After several weeks of gathering as much information as possible, President Obama is reportedly within a few days of announcing his revised approach regarding the war in Afghanistan. Obama has come under a lot of criticism for his alleged “dithering,” as some political opponents have famously put it. Maybe the president could have come to his decision one month earlier, but personally, I would prefer to have him “dither” for a little too long than to make a decision of this importance without first considering all the relevant information and the perspectives of his chief military and civilian advisors. I do not know what the president’s decision will be, but there are two certainties:
Most observers seem to believe that President Obama will opt to send more American troops to Afghanistan, but probably less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. Even if this is true, that still leaves open a lot of questions regarding where the military personnel will be specifically deployed, and what will be the focus of their mission.
With my usual disclaimer that I have no personal military experience and have little knowledge of military affairs, I am of the opinion that it is time to scale down the mission. Fighting terrorism is important, and I generally supported President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and bring down the Taliban regime that provided a base to Al Qaeda. I thought that it was most unfortunate that Mr. Bush switched his emphasis in his “war on terror” from Afghanistan to Iraq, because we might have had much more success in Afghanistan without the very expensive sideshow in the Middle East. However, as noted above, there is no turning back the clock, and President Obama has to deal with the situation as it now stands, rather than what we might think it should have been.
Advocates of a troop surge in Afghanistan, with a change in strategy focused on protecting the civilian population, note how well this approach worked in Iraq. If I believed that this would work as well in Afghanistan, I would probably support it. However, I am persuaded that an additional 40,000 troops –or even double that amount – will be nowhere near enough to do the job in Afghanistan. Compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is a very advanced country, with a well educated population and a strong middle class. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is hopelessly corrupt. Given the tribal nature of the Afghan population, Mr. Karzai is effectively not much more than the mayor of Kabul. He does not come even close to being widely recognized as the legitimate leader of his country.
One of my major objections to President Bush’s actions in the name of fighting terrorism was that, even if we assume honorable motives on the part of Mr. Bush, he was fiscally reckless. It seems amazing that, while the supposedly “conservative” George W. Bush was president, both the White House and its allies in Congress completely ignored the idea that wars are expensive and have to be paid for. Again, previous events cannot be reversed, but it has to be recognized now that there are limits to most resources. When it comes to the ability of the federal government to spend additional funds, those limits were unacknowledged several years ago, and as a result are more severe today.
This does not mean that we abandon Afghanistan as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences, but it does mean that we have to factor into the decision the costs involved, and honestly explain how we will pay for it. This was largely ignored throughout the Bush years, but there is no excuse for ignoring it any longer (the same principle applies to health care reform and any other major spending proposals, but the subject for today is Afghanistan).
The way I see it, we cannot afford a counterinsurgency strategy of the type used in Iraq. I do not believe that the 40,000 additional troops requested by General McChrystal would be enough to make an effective difference. Besides that, our military forces have already been overcommitted. My impression is that doing the job “right” in Afghanistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and that is not going to happen. It is far too expensive, and in any case cannot be accomplished without resuming a military draft. I strongly doubt that there is much of an appetite for that among most Americans.
If General McChrystal or anybody else can make a convincing case that a maximum addition of 40,000 additional troops will produce lasting and positive results by the end of one additional year, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, we have to scale down our goals. We should continue to pursue known terrorists, and otherwise try to work with the less odious factions of the Taliban. America and its NATO allies might find it easier to work with local Afghan groups if it is clear that our presence there is diminishing. What about the argument that reducing the mission from the previously loftier goals to a more simple counterterrorism would mean that so many lives of brave Americans (and our allies) will have been “wasted?” Unfortunately, we cannot get those lives back, no matter what we do. What we can do is to stop compounding past mistakes.
The story from Rhode Island about the bishop and the congressman is very interesting. The Roman Catholic bishop in Providence has publicly requested that Rep. Patrick Kennedy not take communion, because Mr. Kennedy's pro-choice position on abortion rights is contrary to church doctrine. Mr. Kennedy, of course, is a son of the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, and a member of possibly the most famous Catholic family in America. Bishop Thomas Tobin has not only made this request to Mr. Kennedy, but he has ordered that all Catholic priests in Rhode Island refuse to offer communion to the supposedly wayward congressman.
I have no personal stake in this story. I am not Catholic, and while I am generally pro-choice regarding the permissibility of abortions, I do not have a problem with the government's authority to impose some restrictions after the early stages of a pregnancy. Besides that, I do not have daughters, so the issue is not likely to affect me personally. I say this not to take up the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but only to note that the outcome of the controversy about the bishop and the congressman does not directly concern me, except as an outside bystander.
It seems to me that in America, clerics of any denomination should be cautious about how they wander into political issues. The messages to their flock should focus on how they can do their best when it comes to their personal conduct. Be the best spouse/child/parent/friend/neighbor/etc. that you can be. Recognize that nobody is perfect, but emphasize that people should do the best that they can. The point is that the sermons and other messages should guide the members of the congregation on their personal behavior, not their political beliefs. If Congressman Kennedy was actually performing abortions, or paying somebody else directly for that purpose, I could understand the bishop's response. Instead, the bishop is taking this action because Congressman Kennedy supports others to have the right to make that decision (whether or not to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy) for themselves.
If the reader will excuse the cheap shot, it is my strong impression that in the numerous reported incidents of Catholic priests sexually molesting young boys, the usual reaction of the bishops was to cover up the crime, and quietly transfer the religiously devout child rapist to another unsuspecting community, hoping that the priest had learned his lesson. The lesson? The lesson appears to be that raping a child is a minor embarrassment, which they can hopefully cover up. Conversely, advocating a purely political position that conflicts with church doctrine is a major offense.
Congressman Kennedy is not about to ask for my advice, but in case he does, my suggestion is that he tell that bishop to get a hobby, but only one that is limited to consenting adults.
It's been a while that I watched BMJ. When I began watching tonight in the middle of the program I entered into President Johnson's conversation in 1965 with McNamara on escalation of the war, when the troops there were in the range of 45 thousands. I sat pinned down to my chair till the end of the program.
