Fishing - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:18:55 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:

First and foremost, since you seem to have put some thought into a reply, and
done so (seemingly) seriously, reasonably and courteously, I wanted to return
the favor, if you will. Please note that this was written as I've had a spare
moment here and there, over a couple of days, since your reply - I've tried to
edit/proofread, but I've probably missed some things.

why would you expect me to be anything other than courteous? i can
understand doubts about reasonable or serious...or intelligent.

Well, I didn't know if I was going to make any references to Fawn Lake or lawyer
jokes when I wrote that...seriously, the (seemingly) referred only to, well,
"seriously" - you never know around these parts...and I myself, in case you
haven't noticed, am not always completely serious with much of this
stuff...perhaps "(generally)" would have been a better choice.

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009.
No, he really hasn't. But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...
well...yes, he really has. he began a movement...a sea-change in ideas
and ideals and politics.

Among who? How? Can you give some examples of this "sea-change"? Now, if you
mean that "liberals" are now fans of the POTUS and "conservatives" aren't, sure,
but that's not Obama, that's politics. It seems there has been very little
change in politics or ideas, only a change in who is in the majority and pushing
their own agendas. And yep, if McCain had won (other than with perhaps my
hoped-for-but-unrealistic McCain/Obama ticket), there would not have been
anything much new, either.

sea change...ebb/flow...tide. ok. i guess you know, as i do, that i
don't have a tidal gauge, so what i say is my own impression...although,
i think it is rationally based. anyway, here is someone with their
"how": (this is quoted stuff)

"At the recent International Festival, I bought a t-shirt that displays
every country's flag with the slogan 'Citizen of the World'. For me,
President Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize celebrates that
sentiment. I have read the Nobel Committee's statement on its reasons
for bestowing that honor, and the president's humble, articulate and
profoundly thoughtful response. Ours is the most powerful nation on
earth, and our leaders have great influence on the course of world
events. Obama's vision, which he began developing long before the 2008
campaign, has been one of diplomacy, really listening to all points of
view, concern for what humanity can do to halt environmental damage and
reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. That his inauguration was
greeted with such jubilation by his supporters around the world is a
testament to the hope and optimism we feel his vision expresses. The
Nobel Peace Prize is an affirmation of the impact his vision has had on
the world psyche. My grandparents were immigrants who suffered
discrimination. My brother was a veteran who did four tours of duty in
Vietnam. Our family loves our country, and I am so proud that the United
States has produced Barack Obama." (end quotes) Phyllis Gordon, Raleigh,
NC (letter to editor, People's Forum, News & Observer Oct 13, 2009)

I have no doubt there are many others in the world who share this
sentiment.

I don't doubt it in the least - there are millions in the US that share it, and
I have no problem with the assertion that there are additional millions outside
the US that share it. I'm glad that she feels as she does and I don't begrudge
her, you, Ken, or anyone else their opinion(s) on Obama or anything else. But
objectively, it's just another US-centric/"Americancentric" opinion and
meaningless insofar as evidence as to how the entire world feels about Obama.

I also know Limbaugh, Fox News, and others express contrary
views.

Such as is their right, at least as far as those in the US are concerned. IMO,
and FWIW, I'd agree that Ms. Gordon is closer to the truth than Limpdick.

critics can parse her words with their own sense of what the
truth is. But...read, really read, what this lady says. That's the
stuff that got Obama elected

Sure, but so what? As far as those in the US is concerned, a bright and hopeful
outlook is good, great even, insofar as "national feeling," but at some point,
work must be accomplished and the work that needs to get done is not going to be
fun, pleasant, or easy. And some hard choices are going to be made - for
example, at some point, the population of the US is going to have to decide if
they want to pay the economic costs for all the "social" goals that sound so
good on the surface. IAC, what even the entire population of the US thinks is
pretty much meaningless to a "locally-average" working-class person in much of
the world.

and that, in my opinion, underscores the
award of the peace prize. it's not perfect, it may succumb to harsh
debate...but it's a genuine feeling worthy of respect and consideration.
It exemplifies my answer to the "who" and "how" you ask...

I'm unsure of what you are saying here - it _seems_ that you are saying that the
fact that much of the US and a relatively small part of the rest of the world
feel as does Ms. Gordon somehow translates into the majority of those in the
world having a similar opinion about Obama. If that is what you are saying, I
completely disagree.

now, diplomacy is different.

It is? How?

...really?? Look at Iran...look at the UN talk and reception...

OK, lets do. First and foremost, as recently, er, demonstrated, the current
leadership of Iran hardly speaks for the entire population of Iran. That said,
look at what happened, also recently, at the UN with Ahmedinejad. Moreover,
"Iran" just sentenced some of those who demonstrated to death for that
demonstrating. And this whole nuclear thing with Iran - do you imagine that the
current leadership of Iran is going to roll over because Obama gives Chris
Matthews' a feeling up his leg? If for no other reason, they've learned from
things like the N. Korean example, through, what 12 or 13 POTUS', that the whole
thing, regardless of the actual state of their weaponry, it's a relative cash
cow and pretty good ace in the hole. The US was just told by Russia that their
pushing for more and tougher sanctions against Iran would be
"counterproductive." If things are all hope and brightness, why is the US
asking for such sanctions, and why is Russia not playing ball?

look at
the guy going to Copenhagen for the Olympics pitch...look at all of his
efforts internationally...all of his "let me be clear" statements.

Again, _statements_ - what about his _work_, accomplishments, etc. Thus far,
about all he has done is talk. Which is not to say that he won't or can't
accomplish things, it only means what it says - thus far, he has not.

SNIP stuff about UN - I'll agree to disagree.

foreign relations are different.

Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?

yes...foreign relations and policy with all of them are different.

How?

...and France isn't as bitchy for good reason.

I didn't say "France," I said "the government of France" - the French are always
bitchy about something...and there are a few reasons the government of France
isn't as bitchy - Carla Bruni, for starters, but also because Sarkozy et al are
all worked up about, ahem, Iran and the nukes...and because of it, he's being
allowed to sit at the grown-up's table for now...

appreciation of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different.

The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties **** them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?

wait... you confabulate and confuse. Obama...not the Senate, not the
House. concentrate on the guy who got the prize. He made statements of
his position...

I've never disputed that he has made statements...on top of statements...his
statements stretch as far as the eye can, he has statements out the ying-yang,
I'd say the pile of statements are at least as high as an elephant's eye...

other than the gay military, what does he get to implement by personal fiat?
...and, the gay military thing is no automatic on his word, is it?

Um, well, idea of "the gay military" ought to about kill Louie...that said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101202439.html

torture policies are different.

I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture".

...or, not. i think you are simply wrong. he's been quite clear, as
has his administration, that torture is over and gone as an accepted
process. btw...what do you think i consider as torture?

I am basing it on what I recall your position to have been during past
discussions. I may be incorrect in that recollection. IAC, what I recall is
that your definition of "torture" was considerably more encompassing than
Obama's _stated_ position based upon his issuance of an Executive Order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...nterrogations/

integrity of decision-making is different.

Here, I substantially disagree. While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.

for example?

