OMG! Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize! :)

[gdi]

The Bush-bashing during the previous administration never stooped as low as what the dorks such as Limbaugh and Beck are doing now! They are on a one-track crusade to criticize whatever Obama does.

If he walked on water, they would say it was because he could not swim. If he turned water into wine, they would say he's promoting drinking!

The guy simply can't win with the far-right crowd! 🙁

It is an absurd situation, one side is going to call any step he makes an evil plot and the other side claims it is genius never before witnessed.

But I do remember the left stooping to trying to rename the SF sewage plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. They didn't have the audience, however, that Beck and Limbaugh have.

One big difference is that W managed to alienate big chunks of every constituency; I can't think of one person I know who liked the majority of what he did. Maybe Limbaugh was always pro-W, I don't know (?)

Hopefully things will settle down in time, and reason will prevail...

 

[crawdiddy]

I can't think of one person I know who liked the majority of what he did. Maybe Limbaugh was always pro-W, I don't know (?)

Well, I live in the reddest of red states (Texas) and I know plenty of people who defend every action taken by W and his sidekick, Dick.

Even the attorney who was shot in the face by Cheney apologized to him for causing him embarrassment. That is one evil dude. Poor W is just stupid.

 

[bmattock]

You guys missed the real Nobel announcement:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...ht-win-nobel-physics-prize-20091007-gllv.html

Charles Kao, Willard Boyle and George Smith were hailed by the Nobel jury as "the masters of light" for transforming communications from copper-wire telephony and postal mail to the era of the internet, email and instant messaging.

"This year's Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded for two scientific achievements that have helped to shape the foundations of today's networked societies.

"They have created many practical innovations for everyday life and provided new tools for scientific exploration," it said.

One of them is the fibre-optic cable, which enables transmission of data at the speed of light, and the other is the digital sensor that is the digital camera's "electronic eye," the Nobel jury said.

That is worthy of celebration. The other, not so much.

 

[crawdiddy]

You guys missed the real Nobel announcement:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...ht-win-nobel-physics-prize-20091007-gllv.html



That is worthy of celebration. The other, not so much.

Yes, I find it interesting the Nobel committees are sometimes honoring achievements several decades past, and at other times honoring the germ of an idea not yet realized.

 

[gdi]

Well, I live in the reddest of red states (Texas) and I know plenty of people who defend every action taken by W and his sidekick, Dick.

Even the attorney who was shot in the face by Cheney apologized to him for causing him embarrassment. That is one evil dude. Poor W is just stupid.

Humm, Texas - Connecticut... that explains the different experiences.

 

[bmattock]

Yes, Chippy, there are a good number of Americans who want him to fail. Their political (and personal) philosophy is based on the failure of others. That's all they got.

There are also a fair number of Americans who want him to fail - in everything he intends to do - because they do not agree with it. Of course I want him to fail - I do not like a single thing he's for, and therefore I do not want to see those things happen.

It's not personal.

 

[gdi]

There are also a fair number of Americans who want him to fail - in everything he intends to do - because they do not agree with it. Of course I want him to fail - I do not like a single thing he's for, and therefore I do not want to see those things happen.

It's not personal.

Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting a president's agenda (or parts of it) to fail if you feel it is not the right thing for the country. Contrary to what many people claim, it is not equivalent to wanting the country itself to fail. It should surprise no one that there is loyal opposition (in addition to those for whom it has become a vendetta) among the 43% who did not support him.

There are things I hope he can't get passed, but there are those things I do support - and sometimes they are in the same bill. I make sure my legislators know what I support, and what I do not, and why.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Yes, I find it interesting the Nobel committees are sometimes honoring achievements several decades past, and at other times honoring the germ of an idea not yet realized.

Me too. When I first heard that the US President Obama had won the prize my first thought was what for? Here is hoping that he can live up to expectations.

Bob

 

[ebolton]

There are also a fair number of Americans who want him to fail - in everything he intends to do - because they do not agree with it. Of course I want him to fail - I do not like a single thing he's for, and therefore I do not want to see those things happen.