That "while" wiyhout BMJ was a wasted while. God bless Bill Moyers of the USA! fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers looked back some four decades to his experience as a member of President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. At the time, Johnson made a series of fateful decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam, where eventually over two million American military personnel would serve. Estimates indicate that nearly 60,000 U.S. troops – and more than a million Vietnamese – were killed during the course of the conflict.
With an eye on President Obama’s deliberations on whether to deploy more U.S. troops in addition to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan, Moyers presented a montage of recorded conversations and his personal memories of President Lyndon Johnson’s decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam. He said:
“Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama’s mind. He is apparently about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another President – Lyndon B. Johnson. I was 30 years old, a White House assistant, working on politics and domestic policy. I watched and listened as LBJ made his fateful decisions about Vietnam... Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and this is now, not then. The situation is different. But listen – and you will hear echoes and refrains that resonate today.”
The nation is divided about America’s mission in Afghanistan. In a new WASHINGTON POST – ABC News poll, 55% of respondents expressed confidence that President Obama will pick a strategy that will work, but 52% said that the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting given the costs versus the benefits.
What do you think?
The general impression I get from watching news programs these days is that Barack Obama’s popularity is slipping away, and that conversely, Sarah Palin is more popular than the Beatles and Elvis Presley combined at their respective primes. For those of us who admire Mr. Obama and hold little regard for Ms. Palin, it would seem that we are headed for some politically bleak times. This picture may not be completely false, but it is probably much less true than it might seem at the moment.
President Obama’s halo is a bit tarnished, which is inevitable for almost any new president, especially one who entered office accompanied by such high expectations. He has made a few missteps (which will be the subject of a later essay by yours truly) during his first year in office, but nothing he cannot recover from. As long as unemployment remains high – and realistically there is no quick fix for that – President Obama will get the blame. It appears that the economy is already in recovery, and when unemployment goes back down to more tolerable levels, it will likely get Obama’s public approval ratings back to the solidly favorable range. It may not happen soon enough for his party to avoid getting clobbered in the mid term elections next year, but it will happen.
As for Sarah Palin, she is going to make millions of dollars selling her book, but I cannot see her as a credible candidate for President in 2012, or any other year. There is an old cliché about how we underestimate her at our peril. I believe I used that line myself, in reference to Palin, during the campaign last year. Some of Palin’s conservative admirers like to compare her to Ronald Reagan, who also showed great skill with a right wing populist appeal, and was also underestimated by his political opponents. One of my favorite conservative pundits, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, has a great column comparing Sarah Palin with conservative patron saints Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Here is a link to that column:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1119chapmannov19,0,4222240.column
To me, Sarah Palin more closely resembles Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, and in my opinion, Ms. Palin combines the worst qualities of each of them. Mr. Nixon had what I believe psychiatrists would call a paranoid personality. He was obsessed with the idea that anybody who criticized or disagreed with him was a personal enemy, and therefore, because he was the president, a traitor to the U.S. The fact that Nixon was also very bright, well read, and hard working was not enough to compensate for the serious deficiencies in his character. Mr. Bush was (is) almost the opposite of Mr. Nixon. He is more at ease with himself as a person, but was one of the most intellectually lazy presidents we have ever had. He acted out of a gut feeling of what he thought was right, and (being the “decider” as he famously put it) pursued his policies without much serious analysis. When he did receive advice that did not fit into his preconceived notions, he ignored it, often with tragic consequences. Sarah Palin has managed to combine Nixon’s persecution complex with Bush’s incredible ignorance and lack of curiosity .
Ms. Palin has a devoted following – enough to make her a rich author, and if she wants it, she could probably get a very lucrative job at Fox News. However, while perhaps 20% of the country absolutely loves Sarah Palin, I cannot see her ever making serious inroads on the other 80%.
I say hang'em!
It is human, silent and unobtrusive. I say, ban the mow-blow-and-go "gardeners"- they are not. One of the special pleasures of travel in Central America are the old fashioned loundry rituals. There, it is not question of choice. Laundry is done by women's hands and is hang outside, watched carefuly, hastily carried inside when rain comes. For many women it is the only source of income. These women, I once thought, should also be awarded all those big green prizes that go to somebody else.
I think more hanging laundry would make our USA neighborhoods safer. Perhaps the sight of children playing ouside would return with it. fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
November 18, 2009 | 1 comments
U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry
Carin Froehlich has help from her granddaughter Ava as they hang some laundry in the front yard of her residence in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, November 12, 2009. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer
PERKASIE, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Carin Froehlich pegs her laundry to three clotheslines strung between trees outside her 18th-century farmhouse, knowing that her actions annoy local officials who have asked her to stop.
Froehlich is among the growing number of people across America fighting for the right to dry their laundry outside against a rising tide of housing associations who oppose the practice despite its energy-saving green appeal.
Although there are no formal laws in this southeast Pennsylvania town against drying laundry outside, a town official called Froehlich to ask her to stop drying clothes in the sun. And she received two anonymous notes from neighbors saying they did not want to see her underwear flapping about.
"They said it made the place look like trailer trash," she said, in her yard across the street from a row of neat, suburban houses. "They said they didn't want to look at my 'unmentionables.'"
Froehlich says she hangs her underwear inside. The effervescent 54-year-old is one of a growing number of Americans demanding the right to dry laundry on clotheslines despite local rules and a culture that frowns on it.
Their interests are represented by Project Laundry List, a group that argues people can save money and reduce carbon emissions by not using their electric or gas dryers, according to the group's executive director, Alexander Lee.
Widespread adoption of clotheslines could significantly reduce U.S. energy consumption, argued Lee, who said dryer use accounts for about 6 percent of U.S. residential electricity use.
Florida, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Colorado, and Hawaii have passed laws restricting the rights of local authorities to stop residents using clotheslines. Another five states are considering similar measures, said Lee, 35, a former lawyer who quit to run the non-profit group.
'RIGHT TO HANG'
His principal opponents are the housing associations such as condominiums and townhouse communities that are home to an estimated 60 million Americans, or about 20 percent of the population. About half of those organizations have 'no hanging' rules, Lee said, and enforce them with fines.
Carl Weiner, a lawyer for about 50 homeowners associations in suburban Philadelphia, said the no-hanging rules are usually included by the communities' developers along with regulations such as a ban on sheds or commercial vehicles.