Are you asking me for examples of decisions he hasn't made...?

SNIP - more of an aside to the main topic, such that it is...

appointment of federal judges...way, way different (and better...g)

Again, I disagree. Sotomayor gives no evidence of being a serious legal scholar
of any stripe, or even a particularly "even" and (merely) competent jurist.

look at the history of her opinions as weighed and assessed by an
objective, independent association.(i forget the name, but i read its
report) i suppose you think alito and roberts and thomas are iconic?
sotomayor is much more balanced across the board of judicial
decision-making and philosophy, imo. she will probably surprise most in
her conservatism on many issues... i think she is as competent as any
republican appointee ...

As to Alito and Thomas, hardly "iconic," as to Roberts, I'd put him with Scalia
and Ginsburg as the top three "legal thinkers/scholars" on the current Court.
I'd rank Sotomayor about with Thomas - IOW, while they are both technically
qualified to be there, they hardly represent the best available. Neither are
idiots, so of course they do occasionally rise to the occasion, but again...
well, they are there, and that's pretty much that...

he's restored pride to a substantial segment of the population that felt lost, left
out, used, taken for granted, and burdened.

Um, who, exactly?

me...african-americans, immigrants (legal and illegal), women, democrats
g, workers at my office, phyllis...

Well, hell, as long as you, Phyllis and illegal immigrants are happy, what more
is there....?

forget it. Well, "forget it" isn't quite right, but when you point out his
racial makeup, you are inaccurate about it. Based upon his actual racial
makeup, why would you not say, "he's white"? It is just as accurate.

it's not just as accurate, and you and everyone else who is the least
bit honest should admit it.

Why should I or anyone else admit a fallacy? His mother was white, his father
was black. What reason(s) can you give to support he is "black" as opposed to
"white?" I won't presume to call his intent (whether it was "racist" or not,
but I have no racial intent), but I cannot help recalling Jackie Mason's
comments on it - if one has one white shoe and one black shoe, would they say
they had a pair of black (or white) shoes?

You can debate the point all you want, but it's a silly point. Look at
the wingnut jokes about him...he's "black".
Bush was white. Clinton was white. McCain was white. Hillary was
white... a rose is a rose is a rose...

And Obama is as much white as he is black.

his race...his appearance...is different than any other president. It
is a huge deal that we elected him. It is a source of incredible pride
and awe for me. I think it was a hallmark moment in our history...a
demarcation point. I feel privileged to have been alive to witness it.

Now that's a different matter. I agree that the US has come a long way, from
Homer Plessey to electing a person who is half-black and half-white. That said,
Obama is still half-white, and therefore, it is as correct to call him "white"
as it is "black."

this is you and me talking now. i never had the sense that Bush gave a
**** about consensus or logic or other viewpoints. Did you? I never
thought Bush was respected internationally, did you? I never felt
comfortable that he was capable of studying and thinking through an
issue or making an independent, intelligent judgment...did you? I voted
for and helped John East...a very "radical" conservative republican. I
always felt he had an intelligent, thoughtful demeanor...though I
disagreed with him politically and personally on many issues. I never
had the same feeling about Bush.

It isn't (just) "you and me talking," but that doesn't matter as to my opinions
or voicing them. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush did not give a ****
about "consensus" if you mean he stuck his finger in the wind, ala much of
Clinton, before coming to a (public) decision. As to "logic," yes, I think he
cared about it. As to other viewpoints, assuming you mean those in opposition
to his own, I think he was about average...which is to say that he would
kinda-sorta listen, but his mind wasn't easily changed. As to intelligence, I
know he was of above-average intelligence and tried to keep on top of things
(consider the specific, unique time of his terms in office "the information
age" - for example, "I saw it on the Internet" wasn't quite the laugh-riot it is
now, esp. early-on) but no, he wasn't "a deep thinker," but rather, more of a
"go with what you believe and what your gut tells you" kinda guy. Sometimes it
was the "right" call, other times, it was not. If I had to guess, I'd say that
history will be kinder to him than either you or Forty and he'll go down in the
"average" column (which is about where he belongs, IMO).

I think most right-minded folks want our president to succeed and to be
worthy of the position. I also think that few of us democrats in the
heartland turned on bush in the first 6 months of his presidency with
the heartless and mindless vitriol obama has experienced.

As to "heartland Dems" in general, I'd agree. But I'd say that Obama has
actually experienced less "mindless vitriol" (as of now) than Bush did. And
weirdly, I think he is getting support for things from the very people most
"mindlessly vitriolic" about Bush for doing the same thing - for example,
continuing the "wars" in Iran and Afghanistan.

are you saying he's not tried in any meaningful, substantive, and honest way to implement or
initiate important change?

Not tried? There's not really enough information to determine that. I will say
that there is very little evidence that he has really tried to implement
important change. Take, for example, his "transparency, ""public review period"
and "no lobbyist" promises. These are things over which he has more-or-less
complete control, and yet, no real change in spite of all the talking about
them.

no real change??? come on...you know better. that he even talked about
them, made them a policy issue, and has initiated the change... what is
your measure quantitatively on these issues?

Doing more than making speeches and promises, esp. about "transparency" and
doing away with "politics as usual." Thus far, his "politics" are about as
partisan and "usual" as they come.

Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)
tell me...what has he done to cause the divide...other than be black? my
take is he's bent over backwards to try to find consensus, to encourage
discussion and compromise. ken and others may be right...perhaps he
should just say screw the repubs and push the agenda. i don't think so.
i like his approach.

Again, he's not "black," but that aside, for one, he could have provided a copy
of his birth certificate. From a purely objective standpoint, if an employee
has to prove citizenship to get a job in the US, an alleged citizen has to prove
it to get Medicare, etc., why shouldn't he? IOW, why is the demand of an
employer to see proof of citizenship improper? I fully realize the touchiness
of that topic, but objectively, why not end the controversy and do what,
technically, is a legal requirement (and I'll grant that I'm not sure whether
the "short-form" already bandied about would suffice or not)? If you want more
examples, I can provide them, but that is one of the simplest for him to
dispel/clear up and "heal the divide," if you will. And it would have the added
benefit of shutting up the truly out-there "birthers" or whatever they are
called. OTOH, if he doesn't actually want to "heal the divide" and shut up the
loons for his own political reasons....

to me, that evidences the weakness of your response. it is so ridiculous
that no one of any real intellectual or political substance or integrity
raises it or suggests its importance in any discussion about obama. i'm
honestly surprised you resorted to it as i have always respected and
believed in your intellect and analytic ability... all the devil's
advocate and inane stuff aside (or because of it, too, i guess).

Think _objectively_ about it a minute (and recall I've spoken on ROFF, in
threads you've participated IIRC, in support of Obama his birth cert.). I'm
not claiming the whole birth cert. thing is a major issue, but it is a
legitimate issue. First, it is a legal requirement, even if it is a formality,
to prove citizenship, often with a birth cert., for many US citizens to acquire
certain benefits or employment. According to various provision of the Patriot
Act (and which provisions Obama recently pushed), one must show two forms of ID
to open a bank account, show a birth cert. or passport, if claiming to be a US
citizen, to get an "H" endorsement on a CDL, etc., etc., etc. Therefore, I do
not find it improper that the POTUS must prove his, even if it is a formality.
IOW, why should he not be expected to follow the same "rules" that he himself
supports for others? Why do you feel "the people" do not have the right to
demand that he _prove_ his eligibility? In fact, why would you not be in favor
of such proof being a requirement, such as financial disclosure, etc. and part
of the public record?