If Obama's policies do not fail, that indicates the conservative mantra that has been taken as truth for the last 30 years may not be absolute gospel. I think that is frightening for modern conservatives, who have become so comfortable with the rose-colored simplicity of the Reagan movement. It's a small minded attitude though, hoping the man (along with our government) fails just to prove a point.

As far as Bush goes, we got to see him fail. Two stubborn wars and the Great Recession shows how successful conservative policies have been. It hasn't been much fun. I wish he had been successful. I did while he was in office, but thought it was a long shot.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is weird. I certainly didn't WANT Dubbya (or his daddy) to fail: I just couldn't see how they were going to succeed. I hoped I might be wrong.

And yet, Bill freely admits to wanting Obama to fail. To wanting, presumably, prolonged recession, more war, ever-greater isolation of his country (instead of its reintegration into the world), failure in everything. What a strange ambition!

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

If Obama's policies do not fail, that indicates the conservative mantra that has been taken as truth for the last 30 years may not be absolute gospel. I think that is frightening for modern conservatives, who have become so comfortable with the rose-colored simplicity of the Reagan movement. It's a small minded attitude though, hoping the man (along with our government) fails just to prove a point.

As far as Bush goes, we got to see him fail. Two stubborn wars and the Great Recession shows how successful conservative policies have been. It hasn't been much fun. I wish he had been successful. I did while he was in office, but thought it was a long shot.

I'm not interested in proving any points. I am interested in not seeing (for example) President Obama's health care proposals become law. You can tear me to pieces for my opinions, but I'm not aligned with any group or ideology. I just don't like his plans for America and I don't want them to succeed. I felt the same way about Clinton and George W. Bush. I know that blows your mind, because it is so much easier to put me a box labeled 'Republican' and not devote any more thought to the matter.

 

[bmattock]

This is weird. I certainly didn't WANT Dubbya (or his daddy) to fail: I just couldn't see how they were going to succeed. I hoped I might be wrong.

And yet, Bill freely admits to wanting Obama to fail. To wanting, presumably, prolonged recession, more war, ever-greater isolation of his country (instead of its reintegration into the world), failure in everything. What a strange ambition!

Cheers,

R.

Yes, it's true. Everyone who disagrees with President Obama is a hater, who wants war, loves murder, is a racist, wishes the USA would become totally isolated and despised among nations, etc.

Perhaps it is possible that these outcomes are not what I want. Perhaps it is possible that I want positive outcomes for my country too, I just think we're going about them in the wrong way. And hint: not liking Obama's policies is not the same as liking George W. Bush's policies. I disliked both. I know, I know, then I stop being a convenient 'Republican' for you to revile. How dare I be complicated?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

You're not complicated. You're simple. And, by the look of it, getting simpler.

You want Obama to fail. What do you mean by this? That you want everything to turn out all right via some strange Polyanna-ish fantasy that doesn't involve politicians?

Of course any sane person wants peace, prosperity, etc., but anyone who is remotely in touch with reality might begin to suspect that politicians want these same things (well, with a few lunatic exceptions) and that their exertions are therefore aimed towards these ends.

As I said, we may find to hard to believe that a given political route will lead to these desirable ends, be it Dubbya's or Obama's, but to wish that it should not lead to these ends, just to bear out some twisted and misplaced idea of one's own intellectual superiority, is strange in the extreme.

I do not wish to revile you as a Republican -- I know little or nothing about your politics, nor do I automatically revile Republicans -- but given some of your past posts such as (I quote from memory) 'I forget how fragile you humans are', I may be concerned for you upon other grounds.

If I misrecall your comments about fragile humans, which is entirely possible, then of course I apologize; but I suggest you re-read your own previous contributions to this thread (and indeed some others) and ask yourself about how people are supposed to read what you have written. You are against everything except metering and Pictorialism; it sometimes seems as if you want everyone to fail.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gdi]

This is weird. I certainly didn't WANT Dubbya (or his daddy) to fail: I just couldn't see how they were going to succeed. I hoped I might be wrong.

