Breaking News

Letter to the Editor: Obama's Nobel Prize

Friday, October 23, 2009

I like that President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I think we could all learn from this carefully selected appointment of such high honor.

I think the University of Kansas should award me a Bachelor of Arts degree — today. Why not? It seems highly probable that I’ll graduate. My grades are excellent, I’m taking a steady number of hours each semester, and most importantly, I have excellent communication skills.

Yes, I have the ability to effectively communicate with colleagues, faculty and individuals at all levels of the administration. I am an energetic and interactive public speaker, a skill certainly associated with many college graduates. My writing is skilled, articulate and persuasive.

Of course, I have yet to complete all the necessary requirements to acquire a four-year degree, but certainly I’m showing the potential to do so.

Furthermore, I’d really like that job as the operations manager for the Athletics Department. No, I haven’t demonstrated any ability in leading effective teams committed to goals or proven my ability in fostering collaboration among team members and among teams. But I can influence people. I can assert ideas about mobilizing to take action. I believe I have the ability to encourage and empower others to achieve, creating enthusiasm and a desire to excel.

And if the president is awarded for having these communication skills, why can’t I have my degree or senior management position?

— James Castle is a sophomore from Overland Park.

Comments

Geiiga (anonymous) says...

Maybe if you read the Nobel Committee's statement on the matter, you wouldn't pen this sort of tripe.

"[T]he Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."

Given that the objective of the Nobel Prize is to reward and encourage effort towards the cause of peace, and is not some kind of lifetime achievement award, I'd say they've got a strong case. I'd also say that it's their damn award and they can give it to whoever they like -- the vote was unanimous and it's not like Obama was over there lobbying for it.

It's interesting, though. The President of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and conservatives are all up in arms; America loses the Olympics, conservatives cheer. Tells the rest of us a bit more than you probably wanted us to know.

October 23, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

Geliga: "The President of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and conservatives are all up in arms; America loses the Olympics, conservatives cheer. Tells the rest of us a bit more than you probably wanted us to know."

It shows what we've all known. Conservatives care about themselves and will sell out their country in a second.
Personally, I'm glad that Obama won. It shows us that the world recognizes that we've come out of the Bush dark ages.

October 25, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Z (anonymous) says...

Quoted From linguo
"Conservative care about themselves and will sell out their county in a second?"

Really? You are falling into your own trap with this argument. Take off your black and white glasses and realize that Republican aren't good or evil and neither are Democrats.

Geiiga posed why Obama won the prize. It cites his efforts. I would really like to know what those efforts are.

I know he has intended efforts...but so far he has done NOTHING except talk his way into the White House and get into shouting matches with a sensationalist news network.

I would really appreciate it if he would quit talking and get to doing. Then MAYBE he can earn that award he has already arbitrarily been given.

October 25, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Z, we should be counting our blessings. The items on Obama's agenda that he has implemented already have weakened us domestically and abroad.

The stimulus package decreased jobs, increased unnecessary paperwork, and greatly increased our national debt. Cash for clunkers (not necessarily Obama's idea, but fits his "government to the rescue!" ideology) stole future auto sales, and we're just now seeing how much damage it's caused the private sector.

His "it's not a single-payer system, really!" health-care plan is laughable, and those who endorse it wouldn't know high-quality care if it bit 'em in the face and sent them to a Canadian clinic.

Claiming it was "outdated," Obama removed our missile-defense system from Eastern Europe, thinking that because the Russians agreed (but, later didn't) to sanction Iran that it was a good anti-proliferation move.

....

What am I missing here? You WANT him to wreak even more havoc? I'm just happy that his dangerous agenda is being slightly checked by the blue-dogs!

October 25, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Geliga: "The President of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and conservatives are all up in arms; America loses the Olympics, conservatives cheer. Tells the rest of us a bit more than you probably wanted us to know."

You may be right in saying 'conservatives' are the only people 'up in arms' about this Nobel Prize, but 'conservatives' aren't the only ones disagreeing with it. I know a few dems who are critical of it as well but just aren't as vocal about it. You may also want to realize that the debate over his nomination and prize is international! Domestic 'conservatives' aren't the only folks who disagree with the Nobel Foundation.