That said, I find the refusal to simply produce the damned thing slightly
troubling, but not from an eligibility standpoint. What I find troubling about
it is the withholding of it is apparently being done to "fan flames." Further,
anyone who says, "hey, ya know, what IS going on here?" gets labeled or is
treated dismissively by his supporters, as you do above. Again, what's so
terrible about someone who has a legitimate question about it asking to see what
should be "a standard proof?" And what is, in your opinion, a reasonable
defense for not producing it?

Simply put, there is no "good" reason for him to withhold it.

IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed

i haven't polled them either...but i'll go out on the same limb and say
more people in the world can tell you who obama is than can tell you who
herta muller is (and probably more than can identify william faulkner).

I;m not sure of your point, but I'd agree with the statement. IAC, how about
Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Wen Jiabao, Musharraf, Patil, Yudhoyono, Gandhi,
Muhammad, Allah/God (and no, I'm not comparing anything but numbers of people of
can identify them)? How about the various members of the Bachchan family
(including Aishwarya Rai, and again, simple name-recognition comparison)? David
Hasselhof, Jerry Lewis, Posh and Becks or whatever they are called?

but that wasn't really the point of our discussion (or my comment) was
it?

Yes, it is - at least _a_ point of it. I'd offer that more people are familiar
with one or more of the above list than Obama. Now, if your point is that some
vast number of people would acknowledge having heard the name "Barack Obama,"
I'd agree that there are certainly very many who would acknowledge having heard
the name. But I do not agree that they would have either an informed opinion of
him or the basis for one, even allowing that "informed" means even a basic
knowledge about him. Moreover, I'd suggest there is a fair number of people
outside the US (and plenty in it, too) who have mostly inaccurate information
about him, both positive and negative. But at the end of the day, I'd offer
that most of the world's population simply doesn't have an opinion about him -
he simply is of no real interest to them. It would be like walking into your
average small-town cafe and trying to get folks all worked up (for or against)
about Klaus Tschutscher...wait, you are familiar with good ol' Klaus, right?

they know who obama is for a reason...

Who is "they?" If you mean the population of the world, in general, what
possible reason would they have for knowing or caring anything about Obama (or
any other foreign politician)?

think back on his speech in germany...his visits to other
countries...the muslim world reaction... i think you understate the
general view of world leaders ... russia, china, us, uk, israel, middle
east, etc., and their political systems and populaces.

Oh, there's no doubt the media whipped some in Europe into the same tizzy into
which they whipped those in the US (and you'll note you're referring to yet
_another_ speech), but I think you are the one who is misreading world leaders
in general, esp. "rulers." For example, Norway - while it is a perfectly nice
country with generally nice folks, I'm sure, it ain't exactly a "world power." I
think many "rulers" saw a novice, feel-good kinda guy from whom they could get
more of their way with than they could other of the potential choices (and that
includes Hillary Clinton). IOW, their glee was more at their chances than the
US'...and he has probably done more to damage the US' rep with our two
most-powerful allies in the Middle East - Israel and the Iranian _people_ - than
Bush did. And he hasn't done much to keep the heat on Pakistan's leadership,
either.

i simply don't agree...and i didn't claim norway was a world power.
but, i stick by my opinion about the positive change overall in the
world leaders' view of our president.

Stick away, but define "positive." I mean, if you have an opponent in a legal
case who you know you can out-lawyer, do you say, "Well, ****, this sucks...I
got opposing counsel I just know I can beat..."?

unless they simply acknowledge being a rascist.
Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? Was that not "racist?" As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?
yeah, yeah...racist... and i don't think racists exist only in a
single color or race. still, i accept there is an historical and real
basis for the black hatred of whites in the u.s. - a basis or reason for
the emotion that i can't find an equal underpinning for with the white
racists...maybe you can explain it?

Oh, to be sure, there are still some sheet-cutting rednecks around who dislike
Obama simply because he's half-black (to them, any black in the racial makeup is
_black_ - hint, hint), and others who are just...well, not really "racist" in
the common phrasing, but "racist" in the general sense that most folks are more
comfortable with those "like them," be they "white," "black," "brown," "yellow,"
or whatever other keying term one uses. But I don't think the majority of those
who aren't as enamored of Obama as you feel the way they do because of race.
Which is another thing, IMO, he has failed to do - take a firm stand on the
issue. He (and the administration) allow supporters (and to a lesser extent,
surrogates) to label those opposed to his proposed policy(s), ideas, promises,
etc. as "racist." His proposals, stated ideas, etc. are generally pretty
standard left-ish Dem stuff, many of which any of the "usual suspects" would
propose and which most center-right-to-right "usual suspects" would oppose, all
regardless of respective "race." Simply put, he's using (and tacitly allowing
the use of) the charge of "racism" to foster a divide and attempt to make a
political advantage with it.

i reckon that's why he has consistently deflected any suggestion that
his race is an issue? as in ...he was black before he took office? i
just don't get your argument on this, nor is it a response to what i
wrote above it.

OK. How about this: there is no (rational) basis for "black hatred of whites"
any more than there is any basis for white hatred of blacks, in the US or
anywhere else. What there is, however, is a basis for blacks to say that
certain whites have acted badly based solely on race, just as there is for
whites to say the same thing. To paraphrase James Earl Jones, no one can speak
for an entire race, nor should the actions of some of a race be taken to be a
statement for the entire race. I would offer as proof David Duke and Al
Sharpton. If one person could speak for their race, all blacks and whites would
be racist slimeball douchebags. As to Obama "deflecting" his race as an issue,
bull****. He has played upon and used, albeit substantially passively, "racism"
to his advantage. Jeez, even the Clintons called him on it.

And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.
don't get your meaning...but that's nothing new. please explain.

Well, read your own post. It's from the perspective of an "American," of
course, but it seems to indicate your belief that what an "American" believes or
thinks about Obama is what the world population believes or thinks. Why, for
example, would an "average worker" in China, India, Indonesia, etc., know or
care much about Obama or his policies, promises, "hope," etc.? To be sure, some
of the world populace thinks of "America" and what they perceive that it
represents _for them_, some good (ala "the American Dream") and some bad ("the
HQ of the infidels"). But I'd offer that most are pretty much agnostic about
it. Yet, "Americans" think that the thoughts of the world _population_ revolves
around "America." Again, to be sure, a portion of the world "ruling class" has
knowledge of it and does pay attention to a fair portion of "American" things,
but it is mostly out of self-interest as opposed to desire to be "American."

ok...but my comment simply contended a more favorable world view of our
president, didn't it? ...based on my opinion and my reading of what
other's say. i've not taken any scientific poll. i've tried to be
clear about my opinion and my belief...i've no illusion about it being
scientific or mathematical. from my read, people the world over are
enthusiastic and optimistic about Obama.

