this admonition by Benji.
Corner Stone
@gypsy howell: Our military is a force for peace around the world.
AhabTRuler
No, BOB understands nothing. Another SATSQ.
JGabriel
Zach:
Shirin Ebadi. Winner, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize.
The NPP committee likes to use its influence to draw attention to diverse and varied causes. Given that they recognized an Iranian dissident just a few years ago, they probably want to address other issues before addressing that cause again.
.
Koz
“Koz is still pissed because his argument was shredded so bad yesterday…..”
You and I remember yesterday’s thread very differently. Of course we all have limited time to horse around on the interwebs and I think some of yesterday’s comments gotten
eaten by the Balloon-juice webserver. But, if there’s anything in particular you want me to respond to, just let me know.
Koz
“More than anything, I think the Nobel committee recognizing that Americans decided to replace an administration that sent an ambassador to the UN whose lifelong dream was to dismantle the UN with one who elevated ambassador the UN to a cabinet-level position. The impact of that move alone on the immediate future of international diplomacy is huge.”
Maybe so. Of course, given the UN’s record of accomplishment and the esteem that it’s held in America, I don’t think that helps much.
Martin
That you say that in a thread titled as such is pure gold.
LD50
@Koz: Check out the thread itself, dumbshit. Your responses are conspicuous by their absence.
Jason
I see a loophole. Dead people are really just formerly real people who are now imaginary. Does the oh-so-smug Nobel “FAQ” say anything about post-reality nominations, like for ponies or unicorns, or WMD? I think not! I am totes nominating God for the Nobel in some science or something. Would shut that stupid Pharyngula dude up if God won, because then God would get a million dollars for His work for the poor, like when He delivereth a series of earthquakes upon the destitute of Southeast Asia. Earthquakes cost money, people! So shutup stupid science blogger.
Also. The WaPo webpage now has an animated woman who comes out and screams at you for killing Neda by not reading the Washington Post. Can you not understand how to use the new Washington Post webpage? This woman will give you a free and mandatory primer on The Internet.
Jason
@Koz: I like the UN. We went there in sixth grade! They have those big doors, and Dag Hammorskjold, and headphones that translate English words into less-profitable languages. Don’t be hatin’!
Martin
What do you mean ‘maybe’? The members of the committee said almost exactly that. I don’t understand the ‘we don’t know what they might have been thinking’ attitude here when the members were interviewed right after the announcement and said what they were thinking. They acknowledged that it would be seen as premature and they gave their rationale in that context.
I’m always stunned at how hard people will work to be obtuse.
Koz
“Your responses are conspicuous by their absence.”
Well, yeah. I quit horsing around on the internet for a while and did other shit instead. You got anything in particular?
LD50
@Koz: Kind of, um, slow today, Koz?
C’mon, little wingnut, figure it out for yourself and impress us with your brains.
JGabriel
Koz:
This is a wonderful example, and distillation, of right wing echo chamber provincialism. Koz assumes that, because wingers don’t support the UN, Americans don’t. The truth, of course is just the opposite: 79% of Americans view strengthening the United Nations as a “very” or “somewhat” important foreign policy goal.
.
Peter J
Of course we all have limited time to horse around on the interwebs and I think some of yesterday’s comments gotten
eaten by the Balloon-juice webserver.
Shorter Koz:
Koz
“What do you mean ‘maybe’? The members of the committee said almost exactly that.”
Ok. I don’t think it helps.
JGabriel
Koz:
79% of Americans view strengthening the United Nations as a “very” or “somewhat” important foreign policy goal.
You were saying?
.
IndieTarheel
@Corner Stone:
Or, if it’s here, just add them to the group of pie lovers…
Koz
“This is a wonderful example, and distillation, of right wing echo chamber provincialism. Koz assumes that, because wingers don’t support the UN, Americans don’t. The truth, of course is just the opposite: 79% of Americans view strengthening the United Nations as a “very” or “somewhat” important foreign policy goal.”
It’s true that America in general has a higher opinion of the UN than the Right does. Of course that’s based on the idea that support for the nuts and bolts of international diplomacy is a good thing. To the extent that the UN is perceived as trying to control the US political process, it’s not very popular at all. And with more episodes that this Obama Nobel award, support will go down.
Surreal American
More of a segue than an OT:
Orly Taitz: Nobel Peace Prize Needs To Be Withdrawn Until Obama Is Proved To Be Legitimate President:
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/09/orly-taitz-nobel-peace-prize-needs-to-be-withdrawn-until-obama-is-proved-to-be-legitimate-president/
Honestly, it’s more sad than funny at this point with regards to Orly Taitz herself. Her enablers, however, are a different matter.
Shell
Somebody’s probably already mentioned it here, but didn’t Dag Hammarskjold receive the Peace Prize posthumously? (say that 3 times fast.)
