nobel, scandanavia is to the left of salad fork

[thebin2temp]

I was suprised to see Bush/Blair nominated for Nobel PP- but then realized nominations can be put forward by almost anyone. No way the left wing Nobel comm. will give the award to them- and that's fine- the political and literary awards mean nothing to me as they are so politicized. I found this wording objectionable in a hard news piece:

"By Alister Doyle

OSLO (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) are among nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize before a Sunday deadline for nominations despite failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites).
"

In similar news, Einstein was nominated for a Physics prize, despite the fact that his favorite color is orange.
No, its not exactly similiar, but come on, the word despite in that lead sentence? This person doesn't know what exactly they were nominated for, but it seems quite reasonable to me that it was for liberating millions of Iraqies and Kurds and leading a democratic movement in the same country. Come on Reuters- its a hard news piece- that is BLATENT editorializing.

In similar news, who was it here who was telling me Scandanavia was not as left wing as Europe in general? I think at the time I concluded that Norway was to the right of the rest of the region- but on the whole Scandanavia was likely the most left wing region in all the world. Church atendance rates, an imperfect but very good indicator of political spectrum, were among the very lowest in the world. Well I just found out yesterday- top my horror, that sex with animals is legal in Sweden- having been made so with the legalization of homosexuality 50 years ago. Child pornography was made illegfal in Sweden in 1998! Not exactly the hallmarks of a conservative region if I say so.

Also, not sure if I mentioned at the time, but another solid piece of evidence that Sweden in particular is not to the right of any country is that it is to my knowledge the only legitimate socialist state in the world- one that actually doesn't fail totally- which makes it the exception among hundreds of historical examples. (Chalk that up to small homogenous population and already very high GDP per capita and a resultant lack of financial mobility- hey if that is your bag- vote with your feet! I have seen the women, you could do worse- but better make you millions here first if that too is your bag.)

Thanks to George Will for his recent and already part of DC nomenclature "left of the salad fork." Lefties, feel free to use "right of the water glass'- which my signnd already co-opted.

[showcase]

Well I just found out yesterday- top my horror, that sex with animals is legal in Sweden- having been made so with the legalization of homosexuality 50 years ago.

Maybe the women aren't as hot as everyone makes out...

Also, not sure if I mentioned at the time, but another solid piece of evidence that Sweden in particular is not to the right of any country is that it is to my knowledge the only legitimate socialist state in the world- one that actually doesn't fail totally- which makes it the exception among hundreds of historical examples.

I'm not sure that Sweden may legitimately be described as a socialist state. I mean, Saab isn't government owned and controlled, is it?

[thebin2temp]

showcase said:

Well I just found out yesterday- top my horror, that sex with animals is legal in Sweden- having been made so with the legalization of homosexuality 50 years ago.

Maybe the women aren't as hot as everyone makes out...

Touche.

[thebin2temp]

Does all private property have to be controlled and owned by the govt to be socialist? It seems that by dictionary definition that is the case- in which case I will withdraw that particular comment. I didn't think that was a pre-req- it is for communism to be sure. Regardless, I have seen lefties proudly label Sweden socialist, and Swedes do the same- so I don't know how contentious this claim is. But my point is not altered to leave it at Sweden is as close to socialist as we curently have.

[showcase]

To return to something a little more related to the initial post, isn't it a bit odd to nominate someone for the Peace Prize for starting a war? It is, after all, the Peace Prize, not the "Improved-the-lot-of-a chosen-few" Prize (not that the Iraqi population is "few" in an absolute sense, but there are a lot of others who surely would like to receive the same benefits bestowed, so to speak, through Bush's policy of preemption).

I disagree that Bush/Blair could never win. If Arafat and Kissenger could win it, why not Bush/Blair? (aside from the whole "peace" prerequisite, of course)?

When you get right down to it, tho, isn't the real question whether someone nominated Bush/Blair facetiously?

[thebin2temp]

showcase said:

To return to something a little more related to the initial post, isn't it a bit odd to nominate someone for the Peace Prize for starting a war?


No. I don't think so.



When you get right down to it, tho, isn't the real question whether someone nominated Bush/Blair facetiously?

No. I don't think so.

[showcase]

Well, given that the Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses," I think the retort to your edifying responses must be:

a) Yes, it is.

and

b) That would make more sense than an earnest nomination.


www.nobel.se/peace/index.html

And, in point of fact, it turns out any concern about the political leanings of the Swedes is irrelevant, since the Peace Prize is conferred by Norway.

