Did I miss the part where he's actually accomplished anything yet?
I know that it's often given out for somewhat thin reasons, but "created a new climate in international politics"?
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
...because the Nobel Peace Prize has a history of legitimacy.
At least the million+ dollar prize can be used for PR, err, charity.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
...what, really?
Holy...
...umm...
...wow.
Way too soon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Did I miss the part where he's actually accomplished anything yet?
This. Don't get me wrong, I voted for him and I still think he was the better choice, but he hasn't DONE anything yet!
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: ...because the Nobel Peace Prize has a history of legitimacy.
True. He is a better choice than Arafat. That's not saying much though.
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...what, really?
Holy...
...umm...
...wow.
Way too soon.
Yeah. It's not April, right?
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
'No suitable living candidate' would have been fine by me. In fact, I'd be fine with that every year 'till Gandhi gets his due.
Although I guess that's against the rules nowadays.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think his mere ideals, if not actions, have released a lot of tension overseas in the last year.
If Bush didn't have all of Europe on edge for 8 years, I doubt this alone would have him in the running, but things are what they are.
Just knowing that one of the most influential people in the world has peace and cooperation on his mind, rather than vengeance, has to be a load off.
Or maybe this was to make up for not giving us the Olympics after all that jet fuel. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This does baffle me. It honestly makes me a little curious about the political infighting around the prize; I wonder if it's the modern equivalent of the Papacy or something.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I believe that what Frisco said is a plausible explanation for why president Obama is awarded the price now. That said, it is hard to argue that he has yet much in the way of concrete peace promoting actions on his CV (altough I think committing to and starting the process of closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo bay is an important point in his favour).
From what I've already seen in terms of the reactions from various quarters, perhaps from a PR point of view, president Obama would be well advised to refuse to accept the prize, citing that he is deeple honoured, bla bla, but that he has yet to accomplish enough of his peace building goals to feel comfortable receiving this singular recognition, and so forth.
[ October 09, 2009, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
It's the perceived intentions and that matter for the Nobel Peace prize, and President Obama does meet that qualification. Does anyone know who else was being considered?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The standard is
quote:to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
Awarding the prize to Obama is a farce. Those who have given him the prize should be ashamed. Even though the prizes have been political before, the person has usually had at least something that could defensibly be an accomplishment worthy of the prize.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Just knowing that one of the most influential people in the world has peace and cooperation on his mind, rather than vengeance, has to be a load off
From a non-American perspective, I can definitely get on board with this idea.
I'm not sure he has done anything concrete in his presidency yet deserving of this honor, but I do think the stated aims and goals he has have changed the face of international relations and politics - which isn't a small feat.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think Obama fared well in the swimsuit portion of the competition.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm waiting for the first Obamist religion to appear.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: I think Obama fared well in the swimsuit portion of the competition.
Well he clearly had Sarkozay beat.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I'm waiting for the first Obamist religion to appear.
This is an excellent choice. They've recognized that hope and inspiration can be more powerful than 'concrete' accomplishments. And there is no doubt that Obama has inspired a shift in thinking within America and across the world, at least among the general population. He's receiving this more for his words than actions.
Although.... I also wonder if this is an indirect way of giving the American people the Peace Prize for essentially voting out neoconservativism and everything the Bush administration stood for...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The standard is
quote:to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
Awarding the prize to Obama is a farce. Those who have given him the prize should be ashamed. Even though the prizes have been political before, the person has usually had at least something that could defensibly be an accomplishment worthy of the prize.
QFT, this is pretty lame.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think that the peace prize has become a tool, and not an award.
By giving Arafat the award, they were hoping that it would make peace. By giving Obama the award, they were hoping that it would be a big European thumbs up to the U.S. - "We hated your last president, but this one is AWESOME! Keep up the good work!"
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm a big Obama supporter, but this leaves me scratching my head a bit.
His being elected did do a lot to ease international tensions with the US and it's allies, as far as I can tell, but that was more America electing him than something Obama did.
He's made some very smart moves so far with Iran and Russia (in my opinion), but that hardly warrants a peace prize.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think that the peace prize has become a tool, and not an award.
By giving Arafat the award, they were hoping that it would make peace. By giving Obama the award, they were hoping that it would be a big European thumbs up to the U.S. - "We hated your last president, but this one is AWESOME! Keep up the good work!"
My knee jerk reaction is to agree with Armoth.
From CNN:
quote:He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.
I don't think Obama himself thinks he deserves this award, but I'm not sure refusing it would be very wise, as that could be pretty insulting.
He has been very vocal about the Iran nuclear issue, but consistently sides with exhausting diplomacy first. Removing the missile defense system near Russia eased serious tensions between the US and Russia.
Having said all that I was really quite surprised by all this. I do think this is premature. What depresses me most is I am quite sure I know exactly what they are going to be screaming about on conservative radio now for the next few days. Also I'm sure for the next 7 years I'm going to hear this development mentioned whenever they want to hit their short list of Obama's deficiencies.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:His being elected did do a lot to ease international tensions with the US and it's allies, as far as I can tell, but that was more America electing him than something Obama did.
If John McCain, or Hilary Clinton, or any other of the candidates, had been elected, it would not have had the same effect on the world. It is something unique to the ideas Obama ran upon and the way he was able to present those ideas that caused those changes. Obama was able to achieve something that went beyond just an election campaign, as evidenced by his reception in Europe (the one much mocked by Republicans). Other candidates, historically, have not achieved that sort of inspiration.
This is consistent with previous Nobel Peace Prize winners. Al Gore did not actually solve global warming. He just went around talking about it, using his unique status to draw attention to the cause - and correspondingly won the prize in 2007.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I like Obama more than many liberals do at this point, as I recognize that pragmatic concerns tend to bog down the grand sweeping policy changes promised during campaigns, but this is waaaaaay premature if it's intended to reflect anything he's done as President.
That being said, the news articles I've been reading say that he's mostly being awarded for his efforts at stopping WMD proliferation and promoting disarmament - something he has worked on passionately since his Senate days. The most concrete result of that work was the Lugar-Obama initiative, which authorized $48 million in funding for the destruction and interception of heavy weapons and WMD.
That rationale is still a bit of a stretch, as Lugar-Obama passed two years ago, but Obama has been consistent about his commitment to nuclear affairs since becoming President. So it's not entirely out of the blue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think that the peace prize has become a tool, and not an award.
By giving Arafat the award, they were hoping that it would make peace. By giving Obama the award, they were hoping that it would be a big European thumbs up to the U.S. - "We hated your last president, but this one is AWESOME! Keep up the good work!"
My knee jerk reaction is to agree with Armoth.
From CNN:
quote:He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.
I don't think Obama himself thinks he deserves this award, but I'm not sure refusing it would be very wise, as that could be pretty insulting.
He has been very vocal about the Iran nuclear issue, but consistently sides with exhausting diplomacy first. Removing the missile defense system near Russia eased serious tensions between the US and Russia.
Having said all that I was really quite surprised by all this. I do think this is premature. What depresses me most is I am quite sure I know exactly what they are going to be screaming about on conservative radio now for the next few days. Also I'm sure for the next 7 years I'm going to hear this development mentioned whenever they want to hit their short list of Obama's deficiencies.
Yep. I don't think the President needs this distraction right now. I don't think he can gracefully decline as that would make matters worse. I think he needs to accept with a very humble "I will work hard to live up to this vote of confidence" kind of tone.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Like an awful lot of people this morning, my reaction has been: I like Obama, but...
What I take from this is two things:
1. Apparently Obama won for his overwhelming accomplishments in not being George W. Bush.
2. Scandinavia seems to enjoy operant conditioning on a global scale. They're trying to create peace by rewarding someone who's moving in the right direction.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:What Obama Should Do With His Nobel Peace Prize
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed? ... P.S.: It's not as if Congress is going to think, well, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize so let's pass health care reform. But the possibility for a Nobel backlash seems non-farfetched.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Chris, moving in the direction of weakness and indecisiveness is not moving in the right direction.
The usual short-sighted liberals in socialist-leaning Europe, who seem to be in the majority on the Nobel Prize Committee, will applaud someone like Obama as an expression of their resentment of America for being stronger than anyone else, and for having in the past been resolute enough in moral courage to exercise its responsibility in the world to defend civilization itself, and oppose terrorism forcibly.
But the people really glad for Obama's brand of governance so far are the terrorists, especially in Afghanistan, who are heartened to think that if they just keep up the pressure, Obama and his fellow traveler liberals in the U.S. will finally just pull out all U.S. troops and retreat into a new isolationism, while the mass murderers of 911 move back into positions of power in their own depraved nation where school girls who can read are killed, and can re-open their old training camps to plan new atrocities on the Western World.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I agree with this bleg from the Kausfiles:
quote:What Obama Should Do With His Nobel Peace Prize
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed? ... P.S.: It's not as if Congress is going to think, well, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize so let's pass health care reform. But the possibility for a Nobel backlash seems non-farfetched.