The no-hanging rules are an aesthetic issue, Weiner said.
"The consensus in most communities is that people don't want to see everybody else's laundry."
He said opposition to clotheslines may ease as more people understand it can save energy and reduce greenhouse gases.
"There is more awareness of impact on the environment," he said. "I would not be surprised to see people questioning these restrictions."
For Froehlich, the "right to hang" is the embodiment of the American tradition of freedom.
"If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry," said Froehlich, who is writing a book on the subject.
Besides, it saves money. Line-drying laundry for a family of five saves $83 a month in electric bills, she said.
Kevin Firth, who owns a two-bedroom condominium in a Dublin, Pennsylvania housing association, said he was fined $100 by the association for putting up a clothesline in a common area.
"It made me angry and upset," said Firth, a 27-year-old carpenter. "I like having the laundry drying in the sun. It's something I have always done since I was a little kid."
(Editing by Mark Egan and Paul Simao)
Sez Me at 05:41 PM on 11/18/09
Some time ago we said good bye to Duston who told us he would be going back to Kabul. So he went. Usually when incidents like the most recent Kabul bombing happen, one thinks of one's friends that could be there, in danger. And so I did as well, thinking he must be well anyway, most likely. Kabul is big (I thought). Not so. It is a small world after all. This is what came yesterday. fib
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Hibiscus Tea and Honey in Berlin
"Dear Friends,
At first, I should offer a quick explanation of this letter: I have not yet read any email replies you may have sent me since my last correspondence back around mid October or so. I am currently drinking Hibiscus Tea sweetened with a little honey in an Army Hospital in Berlin Germany. My Laptop Computer has not had internet for two weeks:
October 28th, 2009 began with a loud bang at exactly 6 AM Kabul time. Actually an explosion at the front gate to the Guesthouse where I was living. I don’t know if it was an RPG or Suicide Bomber, and will truly never know for a fact which one it was. The first explosion was followed by machine gun firing and then an RPG hit the front of the building. The Taleban killed the exterior gate residence guards, entered the front house and proceeded to kill as many UN Election Employees as possible before the Police arrived. A long and intense gun-battle ensued over the next hour and a half and the attackers were eventually killed around 7:30 AM. Some of my friends, and some employees, of the Guesthouse were also killed and many wounded during this incident.
I escaped physically unharmed within 90 seconds of the first sound of the attack.
The media incorrectly portrayed the building as the “UN Guesthouse” whereas technically it was a privately run guesthouse, and I referred to it in earlier email to you as the “Zoo”, because it had lots of animals and birds on the property. I do not know who survived other than I have a “story” of the massacre as I experienced it. I ended up with a large group of UN Election Employees who also survived as we hid together in the neighboring courtyard while the Taleban shot it out with the surviving guards, burned down the place and then shot it out again with the Police.
Around 7:40 AM , I was transferred by the Police to a temporary safe location, and then the Bank security man found me and I was taken to the big famous Hotel ( The Serena ) which is heavily guarded in downtown Kabul. Immediately after I arrived, I was standing in the Hotel Lobby , on the cell phone, calling the Germans who I work for, when a mortar round or RPG hit the Lobby. The glass exploded , and once again, I was not injured and everyone ran to the Hotel bunker to wait for the All Clear sign. The Hotel suffered nothing but broken glass and some jittered nerves, but for me, it was the second attack in less than two hours and I withdrew into my own little brain…..telling myself that no place was safe as it seemed like the terror was following me around that morning in Kabul.
Since then, I have stayed in German Army Hospitals except for the plane rides to Germany where I am now. I am receiving treatment for Psychological Trauma and am getting better quickly. I hope to be released to Outpatient within about 4 days. And then about a month more of Outpatient therapy and then final release back into the employment world when I will be able to totally navigate on my own. The goal is to prevent and reduce the long term possibility or impact of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( “PTSB”) which we all heard of with the Korean and Vietnam War Veterans and other traumatic incident survivors.
I shall not assign my survival that day to my training, skills, experience and quick thinking ( although I am told by many that it was a critical part of my actions and movement within the first minute of the attack ). I have been given yet another chance on the Planet by my Higher Power. I am no more “religious” today than I was a minute before 6 AM on October 28th; however I have grown substantially. My spirituality is stronger now than ever; and I am convinced that God has a Plan for me, I just need to follow the Steps and listen for His guidance on a daily basis.
Only once since then have I wanted or seriously thought of taking a drink, and I asked to be relieved of that notion, and it was granted. I take some light weight sleeping medication and hope to reduce the strength soon, then be totally free of it within two more weeks or so depending on what the Doctors say. I am receiving excellent medical care here in Germany, with three Doctors and a bevy of Nurses. I see a Trauma Specialist MD every other day and I am recuperating well.
My employment contracts ends in February so money is temporarily not a problem, and I have good insurance for the hospital expenses. So, for today, all I ask for is another chance to be free of my Weaknesses and Character Defects and look for the next path I am to take.
I totally and unconditionally TRUST.
Work the Steps. Turn it over to God. Clean House. Help Others.
With ALL my Love,
Duston"
Liberal pundit E. J. Dionne has an excellent column in today’s Washington Post. Regarding the ongoing health care reform efforts in Congress, there has been a lot of chatter about “perfect” becoming the enemy of the good. This has been a concern of mine for some months. Here is a link to Mr. Dionne’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111122256.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
If any kind of health care reform does get passed into law, the one certainty is that the final product will not be ideal by anybody’s reckoning. I have said in previous blog posts that the biggest obstacles to health care reform are those who insist that the bill contain certain characteristics, such as a “robust public option.” These people – including former Democratic Party leader Howard Dean and interim U.S. Senator Roland Burris (the choice of disgraced former Illinois Governor Blagojevich to fill the unexpired senate term of Barack Obama) – have made clear that they would rather see all reform efforts fail than to have what they believe is half-hearted reform pass. In a way, I have more respect for somebody like Senator Jim DeMint, who at least makes no serious pretense to being anything other than a political enemy of President Obama. If Obama’s presidency fails to achieve its major goals, it will be more due to his supposed allies (such as Dean and Burris) than to his overt opponents (such as DeMint). Reform can pass without any Republican support, but in order for that to happen, the Democrats have to able to unite behind something. As a practical matter, this means accepting the reality that many Democrats representing relatively conservative states and districts cannot support all the provisions favored by their more left-leaning colleagues.