I will agree that there are people around the world enthusiastic and optimistic
about Obama, some for their own selfish reasons, but mostly for "positive"
reasons (the latter being about whom and what I will assume to which you are,
well, enthusiastic and optimistic). But why do you think they are so? What I
mean to ask is whether you think they are so because of his real
accomplishments, or, because of his (direct) "promise" (his own presence,
speeches, etc. directly influencing their opinion, ala as it is substantively in
the US), or, because of the "media hype," or, ???

The
Peace Prize is awarded by 5 people chosen by the Norwegian legislature - we're
not talking about, pardon the pun, a great council of "world leaders" or even a
large body of the world's peoples, yet "Americans" who support Obama want to
point to it as some vast affirmation of him by the world. And what are other
"leaders" supposed to say about his win? Of course they are gonna be diplomatic
about it, at least those who want something.

but...the award given by those "5 people" is what we are talking about,
isn't it. I neither elevated it nor demeaned it...i simply said it made
me proud and encouraged. i do however believe it affirms a different
world view of our president. i would hope other world leaders would do
the reasonable, honorable, and responsible thing...the decent
thing...and be happy for him and congratulate him. what any decent
person should do.

Why should anyone, decent or indecent, have much of an opinion on what 5 people
in Norway do? If those five people came forward in the future and said, "you
know, we made a grave mistake - Obama's a bum...," how much would it influence
you? And I consider the importance and value of the debate resulting from the
Prize separate and apart from importance and value of the Prize itself.

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas.
Um, who exactly is "we"...?
we = u.s. public/society/culture

Oh. I thought you might mean all of mankind or something...just checking...and
see above, Americancentricism...

so do you disagree that u.s. society/public/culture is "often violent,
short-sighted, and petty"?

I somewhat disagree. I'd say that "us society..." is _sometimes_ that way
because humankind is _sometimes_ that way, with variations among the myriad
world societies over the course of human history. Where the US stands in the
rankings, and has varied over its history, is a debate/discussion unto itself.

i admit i was surprised. i believe i said i was proud and encouraged
that our president received the prize.

Why? What is it about the opinion of those 5 people that is so important _to
you_?

an international recognition of our president, a president and person i
admire and support, and who represents values i appreciate, is
satisfying, encouraging, and a source of pride. it also elevates an
issue i care about deeply...and one that will be implanted in the psyche
of those in power in this country.

First, it isn't "international" - the 5 people are Norwegian. And of course,
folks are naturally glad when another person (or 5 people) appears to "think
like them." But you didn't answer my question - what is it about the opinion of
those 5 that is so important to you? Can you even name them (from prior
personal knowledge)? Do you know anything about them personally? If, as I
asked above, they suddenly reversed themselves, would you change your view on/of
Obama? If not, why not?

clearly, to me and based on the statements contained in nobel's will,
the prize is intended to recognize and encourage potential and the
possible effects of the selection. i think obama was perceived as
bringing a better sense of reason and balance to a precarious and
dangerous set of world circumstances.

Er, no. While it was not intended to be based solely on results, it was to
based upon efforts. Let me ask you this - if it is such a powerful motivational
tool, why not give it to all of the leaders in the Middle East every year until
there is peace? I mean, with such a powerful motivation for potential, it
wouldn't take but a couple of years, right?

er...yes.

ok...an award as you suggest might serve a purpose. i certainly have no
argument against it if that's what the committe of 5 believe and choose
to do with nobel's will and money. give it a shot.

jose merida (yeah, about as well known as jeff miller) said he thought
the prize to obama also "recognized the american people who dared to
vote for a change of the u.s. role in the world." perception can become
reality... "give peace a chance"

And you feel continuing the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan - neither of which
are really "wars" and neither of which is "winnable" by any side in a "warfare"
sense - is giving peace a chance?

...and, what are his real world options? i mean, how does this
president deal with the hand he's been dealt? it's a very complex
decision model, and he's handling it very well in my opinion.

Simple - quit worrying about possible perception and get the **** out. What,
didn't anyone in the world learn from the French and the US in Vietnam, the USSR
_in Afghanistan_ with the same ****ing people, Napoleon, World Wars I and II,
etc., etc., etc., etc. Go in, if that is the decision, beat the all holy hell
out of whoever allegedly needs it, make it plain that "we" better not have to
stop this car again, and drive on. And if "we" do have to stop it again, make
the first time seem like a tea party with really good jam and scones. The
purpose of a military attack is to, simply, kill people and break their ****,
not to "nation-build" (yeah, I know, an over- and mis-used term, but...).

And to try to "nation-build" with people who really don't want to be "a nation"
under the terms proposed to them, stupidity of it aside, just won't work. As
far as Iraq, Saddam needed to go - "Mission Accomplished" - the "Iraqis" (IOW,
those people in the region, should they choose to remain "Iraq"), like those in
the Afghanistan region, should be allowed to figure the rest out for themselves,
at least to the point of becoming another problem _externally_. The whole thing
reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon from many years ago - BD was in Vietnam and
had befriended "Phred the VC." Phred asked BD how "Americans" would have felt
if 500,000 Vietnamese had shown up at Gettysburg and taken a side.

TC,
R

will do...jeff (just had my last "i'm not 60 yet" birthday...)

The "happy birthday!" thoughts weren't belated, only the relaying of them:
"happy birthday!"

TC,
R

wrote:

Well, I didn't know if I was going to make any references to Fawn Lake or lawyer
jokes when I wrote that...seriously, the (seemingly) referred only to, well,
"seriously" - you never know around these parts...and I myself, in case you
haven't noticed, am not always completely serious with much of this
stuff...perhaps "(generally)" would have been a better choice.

i have noticed and appreciated your provocative and humorous approach to
stuff...

I don't doubt it in the least - there are millions in the US that share it, and
I have no problem with the assertion that there are additional millions outside
the US that share it. I'm glad that she feels as she does and I don't begrudge
her, you, Ken, or anyone else their opinion(s) on Obama or anything else. But
objectively, it's just another US-centric/"Americancentric" opinion and
meaningless insofar as evidence as to how the entire world feels about Obama.

there will never be sufficient, irrefutable evidence to satisfy a
committed pessimist. you and others can always find a point or
reference to seize upon as support for your thoughts, reasons, and
positions. i think that feeling is shared by more than you...i am
convinced by my readings, such as they are...certainly not disciplined
or exhaustive...and by statements in mainstream media. it's not just
american media.

Sure, but so what? As far as those in the US is concerned, a bright and hopeful
outlook is good, great even, insofar as "national feeling," but at some point,
work must be accomplished and the work that needs to get done is not going to be
fun, pleasant, or easy. And some hard choices are going to be made - for
example, at some point, the population of the US is going to have to decide if
they want to pay the economic costs for all the "social" goals that sound so
good on the surface. IAC, what even the entire population of the US thinks is
pretty much meaningless to a "locally-average" working-class person in much of
the world.

ok...but policy generally begins somewhere, usually with an idea being
verbalized, no? it's may be unsatisfying that the "work" is the
terminal end of a painstaking and slow initiating process...but,
separation of powers, politics, etc. consensus is a worthy goal. i
guess he could shove the "work" through by using his majority power.
that would be difficult and ought to be a last resort...

and that, in my opinion, underscores the
award of the peace prize. it's not perfect, it may succumb to harsh
debate...but it's a genuine feeling worthy of respect and consideration.
It exemplifies my answer to the "who" and "how" you ask...