And yet, Bill freely admits to wanting Obama to fail. To wanting, presumably, prolonged recession, more war, ever-greater isolation of his country (instead of its reintegration into the world), failure in everything. What a strange ambition!

Cheers,

R.

While I can't speak for Bill, I believe you misunderstand the point. It is perfectly logical that two people would have the same goal, yet vehemently disagree about how to accomplish it. Both want "success" in the final goal, but if one's "solution" is not likely to accomplish it, or is too costly, unfair, or immoral (in general, or in the view of the other person) then seeking to prevent the implementation of that approach is perfectly logical. It is not weird.

Bush is a perfect example; Americans wanted him to succeed in preventing subsequent terrorist attacks in the country. (BTW, some in the far left, actually claim he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so wackery knows no party lines.) But many, did not agree with his approach and opposed it. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and there wasn't another major attack, but who today openly proclaims that the invasion of Iraq was the key factor in that success? You know, the path to hell and all...

So you cannot assume equivalence; hoping a particular economic bill fails, does not necessarily mean you hope the economy fails. So even though he received 7% more votes than his opponent, the president will, in some cases, continue to face opposition from the right, the public, and even his own party as to the means to solve the country's problems. Loyal opposition, that is the way it has been and should be, one election doesn't change any of that.

Of course, as with Bush, Obama is faced with those who will oppose him on any position, intention, or policy regardless of what it is - those are the ones to ignore.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While I can't speak for Bill, I believe you misunderstand the point. It is perfectly logical that two people would have the same goal, yet vehemently disagree about how to accomplish it. Both want "success" in the final goal, but if one's "solution" is not likely to accomplish it, or is too costly, unfair, or immoral (in general, or in the view of the other person) then seeking to prevent the implementation of that approach is perfectly logical. It is not weird.

Bush is a perfect example; Americans wanted him to succeed in preventing subsequent terrorist attacks in the country. (BTW, some in the far left, actually claim he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so wackery knows no party lines.) But many, did not agree with his approach and opposed it. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and there wasn't another major attack, but who today openly proclaims that the invasion of Iraq was a factor in that success? You know, the path to hell and all...

So you cannot assume equivalence; hoping a particular economic bill fails, does not necessarily mean you hope the economy fails. So even though he received 7% more votes than his opponent, the president will, in some cases, continue to face opposition from the right, the public, and even his own party as to the means to solve the country's problems. Loyal opposition, that is the way it has been and should be, one election doesn't change any of that.

Of course, as with Bush, Obama is faced with those who will oppose him on any position, intention, or policy - those are the ones to ignore.

I would very much like to think so, but I cannot see any clearer way of understanding 'failure' in this context.

Failure is a matter of outcomes, not of means (though of course failed means may lead to failed outcomes, such as the reintroduction of torture).

To wish failure upon policies designed to increase peace and prosperity, merely because those are not the policies you would have chosen, does not strike me as loyal opposition, but at best as very confused thinking and at worst as blind bigotry.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

To wish failure upon policies designed to increase peace and prosperity, merely because those are not the policies you would have chosen, does not strike me as loyal opposition, but at best as very confused thinking and at worst as blind bigotry.

Have there been other policies designed to "increase peace and prosperity," which led directly to things like, say, world war?

I'm not comparing Obama's policies to those of a certain unnamed someone else, nor am I comparing Obama himself to that person. However, I am using it to point out the flaw in that particular bit of logic. Just because a policy is "increase peace and prosperity," does not make opposing it bigotry.

In real terms, no politician proposes legislation without giving it a cheerful label and describing all the good things it will do. If one is against it because one does not believe it will do all those good things, or that the things it intends to bring about are not actually what one considers good, one is not necessarily a confused person or a bigot.

I certainly don't see myself as either. I find it sad to know that I have spent my life standing up for civil liberties and fighting racism and bigotry, sometimes in my own family; even coming to blows over the use of certain terms which I find offensive in the extreme; and now I am labeled a bigot because I do not agree with a person of a skin color different than my own. How disheartening.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

You're not complicated. You're simple. And, by the look of it, getting simpler.

Roger, I said nothing to you in the way of a personal attack. You went straight to ad hominem. I'm sorry, but this conversation is over.

 

[gdi]

I would very much like to think so, but I cannot see any clearer way of understanding 'failure' in this context.

Again, I can't speak for Bill, so I'll leave the understanding of his view to the two of you.

Failure is a matter of outcomes, not of means (though of course failed means may lead to failed outcomes, such as the reintroduction of torture).

Of course it is a matter of outcomes, but there can be many outcomes involved in solving a complex problem. In the American system, for successful bills passed there are usually failures in part along the way. Amendments are passed or rejected, changes occur in conference, and so on. Without opposition, debate, and amendment a solution cannot become more effective or just.

To wish failure upon policies designed to increase peace and prosperity, merely because those are not the policies you would have chosen, does not strike me as loyal opposition, but at best as very confused thinking and at worst as blind bigotry.

I would agree 100% and I am glad I wrote nothing contrary to that in my posting.

But my agreement is dependent upon your phrase "merely because those are not the policies you would have chosen". Opposing those policies with the sincere belief that they will not accomplish the intention or will inflict collateral damage, is the very definition of loyal opposition, and was my point.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Further thoughts on success and failure

Further thoughts on success and failure

In politics more than anywhere else, 100% success and 100% failure are vanishingly rare. Almost any policy is almost certain have both desirable and undesirable outcomes, especially when viewed in the long term. A short-term success may be no more than a 'quick fix' leading to troubles down the road, while an unpopular apparent failure may, in the long term, turn out to be what was needed.

We must, therefore, try to be clear about what we want and when we expect to get it, and to examine every proposed policy on the grounds of how successful it is likely to be in delivering both short-term and long-term desirable outcomes.

Entirely separately from this, we can also form opinions of a politician's political, rhetorical, administrative and economic skills, both in general and on a specific occasion. Thus, for example, while disagreeing with everything that Ahmedinajad stands for, there have been times when I have admired the way he has played his hand.

Too many people, I suggest, focus on the politician than on the policy. They want always to believe the best, or worst, of a particular person or party, and will praise or blackguard them accordingly. As Bill said, it's much easier to put something in a box and ignore it, than to give it continued thought.

I do not believe that Obama is the Messiah, any more than I believed that Dubbya was the Antichrist. I do have quite strong opinons on which is/was the better politician, in terms of numbers of people alienated and general world opinion, to say nothing of bellicosity, but that's not the same as uncritical admiration or condemnation of either.

But it sometimes seems that political discussion is on a par with discussion of what the M10 is going to be like. None of us knows; and so we project our fantasies (Leica will go bust, it will be made in China for $200, whatever) rather than actually considering probabilities.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I said nothing to you in the way of a personal attack. You went straight to ad hominem. I'm sorry, but this conversation is over.

Dear Bill,

I apologize if you took my remarks in the obvious meaning of 'simple' = 'foolish, stupid,' but I expected you to take it in the spirit of 'simple' as the opposite of 'complicated'.

You are giving no evidence of complication. Rather, as I said, you are moving to an ever more simplistic and destructive view of just about everything.

Consider the following argument:

Politicians are not irrelevant. They make things either better or worse.

Only very rarely do the outcomes they desire diverge significantly from the peace and prosperity that most people want, though whether those outcomes eventuate is another matter entirely.

For anyone to desire the failure of any president of the United States is therefore to desire the failure of peace and prosperity, so that their preferred candidate can come along and clear up the mess.

That's why I wanted Bush to succeed, though as I said, I had little faith in his ability to do so. And it's why I want Obama to succeed, though I am by no means certain that he will do so.

Cheers,

Roger