If there is going to be any kind of health care reform bill that clears Congress, it will almost certainly contain some degree of restriction on taxpayer-financed abortions, and it will quite likely not provide for a public option, except perhaps one based on future contingencies. It would still be a major achievement, both in terms of politics and public policy, to get health care reform that extends coverage to all Americans, is fiscally neutral, and controls overall health care costs. This can be done, but not if side shows about the availability of abortions and the public option control the debate.
One of the points made by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress to advocate health care reform was that he would be receptive to good and constructive ideas from any source, including Republicans who oppose nearly everything he does. It was a fine speech, and it succeeded in raising the prospects of enacting some kind of significant health care reform. If he really meant what he said about considering good ideas from the political opposition, he should make that more clear.
Without a doubt, health care reform is a very difficult challenge. As the saying goes, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago. Obama’s allies in Congress (the Democrats) have major differences among themselves, regarding the merits of different aspects of reform. The Republicans are almost 100% united in opposition, both for sincere ideological reasons and for pure political motives. Obama would like to have a bipartisan bill, but (with very few possible exceptions) congressional Republicans will refuse to back any bill, even if it contains several provisions to their liking. By temperament and political background, Obama has always tried to build a consensus, but neither party in Congress is in the mood. What is a president to do?
In apparent opposition to all conventional wisdom, I still believe that the best solution – both for policy and politics – would be a moderate health care reform bill that uses some of the better ideas from both parties. For the reforms to work, they will have to expand access and reduce overall health care costs, regardless of how payment of those costs is distributed. Reforms that focus on one of these issues while ignoring the other will ultimately fail.
With my usual disclaimer about not being an expert on this or any other subject, the best health care reform at this time would have the following characteristics:
1) No legal resident of the U.S. can have his/her coverage denied or revoked due to personal health issues. [The issue regarding illegal residents is trickier. My inclination is to believe that illegal residents should be included, but I would not insist on it as a condition to support an otherwise good bill.]
2) All persons eligible for coverage must be covered. There can be no “opt out” for individuals or families. Tax credits or similar assistance should be available for those who are too poor to afford coverage, but they have to get the coverage. If insurance companies must accept all applicants and all preexisting conditions, then it makes no sense to allow healthy Americans to stay out of the system before the need for insurance becomes obvious.
3) The tax favored treatment for employer-sponsored insurance should be ended, or at least sharply reduced. People who cannot get health insurance through work should not be disadvantaged the way they are now.
4) Individuals and small groups should be able to join large risk pools, in order to remove cost distortions due to underwriting.
5) Sensible tort reform is necessary. This includes caps on non-economic damages and an effective distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. In return for setting limits, the medical profession must do a better job of policing its members. The current practical necessities of defensive medicine and huge malpractice premiums greatly add to overall health care costs, while doing very little for patient well being.
6) End the interstate prohibition on selling medical insurance. Most states need more effective competition among its potential health insurers. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would be a big help.
7) Emphasis on prevention, as opposed to treatment and cure, needs to be a component of health care reform. There needs to be financial incentives for people to participate in wellness programs and annual physical exams.
8) For all the talk about “death panels,” the fact is that a large chunk of health care costs take place in the last six months of the patient’s life. I am not about write off somebody for being terminally ill, but there needs to be more honest discussion about the costs associated with extraordinary measures to keep somebody breathing for a few extra months, or weeks, or days. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but this is a big element of the national health care bill, and the issue must be faced with more honesty than it has had so far.
9) The public option is not as great an idea as its advocates suggest. This is especially true if there is an “opt out” provision for each individual state. It would likely have the effect of denying coverage for many vulnerable Americans. It will do nothing to contain actual costs, and the notion that it will “save” money by paying doctors at Medicare (or Medicaid) rates makes no sense. Doctors and hospitals can presently treat Medicare as a loss leader item, pushing up the costs to everybody else. They cannot do that if there is no everybody else. The public option either works like Medicare, providing a short term illusion of cost saving, or it works like a private insurance company, with no saving. The “trigger” provision suggested by Olympia Snowe and some other senators, where the public option would be created something like five years in the future if demonstrated to necessary by conditions at that time, might make sense.
Anyway, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. We need to have some sensible health care reform, but we need to get something that can pass both the House and Senate. Passing a feel good measure that passes only one house of Congress is useless. I believe that a health care reform bill with the characteristics outlined above would be good public policy, and can pass Congress if President Obama makes clear that this is something he supports. It may seem to be too much of half-hearted reform for the liking of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but even a half-hearted reform now leaves open further reforms in the near future, if those are believed to be needed. The reverse is not true. Failure to pass something now will almost guarantee a very long delay in passing any reform. It will also seriously weaken Obama’s presidency. I do not want that to happen.
Some weeks ago, The Washington Post announced an op-ed writing contest, where non-professional writers were invited to submit an essay of 400 words or less. The essays would be judged by the clarity of writing, and content with an interesting message, but not on whether or not the editors agreed with the content. There were thousands of submissions, including one from yours truly. Out of these thousands, only ten of these amateur writers would advance to the second round, and the process would gradually whittle down to a single winner, who would get the honor of contributing a regular column for something like ten weeks. The winner would receive a fairly modest fee for his/her columns, but the main prize would be the prestige, not the money.
My essay was not one of the ten that made it to the second round, and of course, I was well aware that my odds were very remote. Anyway, now that I am officially out of the running, I would like to share my essay with my fellow OFA bloggers:
With multiple international crises and a serious economic recession to address, along with an ongoing effort to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, other issues have understandably been set aside for now. It can wait awhile, but I hope that some time before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, there will be a serious examination of the various laws enacted, and enforcement methods used, in the name of “getting tough on crime.” We have the infamous war on drugs, which generally criminalizes the casual possession and use of various drugs, some of which are relatively harmless. We have the “three strikes” laws in many states, which in some circumstances impose long prison terms for minor offenses. Capital punishment is as popular as ever. Politicians frequently try to outdo each other in the contest to appear tougher on crime, because that perception is always a big advantage in elections. Conversely, an American politician who dares to suggest that these measures are ineffective in combating crime have as much chance of getting elected as would a candidate for the Iranian parliament who publicly doubts the existence of God.
I have no problem with being tough on crime, but I believe that many of the actions done with that supposed objective are ineffective at best, and in some cases counterproductive. Smarter and wiser people than yours truly may disagree, but let’s at least challenge some of the cherished assumptions.
Problems with the war on drugs include wasted resources (police, courts, jail), drug classifications which defy common sense (tobacco cigarettes are legal, marijuana is not), enrichment of organized crime (because lawful merchants cannot supply the people with what they apparently want), and the lost opportunity for excise tax revenue.
The three strikes laws remove the ability of a trial judge to use common sense in sentencing a convicted defendant. By imposing a mandatory twenty year sentence (for example) when a much shorter sentence is appropriate under the circumstances, the prisons become overcrowded with inmates who should not be there.
The usual justifications for capital punishment are false. They do not generally deter crime or save the taxpayers money, nor can we be sure that an innocent person is never executed. Execution undeniably does serve one purpose, which is to satisfy our collective thirst for revenge for an especially gruesome crime.
Let’s have some open an honest debate on these issues.
Now, back to the present day (11/2/09). I wrote the above words about a month ago. The Post editors had to sift through thousands of submitted essays – most of them undoubtedly well written – and it cannot have been easy to select the ten best. For the second round, they asked the would-be pundits to write a 750 word essay, on a different subject matter from the one they used in the first round. Two examples are provided in today’s on-line edition of the post:
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/mara.gay/2009/11/mom_in_chief.html
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/darryl.jackson/2009/11/sarah_palins_second_act.html
The OFA blog today contains a post from somebody, apparently with the moniker “Worship,” with an interesting message:
While I respect the sincerity of people whose admiration for President Obama seems to extend to the level of elevating the president into a deity, I cannot share the attitude. I want to be clear about my own attitude. I do admire Barack Obama as a person. He is the first presidential candidate to get any direct financial support from me. His campaign was also the first, since I was an idealistic high school student forty years ago, where I volunteered my time. I shared in the excitement of his 2008 election victory. This was not merely a victorious candidate who got my vote, but also (for the first time in my life) my enthusiastic support.
To be realistic, however, it is far too early to be sure that Obama will be a great president, let alone the greatest world leader the world has ever seen. For one thing, a great man (or woman) who happens to be the president is very different from being a great president. The qualities are not the same.
President Obama has, in my opinion, qualities that potentially can make him a great president. He is highly intelligent, a well read student of history, and trained to understand and appreciate competing viewpoints regarding a particular issue or problem. He is secure enough about himself that he does not take political attacks personally. He understands, maybe to a greater degree than nearly any of his predecessors (on a level with the senior President Bush), the role of diplomacy in international relations. While not historically a good predictor of presidential performance, Barack Obama is also (by all available evidence) an excellent family man who lives by an admirable personal moral code. Maybe that is not very important, but if nothing else, the absence of any scandal in his life at least precludes his being a target of personal blackmail. It also could give him some additional credibility when he is trying to push some moral cause.
Great presidents have to be excellent politicians. This means sometimes compromising with ideals in order to achieve something important. It sometimes involves choosing the least bad of several unappealing alternatives (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind). It involves making mistakes. Most historians have judged (correctly, in my view) Franklin Roosevelt as one of our greatest presidents. Despite that, however, there is absolutely no justification for FDR rounding up large numbers of Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps. That is just one example. Jimmy Carter had, and still has, many of the same admirable personal qualities as we see in Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter was not a successful president.
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has an excellent op-ed in today’s (10/21/09) Washington Post. Ms. Parker is generally conservative, but not right wing, and this column concerns the Obama administration’s decision that the federal government will not interfere with states which permit the use of medical marijuana. I think it is an excellent column, because it articulates the case I have been trying to make in some previous blog postings, but in this case with the skill of a professional writer. She praises the administration for making the first step toward sensible drug policy, but she also advocates going further.
The usual arguments in favor of legalizing (or at minimum, decriminalizing) weed note that it is less harmful and addictive than some other currently legal products, that its illegal status means a huge waste of police/court/jail resources, and various other ways that the “war on drugs” is counterproductive, at least regarding marijuana.
In addition to these things, although the foolishness of the “war on drugs” has a long bipartisan history, self-described conservatives should oppose the long standing U.S. policy on ideological grounds. It is a case of government interference with an individual’s choice regarding a recreational activity. Besides that, it is (or at least was, when the supposedly conservative George W. Bush was president) a case of the federal government overruling the states on matters of social policy. True conservatives should be appalled by such arrogance of big government.
Anyway, here is a link to Kathleen Parker’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009102003110
I have zero respect for Fox News, and in my own opinion, that organization deserves nothing but contempt. Then again, I can say that, because I am nobody of significance. For President Obama’s top White House aides to say it is quite different. Contrary to the assertions of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, Fox is a news organization. It may be highly slanted and lacking in integrity, but it is still a news organization. It contains legitimate journalists, in addition to the ranting pundits. In my opinion, it is a big mistake for the Obama White House to openly carry on a campaign against Fox News. In doing so, he lowers himself to their level. Maybe I don’t personally think so, but that is the way it looks to a lot of people.
One of the qualities I most admire about Barack Obama is his ability to stay above most of the petty verbal trashing. There can be no serious doubt that at least some of the anti-Obama rhetoric is based on racist motives. By “some,” I do not suggest that most is based on racial fear or anger. A lot of opposition to Obama’s policies is based on pure political differences, and would be no different than if the same policies were being articulated by a white president. On the other hand, I doubt that the ridiculous “birthers” would have gotten much attention if Obama’s ethnic background was similar to mine. Anyway, despite the likelihood that some of the unfair attacks on Obama are based on racism, Obama has never made that accusation against any of his political rivals, nor has he said or implied that the opposition from ordinary voters is based on racism. This is very much to Obama’s credit. Of course, racism still exists, but President Obama is right to never use racism as an excuse for political difficulties or defeats.