And does anybody here understand what the hell BOB means with this ‘natural law’ he throws into every post?
wrb
@Corner Stone:
My Sullivan filter clicks shut at the “Hillary” and “DOMA”
With those topics eliminated, I find reading him worthwhile and enjoyable.
The criticism about the Neda post is a bit unfair because he’d previously written one of the better ones on why Obama deserved it. The Neda thing was just a hypothetical: “if not, then who…?”
Corner Stone
@IndieTarheel: Nah, I’m not down with the pie. I want to see all the things this dynamic and wonderful forum presents to its readers.
wrb
@Shell:
They changed the rules in ’74 to prohibit posthumous awards.
JGabriel
Koz:
To the extent that 79% of the country, that’s practically 4/5ths, wants to “strengthen” the UN, they pretty clearly don’t see UN influence on the American political process as a any kind of threat. Again, that’s only a concern of the right — the far right, given those numbers.
The Nobel prize committee is not, in fact, associated with the UN. Most Americans know and understand that. It’s pretty much only the far right and conspiracy theorists that clump all international agencies and committees into a single anti-American cabal.
.
LD50
@Koz: Koz, aren’t you going to try to defend this statement you made?
…or is this your admission that you can’t?
Koz
“To the extent that 79% of the country, that’s practically 4/5ths, wants to “strengthen” the UN, they pretty clearly don’t see UN influence on the American political process as a any kind of threat.”
That’s true. But accepting the prior hypothesis, that the Nobel Committee wanted to reward Obama for giving the UN a higher profile within the Administration, doesn’t change the overall ridiculousness of the award. Even if we believe the poll whole hog, there’s no way anybody can plausibly think that substantially promotes (or has promoted) the cause of peace on earth. Except the Nobel Committee, I guess.
Koz
“Koz, aren’t you going to try to defend this statement you made?”
It seems pretty clear to me. We don’t approve of the Obama Administration of course, but I don’t think we personally dislike him. He seems to me like a high school bullshit artist who tries to talk the teacher into giving him an “A” when he didn’t write the paper.
I can easily think of at least a dozen or so figures on the Left I like less than Obama. If voted in Demo primaries (and I obviously don’t) I would have voted for him last year.
LD50
@Koz:
According to Secret Service, death threats against Obama are up 400% from what they were under Bush. So tell us again how ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ was worse than what you and friends indulge in?
JGabriel
Koz:
Right. That’s a pretty personal metaphor for someone you don’t personally dislike. Or was the “high school bullshit artist” a personally revered figure where you come from?
.
Koz
“According to Secret Service, death threats against Obama are up 400% from what they were under Bush.”
First of all, that’s an assertion not a fact. More important, what’s that supposed to mean anyway. Clearly the number of people who make death threats against the President constitute a very small percentage of public opinion.
LD50
So you admit that the great majority of the American public doesn’t want the bullshit you’re selling. So why do you think you somehow speak for ‘Real Americans’? Why should anyone listen to you at all?
LD50
@Koz: Good lord, you are a weasel, Koz:
http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-tells/comment-page-1/
It means that you wingnuts are far more berzerk with rage and prone to violence than Democrats. But don’t worry, you guys still have the moral high ground.
JGabriel
Koz:
The NPP committee for award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for, among other things: promoting and engaging in multilateral, rather than unilateral, diplomatic efforts; advancing solutions and agreements to curb global warming, which many people consider a security issue due to the potential it has to reduce future conflicts over resources; and for his work, both as President and in the Senate, on nuclear disarmament issues.
Whether or not you agree on the likely success of those efforts, clearly all of them are intended to foster cooperation between nations, alleviate pain and suffering, ameliorate the causes for war, and promote peace. One might think that Obama hasn’t put enough effort into those causes yet, or hasn’t been a presence on the world stage long enough, but those goals are clearly not “ridiculous”.
Calling it “ridiculous” is merely an ad hominem assertion, and your arguments so far only add up to a personal attack on Obama, despite your prostestations to the contrary.
.
Koz
“That’s a pretty personal metaphor for someone you don’t personally dislike.”
Really? There were plenty such people when I was in school. Hell, I was one to some extent. But I would never think of my attitude towards them as hatred.
There’s something I don’t think that most of you on the Left are getting here. Based on the lower-case r republican nature of America, to some extent President Obama will never be a fully legitimate President based on the coalition that elected him. That is, that so many of the Obama voters are looking to game the system so as to suck more money out of the government. That problem is exacerbated, of course, by the things Obama has done since he’s been inaugurated.
Alex
Well, when somebody says “I am pleased and proud that Obama won the prize. He deserved it. We deserved it.” and apparently means it, we’re pretty close to the abyss.
We already reached the abyss when imbeciles like you intellectually fellated W and glorified his neocon agenda for 8 full years.