If he was uncomfortable with overcelebration, he wouldn't have run for president.
And there was no backlash when they gave the peace prize to the founder of modern terrorism, so I can't imagine there'll be any this time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I agree with this bleg from the Kausfiles:
quote:What Obama Should Do With His Nobel Peace Prize
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed? ... P.S.: It's not as if Congress is going to think, well, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize so let's pass health care reform. But the possibility for a Nobel backlash seems non-farfetched.
If he was uncomfortable with overcelebration, he wouldn't have run for president.
And there was no backlash when they gave the peace prize to the founder of modern terrorism, so I can't imagine there'll be any this time.
Lisa: The dynamics of Israeli/Palestinian politics and America politics could hardly be more dissimilar.
Republican/Conservative commentators have been hammering on the Obama/Messianic complex for quite some time and it's starting to yield some results from what I can tell. This development is a God send for somebody pressing that angle. This has a very real chance of seriously distracting from the important decisions that are being made right now.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I actually LOLed when I saw this on CNN.com.
--j_k
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
What I want to know is, what is he going to do with the cash prize? Isn't it around $1.5 million?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
*shrug* Drop in the bucket for him, I suppose.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?" Ah, Sideshow Bob. Ahead of your time.
quote:Chris, moving in the direction of weakness and indecisiveness is not moving in the right direction.
And this is true. I can't see where belligerence and arrogance have helped us much either, so I'm hopeful this administration hits a middle ground.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: *shrug* Drop in the bucket for him, I suppose.
Oh I don't know about that, after looking at his taxes I'd say that's at least a sizable portion of his bucket.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think he gets to keep it and even if he can, I don't think he should.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him.
But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Good for him. It's not his fault they jumped the gun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I meant that I don't think he can keep the money.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Oh I don't know about that, after looking at his taxes I'd say that's at least a sizable portion of his bucket.
I think a lot of presidential wealth comes after leaving office. Obama will have 5- and 6-figure speaking engagements for long after his term has ended. Book deals too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Aw, hell. Bad Storting! Bad! No vote for you!
Sorry, it's partly my fault - I should have looked up how to mail-vote a bit earlier in the year, before the cutoff date. The current government is only in power by one thin seat, and I would have voted against them. I'm not sure how the Nobel committee is selected, though; perhaps it wouldn't matter.
I suppose it's better than Al Gore and Arafat. Not that this is a high standard.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Is it sad that the first thing I thought was how much I dreaded seeing OSC's World Watch about this?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Only because it means you're still reading World Watch.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I read as I hope he'll recant eventually, but I think I've generally lost all hope that this will ever happen.
But I will still buy his books.
C'mon! New Bean novel already!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Personally, my favorite reaction piece so far is from Foreign Policy. (it's kind of eerie, I was thinking maybe the judges should submit to a breathalyzer before voting, which has some relevancc to the FP piece)
quote:CHAIR: Guys? Guys!! It's 2 AM and we've got an award to give later today! What are we gonna do? We can't use Jimmy Carter again -- he was our emergency winner the last time we were stumped! If we don't do this right, we'll have less credibility than the Grammys!!
MEMBER A (clearly drunk): Hey, why not Neil Patrick Harris? For bringing peace to.... umm..... Hollywood awards shows?!
MEMBER B: Remember when Time's Man of the Year was... you? Why can't we do something like that? You know, say that the Peace Prize goes to all peace-loving people. CHAIR: No f%$&ing way. What do you want me to do, hold up a mirror to the cameras when I say who won? And you know how many idiots would ask for their take of the prize money?
MEMBER A: Seriously, Neil Patrick Harris is awesome. Any of you checked out Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think the committee did the President any favours, but I liked this:
quote:I've had some coffee now. Reading through all the reactions, compiled by Chris and Patrick, there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved. Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere. This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face. I like Shimon Peres' statement, reprinted in a useful compendium of world reaction at the Lede:
“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”
Right now, we do not know where that direction will ultimately lead. We do know that we were facing a spiral of conflict that, unchecked, could have taken the world to the abyss. I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through. In the midst of our domestic battles, and their ill-temper (from which I have not been immune lately), this is an attempt to tell us: look up for a moment, see how far we've come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears. And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.
mmkay.
and here's how Foreign Policy analyzes the award's past and present use
quote:The Nobel Peace Prize's aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize's very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, "The prize ... is not only for past achievement. ... The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] ... Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act."
Apparently obviously so. 'To put it bluntly, this is a political act,' he says. I'll add to that. Even the act itself is a blunt one. Of the sort that is continuing to render the award a blunt instrument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The usual short-sighted liberals in socialist-leaning Europe, who seem to be in the majority on the Nobel Prize Committee, will applaud someone like Obama as an expression of their resentment of America for being stronger than anyone else
You know, I think I'm going to put this down as one of the balder and sillier of your attempts at garrulous sociopolitical pseudopsychology. You continue to have absolutely no real apprehension of the world!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, what I said is the truth. Your attempt at denial is pathetic, based as usual on personal attack rather than reason.
If I may expand on that sentence you quoted out of context, the reason why those who resent America for being stronger than anyone else will applaud someone like Obama, is because such an irresolute, do-nothing president is ideally suited to defuse and squander American power and moral leadership, thereby making America weak.
Let's see which of us has the best apprehension of the real world. I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power. When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
It is unlikely that Obama will heed the request of his generals in the field for more troops, because then that would make him a "warmonger." This will be especially hard for him to do now that he has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
[ October 09, 2009, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, what I said is the truth. Your attempt at denial is pathetic, based as usual on personal attack rather than reason.
No, it's based on the words that you write in this forum, which include but are not limited to your apprehension that europeans love obama because he is ruining the united states and they want to see that happen because their sociopolitical feelings are dominated by a massive nationalist inferiority complex, and because you are infamous for railing single-mindedly down tangents that can be very clearly explained to be factually incorrect, and you never ever ever incorporate any new facts into a political theory once you have started arguing your Stunning Political Conclusions and would be forced to alter them or admit you were wrong.
quote:Let's see which of us has the best apprehension of the real world. I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power. When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
Okay. This is officially on the table. This is your official prediction. You're predicting that many democrats will call obama a traitor for withdrawing troops from afghanistan and as a result Obama will be impeached with the help of those democrats.
Never mind that this is not at all likely and that pretty much all of your predictions are awesomely, terrifically wrong. I'll accept your prediction and enjoy pointing out that it did not happen, and that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
quote:This is officially on the table. This is your official prediction. You're predicting that many democrats will call obama a traitor for withdrawing troops from afghanistan and as a result Obama will be impeached with the help of those democrats.
If it's any consolation, I actually can't think of a single prediction Ron has made in eight years that has come true.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, you may not know now what passions you will allow to control you in the future, but if you follow a certain course now, the future is quite predictable. Cain killed Abel because Abel obeyed God, and God made manifest His acceptance of Abel. This Cain resented, and took out his rebellion against God by murdering his faithful brother. In the end, all conflict between Good and Evil will come down to the same thing. The powers of evil will encite all mankind to the point where the majority will feel they must kill the dissenting minority. No one will be neutral. See Rev. 9:15, 18; 13:5.
Sam, you like to string together invective after invective, denunciation after denunciation, but you really do not say anything. I can excuse Orincoro for being uninformed about writing and publishing (which I have been involved with professionally for decades), though his arrogance and presumption are less excusable. But you are just a sniper lurking in the bushes, shooting for sport. If you were armed with anything more than a BB gun, you might be dangerous.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Sam, you may not know now what passions you will allow to control you in the future, but if you follow a certain course now, the future is quite predictable. Cain killed Abel because Abel obeyed God, and God made manifest His acceptance of Abel. This Cain resented, and took out his rebellion against God by murdering his faithful brother. In the end, all conflict between Good and Evil will come down to the same thing. The powers of evil will encite all mankind to the point where the majority will feel they must kill the dissenting minority. No one will be neutral. See Rev. 9:15, 18; 13:5.
This is why Hatrack rocks. Even the death threats are unique.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
By the way, Sam, do you have any predictions to make based on your supposedly superior "apprehension of the real world"?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, you do recall that Obama sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan within two months of taking office, yes? 21,000 all together this year, bringing the total in-country troops to 68,000?
Let me stress that again. Almost a third of the troops currently in Afghanistan were sent there this year by President Obama.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Frisco, it is not exactly a death threat to warn that someone may become murderous in the future if they follow a certain course now. More properly, it should be considered cautionary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You're right. If I keep pointing out how completely deluded you are, I will obviously kill my brother in a heretical act paralleling a biblical story. And then there will be an all-consuming prophecy-told conflict between good and evil. Or something. How could I not have seen it. It is so obvious that this is relevant to my talking about how you make terrible predictions all the time and that Obama won't be impeached and that you make terrible psychoanalytical claims about Europeans. Thank you for incorporating the big picture so rigorously.
quote:Sam, you like to string together invective after invective, denunciation after denunciation, but you really do not say anything.
