You can't escape politics; even in academia I couldn't escape it.

‘Escape’? I encounter it, but am fortunate enough to be in a position where it does not impact my day to day job function.

It surprises me that you are too lazy to develop yourself so that you are in a position to get your ideas across. You seem to be a person that values hard work in the face of adversity.

I’m in a top-heavy organization, and the last thing it needs is another manager. With only about 1,200 employees we have 7 people at the “EO” level, 50+ VPs, 125+ directors. Believe me, we are no-where near short of ‘chiefs’. We need more ‘indians’ – more highly qualified & skilled professionals. It’s a good company; I see no need to try to ‘manage’. To do so would turn the nature of my work away from in-depth analysis towards a more simple, business-decision oriented truncated approach. I’d move from data, to budgets. From study to meetings. I prefer to tear a topic down to its roots rather than skim above it at 50,000 feet.

In the face of uncertainty, 'gut feel' and the intuition derived from experience often does trump a fancy stochastic model.

I don’t have a beef with QUALIFIED people who make a decision against data. I have great respect for business guys who are skilled, intelligent, thoughtful, and have the ability to make a ‘gut’ business decision after weighing the options. Such people can take my detailed analysis – put it in the hopper – and make a decision that isn’t totally data-driven, but accounts for other things. The reason my company does well is because most of the business guys are of this sort. I respect them, and don't feel the need to add myself to their number when there are more than enough of them to take care of things. I'm best off where I am - doing the detail research they don't have time for.

Obama is he is NOT that kind of person. He is the ‘other’ kind that you meet in a business meeting... They have made a decision before they walk in the door, or have heard a single fact. They do not try to learn, or educate themselves, or respectfully consider other experts when making decisions. They only seek to justify decisions that they already made in everyone’s absence. Such persons are more than happy to use data - but only as long as it agrees with what they want. The second the data disagrees with them then the tiniest, most illogical of excuses will suffice to bat it aside as faulty. Thankfully there aren't too many of them where I work. But they're there sometimes.

When Obama encounters someone who presents facts, research, opinions, or approaches contrary to his own – he manifests himself as the small, petty, vapid man that typifies this sort of ‘bad’ business decision maker. The good ones are precious. The ‘bad’ ones like Obama are a blight on any organization they darken with their odious presence.

How many times did Bush screw up words, sentences, and concepts, trying to make a point

Did you see the thread, “Why do Republicans believe lies about Obama”? In it, people say that news-driven talking points are sucked up by intellectual sponges and parroted back unthinkingly. Your opinion about Bush is based on the very same practice, but sponsored by the left. It was grossly exaggerated. Bush did a lot of dumb things, but he proved himself more competent and intelligent than Obama in many respects. Obama can't handle himself with diplomacy (case in point with Isreal), but Bush did it easily and naturally.

You say I ‘don’t get it’. I can only shrug and say you are the victim of groupthink, and have no logical grounds for your specious position. For example – you say I supply no list of economists. I can easily do so.

http://www.adsavvy.org/consensus-war-300-top-economists-disagree-with-obamas-no-disagreement-remark/

But – as is usual – folk of your stripe will ignore fact and try to weasel away from the reality that I've proven you completely, totally, and irrevocably wrong. I am the one here that provides links, data, and information to justify my arguments. People such as yourself only climb up on rhetorical soap-boxes and fling poo.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal.

How is an administration ‘centrist liberal’ when it moves to take over the financial industry, the automotive industry, the medical industry, the insurance industry, and energy – while at the same time feeding billions in stimulus money to big unions & trial lawyers? All of Obama’s positions are RADICALLY far-left. Isreal, education, taxes, role of government, deficit spending, Supreme court nominee, you name the issue and Obama has proven he is way out left. This is why independent and moderate voters (who voted for him) have abandoned him in droves to the point where his approval rating is cratering to George W. Bush levels.

@geo321, I think honesty and truth are political assets, not liabilities, as long as you are adept at showily breaking through the lies and strawmen of your opponents.

The real problem with Kucinich and Paul is they both have trouble relating to people. They're both so wrapped up in a shell of ideological righteousness that they forget they need to actually be able to build a bridge between what they believe and what generally non-political people believe and understand.

For example, both have a desire to effectively recall all US troops from everywhere and massively cut the military budget. I'm at least open to the idea, but usually they both go past what even I would think is sane, and they don't make any attempt to persuade. Both just give simplistic reasons for why they'd do this Kucinich makes a bluntly moral argument (Peace is strength), while Paul makes essentially the same bluntly moral argument with different aesthetics (our military is meant for defense only).