I'm unsure of what you are saying here -

....answering your question directly with a "who" and a "how"... i know
it was a superficial example, but i thought it adequate as an illustration.

it _seems_ that you are saying that the
fact that much of the US and a relatively small part of the rest of the world

you say "a relatively small part of the rest of the world"... i think
it's a relatively large part of the rest of the world. i guess i
could/should say the "civilized" (as term is generally used and
understood) world.

feel as does Ms. Gordon somehow translates into the majority of those in the
world having a similar opinion about Obama. If that is what you are saying, I
completely disagree.

ok...fair enough.

now, diplomacy is different.
It is? How?
...really?? Look at Iran...look at the UN talk and reception...

OK, lets do. First and foremost, as recently, er, demonstrated, the current
leadership of Iran hardly speaks for the entire population of Iran. That said,
look at what happened, also recently, at the UN with Ahmedinejad. Moreover,
"Iran" just sentenced some of those who demonstrated to death for that
demonstrating. And this whole nuclear thing with Iran - do you imagine that the
current leadership of Iran is going to roll over because Obama gives Chris
Matthews' a feeling up his leg? If for no other reason, they've learned from
things like the N. Korean example, through, what 12 or 13 POTUS', that the whole
thing, regardless of the actual state of their weaponry, it's a relative cash
cow and pretty good ace in the hole. The US was just told by Russia that their
pushing for more and tougher sanctions against Iran would be
"counterproductive." If things are all hope and brightness, why is the US
asking for such sanctions, and why is Russia not playing ball?

nope, i confess uncertainty and misgivings about what is going on in and
with iran...but i think they'll be more likely to engage in dialogue and
international relationships, instead of just rejecting us out of hand,
with obama's approach. the point, mine at least, is that it is a
different approach and direction in our diplomacy. if iran is simply
the axis of evil...if that is your premise for all relationships with
iran, then there can never be a reason given or a diplomatic approach to
satisfy you. just let israel nuke em, i guess, eh? aggressively
demanding and forcing submission is your only diplomacy. but, not mine
and not the one i see at work right now...hence, the difference. ...the
focused effort i've seen has been on a diplomatic resolution...and it is
much different than before. the principled effort on consensus, instead
of cowboy bullying and a lone arrogant approach is never going to work
unless there is a revolution from within iran that accepts and permits
it to resolve the dispute. not likely. the iranian populace is a
facinating mix...hard to tell what is going on there, but you and i can
find a group to support whatever angle we choose to contend for.

Again, _statements_ - what about his _work_, accomplishments, etc. Thus far,
about all he has done is talk. Which is not to say that he won't or can't
accomplish things, it only means what it says - thus far, he has not.

you seem to demean his efforts because you think them to be only
words...i think you are shortsighted and wrong, but i understand the
criticism as a talking point and sound bite that resonates with some.
ok...look at the health care issue. do you deny there is action ongoing?
how does his work manifest itself? what is the measure you require
for what he has accomplished in moving the issue forward? how does he
alone accomplish it? wtf are your republicans "accomplishing"?

SNIP stuff about UN - I'll agree to disagree.

foreign relations are different.
Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?

yes...foreign relations and policy with all of them are different.

How?

the methods and substance of discourse with each of them is very
different. i don't think you can deny that...as best i can tell, your
dispute is that you disagree with his approach and policy.

...and France isn't as bitchy for good reason.

I didn't say "France," I said "the government of France" -

i meant the same...no difference in my shorthand statement. read it as
govt of france.

the French are always
bitchy about something...and there are a few reasons the government of France
isn't as bitchy - Carla Bruni, for starters,

excellent start, but not really what i was thinking.

but also because Sarkozy et al are
all worked up about, ahem, Iran and the nukes...and because of it, he's being
allowed to sit at the grown-up's table for now...

not sure what that means, but the difference in diplomacy set the place
and established the ability to sit with and as grownups.

appreciation of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different.

The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties **** them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?

"Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would
Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law
Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe"...isn't that the truth of his
position? Though against the extension of the 3 expiring sections of the
Act as proposed by Obama, the ACLU said it was "encouraged" by the his
willingness to discuss and consider reforms to the Act.

as to gay rights, if individual freedom and civil liberty is a national
issue, as it certainly is, why do you think it doesn't have federal
implications. its the denial of the right that is concerning...and the
denial takes odd forms. i've not yet figured out the limits on the
national government's methods to assure gay rights as a matter of
secular law without some affect on religious and states' rights.

I do agree that those of us left of center feel more comfortable that
our constitutional and civil liberties/rights are more likely to be be
considered and protected by other "lefties" than by delay, Bush, Cheney,
Gonzalez, et al of that ilk.

wait... you confabulate and confuse. Obama...not the Senate, not the
House. concentrate on the guy who got the prize. He made statements of
his position...

I've never disputed that he has made statements...on top of statements...his
statements stretch as far as the eye can, he has statements out the ying-yang,
I'd say the pile of statements are at least as high as an elephant's eye...

we've come full circle...see above...

other than the gay military, what does he get to implement by personal fiat?
...and, the gay military thing is no automatic on his word, is it?

Um, well, idea of "the gay military" ought to about kill Louie...

BG

that said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101202439.html

supports what i have been saying... "Overturning don't ask, don't tell
and DOMA require legislation." (I thought he had more direct control of
the military thing as commander in chief...but, that he needed some
approval of others as a political reality. The Wash Post piece
indicates otherwise, and places the ultimate responsibility on Congress)

torture policies are different.

I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture".

...or, not. i think you are simply wrong. he's been quite clear, as
has his administration, that torture is over and gone as an accepted
process. btw...what do you think i consider as torture?

I am basing it on what I recall your position to have been during past
discussions. I may be incorrect in that recollection. IAC, what I recall is
that your definition of "torture" was considerably more encompassing than
Obama's _stated_ position based upon his issuance of an Executive Order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...nterrogations/

hmm... that also seems to support my position and contentions. not sure
why you raise it otherwise. first numbered paragraph is the word
"REVOKED"...reading the rest of the document as a whole, how can you
contend it isn't a pronounced change? here's a sample:

"From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate
consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other
agents of the United States Government may, in conducting
interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, ***_but
may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of
the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal
criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army
Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34
52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001,
and January 20, 2009__***." !!!!!

i have always considered waterboarding to be torture. i think i have
been open and clear about that and in my disagreement with some here who
said it wasn't...you among them, though a bit obliquely, as i recall. of
course, i thought you were in one of your provoking moves as a devil's
advocate, but not sure. my memory and power of recall is
ever-diminishing, and was never all that good at its best.

integrity of decision-making is different.
Here, I substantially disagree. While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.
for example?