Yes I do. I'm actually pretty clear about it. I'm saying that Obama will not be impeached, you're wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, and you have a penchant for spouting off scores of incorrect predictions and blatant falsehoods that you refuse to acknowledge even in the face of rigorous and overwhelming correction.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, Chris, he had to transfer the troops being withdrawn from Iraq somewhere. But his generals tell him they need another 40,000 troops, or they will not be able to prevail against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. All he has done so far is have meetings about it. Will he increase troop strength in Afghanistan by more than 61%? Does he really mean business in Afghanistan?
If he should surprise me and finally agree to the increase (and not compromise with a smaller increase), then would he give back his Nobel Peace Prize?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, Sam, do you have any predictions to make based on your supposedly superior "apprehension of the real world"?
You have to have very very terrible reading comprehension to not have figured out that I am very clearly making an assertion that Obama will not be impeached for what you are predicting he will be impeached for. I'm predicting that you will be wrong, basically! But I guess I could hork up a small list if that will help you out!
1. Obama will never be impeached for what you are suggesting he will be impeached for.
2. The likelihood of Obama getting impeached for anything is actually incredibly low.
3. Obama is actually vastly more likely to INCREASE troops to Afghanistan rather that DECREASE them as you are predicting, especially considering that he currently has a habit of increasing troops in Afghanistan.
4. You're wrong with your predictions pretty much all the time and this prediction of yours will be no different.
5. You're wrong.
6. You're totally wrong.
7. You're usually wrong.
There, that should be sufficient for the time being!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam: You say "rigorous and overwhelming correction"?!
You show all of the "rigor" of a high school chemistry student who "dry-labs" all his assignments (writes down the results he expects of experiments without actually performing them). And the only thing overwhelming about your correction is the plethora of words you employ to say nothing of substance.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hey, Ron, would you like to put some money on that impeachment thing? Say, 50 bucks. This is a pretty un-ambiguous point, right? If Obama is impeached by 2012, you win. Otherwise not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam: You say "rigorous and overwhelming correction"?!
You show all of the "rigor" of a high school chemistry student who "dry-labs" all his assignments (writes down the results he expects of experiments without actually performing them). And the only thing overwhelming about your correction is the plethora of words you employ to say nothing of substance.
Ron, my statement about rigorous and overwhelming correction is true. You seem to be displaying poor reading comprehension yet again by assuming that the statement of your having received rigorous and overwhelming correction must be a statement that can be asserted by you only to apply to
1. this thread, or 2. me specifically.
In fact, neither condition is true! for purposes of the truth of the statement, you could disregard me entirely, as I am not currently providing any sort of exhaustive process to demonstrate how you are wrong, though I have in the past, and I am certainly not the only person who has expended a lot of time and effort attempting to patiently demonstrate your fallacious thinking and correct you.
For a perfect example of a thread where you were completely wrong, this was rigorously shown to be the case, and you did nothing but refuse to be corrected and even display your bizarre penchant for moving straight to nonsequitorially arguing about biblical things, please see:
I think it would be a nice gesture, if possible, for the President to donate his award money to the groups represented by the other nominees.
ETA: Otherwise I think this was just about right:
quote: This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
I think that does a good job of expressing the premature nature of the award and explaining why he is accepting it anyway and in what spirit.
[ October 09, 2009, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men, let me answer that challenge by telling a true story. This was a long time ago, when I was on a Boy Scout field trip to Cranbrook Museum of Science near Detroit, Michigan. All the way on the bus, some friends of mine (kids in my unit) kept flipping a quarter and betting a nickle on the outcome. They kept trying to get me to join them, but I said, no, I did not believe in gambling.
After we had nearly finished our tour of the museum, and were waiting in the minerals room for the rest of the troop to catch up to us, my friends started up with the betting on coin tosses again, and again tried to get me to join in. Finally they said I did not have to bet anything, just guess and see how well I might do.
So I sighed and agreed to do it. The kid flipped the quarter, and I called it correctly over 22 times in a row, with no errors. Might have been 25 times. Each time, as the coin was tumbling end over end in the air, a feeling of certainty came over me, and I knew for sure what it would be, and called it. But the last time, that feeling did not come, and I kept my mouth closed. The coin came down, bounced out of the kid's hand, landed on the floor, and started rolling. As soon as it was out of everyone's reach, I felt the feeling of certainty, and called it. When the coin came to the end, wobbled around and finally came to rest, it was what I had called it.
The others decided this was just too weird, and said they weren't going to bet against me, and dispersed. I did not see them betting on the toss of a coin any more.
Now, the odds against calling a coin toss 22 or more times in a row are nearly astronomical. Did I reveal some kind of clairvoyant gift? Or was God using me to teach my friends a lesson that they should not gamble?
Have I ever won the state lottery? A few times--once it gave me the $500 I needed to pay my rent that month. But I always feel guilty and stop trying after a while. I have to be honest with myself. I would rather be known for accomplishing something, rather than for winning the lottery.
So no, I do not wish to place any bets. Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Yes, Chris, he had to transfer the troops being withdrawn from Iraq somewhere.
From the NYTimes: "Under Mr. Obama’s plan, a unit of 8,000 marines from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will be deployed in the next few weeks, aiming to be in Afghanistan by late spring, administration officials said, while an Army brigade from Fort Lewis, Wash., composed of 4,000 soldiers, will be sent in the summer. An additional 5,000 Army support troops will also be deployed in the summer."
About 3,000 more support troops were sent later, mostly (I believe) trainers. I do not know if any of the support troops came from Iraq, but at least the first 12,000 deployed this year did not.
Have any troops been removed from Iraq by Obama? There are plans to withdraw them, and about 4,000 are supposed to be withdrawn this month, the number of US contractors has dropped, and about 100 bases have been closed. But I didn't see where he's pulled any this year. He may have, I just haven't found an article about it yet.
However, the point I'm trying to make is that initially you were castigating Obama for doing nothing, not for doing enough. Even if those troops were redeployed from Iraq, he could still have brought them all home. Sending them to Afghanistan was doing something in response to requests from his generals.
Rather than continuing to throw men into the mix and hope for the best, I prefer a president who wants to make sure we have an actual goal in mind.
The discussion of whether he's doing what needs to be done is an important one. But you don't get to frame the discussion by first declaring he's done nothing and then forcing us to defend a do-nothing president.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
Then agree that if Obama doesn't get impeached by 2012 for the reasons you stated, you'll make a thread announcing publicly that you were wrong and I was right.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
That would be a lot more impressive if you had any. You were offered an opportunity to put up or shut up, and you refused to do either.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops. If he does do this, then I will be quite surprised. But if he does not, then the only other alternative would be to cut and run, and that would indeed be viewed by very many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, as out and out treason.
Let me answer you this way. If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men, I do not have to submit to your control. You do not get to set any terms for me. I have no obligation to "put up," nor do I have to "shut up."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops.
That's not what you said. You very unambiguously made the claim that Obama will be impeached with the help of democrats who will turn against him and vote for impeachment because he has withdrawn troops from Afghanistan. You're now blindly changing your story.
quote:Let me answer you this way. If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong.
Oh? And why are you doing this? Moving the goalposts? Why don't you want to stick up for the prediction you just made? Having second thoughts? Are you abandoning it in a cowardly way or have you just forgot what your prediction really was in such a short amount of time?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Chris, an increase of over 61% of present troop strength would be a much more significant matter than sending in 8,000 here, and 5,000 there. Also, those figures do not reflect the number of troops finishing their tours and coming home from Afghanistan at the same time. This is barely a replacement number. The generals want 40,000 additional troops over the present troop level.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, I do not have to submit to your control. You do not get to set any terms for me. I have no obligation to "put up," nor do I have to "shut up."
I do not claim you have any such obligation. But I do note that refusing to put your money where your mouth is does not speak well of your mouth.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK Sam, if you are unwilling to take what I say in context, then let me be as simplistic as you wish. If Obama sends 40,000 troops to Afghanistan--right away, no fudging or spacing it out (waiting for soldiers already there to finish their tours and come home)--then I am wrong in my assessment of him. But then, the other predictions about being impeached over this would become moot.
And I repeat. What is your prediction? Have any? Or is the future too foreign a country for your prognostications?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, I'm posting this stuff mostly because I get tired of people deciding what has happened without researching it and then basing their arguments on those decisions.
You have characterized him as a "do-nothing" president and then based your predictions on that description. I quickly found out that in fact Obama has deployed troops to Afghanistan, on his generals request.
You responded by declaring, again I assume without checking, that those were merely troops he had left over from Iraq and had to put somewhere (I'm paraphrasing), apparently to further your declared assumption that Obama is doing nothing.
I have now given you the source of most of those troops, which was not Iraq.