[thebin2temp]

One can make a valid argument that the removal of a dangerous tyrant- who had built up the fourth largest standing army in the world with a small population, is a move perfectly in keeping with the award in both the reduction of standing armies and with granting more fraternity between Iraq and at least two of its previously Saddam-invaded neighboring nations.

As I already said, the rejoinder about the general political persuasion of the region of Scandanavia was a previous topic- and one that is perfectly related to a Nobel story. But they can also be read as two semi-seperate topics within one thread. The entire region is arguably the most left wing in the world. Not just Sweden.

If you want to dispute that the Nobel committe has given left leaning prizes almost exclusively where to catagory lends itself to such, you have not been paying attention to the peace and literature prizes over the last few decades. But I don't think you want to make that argument, I think you just wanted to contradict me for the heck of it. Am I wrong about that?

[showcase]

I'll confine my reply to the merits of the originial post, and submit that:

a) it's my understanding that Iraq no longer possessed the fourth largest standing army in March 2003, and, more importantly,

b) "reduction of standing armies" by force and in the face of almost uniform world condemnation is not what Nobel had in mind when endowing this prize. A reasonable interpretation of "reduction of standing armies" when read in isolation, but I don't think even Justice Thomas would endorse your textual analysis when it's expanded to the rest of the provision, as it must be.

The rest of the stuff about socialism or Norway isn't really germane to the thread, but items I included nevertheless because I thought they might be edifying.

[thebin2temp]

I don't know what size it was. 5th largest in the world? Does it matter? It was on a per-capita basis surely one of if not the second largest army in the world to North Korea.

I wouldn't get into the mess of trying to discern what Alfred Nobel would have thought- the guy invented tnt. I don't know that he had anything at all to do with the peace prize or its parameters. But I bet you there are several million Iraqies, Kuaties, Iranians, etc who would dispute your notion that the liberation of the Iraqi nation from a military strongman-style despot has not improved the long term chances of peace in the region.

[showcase]

I think you're over-simplifying. Displacing a tyrant is not the end of the process or a guarantor of 'peace in the region.' True peace is a long, long way off, and will require a lot more than simply displacing Hussein.

But if you do want to keep the analysis that simple, given that it's still unclear whether Iraq will end up as Bush's proto-utopian Arabian democracy or 70s-Iran Redux, I'll take that bet.

[thebin]

That is unfair showcase- I never said Iraq was going to be New Hampshire tommorow. But the fact remains that there is now a fighting chance if you will that Iraq becomes a democratic nation in a region where there are none. Its always easy to sit back and expect a nation in that region to fail as you do. One thing many of us do like about Bush is that he is more bold than that- since he is rightly convinced that the democratization of that region is one of the only long term promises of our future national security. It was the right thing to do.

Incidentally, I can't remember anyone except maybe HS86 being against the war on this board before it. Were you explicitly against the war before it happened? (I don't remember.)

[showcase]

I was against the war before because I thought the Administration was doing a crappy job articulating reasons why it had to be "now-now-now and damn the UN if they won't come along" and because I didn't think it was going to be a nice, easy military victory. So I have to give credit to the administration on the military aspect: it was not the "quagmire" many predicted or feared it could be.

However, the military victory is the easiest part. Furthermore, the Administration gravely overestimated the support it would receive from the Iraqi population for ousting Saddam, and despite ampling opportunity to game the post-war situation Iraq, failed miserably on that front.

More to the point, as I said before and will reiterate here, the process of ensuring a positive outcome in Iraq would be infinitely improved if there was substantial international cooperation - the UN is by no means a model of efficiency, but the Administration's policies have alienated the majority of the international community (not to mention exacerbated the ire of the population of the Middle East), having the UN's imprimatur of "legitimacy" is not just window-dressing - a fact I think the Administration is only now reluctantly recognizing. Moreover, as it stands now, the US is footing the entire bill - a fact which, judging by your responses re: taxation on the "Choose your candidate" thread, should raise your ire, since the Administration essentially dropped 87 billion on a highly uncertain venture with no chance of ever seeing that money again.

Given that this Administration's predictive abilities in the most volatile region in the world have been demonstrated to be questionable at best, I was not then, nor am I now, comforted by the fact that the US military will be tied to Iraq for 6-18 months and that 87 Billion that could be spend in areas more directly related to homeland security and the "war on terrorism" is being poured into Iraq in the hope that things will work out to the US's advantage. As I see it, it's hard to intimidate rogue nations (Syria, Iran, etc.) with an army that's almost fully occupied in Iraq, and dumb to spend that much money on a venture that's so tangentially related to homeland security, which supposedly is a top priority for the Administration.