Are you asking me for examples of decisions he hasn't made...?

no...you disagree that the integrity of decision-making is different. I
asked for examples that Obama was making decisions in the same manner as
Bush/Cheney, or whoever the hell in that awful crowd is to blame for
their lkack of integrity. G Bush was bull-headed, certain he was
right, wouldn't listen or entertain disagreement. he
orchestrated/created/tailored facts to justify his decision. several in
his crowd have denounced his process...though i suspect you think them
traitors.

As to Alito and Thomas, hardly "iconic," as to Roberts, I'd put him with Scalia
and Ginsburg as the top three "legal thinkers/scholars" on the current Court.

Scalia is an interesting study... a rogue conservative...republican to
the core, and fairly predictable. i agree he is a scholar and thinker.
an evil scholar and thinker. g but, i love his confrontation clause
thinking. g roberts...i don't know. his writings and history of
advocacy seemed more than just that of a "mouthpiece" representing a
point of view or principle as a lawyer, and reveal more of a deeply
invested idealogue. however, i also know that sometimes the power of
the position causes a shaping in which the person grows into the
position in an admirable way, and avoids becoming finley dunne partisan
in a black robe. still, the votes and opinions have been pretty much as
expected though for the most part.

I'd rank Sotomayor about with Thomas - IOW, while they are both technically
qualified to be there, they hardly represent the best available.

ok...not the best available. thomas is a waste. just paste a "ditto
scalia" in his chair. he writes and says little, rarely worthy of much
thought. he never should have been appointed or confirmed. he was a
worst choice...not even a technically acceptable choice. sotomayor is
qualified and capable, and she'll be a player. i think you'll be
surprised how wrong you are...but that's just my speculation. we'll see.

Neither are
idiots, so of course they do occasionally rise to the occasion, but again...
well, they are there, and that's pretty much that...

yup...

he's restored pride to a substantial segment of the population that felt lost, left
out, used, taken for granted, and burdened.
Um, who, exactly?

me...african-americans, immigrants (legal and illegal), women, democrats
g, workers at my office, phyllis...

Well, hell, as long as you, Phyllis and illegal immigrants are happy, what more
is there....?

ok...i answered your question. is there someone else that you require as
a satisfactory answer?

forget it. Well, "forget it" isn't quite right, but when you point out his
racial makeup, you are inaccurate about it. Based upon his actual racial
makeup, why would you not say, "he's white"? It is just as accurate.

it's not just as accurate, and you and everyone else who is the least
bit honest should admit it.

Why should I or anyone else admit a fallacy? His mother was white, his father
was black. What reason(s) can you give to support he is "black" as opposed to
"white?"

ok...if it makes you feel better, i'll say he is half-black, you can say
he is half-white. that's the purer accuracy you require, isn't it. so,
tell me your point with this being assumed as the accurate
statement?...still, i'd offer obama's african (i.e., black) genetic
make-up is more visible and controlling in terms of how we all
realistically, neutrally, and objectively define being black versus
being white. i think you are purposefully inaccurate as far as the
connotation of black is understood in our society...without any racist
implications. still, using your approach, the election of a half-black,
or a half-white man to the presidency is a big and an encouraging
change, isn't it?

I won't presume to call his intent (whether it was "racist" or not,
but I have no racial intent), but I cannot help recalling Jackie Mason's
comments on it - if one has one white shoe and one black shoe, would they say
they had a pair of black (or white) shoes?

two separate shoes...one shoe is white, one shoe is black. mason was
pandering, not being funny. we don't have two separate obamas.

You can debate the point all you want, but it's a silly point. Look at
the wingnut jokes about him...he's "black".
Bush was white. Clinton was white. McCain was white. Hillary was
white... a rose is a rose is a rose...

And Obama is as much white as he is black.

ok...tell me how you know that. does he have more of his mother's
features, an equal amount, a lesser amount? what is the dividing markers
that prove your equal parts argument. if you did not know his
parentage, and you were required to select one of the two alternatives
as your answer to whether he was caucasian or black...which?

his race...his appearance...is different than any other president. It
is a huge deal that we elected him. It is a source of incredible pride
and awe for me. I think it was a hallmark moment in our history...a
demarcation point. I feel privileged to have been alive to witness it.

Now that's a different matter. I agree that the US has come a long way, from
Homer Plessey to electing a person who is half-black and half-white. That said,
Obama is still half-white, and therefore, it is as correct to call him "white"
as it is "black."

see above... but, half-black is just as meaningful for my point. not
sure what your point is.

this is you and me talking now. i never had the sense that Bush gave a
**** about consensus or logic or other viewpoints. Did you? I never
thought Bush was respected internationally, did you? I never felt
comfortable that he was capable of studying and thinking through an
issue or making an independent, intelligent judgment...did you? I voted
for and helped John East...a very "radical" conservative republican. I
always felt he had an intelligent, thoughtful demeanor...though I
disagreed with him politically and personally on many issues. I never
had the same feeling about Bush.

It isn't (just) "you and me talking," but that doesn't matter as to my opinions
or voicing them.

ok...

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush did not give a ****
about "consensus" if you mean he stuck his finger in the wind, ala much of
Clinton, before coming to a (public) decision. As to "logic," yes, I think he
cared about it. As to other viewpoints, assuming you mean those in opposition
to his own, I think he was about average...which is to say that he would
kinda-sorta listen, but his mind wasn't easily changed. As to intelligence, I
know he was of above-average intelligence and tried to keep on top of things
(consider the specific, unique time of his terms in office "the information
age" - for example, "I saw it on the Internet" wasn't quite the laugh-riot it is
now, esp. early-on) but no, he wasn't "a deep thinker," but rather, more of a
"go with what you believe and what your gut tells you" kinda guy. Sometimes it
was the "right" call, other times, it was not. If I had to guess, I'd say that
history will be kinder to him than either you or Forty and he'll go down in the
"average" column (which is about where he belongs, IMO).

ok...no disagreement...except i believe he will be forever regarded as
below average...way below average. maybe in the bottom 10%...as in
unbelievably awful.

I think most right-minded folks want our president to succeed and to be
worthy of the position. I also think that few of us democrats in the
heartland turned on bush in the first 6 months of his presidency with
the heartless and mindless vitriol obama has experienced.

As to "heartland Dems" in general, I'd agree. But I'd say that Obama has
actually experienced less "mindless vitriol" (as of now) than Bush did. And
weirdly, I think he is getting support for things from the very people most
"mindlessly vitriolic" about Bush for doing the same thing - for example,
continuing the "wars" in Iran and Afghanistan.

ok...

are you saying he's not tried in any meaningful, substantive, and honest way to implement or
initiate important change?

Not tried? There's not really enough information to determine that. I will say
that there is very little evidence that he has really tried to implement
important change. Take, for example, his "transparency, ""public review period"
and "no lobbyist" promises. These are things over which he has more-or-less
complete control, and yet, no real change in spite of all the talking about
them.

no real change??? come on...you know better. that he even talked about
them, made them a policy issue, and has initiated the change... what is
your measure quantitatively on these issues?