So why does he declare war on Fox News? It just makes Obama – or his White House staff, which amounts to the same thing – look as petty as Nixon and Agnew did when they basically accused much of the press of being unpatriotic. Obama should not bring himself down to Nixon’s level. During the campaign, Obama did an outstanding job of remaining good-natured and calmly shaking off the taunts of his political opponents. As a result, he was the one who looked like a statesman, while the others looked like low-class political hacks. President Obama should remember how Senator and presidential candidate Obama handled political attacks.
Here is a link to an essay by somebody who apparently does not agree with me. The writer says the White House is acting appropriately in “fact checking” the various lies by Fox News. That statement may be true, when it comes to false statements of apparent fact, but that does not extend to general disparaging characterizations about Fox News. That goes far beyond fact checking.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010
The WashPost had an interesting article today on the prospects for passing a healthcare bill now:
By Dan Balz With the Senate Finance Committee vote on Tuesday, the default position for health care has flipped. From the will-it-or-won't-it-pass drama of late summer, there is now a growing presumption among Democrats and a number of leading Republicans that Congress will approve some kind of bill by the end of the year.
The path to final passage is not simple. The fragile and disparate coalition of Democratic liberals and moderates (and perhaps a Republican or two) needed to pass the legislation will be stretched to the breaking point. There will be ample opportunities for the coalition to crack apart. Nothing is yet guaranteed, given the wide gulf that still exists over some key provisions in the bill.
But failure to pass a bill now would be more of a surprise than passage. All year, White House officials have argued that failure on health care is not an option, given the debacle that followed the collapse of health care legislation in 1994. Democrats have gotten that message and are now grinding forward toward a conclusion. White House officials believe President Obama is likely to get the signing ceremony he has long hoped for.
What then are the potential political implications for the president, his party and minority Republicans if the year ends with the president hosting a big signing ceremony to herald a new era for the American health care system? A big win for the Democrats? Despair among Republicans? Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans have sharply different expectations for what may happen.
Democrats assume substantial political benefits, both for getting the job done and for changes that they believe the public will see as improvements in the kind of health care coverage they have. They believe the passage of a health care bill will stand with other landmark achievements that have come under Democratic presidents, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist, predicts that, at a minimum, there will be a huge, short-term benefit for the president and his party. "Big social problems create big political and policy challenges, but also huge political payoffs," he said.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was in the Clinton White House when health care failed in 1994, long has argued that there is another potential benefit, which is that Democrats can prove that they are capable of governing and making Washington work.
Given control of the White House and their big majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats should be able to enact their agenda, but the public has come to expect gridlock rather than progress and this has contributed to anger at Washington. "I think that there will be a general sense of satisfaction that we got something done," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said.
Democrats also believe that Republicans' near-unanimous opposition to the bill will provide a double benefit. Not only will Democrats be seen as the responsible, governing party, they argue, but the GOP's image as a party on the sidelines, unwilling or incapable of contributing to a solution to one of the country's most long-standing problems, will be reinforced.
The president, after months of being second-guessed about his handling of the debate and questions about what he has accomplished, may see a boost in his own personal standing as well. White House officials have told Democrats for months that the more popular Obama is, the more their 2010 prospects will be enhanced -- and that a health care bill will be a major positive step toward that future.
All that assumes not only that a bill passes, but also that in its implementation, voters see changes that they like. Democrats believe that in the short term, that is likely to be true, because some of the first changes implemented are insurance reforms widely popular with the public. Provisions that may be more problematic in their impact do not take effect as quickly.
Republicans see the environment far differently. "The sugar high from a signing ceremony just might be as good as it gets for President Obama and Democrats," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. "It could be all downhill from there."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama and the Democrats are heading for major problems if they add a health care bill, with all its complexities, on top of the cost of bailing out the economy. The Democrats have ignored warning signs from the public to go slower. Now, Gingrich argues, the health care bill could further harm the economy and strain health system to the breaking point.
"I think the odds are they'll pass something and I think it will be to the left of [the Finance Committee bill]," Gingrich said. "I think it's beyond trouble."
Republicans see voters potentially recoiling against legislation that would add another $800 billion or more to the federal budget. They discount Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Finance Committee bill won't blow a bigger hole in the deficit, and say the health care legislation will be cost the government hundreds of billions more in the years not covered by the 10-year window. They also argue that the final product will be more expensive, with fewer cost controls, than the Finance Committee bill.
"Even if the CBO blesses this bill, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will own the explosion of spending and the federal deficit at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012," Madden argued.
Other Republicans sees the potential for the Democratic coalition to fracture further as the debate nears a conclusion. Liberal and labor union opposition to the Finance Committee bill could collide with the House Blue Dogs and Senate moderates. If, in the middle of these final negotiations, Democrats lose the Virginia and New Jersey governors' races next month, the party could emerge more deeply divided.
Republicans also believe that, in the final months of the legislative debate, there will be growing criticism of the bill, particularly from some of the industry stakeholders who have generally held their fire until now. That could divide the country further and make Americans more skeptical about the implications of a new health care system.
"I'm not sure you can ever resolve that debate or discussion," Axelrod said hours after the Finance Committee vote. "At this point, I think you have to enact it and implement it well. I think people are prepared for us to enact it. I think there are elements of it that will come on line quickly on which those who supported it will be able to campaign on next fall."
Neither side can be too confident in their assumptions. The Bush White House and Republicans anticipated major benefits from passage of a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. Initial reaction was negative. Even when opinion turned more positive, other issues proved more powerful and politically costly in Bush's final years. The same could happen next year, especially if the unemployment is high.
The fact that opponents and proponents now think passage is more likely than impasse marks another important step in the battle over health care. But it is clear that the arguments will not cease with the possible enactment of a bill. The debate will shift to a new arena, but it will not subside for some time.
ObamaDoug Notes:
Gracias, Dan Balz. It is an important time in this debate and our work is not yet done, but this sounds a note of promise. We will have a healthcare reform bill to sign in December!
Gracias, ObamaDoug
PO,F8GY!
TUESDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Expanding health coverage to adults may result in later savings from reduced Medicare spending on these individuals after they turn 65, especially for the uninsured with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or severe arthritis, according to research published online Oct. 6 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
J. Michael McWilliams, M.D., of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from 2,951 adults who were continuously insured before the age of 65, and another 1,616 who were continuously or sometimes uninsured before this age. They assessed annual Medicare spending after age 65 for each participant.