Obama has clearly responded to the requests of his generals in the past, so "do-nothing" is inaccurate. Does that change your prediction? Are you basing your predictions on what has actually happened, or on what the Obama you've decided upon in your head might do?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KofM, you should be more concerned with what speaks well (or not) of your mind.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What if he approves a smaller number of troops, but with a plan and goals that his generals agree with? Would that work, or is 40k the magic not-a-weakling number?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Ah, I see now you noticed what I said about 40,000 more troops representing a more than 61% increase.
The general(s) said they need 40,000. This is based on their military expertise and their knowledge of conditions in the field. You don't negotiate these things. If Obama gets the generals to accept a lesser amount, it will only be because he ordered them to.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Chris, an increase of over 61% of present troop strength would be a much more significant matter than sending in 8,000 here, and 5,000 there.
Sending in 21,000 troops this year was an increase of over 30% of present levels, which I find pretty damn significant for a "do-nothing" president. And even if he does approve the 40,000 they would also be deployed in 8,000 here, 5,000 there, as usually happens. I doubt we have 40,000 standing troops ready to go at a moment's notice right now, so dismissing the previous troops is also spurious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: KofM, you should be more concerned with what speaks well (or not) of your mind.
And so I am, thank you. I think I may say that your reputation around here is not going to keep me awake at night. But since you seemed to need some advice, I gave it to you, free of charge. I realise charity is a foreign concept to you Christian types, but it does exist. Of course, you are free to do what you like with your gift, including spurning it. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Last April the magic number being requested was 10,000, based on their military expertise and their knowledge of conditions in the field.
From what I've read, there may be a shift to take the fight harder against Al Queda and less against the Taliban, largely because the Taliban are locally entrenched and difficult to weed out. If Obama convinces his generals that getting Al Queda is a winnable war, and one that can be fought with fewer than 40,000 additional troops, what does that make him, in your opinion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK Sam, if you are unwilling to take what I say in context
Listen to yourself. Here, let's go back and confront you with the inconvenient issue of what you actually claimed.
These are your words. Yours. You wrote them, and now you're furiously backpedaling from them.
quote:Let's see which of us has the best apprehension of the real world. I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power. When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
Let's make sure to bold and reinforce sections of that which are very important insofar as they were the prediction that you actually made.
quote:I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
Note "I predict." Immediately after stating that this is your prediction you determine that he will 'waffle,' respond with 'non response' and then will wind up 'withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.'
Next:
quote:No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power.
Here you are unambiguously stating that the result of Obama's withdrawal of troops will result in the Taliban again returning to positions of power. This one has some fudge room so I am not doting on it too long. I'm just going to assume you mean that the Taliban will simply reconquer the country again.
And now, the final part, which I will reinforce yet again that you wrote as part of your prediction:
quote:When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
Here you are saying with no wiggle room that your prediction results in Obama's impeachment and removal from office.
You are saying that Obama will not commit, he will specifically withdraw troops rather than adding them (since he commits with 'non-response,' a concept at odds with adding troops, which is a response), and that as a result of this, he will be impeached and removed from office.
So.
If Obama is not impeached and removed from office for the reasons you detailed, you were wrong.
You don't want to commit to this all the sudden.
You say this:
quote:I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops.
Sorry if this is a little over your head, but here goes: you are here saying that you said something that, reviewing the thread, it is obvious you did not say.
You then say this:
quote:If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong.
You move the goalposts. Even if your prediction is proven to be completely false (obama is not impeached and removed from office with the help of democrats specifically because he removed troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban takes over) you're now saying that you aren't going to admit that you were wrong if he merely doesn't win a second term.
You keep changing your story.
Thankfully, even if you can't keep your story straight from one post to the next, I can.
I'm watching.
And I know you'll be wrong!
Now, here's a real big question for a real big man: will you admit you were wrong if your actual prediction turns out to be wrong, or will you refuse your own prediction and change your story?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, no one is born right. So anyone who wants to be right, must become right. And the only way that can happen is to allow one's self to be corrected, and learn better. Are you willing to do that? Let's dispense with the trash-talking, and see now what unfolds.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Ron... god Ron. Just... sigh...
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
What this board needs is an "Ignore" feature.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
My Ignore feature was upgraded before the last election.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Chris, he had to transfer the troops being withdrawn from Iraq somewhere. But his generals tell him they need another 40,000 troops, or they will not be able to prevail against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. All he has done so far is have meetings about it. Will he increase troop strength in Afghanistan by more than 61%? Does he really mean business in Afghanistan?
If he should surprise me and finally agree to the increase (and not compromise with a smaller increase), then would he give back his Nobel Peace Prize?
Why don't we tell our officers of the peace to give back their badges the moment they fire their weapons?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sam, no one is born right. So anyone who wants to be right, must become right. And the only way that can happen is to allow one's self to be corrected, and learn better. Are you willing to do that?
*facepalm* Well, that's certainly a novel way to admit to being wrong, I suppose.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's hard for me to believe the coin flip story when there's a demonstrated tendency to misremember the last several hours, and the error is in the direction of grandiose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
One of my good friends -- who is still an atheist -- remembers having a conversation with a Catholic acquaintance about the ways God tended to intercede in people's lives. The acquaintance was just saying, "It's not like God is going to perform earthquakes on demand to prove a point..." when a surprisingly strong tremor struck in, of all places, the Midwest.
If it weren't for the fact that I'm reasonably certain that people say similar things all the time without having them ironically contradicted....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron,
I'll make a couple predictions. Pres. Obama can't pull out of Afghanistan. Even if he wanted to just call it quits and say screw it there, he couldn't. Even if the long term strategic importance of Afghanistan were somehow to be explained away, our presence in the region is far too important with relation to Pakistan. If we have even the slightest chance of getting them to take on rebels in places like Waziristan and the Swat Valley, we need to be putting on pressure from the west. Boots on the ground are going to be essential to proving long term stability to small villages, and thus to earning their long term loyalty, which we'll need if any lasting government, whatever it might look like, is to be formed.
Personally I think a long term government will have to involve some sort of elected official operating out of Kabul, and an agreement, whether formal or informal, with local warlords that turns them into some form of territorial governors. We're never going to be able to turn Afghanistan into the sort of democracy that the American people expect us to, maybe not even into the messy democracy that Iraq ended up with. Running that hell hole is going to have to be a hybrid of that an authoritarian rule, it's the only way to ensure that the forces in place are strong enough to combat Al Qaeda, and really, the Taliban isn't any more a fan of AQ than we are. They've intimated in the past that they wouldn't mind some sort of peace deal that involves fighting AQ. I think we might even get some bonuses out of the deal, like a changeover in the economy from poppies to some other agricultural product, and might even secure lasting social change in the form of female rights (well, they'll get to go to schools and not be treated as property, but that's progress).
This isn't going to end in the sort of smashing success that some people might be eying, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end with a structure in place that keeps AQ out, that we can live with, and that actually benefits the locals in some way. Obama knew that when he was running for office. In fact, he spent a lot of time telling war weary Democrats to suck it up, cause we're going to be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. I think the reason he's hesitating on sending in 40,000 troops automatically is one, where does he get them from? And two, he's possibly hoping to use personal prestige, and us being too tied up to try and shoehorn more EU troops into the field. I suspect that might be hard, since they barely even want the troops they have there to stay, and Bush really burned that bridge with his handling of the Iraq "coalition," but it's still worth trying.
As for Obama being impeached? Republican fantasyland. Seriously. Even if he did remove the troops from Afghanistan, it won't happen, at least not for the reason you've stated. Pulling troops out of Afghanistan isn't treasonous, at least, no more than Bush sending them into Iraq was. Both things would be utterly stupid, and bad for the US, but I don't think treasonous.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fight the good fight, Lyrhawn.
(I actually did find that post informative and interesting, since I haven't thought too much about Afghanistan recently, but I'm not sure I was your target audience)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone who finds any of my long winded blathering interesting is my target audience.
The media like to call Afghanistan 'the forgotten war,' which is maybe true in some ways. The facts haven't really changed that much in the last couple of years, unlike in Iraq where complicated shifting alliances and factions, combined with numerous military and political strategies really made getting an amateur grasp of the facts in their entirety, and to keep current, was somewhat difficult.
Afghanistan on the other hand really has the same issues it has had for years. They need an economy that doesn't center around poppy exports. We've been spending millions of dollars to try and irrigate and seed land for (I think) corn cultivation, and thus far it's actually working to some extent. Locals have even voluntarily destroyed poppy crops in many cases, but this runs counter to the fact that poppy growth has actually increased (after decreasing following the first few years of "occupation") in the last year or so.