Doing more than making speeches and promises, esp. about "transparency" and
doing away with "politics as usual." Thus far, his "politics" are about as
partisan and "usual" as they come.

i just don't see how you can say that. he's not changed politics...but
he's a decidedly different politician and he's approached the political
world in which he operates in a very different manner. look at his
recognition of your guy in new orleans, defending him against partisan boos.

Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)
tell me...what has he done to cause the divide...other than be black? my
take is he's bent over backwards to try to find consensus, to encourage
discussion and compromise. ken and others may be right...perhaps he
should just say screw the repubs and push the agenda. i don't think so.
i like his approach.

Again, he's not "black," but that aside, for one, he could have provided a copy
of his birth certificate. From a purely objective standpoint, if an employee
has to prove citizenship to get a job in the US, an alleged citizen has to prove
it to get Medicare, etc., why shouldn't he? IOW, why is the demand of an
employer to see proof of citizenship improper? I fully realize the touchiness
of that topic, but objectively, why not end the controversy and do what,
technically, is a legal requirement (and I'll grant that I'm not sure whether
the "short-form" already bandied about would suffice or not)? If you want more
examples, I can provide them, but that is one of the simplest for him to
dispel/clear up and "heal the divide," if you will. And it would have the added
benefit of shutting up the truly out-there "birthers" or whatever they are
called. OTOH, if he doesn't actually want to "heal the divide" and shut up the
loons for his own political reasons....
to me, that evidences the weakness of your response. it is so ridiculous
that no one of any real intellectual or political substance or integrity
raises it or suggests its importance in any discussion about obama. i'm
honestly surprised you resorted to it as i have always respected and
believed in your intellect and analytic ability... all the devil's
advocate and inane stuff aside (or because of it, too, i guess).

Think _objectively_ about it a minute (and recall I've spoken on ROFF, in
threads you've participated IIRC, in support of Obama his birth cert.). I'm
not claiming the whole birth cert. thing is a major issue, but it is a
legitimate issue.

if it was legitimate, it would be a legitimate issue. in truth, it's a
juvenile and phony issue.
First, it is a legal requirement, even if it is a formality,
to prove citizenship, often with a birth cert., for many US citizens to acquire
certain benefits or employment. According to various provision of the Patriot
Act (and which provisions Obama recently pushed), one must show two forms of ID
to open a bank account, show a birth cert. or passport, if claiming to be a US
citizen, to get an "H" endorsement on a CDL, etc., etc., etc. Therefore, I do
not find it improper that the POTUS must prove his, even if it is a formality.
IOW, why should he not be expected to follow the same "rules" that he himself
supports for others? Why do you feel "the people" do not have the right to
demand that he _prove_ his eligibility? In fact, why would you not be in favor
of such proof being a requirement, such as financial disclosure, etc. and part
of the public record?

That said, I find the refusal to simply produce the damned thing slightly
troubling, but not from an eligibility standpoint. What I find troubling about
it is the withholding of it is apparently being done to "fan flames." Further,
anyone who says, "hey, ya know, what IS going on here?" gets labeled or is
treated dismissively by his supporters, as you do above. Again, what's so
terrible about someone who has a legitimate question about it asking to see what
should be "a standard proof?" And what is, in your opinion, a reasonable
defense for not producing it?

this has been agonized over beyond all reason in my opinion. i can't
find my birth certificate, so i couldn't produce it if you demanded it.
but, i could do the same thing obama did, and tell you where i was
born and where you could find it. the proof has been given of obama's
birth...at least the proof that will satisfy any rational thinking
person. that you suggest in the slightest otherwise, or that it has any
traction as an issue of any sort, amazes me. i read the stuff on this
when it started and when it was debunked, and assume you did as well.
what is it you want...obama personally showing his copy? you're not
satisfied with the hawaii records and official statements? if you want
to say he is "as much white as black"...fine...that's still progress in
terms of focus...but the birther stuff is silly, well, because it's
proven to be silly. speaking truth to silly and stupid is always a
wasted effort imo.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...a-hawaii_N.htm
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Simply put, there is no "good" reason for him to withhold it.

who says he has?

IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed

i haven't polled them either...but i'll go out on the same limb and say
more people in the world can tell you who obama is than can tell you who
herta muller is (and probably more than can identify william faulkner).

I;m not sure of your point, but I'd agree with the statement.

my point is...well...he's known around the world. better known than
other nobel recipients.

IAC, how about
Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Wen Jiabao, Musharraf, Patil, Yudhoyono, Gandhi,
Muhammad, Allah/God (and no, I'm not comparing anything but numbers of people of
can identify them)? How about the various members of the Bachchan family
(including Aishwarya Rai, and again, simple name-recognition comparison)? David
Hasselhof, Jerry Lewis, Posh and Becks or whatever they are called?

but that wasn't really the point of our discussion (or my comment) was
it?

Yes, it is - at least _a_ point of it. I'd offer that more people are familiar
with one or more of the above list than Obama.

i can't/won't disagree with that...so?

Now, if your point is that some
vast number of people would acknowledge having heard the name "Barack Obama,"
I'd agree that there are certainly very many who would acknowledge having heard
the name. But I do not agree that they would have either an informed opinion of
him or the basis for one, even allowing that "informed" means even a basic
knowledge about him. Moreover, I'd suggest there is a fair number of people
outside the US (and plenty in it, too) who have mostly inaccurate information
about him, both positive and negative. But at the end of the day, I'd offer
that most of the world's population simply doesn't have an opinion about him -
he simply is of no real interest to them. It would be like walking into your
average small-town cafe and trying to get folks all worked up (for or against)
about Klaus Tschutscher...wait, you are familiar with good ol' Klaus, right?

nope... but i doubt Liechtenstein engenders the same level of interest
in world issues. ...and, i think your comparison is not accurate in
terms of similar meaning...though it makes a point, it's not applicable.
people are interested in who the leader of the u.s. is in a way and at a
level that is not applicable to your guy klaus.

they know who obama is for a reason...

Who is "they?" If you mean the population of the world, in general, what
possible reason would they have for knowing or caring anything about Obama (or
any other foreign politician)?

you know...them. because he is unique, a person who is of interest as
the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, etc.

think back on his speech in germany...his visits to other
countries...the muslim world reaction... i think you understate the
general view of world leaders ... russia, china, us, uk, israel, middle
east, etc., and their political systems and populaces.
Oh, there's no doubt the media whipped some in Europe into the same tizzy into
which they whipped those in the US (and you'll note you're referring to yet
_another_ speech), but I think you are the one who is misreading world leaders
in general, esp. "rulers." For example, Norway - while it is a perfectly nice
country with generally nice folks, I'm sure, it ain't exactly a "world power." I
think many "rulers" saw a novice, feel-good kinda guy from whom they could get
more of their way with than they could other of the potential choices (and that
includes Hillary Clinton). IOW, their glee was more at their chances than the
US'...and he has probably done more to damage the US' rep with our two
most-powerful allies in the Middle East - Israel and the Iranian _people_ - than
Bush did. And he hasn't done much to keep the heat on Pakistan's leadership,
either.
i simply don't agree...and i didn't claim norway was a world power.
but, i stick by my opinion about the positive change overall in the
world leaders' view of our president.