The researchers found that total annual Medicare spending was $1,023 higher for the previously uninsured, which was a significant difference. The previously uninsured had higher annual hospitalization rates for complications related to cardiovascular disease or diabetes (9.1 versus 6.4 percent) and joint replacement (2.5 versus 1.3 percent).
"There are good reasons to believe that insurance coverage in the pre-Medicare years would reduce expenditures during the Medicare years, and health reform advocates will certainly take heart from the authors' conclusions. Unfortunately, because the data and methods used in this study are not capable of supporting causal interpretations, the savings to Medicare are unlikely to be as large as this study suggests," writes the author of an accompanying editorial.
The study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund. Several co-authors reported relevant consulting work and legislative testimony.
AbstractFull TextEditorial
Copyright © 2009 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.
Adviser Soapbox
Capitalist Case For Nonprofit Health Insurance
John E. Girouard 10.12.09, 7:09 PM ET
If you want to know what went wrong with our health care system and the best way to fix it, all you have to do is look back a few decades to a time when health care was a community concern, considered as essential as any public utility. It should be again, not just because it makes sense but also because it's the most profitable way to go.
The irony in the current debate over a "public option" health plan is that we once had a form of socialized medicine. Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer covering a community of teachers in Dallas. Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer to cover employees of mining and lumber companies in the Pacific Northwest, with a group of local doctors providing care through a service bureau.
We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. What we got was a massive conflict-of-interest--profit vs. public good--that has culminated in a dysfunctional health delivery system that has undermined our economy, reduced our national wealth and torn our social fabric.
One might argue whether our estimated 47 million uninsured is a moral shame, but there is no argument that millions of people clogging our emergency rooms and other social services because it's their only option is a crime against our economy, both in direct costs and loss of productivity.
A solution that would have something for everyone and meets the test of minimum government intervention would have three tiers of coverage:
1. Primary Care Community Nonprofits: States, regional groups, hospital consortiums and communities would be encouraged to form nonprofit health insurance companies guaranteeing at reduced premiums a primary level of care--ambulatory, emergency room, routine physicals, and so on. Every citizen would be required to be covered.
This would immediately add 47 million new customers generating premium payments into the pool of available revenue. There would be no qualifying exam nor any discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.
Those who paid their mandatory premiums could deduct them on their income- tax returns. Those who failed to pay their premiums might be subject to a minimum tax penalty or some other mechanism to encourage compliance.
These nonprofits might then, like municipalities, be able to turn to the financial markets to raise capital for building projects and other needs, perhaps issuing tax-exempt bonds.
2. Reinsure Catastrophic Risk: Community nonprofits would be required to do what large companies do when self-insuring. They set aside enough reserves to cover their employees up to a set threshold above which they reinsure themselves. Nonprofits could do the same thing, passing risk on to for-profit companies against a financial disaster from big-ticket losses that could result from a single disaster, a disease outbreak, or just having a high percentage of elderly patients needing extensive care.
The for-profit reinsurance business ought to be highly profitable if well-managed. The number of transactions they would have to handle would be vastly reduced, driving down costs. But for this to work, these companies would need to be reinsured as well, much as banks are. That's where government steps in, just as it does in the banking industry.
3. Create a Federal Health Insurance Corporation: Just as we regulate the banking industry because it is essential, requiring banks to pay insurance premiums to guarantee deposits, the role of the federal government would be to act as the insurer of last resort. Such an agency would guarantee claims above a set amount, allowing private reinsurers to calculate their risks more accurately and set competitive, profitable premium rates.
This is not a public option, it is a public imperative. It is what we expect from government after a hurricane or other natural disaster. It seems logical that in the event of a health insurance disaster, Uncle Sam should be ready to step in for the public good. And it seems equally logical that the federal government should be in the business of setting standards and regulating an industry that provides a public service, just as we regulate water, power and public transportation companies.
This three-tiered approach contains elements that should appeal to most interest groups. The nonprofit primary care level eliminates the conflict of interest that currently exists between profit and the rendering of a crucial public service. Insurance companies would go back to doing what they are supposed to, managing risk instead of managing care.
This system is close to what members of Congress refer to as "the same health insurance we have." Once a year federal employees get to choose who their health insurer is from a list of a dozen or so approved providers. A covered employee with a chronic disease can switch insurers if he or she decides a different company offers a better plan, without an exam and regardless of pre-existing conditions.
This system should appeal to both sides of the "public option" argument.
Liberals who want to see everyone covered and the profit motive taken out of medical decisions would see their aims met as more citizens would likely seek out and receive preventive care instead of waiting until they need to be rushed to an emergency room at enormous expense.
Conservatives who want government to spend less and do more to stimulate the flow of capital and the creation of wealth would achieve their goals in the form of the private financing of nonprofit insurers and in the presumed net reduction in the cost to taxpayers of providing emergency and social services to the uninsured.
John E. Girouard of Washington, D.C., is a financial writer and the author of "The Ten Truths of Wealth Creation."
No comment. fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Leading Cuban dissidents cheer Obama's Nobel prize (AP) – 8 hours ago HAVANA
— Many of the 75 activists jailed in a 2003 Cuban government crackdown on political dissent are congratulating Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In a letter released Monday to international journalists, 29 of those imprisoned six years ago said Obama "has become a global symbol, especially for us who, under difficult conditions, are defending Cubans' right to democracy."
In another letter, 21 of their wives, mothers and other female relatives also cheered Obama. Fifty-four dissidents remain imprisoned on allegations they conspired with the U.S. to topple Cuba's government. Those freed were granted medical parole or forced into exile in Spain. One was released after completing a six-year sentence.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOSU7Ew6j4vlEn0d_L0eXG0A1w1gD9B9M09G0
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Zimbabwe News.Net
Sunday 11th October, 2009
Former Cuban president, Fidel Castro, has said he was obliged to acknowledge the Nobel Prize given to US President, Barack Obama, was a "positive measure," and especially important considering the "genocidal policies" of some former US presidents. He also said the decision was good compensation for the fact that the US had been defeated in Copenhagen when Rio de Janeiro was picked as a site for 2016 Olympic Games. In an article titled "Reflections," published on the Internet, 83-year-old Castro said while he did not always share the views of those who award the Nobel, Obama’s prize was "an appeal for peace and a search for solutions that lead to the survival of species." In his comments, he said: "Many will say that Obama has not yet earned the right to receive such a distinction. We prefer to see the decision as not so much a prize for the president of the US, but as a criticism of the genocidal policies pursued by a few presidents of that country, who led the world to the crossroads it is at today."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
http://www.zimbabwenews.net/story/553184
"Dedicated to the seven generations that came before usand the children of Indian Country today,so their innocence and laughter may develop into wisdomas they become the leaders of tomorrow."
American Indian and Alaska Native cultureshold children in a special place of honor. Childrenare the gift of the Creator. The birth of a child iscelebrated and honored. Each tribe has its ownworld view that tells the children their placein the cosmos through stories and ceremonies.The community has a sacred obligation toinstill in them the traditional knowledge of pastgenerations so their innocence and laughter maydevelop into wisdom as they become the leadersof the future.
For countless generations cradleboards wereused by Indian mothers to keep their infantssecure. Most cradleboards carry an umbilicalcord amulet to connect the child with past andfuture generations throughout their life. Weknow that in the same way, safe and nurturingIndian communities enable Native children tofully achieve their potential so we can honor andcontinue the culture and traditions of the pastseven generations.
Unfortunately, all too often Native childrenare born into circumstances that may be richin culture and love, but fail to meet their basicneeds of health, shelter, safety and education.Every Indian child should have the right tocommunity-based, culturally appropriateservices that help them grow up safe, healthy,and spiritually strong – free from abuse, neglectand poverty. Our communities – tribal leaders,parents, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts,uncles and families – have a vision of a restored,safer, healthier Indian Country for our children.Creating safe and supportive tribal communitiesfor our children today honors our ancestors aswell as the generations to come.
This FY 2009 Tribal Budget Request highlights keyaspects of the vision tribal leaders have expressedto create a safe and healthy Indian Country for ourchildren. In developing these recommendations, werecognize that addressing the years of under-fundingand backlogs that plague Indian Country will beaccomplished over time. The requests that follow donot reflect the full need in Indian Country, but ratherare achievable first steps that we believe Congressand the President should be able to support this year.
I always liked Senator Clair McCaskill. fib
I feel that I’m in an alternative universe. For eight years some people called anyone who disagreed with the President’s foreign policy or war in Iraq unpatriotic. Then in the course of two weeks, those same people cheer when the United States does not get selected for the Olympics and boo when our President is the unanimous choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.
Congratulations Mr. President for standing up to the scorn and derision of your opponents in the election when you firmly stood for the proposition that strength meant being willing to talk to your enemies, not just your allies. Thank you for the confidence and wisdom to say that a hand will be extended when their fist is unclenched. And thank you for understanding that our national security rests on our principles, the example we set for the world, and our alliances along with the excellence and strength of our military, rather than exclusively the latter. God Bless America.
http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/208582433/the-twilight-zone
I notice that the entire site has problems. There is no access to blogs of ANY group.
Hope it is some re-organization. Below is an URL to Chris Hass. fib
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/OrganizingforHealthCareBlog
I am craying with tears of happiness. Can't say more now. Can you? fib
ps. It is "thick" today!!! Rejoyce!
President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
Play Video AP – 2009 Nobel Peace Prize goes to President Obama
OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo to accept the prize, which he said he does not see "as a recognition of my own accomplishments," but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the United States and the world.
"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," Obama said.
Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."
"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told The Associated Press in a rare interview. Members of the Nobel peace committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."
After the prize was announced, Jagland compared the decision to give it to Obama to the prize was given to German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 for his "Ostpolitik" policy of trying to find common ground with Eastern Europe, which was under Communist sway.
He said the same thing was true when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev got the prize in 1990 after he had launched perestroika and glasnost, and allowed Eastern Europe to emerge from Kremlin control.
The selection to some extent reflects a trans-Atlantic divergence on Obama. In Europe and much of the world he is lionized for bringing the United States closer to mainstream global thinking on issues like climate change and multilateralism. At home, the picture is more complicated. As president, Obama is often criticized as he attempts to carry out his agenda — drawing fire over a host of issues from government spending to health care to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan.
U.S. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele contended that Obama won the prize as a result of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.
"The real question Americans are asking is, What has President Obama actually accomplished?" Steele said.
Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
Asked whether the prize could be seen as praising Obama's reversal of Bush administration policies, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a senior political adviser to the right-wing populist Progress Party told the AP that: "I guess you could read it like that."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made no secret of his admiration for Obama, called the decision the embodiment of the "return of America into the hearts of the people of the world."
But Obama's work is far from done, on numerous fronts.
He said he would end the Iraq war but has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012.
He's running a second war in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan — and is seriously considering ramping up the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others, too.
"I don't think Obama deserves this. I don't know who's making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity," said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. "Since he is the president, I don't see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.
Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, questioned whether Obama deserved it now.
"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," Walesa said.
"This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act," Walesa said.
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.
The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
"Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle, the Nobel Committee member.
The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.
"You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize."
Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize, though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.
Wilson received the prize for his role in founding the League of Nations, the hopeful but ultimately failed precursor to the contemporary United Nations.
The Nobel committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.
Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.
In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.
But there has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.
Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.
"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."
Obama also has attempted to restart stalled talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, but just a day after Obama hosted the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York, Israeli officials boasted that they had fended off U.S. pressure to halt settlement construction. Moderate Palestinians said they felt undermined by Obama's failure to back up his demand for a freeze.
Obama was to meet with his top advisers on the Afghan war on Friday to consider a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as the U.S war there enters its ninth year.
Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan earlier this year and has continued the use of unmanned drones for attacks on militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategy devised by the Bush administration. The attacks often kill or injure civilians living in the area.
Nominators for the prize include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.
___
Associated Press writers Ian MacDougall in Oslo, Rahim Faiez in Kabul, Celean Jacobson in Johannesburg, George Jahn in Vienna, Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland, Matti Huuhtanen in Helsinki and Jennifer Loven in Washington contributed to this report.
On the Net:
http://www.nobelpeaceprize.org