They need infrastructure, but this is also difficult. We spend a crap ton of money rebuilding a massive modern highway running from Kandahar to Kabul, basically from their version of NYC (in importance) to their version of Washington DC (political center of power). A third of Afghanistan's population lives within relatively close proximity to the highway. It used to take two days to cover the 300 mile length of the road, and when the road was finished, it only took six hours. That's a huge improvement both for economic and defense purposes, but the road in the last couple years has become a major target for insurgents, who've blown so many holes in the road that travel time is more like eight hours now, and people are afraid to travel the road without an armed guard.
There's other infrastructure progress made as well, in the especially important region of Helmand province, where the majority of the heavy fighting is still taking place. Modern power plants have been installed in many of the villages and cities in the province, all in a hearts and minds battle to try and win local villagers over to the allied side, and in many places, it's working. But a lack of troops, despite a concerted international allied effort, makes it very hard to really guarantee safety to locals for more than a short period of time.
Governance is also a major issue. We've turned Kabul into an armed fortress in order to protect President Karzai, who by all accounts is at the head of a corruption ridden government that really doesn't even have that much power. We funnel a ton of money through a guy whose authority doesn't extend far beyond the city limits, which really makes him the best funded ruler of a small city-state as opposed to the democratically elected leader of a geographically large nation. Despite the initial gains made by allied troops and Northern Alliance (hey, remember those guys?) forces back in the early stages of the war, 99% of the country has returned to warlord control. A lot of policy advisers recognize that dethroning those warlords and replacing them with elected officials would not only be extremely difficult, but may in fact be counterproductive. Removing them means a protracted military effort in harsh territory that the enemy has a decided advantage in, and at the end of the day, the warlord himself would either be likely to win such an election, or the person replacing him is likely to be just as corrupt. The British had maharajahs; we're going to have Afghan warlords. We'll pay them off, tell them to play nice with Karzai, probably team up with them to fight AQ, and wag our fingers at them if we don't like how they treat the locals, but if that's the best you can do, you call it a win and walk off the field.
The real problem from an American perspective in winning Afghanistan is political rhetoric. The solution in Afghanistan is going to look a lot more like what we did during the cold war than what we SAY our current goals are. The problem is, Afghanistan in many ways IS ungovernable by western style democracy. Our form of government only works when put into place in a nation that already has some fundamental and complementary societal standards in place. Afghanistan doesn't have those (they have standards, just not complementary ones), not in the same way that Germany did when we installed a "modern" democracy in the 40s. But Americans have been promised, just like in Iraq, Afghanistan is going to be a democracy, we're going to beat that wily Taliban and their Al Qaeda friends (note the lack of depth in that characterization), we're going to spread freedom, cheeseburgers, and gender equality by golly. Now, anything less is going to appear to be a failure because of the conditioning the American public has had to what a victory will look like. Moving the goal posts back in this war isn't a bad idea, because our goals were unrealistic, outlandish, and ignorant in their initial formulation and presentation to the public.
Afghanistan is still a winnable war, so long as we realize what "winning" actually is there, and then commit the forces and the time necessary to do it.
Edit to add: Yeah, and Pakistan. Pulling out of Afghanistan would only lead to further encroachment of radical Muslim militants beyond the Swat Valley and Waziristan into the Pakistani heartland, further destabilizing a fledgling civilian government that is still trying to work out the boundaries between civilian and military control. If the militants get too far beyond the lawless borderlands into more important areas, the military could simply take control of the country in the name of national security, and from a US point of view, that probably wouldn't be the worst thing. Getting Musharraf to attack militants was like pulling teeth, but he never let them take over, and I suspect the military, in a coup, would do the same. But at least that way we're assured that the military, and not radical militants, have control of their nuclear arsenal. Regardless though, I think if we leave, you'll see them spread out, and I think you'll see a fledgling Muslim democracy destroyed in a coup, and possibly a civil war. Imagine how that sort of internal strife will make India and China feel. The region is just too important for world, as well as US stability. This is what I was trying to hint at above, but what the hell, as long as I'm writing a mini-essay on internal Afghan issue, I might as well expound upon the broader regional implications. It's 3:30 am, what else do I have to do?
[ October 10, 2009, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Hey, after Henry Kissinger won it, it's aaaallllll gravy! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And the only thing overwhelming about your correction is the plethora of words you employ to say nothing of substance.
:snicker:
Oh, delicious.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Very good points, Lyrhawn--especially about the implications for Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons) if we cut and run in Afghanistan. But what if Obama ignores all these good and valid points and does cut and run anyway? Do you see how utterly bad that would be? A president that irresponsible could not be allowed to continue in office. His own party would turn against him.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...but the road in the last couple years has become a major target for insurgents, who've blown so many holes in the road that travel time is more like eight hours now..."
Every time I meet a member of an organized religion who is nice and reasonable, somebody comes along and does something like this, and completely destroys religion's credibility for the millionth time. The Abrahamic religions are utterly and irrevocably tainted by pointless violence from WAY before 9/11 (see my recent thread on violence in the Holy Land), but the rest of the world's religions are still riddled with factual inaccuracies. Blowing up roads, flying planes into buildings...the only God that supports and encourages THAT type of behavior is a God who is off his meds. LOL
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops. If he does do this, then I will be quite surprised. But if he does not, then the only other alternative would be to cut and run, and that would indeed be viewed by very many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, as out and out treason.
Really, Ron, this is just sad. I'm sorry that you have to go through life this way- I think sometimes I'm unfair to you because I see now that you don't understand how ridiculous you sound most of the time.
Here, I have a suggestion. Next time something big happens in national politics, go ahead and just write down a list of predictions similar to the ones you list here all the time. Keep it to yourself. Now, when the event has run its course and the time span of your predictions has passed, look at the list and assess your average. Pay attention to why the things you predicted did not happen, or whenever a prediction does come true, examine the nature of the prediction, how specific it is, or general, and the likelyhood it had at the beginning of coming true.
This will save you the embarrassment of posting all your predictions on Hatrack, or Ornery, or wherever, and then having them not come true, and then suffering the added humiliation of trying to salvage your dignity by somehow justifying your predictions as valid, despite the fact that they have not come to pass. If you do not do this, I will be glad to start a new thread. In it I will collect and keep track of your predictions, so that we can all marvel at your predictive powers. What do you say? I'm looking forward to this project.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, I am sorry, but I am not going to Afghanistan unless you really convince me that it is vital I be on the ground. (Excellent posts as usual.)
steven, Muslims hardly have a corner on believing ridiculous things about God.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"steven, Muslims hardly have a corner on believing ridiculous things about God."
What I learned in history class was that in the Middle Ages it was actually the Christians who were the backwards fundamentalists.
An example--When the Christians took over a bit of disputed land for a while their motto was "convert or die" toward the Jews and Muslims who happened to be living there. When the Muslims took over a specific piece of land, they simply required the Jews and Christians living there to pay an extra tax.
I'm trying to figure out whose credibility is more effectively undermined by comparing today's Muslim extremism with that historical fact. What do you think, kate? Can you support your conclusion?
I really don't see how I can be expected to take either religion seriously, given these historical flip-flops. Both are prone to extremism. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Very good points, Lyrhawn--especially about the implications for Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons) if we cut and run in Afghanistan. But what if Obama ignores all these good and valid points and does cut and run anyway? Do you see how utterly bad that would be? A president that irresponsible could not be allowed to continue in office. His own party would turn against him.
What evidence do you have that makes you believe he'll do so, after spending enormous political capital promising to do the exact opposite?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's a different approach.
Ron, can you name any times you've made predictions and they've come true? I could be mistaken, but frankly I doubt you can name even one time, let alone enough times to give you prestige or credibility when it comes to making predictions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
He claims to have predicted the fall of a coin 22 times in a row. As a point of minor interest, the odds against this are not exactly astronomical, being in the region of one in ten million.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I meant predictions made here. Obviously unverifiable (either that he made the prediction, or that it came true) stuff isn't going to cut it for this discussion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, no one is born right. So anyone who wants to be right, must become right. And the only way that can happen is to allow one's self to be corrected, and learn better. Are you willing to do that? Let's dispense with the trash-talking, and see now what unfolds.
Honestly, it's the little things like this that make this board an unreplicable experience.
You are cognitively dissonant to the extent that it even allows you to, effortlessly, mentally reframe and even 're-remember' your own recorded arguments and statements from even minutes prior. This actually helps me glean some insight into the oft-asked question (not just by me!) of what the world must be like through your eyes. Now, I think I have a better idea. Reality instinctively becomes a chameleonic entity, an end product framed by the vagaries of what you desire it to be in that moment. I am, frankly, awestruck by the process.
Yes, let's see what happens.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The standard is
quote:to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
Awarding the prize to Obama is a farce. Those who have given him the prize should be ashamed. Even though the prizes have been political before, the person has usually had at least something that could defensibly be an accomplishment worthy of the prize.
Exactly. This is stupid. Obama's actually worse than Bush on a lot of issues, and rewarding him for being such a pathetic centrist isn't going to make him act on the change he promised.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Obama's actually worse than Bush on a lot of issues
I'd sure like to know which ones!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:and rewarding him for being such a pathetic centrist isn't going to make him act on the change he promised.