Neither acknowledges that people who're open to the idea (like me) need some persuasion before they're willing make that kind of radical shift in our foreign policy in one fell swoop. It seems to me that you could get a lot more people to follow you by just saying "we want out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to generally take an approach to foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy" in your official platform, but then make clear in your speeches that "one day" you'd like to see all the troops come home from everywhere, and that you think America should take on the role of being the world's friend, not police man.

You need to rally people behind you, not just shout "I'm right, vote for me!" at people.

>> ^blankfist:

@rougy, I'm talking about a desire for some consistency. So many participating in the two-party system are fence sitters waiting for the group to go in a direction they can follow. If that means war is bad, then war is bad.

[snip]

I'm very consistent. Why can't the Dems and Repubs be?


Let's start with this: you're an individual, they're nation-spanning organizations with millions of people shaping how they operate.

Individual Democrats disagree on things. Individual Republicans disagree on things.

That said, I don't know what lack of consistency you're talking about.

The Democratic platform included a withdrawal from Iraq, "winning the necessary war in Afghanistan", and a general return to the use of diplomacy as the US's primary way of influencing other nations. It also said that they would seek to reform (not repeal) Patriot, so as to make it more consistent with our "tradition" of civil liberties.

They have been consistent in their approach to those subjects, though they've had varying degrees of success.

I don't agree with every plank of the platform. I don't like the phrasing of trying to "win" in Afghanistan. I want Patriot repealed. I wish we were getting out of Iraq at a faster pace. I wanted a public option in HCR. I fully expected them to have done banking re-regulation last year (they didn't).

Democrats still oppose the war in Iraq. Democrats are fairly divided over Afghanistan, though all of us agree that we want the conflict to end there as quickly as possible, or more importantly with the smallest loss of life we can manage.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm on board with everything but the kittens. I love kitties!>> ^MaxWilder:
Thou shalt not post "first!"
Thou shalt not use the word fag unless the discussion is about homosexual epithets.
Thou shalt not compare another person to Hitler until they have ordered the deaths of over a thousand people for warped political reasons.
Thou shalt not dis pictures or videos of kittens.
Though shalt not reveal important plot elements from movies, television shows, or books.
Thou shalt not speak loudly or at length while in the audience of a theatrical presentation or lecture.
Thou shalt not speak of another culture or nation as if yours is somehow better.
Thou shalt not claim that support of a war is the same thing as support of the troops.
Thou shalt not tailgate.
Thou shalt not claim that honest dissent is akin to treason, but defend dissent as a patriotic duty.
Thou shalt not feed children refined sugar and highly processed foods.
Thou shalt not fuck with Anonymous.
Thou shalt not regard celebrities as role models.
Thou shalt not initiate the use of violence; thou shalt engage in diplomacy, even with thine enemy, until violence has been initiated upon you.
Thou shalt honor the wisdom of experience, but not the status quo.
Thou shalt not tell others what to believe, but speak only of the reasoning which led to your conclusion.

Thou shalt not post "first!"

Thou shalt not use the word fag unless the discussion is about homosexual epithets.

Thou shalt not compare another person to Hitler until they have ordered the deaths of over a thousand people for warped political reasons.

Thou shalt not dis pictures or videos of kittens.

Though shalt not reveal important plot elements from movies, television shows, or books.

Thou shalt not speak loudly or at length while in the audience of a theatrical presentation or lecture.

Thou shalt not speak of another culture or nation as if yours is somehow better.

Thou shalt not claim that support of a war is the same thing as support of the troops.

Thou shalt not tailgate.

Thou shalt not claim that honest dissent is akin to treason, but defend dissent as a patriotic duty.

Thou shalt not feed children refined sugar and highly processed foods.

Thou shalt not fuck with Anonymous.

Thou shalt not regard celebrities as role models.

Thou shalt not initiate the use of violence; thou shalt engage in diplomacy, even with thine enemy, until violence has been initiated upon you.

Thou shalt honor the wisdom of experience, but not the status quo.

Thou shalt not tell others what to believe, but speak only of the reasoning which led to your conclusion.

>> ^LostTurntable:
Bush did "inherit" 9/11 in as much as Clinton didn't do a great job fighting Osama Bin Laden on his watch, but Bush just flat out IGNORED him. There's more then enough blame to go around on that one.


Actually, Clinton wanted to go after Bin Laden more. There was just this little issue with an intern's stained dress that the GOP thought was more important at the time. Had the GOP-heavy congress given him the OK, he probably could have found Bin Laden before 9/11 would've ever happened. After all, the attack on the USS Cole did happen on his watch, so you'd think that the GOP would've put bringing him to justice for it up on their list of priorities. Sadly, pursuing terrorists is only a priority when it makes one of their own look good for doing it.

But Clinton knew something big was going to happen the second week of September 2001. He even made sure to let the Bush administration know everything his administration knew about it. Condi Rice had been photographed several times carrying around that report, but I could never find a pic of anyone actually reading it.

That report was leaked not long after 9/11 happened. The media largely ignored it, however. It spelled out a number of scenarios, as well as counter-strategies for dealing with issues as they came up when it came to diplomacy and the Middle East. Sadly, none of the warnings were heeded. The rest, as they say, is history.

So let us place blame where it should fall - on the Republican-led Congress that Clinton fought with for 6 years. They repealed Glass-Stegall. They put more effort into looking at sperm on a dress than intelligence reports. They put party before country, and we're STILL paying for it, over 10 years later.

So Fuck Newt Gingrich. Remember, he resigned as Speaker of the House (who is next in line after if the Prez and VP are unable to perform their duties) because he was a fucking hypocrite who, despite being an ugly, fat sack of shit, managed to find someone other than his wife who would let him fuck her. His intended successor was guilty of the same crime, so they had to get Dennis fucking Hastert, a retired high school wrestling coach, to play third-string House Speaker. (And someone who made a living of watching young men grapple and roll around isn't gay at all. Really.)

And Mary Matalin must have her head so far up her ass she can see an alternate reality. Let's get NASA on that shit.

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

I'm sorry, but there is something FATALLY FUCKING WRONG with a political environment in which this sort of person can reach the opportunity of potential vice-presidency of the most powerful nation in the world. And you just fucking know she'll be running for PRESIDENT in 2012 or 2016.

Hyperbole or not, I'd regard the entire political system as a failure if Palin received even one vote. Or perhaps that's just an intellectual failure en masse?

Clueless. Clueless. Clueless fucking Alaskan troglodyte who would fall to pieces if her little brain was strained by an actual argument. You know, a debate with someone who does actually know what they're talking about and isn't interested in diplomacy and niceities.

>> ^Rotty:
This really isn't news worthy; obammy has already demostrated that he's a diplomatic moron. What, no iPod for Akihito?
There are more relevant reasons to slam this Banker boy:
1) No immediate plans to leave Iraq. What happened to the nine month plan?
2) Additional deployments to Afghanastan; more dead Americans fighting the elite's wars.
3) Filling his admnistration with the same thugs that have consistently corrupted and looted America.
4) Other than banker bailouts, he hasn't done SHIT for the economy.
5) No changes in banking regulations that led to the last economic meltdown.
6) Other than creating a few thousnad jobs in his native state, he hasn't done SHIT in creating jobs.
As a matter of fact, other than touring the planet, he hasn't done a fucking thing.
The only CHANGE he's interested in is the change in your pocket.


If you cut out the diplomacy slam and all the childish name calling, I would have to agree with much of this fellow's post.

The bank bailout is a moot point because anyone in office would have bailed them out. Maybe not Ron Paul, but certainly McCain! After all, Bush bailed out Bear Sterns in Feb 2007 and McCain did whatever Bush did so...there you go.

I voted for Obama because he said he'd...

1) end the war,
2) go after those that committed war crimes (admittedly, Biden said this not Obama, but still)
3) not have any lobbyist on his cabinet (for the post of Deputy Secretary of Defense he nominated William J. Lynn III, the top lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the biggest companies in the military-industrial complex)
4) follow the rule of law. Meanwhile, the suspension of habeas corpus is still in effect for many "enemy combatants" and warrantless wiretaps at the NSA are still going like the energizer bunny.

He has done some good things. He at least tried to introduce a public healthcare option (it's unfortunately DOA on the Senate floor), he reversed some environmental policies, and, well, he's not Bush. But that's not really enough for me.

Downvote this comment if you like but everything I've pointed out is the truth.

Diplomacy, respect...it will always be lost on the cons.

>> ^EndAll:
All the apologetics and relentless justification aside, he really did not deserve it.


Well, it seems that the Norwegian Nobel Committee highly disagrees with you.


And marinara: They didn't give it to Obama for ending two wars. It was awarded "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 without nuclear weapons."

But what does the Norwegian Nobel Committee know? They're all a bunch of idiots, right?

Is Ron Paul well known because libertarians are just screaming excited to have a visible leader? Because that sounded like a wandering whiny speech about not liking the left and Obama.

Obama was given the award "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.". Obama has made it a very obvious priority from day one to re-establish and exceed prior diplomacy with the rest of the world which is the keystone to world peace. He deserves it. It's awfully fast but he is working his ass off promoting diplomacy. And that's after inheriting George Bush's policy of starting wars unilaterally and giving the finger to everyone else in the world he couldn't buy off.

And about the wars - He inherited 2 wars in the middle east, how could you do better without making it worse in the long run?
* We're well on the way to being out of Iraq (To quote him "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.".)
* And Afganistan... the Taliban (whom attacked us) controls a big chunk of the country and the recent national elections were tainted with fraud. It doesn't make you a hawk to say we might regret this if we don't fix this before we go home does it?

Ron Paul has no intellectually honest points, he's just pushing his agenda like the rest of them. He just does it in front of wood paneling and antique photos.

only a very small part of Christianity attempts to teach people to get along with each other. The rest of it is doctrine set up to encourage obedience to centralized power. This is all terribly ironic, since in the small portion of the bible actually dedicated to the teachings of jesus it presents the notion that because of jesus, anyone and everyone can have a direct connection to the magical abusive drunken old guy in the sky. Jesus spent much of his teachings tearing down the notion of centralized authority, and controlled access to spirituality.

Christianity became the political tool that we see today back in 325 when Roman Emperor Constantine paid a bunch of religious leaders to vote on which documents were representative of Christian faith - as long as they left room for the Emperor to be part of that power structure. It's much easier to control the people if they all worship the same god, instead of having multiple gods all with different agendas.

There's this small little bit of good stuff in the bible which is a decent chunk of what jesus says. The rest is filled with genealogies, tales of war, killings, an angry god, and Paul of tarsus, calling on the newly enlightened Christians to maintain the oppressive and intolerant orders of the old testament. All of that contrary to what jesus claimed was the entire purpose of his time on earth. Jesus talked about how his purpose was to do away with all of those old laws, and to create a new method of gaining favor with his dad (who is also somehow himself).

The bible itself is so clouded with mountains of useless if not dangerous and contrary garbage that people use to justify their own hatred. If the bible really was there to create a moral compass for people, it would be much, much shorter and clearer. It is quite possibly the most poorly written instruction manual ever created, and I've read some really terrible Engrish manuals before.

There are 1189 chapters in the bible. Does it really take 789,626 words to say "don't be a dick"? you'd think that the creator of the universe would make better use of text, and possibly reveal some genuinely useful information, like the nature of viruses and bacteria, techniques for better agriculture, methods of international diplomacy that don't involve "shoot first, ask questions later", or even something as basic as "slavery is bad".

A brief list I came across to jog your memory:
3/18/8 – Obama caught world-wide attention for his moving speech on race relations 7/24/8 - Obama lays the foundation for a new era of international relations and began inspiring renewed hope in American leadership during his campaign speech in Berlin 11/6/8 – Obama’s victory was hailed as a promise of hope for the world. 12/1/8 – Obama began plans to restore U.N. ambassador to cabinet rank. 1/22/9 - Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace 1/22/9 – Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay 1/22/9 – Ordered comprehensive review of detention policies 1/22/9 – Prohibited use of torture 1/22/9 - Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons 1/23/9 – Lifted “Global Gag Rule” on international health groups 1/26/9 – Began to address climate change by increasing fuel standards for automobiles 1/26/9 – Appointed Special Envoy for Climate Change 1/27/9 - Signs Lily Ledbetter “Fair Pay” Act 2/1/9 – Expanded healthcare for children by signing SCHIP 2/5/9 - Again addressed energy conservation by increasing standards for appliances. 2/24/9 – Directed almost $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health 2/25/9 - Initiated international efforts to reduce mercury emissions worldwide 2/27/9 – Committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq 4/1/9 – Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. 4/1/9 – Enhanced U.S. – China relations 4/2/9 - Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies 4/4/9 - Renewed dialog with NATO and other key allies 4/5/9 – Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation 4/13/9 – Began easing tension with Cuba through new policy stance 4/17/9 - Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster Pakistan's economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" 4/22/9 - Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. 5/8/9 – Proposed International Affaires budget that included funds to create a civilian response corps -- teams of civilian experts in rule of law, policing, transitional governance, economics, engineering, and other areas critical to helping rebuild war-torn societies; Provide $40 million for a "stabilization bridge fund," which would provide rapid response funds for the State Department to help stabilize a crisis situation. 6/4/9 - Gave historic address to the Muslim World in Cairo - "American is not at war with Islam" Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been remarkable. "He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region" 8/4/9 - Used DIPLOMACY to free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison 9/18/9 - De-escalation of nuclear tension through repurposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.

This doesn't even address the recent nuclear de-escalation of Iran (they have revealed a heartofore hidden nuclear facility, and agreed to sell their weapons-grade nuclear material to Russia) due to DIPLOMACY. Neither does it address his wise actions in the Somali pirate situation, saving american lives.

Call me wathever you want, but within the confines of the UN assembly, I find it fair to restrain the use of religion-based verbal attacks. It's a place for diplomacy, aren't these guys supposed to work on achieving peace in the world?

And hey, in our Canadian parliament, MPs arent allowed to use a long list of words and insults, and I don't think our democracy is scorched by these limitations.