As crazy as it sounds, Obama getting the Nobel is a step back from the sheer, unadulterated stupidity which preceded his election.
JGabriel
Hmm, only the Latin phrase”ad hominem” was meant to be italicized in the above post.
Editing, please?
.
Koz
“Good lord, you are a weasel, Koz”
Just what I said. An assertion by a CNN reporter is somewhat less than a fact.
Alex
First of all, that’s an assertion not a fact.
First of all, you don’t know the fucking difference, troll.
If you can give an intelligible explanation of your assertion, I’ll go back in time and vote for McCain Palin.
JGabriel
Koz:
Why? What is it in his coalition that precludes legitimacy? Brown people? Blacks? Gays? Women? Liberals? Progressives? Centrists?
I suspect your definition of “the lower-case r republican nature of America” is impressively narrow.
.
Koz
“It means that you wingnuts are far more berzerk with rage and prone to violence than Democrats. But don’t worry, you guys still have the moral high ground.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzFiMWUxNjQ5NzI4YzhkM2I3NjY5NTk0YmNhYjg3YTI=
Oh horseshit. Note especially that the evidence relates to public verifiable events opposed to somebody whispering to a CNN reporter (or not).
Koz
“What is it in his coalition that precludes legitimacy?”
The lack of people with real private sector jobs who have the time and inclination to make decisions intended for the benefit of the community as a whole.
LD50
@Koz: The best you can do is a National Review link? Koz, you are just on fire today.
Nice to know the best defense you can muster for your violent, hate-filled brethren is “HEY! CAN’T PROVE A THING, DOOD!”
That’s why you guys won last fall, right? And why Obama is doing so poorly everywhere except in the Southeast?
Yes, ‘white folks who agree with me’ probably nails it.
LD50
So a majority of Americans do not have the best interests of a majority of Americans at heart. Bravo, Koz.
LD50
So if you feel that people with ‘private sector jobs’ are more qualified to pick presidents, do you feel that the votes of people in the Military shouldn’t count as much, either?
Chad N Freude
@Koz:
An assertion by that well-known purveyor of liberal hype Newsmax. See this.
Chad N Freude
@Koz:
Would you say the same about a Fox News reporter (or commentator)?
JGabriel
JGabriel:
Koz:
So, in your view, everyone who voted for Obama is an unemployed slacker parasite? Nothing ad hominem about that argument. Of course, that argument embodies a proud tradition.
Of course, I can see why a Conservative or Republican would want to exclude the unemployed from the voter rolls after Bush crashed the economy. They might think Republican economic policies weren’t good for them, or something.
But one has to admire your progressive 18th century desire to return the American voting right exclusively to the 20th century equivalent of the landed gentry. Kudos.
.
Raincitygirl
Oh, you mean like brown people, and poor people, and people with ovaries, and sick people who refuse to die fast and quiet, and people who like driving on safe public roads in cars that won’t explode and on bridges that won’t collapse, and people who think it’s the government’s job to maintain levees instead of just letting people drown? Annoying people like that?
Lemme guess, you’re also one of the guys think socialised medicine is a bad thing, right?
Gawd, I think my Prime Minister has a bone to pick with Koz. See, he’s a Conservative (big C) who’s been in power for a few years, but no election will bring him a majority government. Mostly because the average conservative-minded (little C) Canucklehead who might be willing to vote for a Conservative government at home is fucking terrified that our Conservatives might turn out to be like those thundering neo-con loonies who’ve been running things south of the border for almost a decade. Even the right wing of much of the rest of the world would count as left wing by American standards.
This (I will admit, likely quite premature) award is most likely coming now because the rest of the world:
a) fears that some homegrown loonie is likely to kill the man before the year is out. [Boy, you shoulda seen the politely freaked-out Canadian news coverage of the guy who openly brought a loaded gun to an Obama appearance.]
b) would have preferred to present the award to the entire American people, for finally electing a team who aren’t pushing to drop tactical nukes on Tehran as a pre-emptive measure or publicly molesting other heads of government. Consider it a Valentine to the American voters from the rest of the planet, as a thank you for not being actively insane.
Koz
“One might think that Obama hasn’t put enough effort into those causes yet, or hasn’t been a presence on the world stage long enough, but those goals are clearly not “ridiculous”.”
Whatever. Like Ruth Marcus wrote, this is like tee ball for five year olds.
Koz
“Would you say the same about a Fox News reporter (or commentator)?”
Of course. It’s the nature of the assertion that we’re relying on one secondhand source without any other evidence.
Alex
Of course. It’s the nature of the assertion that we’re relying on one secondhand source without any other evidence.
So, by your definition, anything other than a statement by a percipient witness is not a fact. If I say there was a tsunami in Indonesia, it’s an assertion, not a fact — because I’m a second hand source.
You are truly an interlectural tittan.
LD50
@Koz: So you dismiss the Newsmax report as well?