Actually, in my experience, it's one of the best ways to get someone to do precisely that.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
wait what?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I meant that I don't think he can keep the money.
Yes, he can. That's what it is for, and it's his to do with what he wants.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, what I said is the truth. Your attempt at denial is pathetic, based as usual on personal attack rather than reason.
Not so much....
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I meant that I don't think he can keep the money.
Yes, he can. That's what it is for, and it's his to do with what he wants.
I was refering to rules about what one can keep as President rather than what the Nobel rules are. Would this count as a gift?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So no, I do not wish to place any bets. Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
I still wonder what this has to do with YOU, though. You have lost all of both of those long ago, Ron, at least around here.
Be careful though....you might find someone in your church who might not want to "suffer a witch to live" if you reveal your incredable abilities. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I meant that I don't think he can keep the money.
Yes, he can. That's what it is for, and it's his to do with what he wants.
I was refering to rules about what one can keep as President rather than what the Nobel rules are. Would this count as a gift?
Nope, it is an award, not a gift, and it is from a committee, with no strings attached. I thought you were referring to that, but I am pretty sure he can keep it.
Looks like he is going to donate the total sum to a charity (according to the White House), and he is not the only sitting president who has accepted.
[ October 11, 2009, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not very related to the thread, but I thought this deserved kudos
quote:I cried. Like a little girl. It was like the moon landing for us — finally, a president is directly speaking out to me and my people — a president celebrates Diwali in The White House!
This weekend I made the trek back to The Bay Area where I grew up, to celebrate the Hindu New Year, Diwali. Diwali is a celebration of lights, and marks the triumph of good over evil, and is celebrated with great fanfare by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and some Buddhists, around the world.
All through the weekend I received phone calls and texts from inspired friends and families wishing me Diwali wishes, and gushing over the news that Obama was the first president ever to celebrate Diwali in The White House. (It started in the Bush era, in 2003, but President Bush never personally took part in the celebration, nor was it celebrated within the main White House walls.) The President lead a small ceremony which included an invocation by a Hindu priest, and a ceremonial lighting of the Diya (lamp, symbolizing the brightness of truth and knowledge over darkness and ignorance), and had this to say: ... In addition, this great ceremony culminated with the joyous event of the President re-establishing the President’s advisory committee and White House initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (which was created under Clinton, but later died under Bush.)
Sounds like a nice holiday.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It is.
We have a friend in India, with a niece that has severe mental developmental problems--imagine having an 8 year old permanently in the family. The one thing that she enjoys and looks forward to more than all others is Diwali. The look in her eyes as the lights go up is wonderful.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I bet they don't have us beat for Christmas lights, though. Some people turn their homes and yards into lighted fantasylands. Must burn megawatts of power. And we leave the lights up for weeks. Winter in Michigan would be pretty dreary without it, though.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yea, but the lights in Diwali have actual religious significance to their holiday.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ours have health and safety implications. In case of heavy snowfall I can find my way home by following the Christmas lights like a plane looking for runway lights.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I bet they don't have us beat for Christmas lights, though. Some people turn their homes and yards into lighted fantasylands. Must burn megawatts of power. And we leave the lights up for weeks. Winter in Michigan would be pretty dreary without it, though.
In Trinidad, we celebrate both Christmas and Divalli. The lights go for Divalli and stay up through Christmas.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ours have health and safety implications. In case of heavy snowfall I can find my way home by following the Christmas lights like a plane looking for runway lights.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Great pic you found there, Dobbie. Really illuminates Lyrhawn's post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Yea, but the lights in Diwali have actual religious significance to their holiday.
I don't want to start a religious argument here, but you should be aware that for many of us who are Christians, Christmas lights have actual religious significance as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Really? Could you elaborate?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Really? Could you elaborate?
The use of candles and other fires and lights as part of the Christmas celebration goes back as far as the celebration its self. They are reminiscent of the star of bethlehem and are symbols of Christ who we worship as "the light of the world".
I hope that question was not intended to as sarcastic as it seemed to me. I recognize that there are also many purely secular uses of lights at Christmas just as there are millions of purely secular people who celebrate Christmas. The fact that non-religious people have chosen to join in celebrating a Christian holiday, does not mean that there are not still people who celebrate for devout religious reasons. I also recognize that many of the symbols used by Christians in celebrating Christmas, had origins in pagan celebrations. That's irrelevant. Pretty much every religion and culture that originated in the northern Hemisphere has some sort of celebration of lights around the time of the winter solstice. Given that, Its pretty silly and insulting to claim that the use of lights has real religious significance in some of those religious celebrations but not others.
But please, before you launch in to arguing about it, it is my religion and I know what has religious meaning to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am with The Rabbit on this. Advent candles to symbolize Light coming into the world, for example.
ETA: I think it likely that "light" is one of those almost universal symbols, used in many traditions. I find this enormously hopeful.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: Ummm, I wasn't being sarcastic. I just wanted more information.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have actually joked about wanting to start a religion that celebrates darkness in December, just so we could complain about all those "non-denominational" festivals that insist on lighting things around that time of year.
"God made it dark in December for a reason, people! All these lights mock His purpose!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The Rabbit: Ummm, I wasn't being sarcastic. I just wanted more information.
Sorry I misinterpreted your intent. I do find it a more than a bit surprising that anyone growing up in North American would not know that light was one of the most frequently used symbols for Jesus Chris and/or truth and/or virtue.
[ October 21, 2009, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
In this cold and flu season, its not uncommon to misinterpret the intent of mucus.
But Mucus is pretty cool.
Now back to our regularly scheduled Light and Religion discussion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: *shrug* How would I put it, obviously, I've encountered generic light vs. dark symbolism in popular culture whether LOTR or Babylon 5. Now that you've pointed it out, I've seen paintings of Christ surrounded by a glow or light in paintings or the like.
However, when initially considering Christmas lights on their own, their religious angle totally escaped me. I was more thinking about multicoloured strings of led lights or icicle lights.
Also, I've probably never encountered Advent candles or the phrase "the light of the world" if that helps.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The modern multicolored strings are, from what I gather, merely a technological extension of the original candles or whatever was originally used. If early Christians had had electric lights they probably would have used them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Apologies Rabbit.
We had this discussion in law school during a property class because we were discussing Homeowners associations and their restrictions on certain things. We discussed their restrictions on the mezuzah, but we also brought up Christmas lights.
The professor asked the class (80 students, mostly Christian) if it had religious significance. Everyone agreed that it does not have religious significance.
Anyways, I appreciate the correction.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The professor asked the class (80 students, mostly Christian) if it had religious significance. Everyone agreed that it does not have religious significance.
That is really, really sad.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No apology required, Armoth.
I suspect there is a contextual issue here that influenced the answer you got in a law class. Unlike the Mezuzah, displaying Christmas lights publicly on the exterior of ones house isn't considered an obligatory religious ritual by any mainstream Christian church (that I'm familiar with). And while candles and lights are part of many worship services celebrating Christmas, exterior house lighting generally isn't. Add to that the fact that is has become such a widespread secular practice in the US. and I can completely see why a law class would answer that way.
My guess is that if you put many of those people in a different situation, say a discussion of the religious significance of diwali lights, and asked them if lights had an religious significance at Christmas -- you would have gotten a very different response.
As I understand it, Diwali lights fall somewhere in between the Mezuzah and the Christmas lights. Its not obligatory but its a pretty central part of the religious celebration. Here in Trinidad, lots of people of with or without Indian ancestry put out deeps for Divali as part of the festival even if they aren't Hindu. Its really more accurate to call it a festival than a Holy Day. Maybe more akin to Hanukkah.
I'd also be a bit wary of answers given in a law school class by presumably Christian students. There are a lot of people who if to state their religion, will say they are Christian even though they are mostly areligious. The answers you get from them about Christianity are as likely as unreliable as the answers secular Jews give about Judaism. Law school is a very secular environment so I suspect devout religious people would be unlikely to speak out on that kind of issue even if they strongly disagreed. It just wouldn't be worth the fight.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Also, I've probably never encountered Advent candles or the phrase "the light of the world" if that helps.
As an example, one simple thing we typically do at Christmas worship service is distribute unlit candles to everyone in attendance and then shut off all lights other than the Advent candles, to represent the darkness of the world. The pastor will then take his candle and light it from the Christ candle (in the center of the Advent candles). He then uses his candle to light the assistant pastor's candle, who then uses his candle to light the ushers' candles, who then use their candles to light the candles of the first person in every pew row, and so on until every person's candle is lit. This is supposed to represent the spreading of God's Word, from person to person, until the world is lit. That's how light, as a symbol, fits into the Christmas story. He, and His story, is the light the enters the world.
Having said that, I'd not be surprised if many people, even Christians, made the connection between that symbolism and things like outdoor light displays and Christmas trees.
quote:The professor asked the class (80 students, mostly Christian) if it had religious significance. Everyone agreed that it does not have religious significance.
Depending on the context of the class, I'd also think this question might have a special connotation in law school - it could bring issues of First Amendment rights (can the government put up Christmas lights?) to mind.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The professor asked the class (80 students, mostly Christian) if it had religious significance. Everyone agreed that it does not have religious significance.
That is really, really sad.
well, they ARE law students . . . Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tresopax: Interesting. Makes sense though. Is there a particular denomination that is particularly known for this ceremony or is there an alternate name for it? Perhaps surprisingly, "advent candle" in Wikipedia is unhelpful, redirecting to "advent wreath."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The professor asked the class (80 students, mostly Christian) if it had religious significance. Everyone agreed that it does not have religious significance.
What's also strange about that is not just none of them knowing the religious significance, but none of them when asked the question thinking about the question and coming up with at least a good guess.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Perhaps surprisingly, "advent candle" in Wikipedia is unhelpful, redirecting to "advent wreath."
The advent wreath holds the advent candles. What Tres described is a Christmas Eve Candlelight service. It's pretty widespread across denominations.
Edit: the prologue to the gospel of John is often read during the candlelight service, it makes the point (or even rubs it in). If you want to know why light has religious significance at Christmas, here it is:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world."
[ October 21, 2009, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The professor asked the class (80 students, mostly Christian) if it had religious significance. Everyone agreed that it does not have religious significance.
What's also strange about that is not just none of them knowing the religious significance, but none of them when asked the question thinking about the question and coming up with at least a good guess.
My law school is actually a Jesuit university, and my professor consulted with a number of the religious faculty. They all denied its significance.
I'm assuming they had a religious agenda when answering...?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It may be, too, that they acknowledge the lights have no actual religious (i.e. doctrinal) significance, but are purely symbolic. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
More likely they were using "religious significance" in a closely defined way. Putting up Christmas lights is not a religious obligation or a part of a formal liturgy.
Edit: or what Tom said. Sort of.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They're not of explicit religious significance(the custom is only like 60 years old for electric lights and like 150 for candles and they're derived from pagan sources). It's more that light itself is an important part of Christmas, so that people regard the Christmas lights as part of that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: More likely they were using "religious significance" in a closely defined way. Putting up Christmas lights is not a religious obligation or a part of a formal liturgy.
Edit: or what Tom said. Sort of.
Which is what I was trying to say above. The context in which the question was asked is really important because that context defines what is meant by "religious significance". If the question was asked as part of a legal discussion of whether HOAs can restrict religious practices, I would expect a very different answer than when the question is posed in a discussion about the use of candles and lights for other religious festivals.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: They're not of explicit religious significance(the custom is only like 60 years old for electric lights and like 150 for candles and they're derived from pagan sources). It's more that light itself is an important part of Christmas, so that people regard the Christmas lights as part of that.
You are wrong about that Squicky. I think you are think about the use of lights/candles on Christmas trees in specific and not the more general use of candles/lights as part of the Christmas celebration. Candles have been used both as part of the Christmas liturgy and christmas celebrations for at least a thousand years. They were very likely adopted from pagan sources but like I said early, that irrelevant.
No one is claiming that Christians invented the idea of using lights and candles as part of a winter solstice celebration. I was simply claiming that that use has as much religious significance for many Christians as divali lights do for many Hindus.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You are wrong about that Squicky. I think you are think about the use of lights/candles on Christmas trees in specific and not the more general use of candles/lights as part of the Christmas celebration.
I'm wrong about what? Yeah, I'm specifically talking about Christmas lights and candles as home decorations, not about their use in liturgical contexts.
I think there is some sort of mix up here regarding that. Lights used in Christmas liturgies have an established and explicit religious symbolism.
Strings of lights that people hang on their house or around the Christmas tree don't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That may be partly my fault. When I used the phrase "Christmas lights" earlier, I meant the strings on the outside of the house rather than anything else, but I was evidentially responding to a post that used a more general definition that includes more.
dkw: Ah, found it. Thanks
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I never regarded Christmas lights as symbolic of anything. They are merely festive.
And if it were not for all the Christmas lights, how could we endure the dreariness of December?
January, of course, we have the Superbowl to liven things up.
February is mercifully short.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Obama's pronunciation in his Diwali video is really spot on. Much better than I can do, certainly.
Diwali as celebrated in India today is very secularized - something similar to Christmas in the US. Maybe moreso, even - it's not at all common for people to go to temple to celebrate in India, altho you do see diaspora Indians going to temple - more to interact in the community than for any religious reasons. Instead, it's a time to hang out with the family, eat sweets, wear new clothes, light candles and diyas (it is, after all, literally the festival of rows of lights) and make really, really loud explosions with firecrackers. Better than Fourth of July, since you can get all of the firecrackers that are now illegal in the US, like bottle rockets.
My husband's family doesn't celebrate Diwali that much, as they're Bengali, and Diwali comes just after their biggest holiday of Durga Puja. The two of us did celebrate a little, as did my office coworkers. (One of my closest friends in the office is Indian, and she's really missing her family right now b/c of Diwali. So we tried to cheer her up by dressing up in the office & going out to eat Indian buffet).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:You are wrong about that Squicky. I think you are think about the use of lights/candles on Christmas trees in specific and not the more general use of candles/lights as part of the Christmas celebration.
I'm wrong about what? Yeah, I'm specifically talking about Christmas lights and candles as home decorations, not about their use in liturgical contexts. .
Christmas candles have been used as home decorations since the middle ages when they were set in home windows to help guide the Christ child on his way to earth.
Yes, strings of icicle lights hanging from the roof tops haven't been around for centuries, I'd estimate its been about 15 years. But they are part of an evolution of lighting homes as part of the Christmas festival that goes back pretty continuously to when it was Saturnalia rather than a Christian celebration. Associating Christian symbols with the lights was a natural transition given that the new testament writers already used light as one of the symbols for Jesus and his coming. All the evidence shows that associating Christian symbolism with candles and yulelogs goes back as far as Christmas has been celebrated as a liturgical holiday, which goes back at a minimum to 350 AD, probably further.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Obama's pronunciation in his Diwali video is really spot on. Much better than I can do, certainly.
I wonder how much that varies regionally in India. In Trinidad, its most commonly pronounce "Di-wall-ee" with a true "w" sound not the "v" sound or mixed "w' and "v" I've heard before. I'm not sure if that a Trini t'ing. or if it is more representative of the parts of northern India where most of the Indo-Trinis came from.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:You are wrong about that Squicky. I think you are think about the use of lights/candles on Christmas trees in specific and not the more general use of candles/lights as part of the Christmas celebration.
I'm wrong about what? Yeah, I'm specifically talking about Christmas lights and candles as home decorations, not about their use in liturgical contexts.
I think there is some sort of mix up here regarding that. Lights used in Christmas liturgies have an established and explicit religious symbolism.
Strings of lights that people hang on their house or around the Christmas tree don't.
Put the whole thing in context. In all those respects, Christmas isn't any different than Diwali. People decorate there houses for Diwali with strings of lights that are identical to Christmas lights. They go up along with the traditional Deeps and candles. And people shoot of fireworks and the kids run around with sparklers.
Christmas lights have religious significance in pretty much exactly the same way Diwali lights have religious significance. So when Armoth posted that the comparison was off because "Diwali lights have religious significance", he was just off the mark. The modern use of lights in both Diwali and Christmas celebrations is very very similar and both arise from religious symbolism but have expanded into a more secular light festival.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm not sure I'd agree that "Christmas lights have religious significance in pretty much exactly the same way Diwali lights have religious significance".
Traditionally, Diwali is the celebration of Lord Rama's return to his kingdom, where he was greeted with rows of candles and diyas in every house. The holiday's lights also serve as a mark of light/good overcoming evil (Rama had defeated an evil demon), but the lights are not simply symbolic of the win of good over evil - they're also a literal recreation of the celebration that (supposedly) was held to welcome the god-king back home. And while the secular story of good over evil is the main cause of celebration today, many Hindus do still recognize the original story as a key part of the celebrations - after all, Vishnu is an extremely popular god. Among those who do pujas on Diwali, worship is almost always directed to Vishnu/Rama or his consort, Lakshmi.
Anyways, I don't think it's an important enough thing to quibble about. *shrug* Just thought I'd throw my opinion into the ring.
On the pronunciation thing - the word "Diwali" comes from Sanskrit, originally, which does not have a full on "w" sound, or, really, a "v" sound - it's sort of a cross between the two, altho leaning more towards "v" than "w". But I was referring more to Obama's pronunciation of methi, salamu balac, mahavira, and even Sikhism. He was spot on on the aspirations - it was clear that he was either coached very well, or has practiced speaking Hindi/Urdu words before.