Stick away, but define "positive."

more receptive; more accepting; more respectful; more collegial; more
willing to engage, listen, and discuss; more supportive; more relieved;
more understanding; etc.

I mean, if you have an opponent in a legal
case who you know you can out-lawyer, do you say, "Well, ****, this sucks...I
got opposing counsel I just know I can beat..."?

it's not that simple, nor does it apply. if you are saying, when two
are in a fight to the death, if one has a knife and the other doesn't,
does the one throw away or give away the knife...probably not. but, if
there is a way to settle the matter favorably without a beating or
killing, that's always preferable. humiliating and embarrassing someone
is rarely a productive or positive effort. ...nor is invading a
country, destroying its society, and killing masses of innocents.

i reckon that's why he has consistently deflected any suggestion that
his race is an issue? as in ...he was black before he took office? i
just don't get your argument on this, nor is it a response to what i
wrote above it.

OK. How about this: there is no (rational) basis for "black hatred of whites"
any more than there is any basis for white hatred of blacks, in the US or
anywhere else.

if you are serious about this, there is no way to resolve our
difference. it's the abortion argument...there is no middle ground.
slavery, and its consequences that linger to this day, is simply too big
of an issue for me to ever allow the equipoise you proffer as reasonable.
What there is, however, is a basis for blacks to say that
certain whites have acted badly based solely on race, just as there is for
whites to say the same thing. To paraphrase James Earl Jones, no one can speak
for an entire race, nor should the actions of some of a race be taken to be a
statement for the entire race.

we can say, though, that an entire race was enslaved in this country,
can't we?

I would offer as proof David Duke and Al
Sharpton. If one person could speak for their race, all blacks and whites would
be racist slimeball douchebags. As to Obama "deflecting" his race as an issue,
bull****. He has played upon and used, albeit substantially passively, "racism"
to his advantage. Jeez, even the Clintons called him on it.

no...the politics of the time played upon and used it. he can't escape
it. he hasn't played it.

I will agree that there are people around the world enthusiastic and optimistic
about Obama, some for their own selfish reasons, but mostly for "positive"
reasons (the latter being about whom and what I will assume to which you are,
well, enthusiastic and optimistic). But why do you think they are so? What I
mean to ask is whether you think they are so because of his real
accomplishments, or, because of his (direct) "promise" (his own presence,
speeches, etc. directly influencing their opinion, ala as it is substantively in
the US), or, because of the "media hype," or, ???

he is a change that has been perceived and received with optimism. sun
emerging from clouds stuff. most is the "promise" perceived and believed.

Why should anyone, decent or indecent, have much of an opinion on what 5 people
in Norway do?

because they bestow a prize that is recognized and generally appreciated
internationally...

If those five people came forward in the future and said, "you
know, we made a grave mistake - Obama's a bum...," how much would it influence
you?

i would be interested in knowing the basis (as in there is a writing of
values that set the structure for decision)...it might influence me.

And I consider the importance and value of the debate resulting from the
Prize separate and apart from importance and value of the Prize itself.

ok...a reasonable distinction i guess. not to mention the bucks...

so do you disagree that u.s. society/public/culture is "often violent,
short-sighted, and petty"?

I somewhat disagree. I'd say that "us society..." is _sometimes_ that way
because humankind is _sometimes_ that way, with variations among the myriad
world societies over the course of human history. Where the US stands in the
rankings, and has varied over its history, is a debate/discussion unto itself.

so, how often is sometimes for you? i live in a relatively small
county...about 160k population. it's a violent place - there is violent
crime committed here every day. that qualifies as "often" to me. look
at our national murder rate, assaults, violent crime statistics, etc. i
trust you don't argue about petty and short-sighted.

i admit i was surprised. i believe i said i was proud and encouraged
that our president received the prize.
Why? What is it about the opinion of those 5 people that is so important _to
you_?
an international recognition of our president, a president and person i
admire and support, and who represents values i appreciate, is
satisfying, encouraging, and a source of pride. it also elevates an
issue i care about deeply...and one that will be implanted in the psyche
of those in power in this country.

First, it isn't "international" - the 5 people are Norwegian.

um...yes, the *recognition* is international. i have no idea about the
voters...you say they are norwegian.

And of course,
folks are naturally glad when another person (or 5 people) appears to "think
like them." But you didn't answer my question - what is it about the opinion of
those 5 that is so important to you?

they decide who is chosen for the prize.

Can you even name them (from prior
personal knowledge)? Do you know anything about them personally?

nope, and nope. but then, i doubt that is unusual. there is a whopping
huge universe of things i don't know. i'm willing to learn though. tell
me everything you know about them.

If, as I
asked above, they suddenly reversed themselves, would you change your view on/of
Obama? If not, why not?

same answer...

jose merida (yeah, about as well known as jeff miller) said he thought
the prize to obama also "recognized the american people who dared to
vote for a change of the u.s. role in the world."

btw...jose lives in guatemala. a guatemalan perspective...

And you feel continuing the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan - neither of which
are really "wars" and neither of which is "winnable" by any side in a "warfare"
sense - is giving peace a chance?

nope. but...

... what are his real world options? i mean, how does this
president deal with the hand he's been dealt? it's a very complex
decision model, and he's handling it very well in my opinion.

Simple - quit worrying about possible perception and get the **** out. What,
didn't anyone in the world learn from the French and the US in Vietnam, the USSR
_in Afghanistan_ with the same ****ing people, Napoleon, World Wars I and II,
etc., etc., etc., etc.

that's my choice and wish, so we agree if that's really your position on
what he should do ideally. practically and politically though, and in
the real world, can it be done?

Go in, if that is the decision, beat the all holy hell
out of whoever allegedly needs it, make it plain that "we" better not have to
stop this car again, and drive on. And if "we" do have to stop it again, make
the first time seem like a tea party with really good jam and scones. The
purpose of a military attack is to, simply, kill people and break their ****,
not to "nation-build" (yeah, I know, an over- and mis-used term, but...).

ok...but shouldn't there be a genuine "need", a reason for going to war,
killing another country's people, screwing up their entire country?
....making some difference for a lasting purpose?

And to try to "nation-build" with people who really don't want to be "a nation"
under the terms proposed to them, stupidity of it aside, just won't work. As
far as Iraq, Saddam needed to go - "Mission Accomplished" - the "Iraqis" (IOW,
those people in the region, should they choose to remain "Iraq"), like those in
the Afghanistan region, should be allowed to figure the rest out for themselves,
at least to the point of becoming another problem _externally_. The whole thing
reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon from many years ago - BD was in Vietnam and
had befriended "Phred the VC." Phred asked BD how "Americans" would have felt
if 500,000 Vietnamese had shown up at Gettysburg and taken a side.

why did saddam need to go? why should that have been our choice to make?
i agree with phred...and, here, mostly, with you.

The "happy birthday!" thoughts weren't belated, only the relaying of them:
"happy birthday!"

thanks...it was an excellent day.

jeff