Koz is just following the time-honored wingnut tradition of dismissing any inconvenient facts, and accepting any that he finds congenial.
Koz
“So, in your view, everyone who voted for Obama is an unemployed slacker parasite?”
No, but enough of them are to constitute a real crisis of republican legitimacy. And let’s note, that crisis goes way beyond merely the election of Obama.
But the election of Obama exacerbates it, especially given the things he’s done as President. By dramatically increasing the public sector at the expense of the private sector, he’s corrupting the republican motives for acting for the benefit of the community as a whole. Some on the Right allege that he’s doing that on purpose. I’m agnostic on that point. But whatever his intentions are, that’s what he’s done.
Koz
“So you dismiss the Newsmax report as well?”
Whatever that is, I don’t necessarily dismiss it just I like I don’t necessarily dismiss the CNN allegation either. It’s simply less reliable than an independently verifiable fact.
LD50
@Koz:
Are you asserting that your beloved Bush did not ‘dramatically increase the public sector’?
Koz is like those creationists who think they’ve refuted evolution by asking “were you THERE?”
LD50
@Koz: Does it depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is, Koz?
Koz
“So, by your definition, anything other than a statement by a percipient witness is not a fact. If I say there was a tsunami in Indonesia, it’s an assertion, not a fact—because I’m a second hand source.”
Of course not, because our knowledge of the tsunami is not relying on one person’s assertion.
Koz
“Are you asserting that your beloved Bush did not ‘dramatically increase the public sector’?”
No, absolutely he did. And he was wrong to do it in many of the circumstances where did.
But even if he was wrong, it’s more justifiable in a situation where it looks like the economy is going to expand forever, than the Obama Administration who has continued all the spending from Bush plus ladled trillions of dollars of more crap after the bottom has already fallen out.
Really, I know a lot of you like to dump on Bush and a lot of it is legit, but I don’t think you’re getting how much the actions of the Obama Administration are making Bush into a nouveau Einstein.
JGabriel
JGabriel:
Koz:
Yes, well, there really isn’t anything to add to that. It’s a rather remarkable repudiation of America’s tradition of promoting universal suffage. Tell us, when you advocate for, say, greater democracy in Iran, or elsewhere, are you only advocating it for the employed — for the workers, as it were?
I’m thinking, in particular, of a famous speech George Bernard Shaw once gave to an organization primarily composed of the aristocracy and members of the shareholder class. It began: “Fellow unemployed …”
So, it’s remarkably communistic of you to advocate taking the vote from the leisure class rich and the retired. I’m afraid I just can’t follow you that far to the left. Unfortunately, what with the collapse of the Soviet Union and all, I can’t think of any country you can go to that honors your governmental vision.
I assume you’re pro-union, as well?
.
LD50
@Koz:
But I bet you don’t blame the people who voted for Bush for it, like you do with Obama, eh?
Alex
Of course not, because our knowledge of the tsunami is not relying on one person’s assertion.
You can’t even keep your own idiot definitions straight.
Unless you were there, you are relying on a “secondhand source.” Your knowledge relies on a secondhand source.
As a result, it can be argued that everything is an “assertion” rather than a fact, if one’s head is far enough one’s colon.
JGabriel
Koz:
Goddammit, Koz is Assrocket! We’re being trolled by Hinderaker:
John Hinderaker (aka Assrocket):
We should have known …
.
matoko_chan
Not to mention the old swede guys would have needed a time machine to go back and nominate either Neda or Mousavi on Februaray 11th.
Do you know what the common denominator of the current GOP is?
Obama hatred.
That is what the burkeans, hayekians, neocon revanchists, birthers, 912 project stormtroopers, neonazis, white evangelical christians (WECs), K-lo catholics, mormons, glibertarians and paulites all have in common.
And even if they don’t actually hate Obama, they insist its fine for their fellow travelers to hate on him.
Deborah
@malraux: Yes! Surely you and I are not the only people to know this going in? I was familiar with the rule because Rosalind Franklin was dead when Watson and Crick won.
@Koz: Oh come now, admitting that Obama’s reaction to, say, the Iranian Greens or the Somali pirates was the sort of calm, yee-haw free diplomacy the world wants to see from the US is not even remotely in the same league as claiming that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived in Britain, a view the wingnuts embraced just a couple of months ago.
Jim
I’m too lazy to look up that map of red/blue states vs. states that send more money to/receive more money from the federal government. I don’t remember it exactly following Koz’s belief that Obama voters are the free-riders living high on the hog of federal largesse.
Also, can you tell me more about these supposed “republican motives for acting for the benefit of the community as a whole”?
Raincitygirl
The ruling class has ALWAYS treated the ruled class as fairly as they would treat themselves. That’s why we have thousands of years of recorded history of benevolent rulers and their contented, happy, fat peasantry.