[ October 22, 2009, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe he's a secret Hindu
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a spectrum between "absolutely essential part of the religious ritual" and "oooh pretty". I think that there is a great deal of variety as to where different things fall on that spectrum for different people.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Maybe he's a secret Hindu
O_O I'll bet he is! A secret Muslin Hindu Marxist!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's like Life of Pi, except without a tiger!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This topic seems somewhat moot. Lights have been used at Christmas time for centuries. Even if we ignore that, colored electric lights have been in use for several decades. They are not used in exactly the same way for any other holiday. Their use will likely continue so long as Christmas is celebrated. At what point is a tradition old enough to warrant recognition as a "real religious tradition?"
If the fourth of July came to be celebrated with the detonation of a nuclear warhead, just to cap off the fire works (kinda awesome idea aesthetically speaking now that I reflect on it, obviously a terrible idea for a host of other reasons), and as a symbolic gesture of American might, who would care? The new tradition joins everything else.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If the fourth of July came to be celebrated with the detonation of a nuclear warhead, just to cap off the fire works (kinda awesome idea aesthetically speaking now that I reflect on it, obviously a terrible idea for a host of other reasons), and as a symbolic gesture of American might, who would care?
:: raises hand ::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think the best we can do is a nuclear explosion? Have you no respect for America? Or for that matter, the disaster movie industry?
We'll drill a hole in the middle of Yellowstone, drop a nuke down there, then celebrate with a caldera explosion that will blot out the sun.
Frankly I think it's the perfect example of America: In the process of showing everyone how awesome we are, we'll mortally wound ourselves.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You are not drilling a hole in the middle of my Yellowstone!!!
Get back. You do not want to experience the wrath of The Rabbit.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Get back. You do not want to experience the wrath of The Rabbit.
No kidding. Does "death by citation" sound like fun to you?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was thinking of this sort of death by rabbit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are not drilling a hole in the middle of my Yellowstone!!!
Get back. You do not want to experience the wrath of The Rabbit.
At least the geological marvels are just fine even if the plant and animal life are completely screwed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On second thought, we don't even have to drill the hole. Can't we just drop the bomb down Old Faithful?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: On second thought, we don't even have to drill the hole. Can't we just drop the bomb down Old Faithful?
It might get launched out of the geyser as it detonates.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That'd be pretty cool too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Couldn't we at least pick someone else's classic landmark to mess up? `splosions are cool and all, but I'd like to have Old Faithful around in the future instead of a big old crater lake.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I was thinking of this sort of death by rabbit.
So was I.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I was thinking of this sort of death by rabbit.
quote:It is "The Rabbit"
quote:I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn’t you? Oh, it’s just a harmless little bunny, isn’t it? Well, it’s always the same. I always tell them—
[ October 23, 2009, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Let me set this straight.
No one is dropping anything down Old Faithful. Period.
And no one is detonating a nuclear device anywhere near my Yellowstone.
Got that????
Now back to your regularly scheduled, . . . .
what was it we were fighting over again, something to do with a Peace Prize, I think it was.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No I want to talk about detonating a nuclear device inside a super volcano. Realistically what could we expect to happen?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What Hatrack really needs is a resident volcanologist.
You don't think a nuke would cause an eruption? I mean geez, Mt. Doom exploded and all they did was throw a ring into it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
To the best of my knowledge, the science of volcanology isn't sufficiently advanced to be able to accurately predict what would happen if you detonated a nuclear device inside a super volcano.
quote:I mean geez, Mt. Doom exploded and all they did was throw a ring into it.
So you think the Lord of the Rings wasn't a powerful weapon of mass destruction? I'd put it up against a nuclear arsenal any day of the week.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I want to know what happens if we throw a supervolcano into another supervolcano.
I bet Michael Bay knows.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I want to know how you would propose throwing a super volcano anywhere.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
With nuclear bombs. Duh.
Bruce Willis and some modified oil drilling equipment, and probably a jet-powered submarine.
(If you're questioning my grasp of physics^H^H^H^H^H^H^H reality, understand that I am basing all of this on the movie Armageddon.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
a nuclear detonation within a super volcano would likely cause a chain reaction resulting at best massive earthquakes along the fault line to at least several concurrent volcanic eruptions, a massive explosion that could tempararily blot our the sun and possibly at worst case california would fall into the sea or potentially separate.
Or at least thats what my ass tells me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: possibly at worst case california would fall into the sea or potentially separate.
What makes that a worst case scenario? I kind of see it as a silver lining.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
but... but... but...! my Rivka lives there!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If you throw a nuclear stuffed super volcano into another super volcano, I can tell you one thing you won't get... a Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:what was it we were fighting over again, something to do with a Peace Prize, I think it was.
That's even better than fighting over gold or precious jools!
quote:If you throw a nuclear stuffed super volcano into another super volcano, I can tell you one thing you won't get... a Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, but threaten to throw a nuke-stuffed super volcano into another super volcano, and you just might!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
nonono first you need to say its hiding weapons of mass destruction first.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If you stuff a Super Volcano with Nuclear Warheads, then, well, yes--YOU ARE HIDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.......IN A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
FRIDGE BRILLIANCE!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This thread got something like 713% better in the past 12 hours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If you throw a nuclear stuffed super volcano into another super volcano, I can tell you one thing you won't get... a Nobel Peace Prize.
No, but I'd have to imagine you'd be in the running for a Nobel Prize in Physics.
When God shuts a door he opens a window.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To the best of my knowledge, the science of volcanology isn't sufficiently advanced to be able to accurately predict what would happen if you detonated a nuclear device inside a super volcano
I think this is where the "experimentation" part of the scientific method comes into play.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But getting the permits to do this with nukes takes for ever, and the paper work is a nightmare. We should try it with a massive load of conventional explosives first. If the results are promising, then we go nuclear.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You know, you guys are helping terrorists. If they ever get their hands on a nuke, and want to know where they can use it to inflict the maximum damage on America, you are spelling it out for them. Let's just hope they don't take you seriously.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Any terrorist worth his salt has already seen all the terrorist training videos that Hollywood puts out on a weekly basis.
I think they're going to be better off with an episode of NCIS than they are with nuking Yellowstone.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You know, you guys are helping terrorists. If they ever get their hands on a nuke, and want to know where they can use it to inflict the maximum damage on America, you are spelling it out for them. Let's just hope they don't take you seriously.
You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.
If it were any one but Ron, certainly. With Ron, your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, that is a tough one to call! Truly a six one way half-a-dozen the other question.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:When God shuts a door he opens a window.
God does not open windows with nuclear stuffed super volcanoes.
,
,
well, unless its jammed really really tight, and the WD40 just doesn't work...and we all know that WD40 always works.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doesn't God open windows with whatever He wants, regardless of the level of jammedness of the window in question?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Could God jam a window so well that even he couldn't open it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Depends on if he's running Vista
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You know, you guys are helping terrorists. If they ever get their hands on a nuke, and want to know where they can use it to inflict the maximum damage on America, you are spelling it out for them. Let's just hope they don't take you seriously.
Sure, sure. Let's worry about the idea that terrorists acquire a nuke and could have set it off in a highly populated city but instead jam it into the ground in wyoming in a futile effort to trigger a hotspot caldera superevent (but not actually causing anything) on the basis of what they read some people say on orson scott card's internet forum.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: but... but... but...! my Rivka lives there!
Excuse me, but since when I am your Rivka? O_o
*pointedly ignores the lagomorph*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
On the original question, as far as I can determine only I exist, all of you are bytes and until I meet you in person or speak to you over the phone do not really exist as "people" ergo you are by extension by virtue of being within my Personal Computer all my property. And. Thus. Mine.
Unless I meet you in some way, then your just some shlub squatting on my property.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You know, you guys are helping terrorists. If they ever get their hands on a nuke, and want to know where they can use it to inflict the maximum damage on America, you are spelling it out for them. Let's just hope they don't take you seriously.
Sure, sure. Let's worry about the idea that terrorists acquire a nuke and could have set it off in a highly populated city but instead jam it into the ground in wyoming in a futile effort to trigger a hotspot caldera superevent (but not actually causing anything) on the basis of what they read some people say on orson scott card's internet forum.
Everyone in this thread would become famous!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, just me, `cause I'd make sure to claim it was my idea first. In fact, I do so now! It was totally my idea. Y'all are just copycats.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Unless I meet you in some way, then your just some shlub squatting on my property.
This implies that you never leave your house.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Unless I meet you in some way, then your just some shlub squatting on my property.
This implies that you never leave your house.
*smirks* I believe there's a term for that. 'Hikikomori' if I recall.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, just me, `cause I'd make sure to claim it was my idea first. In fact, I do so now! It was totally my idea. Y'all are just copycats.
Oh good. They'll take YOU to jail then.
Then I, the originator of this nefarious and highly entertaining plot, will be free. And famous.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Really, Ron, this is just sad. I'm sorry that you have to go through life this way- I think sometimes I'm unfair to you because I see now that you don't understand how ridiculous you sound most of the time. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)