Concerning the Olympics: Why would you (or anybody else in this nation) want to win the Olympic bid for the United States?
Our government can't even afford our long standing programs (ie Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), let alone our newer programs (ie Cash for Clunkers, our Stimulus packages..both Bush and Obama). On top of these the government is paying for two wars and is trying to pass a public health option. How do you suppose the United States is going to fund the Olympics???

In all of his war spending glory, former President Bush still only had a maximum, single year deficit of ~ 500 billion dollars.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/16/news/...

'In just nine months' President Obama has effectively tripled the U.S. annual deficit for 2009 in comparison to Bush's biggest deficit (which was 2008). It's no wonder why people would celebrate not having another HUGE financial obligation (that we can't afford) thrust upon our nation at the whim of our current President.

Now don't get me wrong here, I didn't vote for either of these guys I'm just showing you an example.

Lastly, I wonder what exactly you are trying to insinuate about Castle in your last remark? I'd like to know.

October 26, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Z (anonymous) says...

I agree with the two posts above.
However.

Obama is still our President.
While I am terrified of socialized health care and befuddled at Obama for continuing to use a stimulus plan almost identical to that of G.W. I would still our president at least TRY to find some creative ways to try and stop America's economic decline and jump start it's recovery.

I'm trying to remove my opinion as much as possible from this threat in regards to my own political agenda because I don't find it productive to this particular discussion.

The main points I was trying to make are these:

-We need a President who isn't a man of words, but one of decisive action who is willing to stick his neck on the line. To this point Barrack Obama is not that President and has done nothing to make be believe that he will become that President (but I hope I get proven wrong).

-More generally, there is strange epidemic going around the University of Kansas (although probably not limited to) that seems to make people thing that politics are a black and white affair. Anyone who can detach themselves from their own views SHOULD be smart of enough to realize that there are merits in the ideas of both the left and the right and classifying one or the other as "good" or "evil" is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

---------
Also regarding the Olympics.
The resources it takes to host that event are IMMENSE. Sure there is a short term boost in jobs and infrastructure in that ONE city where it is hosted, but what about after the Olympics? All those jobs are gone and all that infrastructure suddenly isn't used anymore.

In our current state that just seems like a waste.
Once again, I'd like to be proven wrong.

October 26, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Geiiga (anonymous) says...

Those numbers are crap, Dan. The CBO estimate in January, prepared prior to Obama taking office, projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. In October, they projected a $1.4 trillion deficit. This reflected spending being slightly less than their January estimates, but tax receipts being significantly less -- largely due to the tax cuts that were placed on the stimulus bill to get then-Republican Arlen Specter to vote for it.

So, at worst, you can pin a seventh of this year's deficit on Obama. I'll readily admit, however, that the rest of the disastrous Bush/Clinton/Reagan economic policies mean that we're going to have to keep running deficits at this level for a little while before we can fix things.

November 2, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Okay, so be it Geiiga. Let's say you are right and we can only pin a 'seventh' of that deficit on Obama and his administration. You still fail to confront the fact that our government has major issues running some very long standing programs. Those programs being mainly Medicare and Medicaid since we are on the discussion of the public option . So again, I ask:

How can you expect the proposed public option not to end up in the same boat as those programs? (That 'boat' being one of poor funding, cutbacks in coverage, increases in premiums, and potential bankruptcy)

November 2, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Geiiga (anonymous) says...

The public option as written is just another insurance company, albeit one that's not beholden to shareholders expecting dividend checks. It's paid for with premiums. According to the CBO, this bill is actually going to reduce the deficit. My support for it is pretty tepid at this point. The best thing I can say for it is "It's significantly better than what we have now," but it's still lousy.

As far as the budget goes, it's good news and bad news. The good news is that it's not unfixable. We just need to streamline the military and roll back the Reagan tax cuts. The bad news is that there's a lack of political will to do so, and we can count on a steady drumbeat of "those poor, poor rich people" from the media if by some freak occurrence it actually gets traction.

November 2, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Geiiga, you're still not answering the question. Although I really don't expect that you can (and I will admit that I certainly can't either). I know that there willl be premiums and the plan will be 'paid for" through those premiums. But some of the programs offered through Medicare and Medicaid have premiums too! Yet that still has not prevented the cutbacks in care while having increases in premiums.

I agree with rolling back the tax cuts. Sometimes the government just needs to tax its population in order to afford the programs it has promised to the public.

November 3, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement