Barack Obama Wins The Nobel Peace Prize

[itlnstln]

Your thoughts?  I haven't seen a good flame-fest in awhile, so I'm going to see if this stirs the ol' sh*t-pot.
 
My take: I am happy for Obama that he won it, but I am upset at the committee for awarding it to him.  I don't really think he has done enough (or anything) to win it at least in the same light as MLK, Nelson Mandela or Jimmy Carter.

[wellington1869]

 I haven't seen a good flame-fest in awhile, so I'm going to see if this stirs the ol' sh*t-pot

lol, u so evil itln

ok, lets get it on...

My take: I am happy for Obama that he won it, but I am upset at the committee for awarding it to him. I don't really think he has done enough (or anything) to win it at least in the same light as MLK, Nelson Mandela or Jimmy Carter.

i think he more than deserved it. If the committee's decision seems extraordinary, it only reflects the extraordinary times we live in,  the extraordinary 8 years that preceded obama (in the US and around the world), and the extraordinary change (in every single sense, including in the sense of a complete shift in geopolitical strategy) that obama ushered in within 1 year.

you may think thats not 'enough', but I feel obama has already done so much, just by working himself into a position from which he could even begin to signal these changes - changes that it was "impossible to think" just a year ago.

That he hasnt completed these projects yet -- is only because its still his first year - we forget that sometimes, because of how much he HAS done in the last year - how much HAS changed - we forget he hasnt even been in office for even a year yet. He's got four years to go (and quite possibly .  If things have changed this much in a year, imagine what the world will look like after 8.  To mention one minor thing, for the first time, america will have a national health care system -- against ALL the odds, and against two centuries of rejecting it.

Thats phenomenal change - and on only one domenstic front. The economic system will be policed; kyoto treaty reinvoked, alliances made against terrorists even from within the muslim world, the real war finally fought in afghanistan, and all this will be done thru consensus building - at home and around the world - rather than bullying.  Peace prize? Oh yes.

[FourOhFour]

i think he more than deserved it. If the committee's decision seems extraordinary, it only reflects the extraordinary times we live in,  the extraordinary 8 years that preceded obama (in the US and around the world), and the extraordinary change (in every single sense, including in the sense of a complete shift in geopolitical strategy) that obama ushered in within 1 year.

So in other words, he won because he's not Bush.

And I think this particular pot is self-stirring now that it's been set in motion :-P

[timw4mail]

And what has Obama done, besides further deficiting the budget?

[Rajagra]

i think he more than deserved it...

...the extraordinary change (in every single sense, including in the sense of a complete shift in geopolitical strategy) that obama ushered in within 1 year.

Yeah, but the thing is you see, the deadline for prize nominations was 11 days after Obama was elected. What did he do in those 11 days to earn a Nobel Prize?

So in other words, he won because he's not Bush.

You aren't the only one to say that.

Sky's foreign affairs editor, Tim Marshall, said: "There will be people who will say this is a marvellous, inspired award.

"But next year let's give it to Miss World. Every year Miss World comes on and says 'I want world peace and the world free of nuclear weapons'. It's a hope, an aspiration.

"The deadline for nominations for the peace prize was February 1, so someone nominated the President of America for his achievements 11 days into his presidency.

"This is a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George Bush. And I think it has been devalued."

[wellington1869]

So in other words, he won because he's not Bush.

what does that mean? He won because he turned bush's approach around in less than a year. What is the significance of that? You cant answer that question unless you understand the significance/repurcussions of the bush approach that was in motion for 8 years.

In washington dc, a town reknowned for its inertia, turning that ship around - internationally as well as domestically - even just turning it around and facing the right direction - was a phenomenal achievement. That he did that in less than a year is even more phenomenal.

[wellington1869]

Yeah, but the thing is you see, the deadline for prize nominations was 11 days after Obama was elected. What did he do in those 11 days to earn a Nobel Prize?

thats a separate question. You're asking "why was he nominated", not "why did he win".

A ham sandwich i made 5 minutes ago can be nominated. the question here is why did he win.

[wellington1869]

once again itln, I think you've done it

[FourOhFour]

what does that mean? He won because he turned bush's approach around in less than a year. What is the significance of that? You cant answer that question unless you understand the significance/repurcussions of the bush approach that was in motion for 8 years.

In washington dc, a town reknowned for its inertia, turning that ship around - internationally as well as domestically - even just turning it around and facing the right direction - was a phenomenal achievement. That he did that in less than a year is even more phenomenal.

It certainly is impressive, but I just don't think it's Nobel-worthy.

[wellington1869]

And what has Obama done, besides further deficiting the budget?

funny, these same right-wingers scarcely complained as bush bankrupted our nation systematically over 8 years.

What obama has done is spend wisely where bush spent like a drunken teenager. Obama has made investments; bush pissed our national budget away.

[wellington1869]

It certainly is impressive, but I just don't think it's Nobel-worthy.

I think its nobel worthy because I think the committee was recognizing the *global* nature of the impact of the obama phenomenon; we -- america -- shook the world, first of all, with his election; second, he -- obama shook the world with his international presence, speeches, signalling this change of tone not only for american foreign policy, but a new era of cooperation internationally.

Thats what he won for.

Remember his speeches in germany, europe, middle east, russia?

Remember the size of those international crowds?

And remember what he said there?  International cooperation was his theme at every stop. International responsibility -- america wont be blamed alone any more, now everyone must do their part.  No more name calling, no more laying the blame at the doorstep of the west. Personal responsibility -- and cooperation -- and common interests.
Environmental responsibility is now a global responsiblity. nuclear disarmament is now a global responsiblity.
He delivered this message of cooperation internationally after a long period of american isolation and international resentment and polarization. He changed the international mood in less than  year. Thats what he won for -- for that international trip, the change in mood, the change at the UN, the change on environmental cooperation, on nuclear disarmament.

How much more - in a year - does a guy have to do to 'deserve' the nobel peace prize?  How quickly should he have changed 8 years of polarization and isolation before he 'deserved' the nobel?
How much personal courage did it take for him to face down that 8 year legacy with so much conviction - and persuasiveness?  How much more did he have to put his convictions on the line before a truly international audience, before he 'deserved' the nobel?

To say that he overcame domestic resistance to this message (enough to get elected), and overcame internatinal polarization to go deliver it directly to international masses/audience -- we dont realize just what kind of state even the democratic party was in, just a year ago. It was a shambles. The entire mood of the country was glum, gloom and doom, irritable, angry, violent, ready to hang the next person who talked about cooperation as a 'traitor'. This was the environment just a year ago, even domestically.  All this he put himself on the line to oppose, and did so with grace.

Its one thing to not want to *overstate* his achievements; its another to try to pretend like they werent there.

[itlnstln]

once again itln, I think you've done it

I'm glad I could help.
 
 
My question is, "what did he do to impact peace?"  I mean, he has acheived some things, and some of those are very important, and I have no doubt that he will do much more.  At this point, though, he really hasn't done much to affect peace.  A national healthcare initiative is great, and I support it 100%, but, if anything, it's made the country somewhat more divded (to the point where a couple of serious candidates for governor here in TX have started talking secession).

[Rajagra]

thats a separate question. You're asking "why was he nominated", not "why did he win".

It is not a separate question. He was nominated for specific achievements, ones he had supposedly made at the time. Was he later judged on the value of completely different achievements he had later on? Clearly he was.

That's a bit like sitting an exam then not being judged on what you'd written during the exam, but on a thesis you'd written in the following six months.

the question here is why did he win.

Politics!

[wellington1869]

 
My question is, "what did he do to impact peace?"

see post #12, i expanded it.

[wellington1869]

I think it's the first time it's awarded to a corporate fascist warlord, hooray for that. I especially like the policy of hunting down opponents in their oil wars. Just bomb the whole building you suspect one might be in or near. Women, children, who cares. YES WE CAN!

webwit is an excellent example of what the right-wing has been reduced to in the wake of obama's shift.  Shrieking fanatics, whose tenuous hold on reality has been stretched even beyond where it was before, who even partied in the streets when chicago didnt get the olympics.

A year ago, the right-wing was still seen as mainstream and viable - they're not any more. Now they're gun-toting kooks who yell at the president when he's addressing congress and threaten his life directly. One year is all it took to demonstrate the underlying mental instability of these right-wing (and left wing) 'activists'.

Incidentally, to quote pook from an earlier thread, to say that webwit's understanding of America is "cartoonish", is the understatement of the year.  But then for both the far right and the far left, that euphoric sense of indignant self-righteousness is worth a lot more than either effectiveness or reality.

[wellington1869]

It is not a separate question. He was nominated for specific achievements, ones he had supposedly made at the time. Was he later judged on the value of completely different achievements he had later on? Clearly he was.

That's a bit like sitting an exam then not being judged on what you'd written during the exam, but on a thesis you'd written in the following six months.

Politics!

its a separate question because the question in this thread is why did he win, not why was he nominated. Nearly anyone can be nominated. As I understand it dozens and dozens of people are nominated each year.

If you really want to talk about the off-topic question of why was he nominated, sure, we can speculate about that. I'd speculate that he was probably nominated by some one (or people) who saw his message of global cooperation and appreciated it. Fact is between the time of the nomination and the time of the vote, obama made good on several fronts in that message, expanding it internationally, shifting the mood at the un, pushing for international nuclear disarmament, and working to develop moderate allies in the muslim world, among other things.  

thats the best answer i can give if you're wondering why he was nominated in february.  As for why did he win in october, I think thats easier to answer.

[wellington1869]

I think in some ways, the view from sweden is a view with more perspective on what changed in the world in the last 12 months, than the view from america has right now. Americans experienced this shift directly, its harder for us to understand how violent a shift this was internationally. The swedes can see that more  clearly - as will future historians.

[Mercen_505]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[wellington1869]

(as an aside, speaking of left/right wing nutjobs, I saw this movie over the weekend, and I cant recommend it enough, especially for lefties who think the far left is in any way, on any level, "better" than the far right. Please, please, please go see it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Baader_Meinhof_Komplex )

egomaniacal, and above all, ineffective, lunatics.

[wellington1869]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

if you mean we're not going to transform into a socialist state, you're right. (tho the right wing, funnily enough, who are holding out hope we'll turn into a theocracy, are equally disappointed as you).

I hope to god obama will continue to frustrate the HECK out of both theocratic and socialist aspirations for america. He will because he's one of those rarities in politics - a genuine centrist.  The more he pisses off both left and right -- the more the right thinks he's a commie and the left thinks he's a capitalist -- the more he's doing things correctly, if you ask me.

[AndrewZorn]

[ironcoder]

Your thoughts?  I haven't seen a good flame-fest in awhile, so I'm going to see if this stirs the ol' sh*t-pot.
 
My take: I am happy for Obama that he won it, but I am upset at the committee for awarding it to him.  I don't really think he has done enough (or anything) to win it at least in the same light as MLK, Nelson Mandela or Jimmy Carter.

LOL I'm just glad I don't live in the same country as Obama/Osama whatshisface.

First look at the Nobel Committee and you can see how they picked their winner LOL

[ch_123]

Apparently he's more deserving than Morgan Tsvangirai...

[Rajagra]

its a separate question because the question in this thread is why did he win, not why was he nominated.

No it isn't - go back and read the OP.

You are like the Nobel Committee - guilty of ignoring the well-defined criteria and "creatively interpreting" the rules.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:
“    during the preceding year [...] 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

So what did Obama do in the year preceeding February 1st 2009 to earn the prize?

[wellington1869]

Apparently he's more deserving than Morgan Tsvangirai...

I dont know, when morgan tsvangirai can draw 500,000 people in berlin, we can say he's having an international impact.

[itlnstln]

Obama is the best thing to happen to the USA since the creation of the USA itself.
 
At least, from the perspective of someone in any country except for the US.
For some reason a lot of Americans have a problem with him fixing what the republicans broke.

QFT.  TX is a bunch of haters.
 
BTW, FDR was very good for the US, as well

[wellington1869]

So what did Obama do in the year preceeding February 1st 2009 to earn the prize?

Hmmm, i like red, its a lovely color. Let me try that too.

you keep pretending like you're playing by the rules and the committee didnt; "preceding year" -- you mean jan-dec 2008 or do you mean oct-08 to oct-09?

You also keep conflating the rules for nomination with the rules for winning. Why did you just ask me what obama did in the year before feb 09? If preceding year before winning means oct-08 to oct-09, then its entirely within the "rules".  Even if it wasnt, then its just a matter of the nobel committee seeing his focus on international cooperation - which he's alway had even in the 'preceding year' by any definition - as being more valuable than you're seeing it. Its not against the 'rules' either way.

lastly, just how closely in past awards has the nobel committee stuck by even that? Can we go down the list of past winners and see who did work "in the preceding year" for which they won?   For that matter, Al Gore's award -- what did environmental activism have to do with a 'peace' award?  If the nobel committee has always interpreted these rules loosely, then there was no exception made in obama's case -- despite your desperate attempt to pretend like it was.

All I can think of is you keep trying to push the 'date' backwards in some kind of bizarre "legalistic" attempt to devalue the actual achievements obama has made.  I'm just glad the nobel committee doesnt think like you do.

[itlnstln]

Following that logic I nominate Rod Stewart for next year's award:
 
I nominate Sweden for the stupidest country.

I QFT this, too.
 
Barbara Walters, I mean, Rod Stewart at Copacabana Beach?  Seriously?  I guess I just fail to see the appeal of Rod Stewart.  I never really liked his music, but I do like a lot of his contemporaries, though.

[Rajagra]

I'm just glad the nobel committee doesnt think like you do.

Yes, because respecting Nobel's wishes would be an awful thing to do, wouldn't it?

[wellington1869]

 
BTW, FDR was very good for the US, as well

qft.  And I'll bet money that even future american historians will see obama's presidency as transformationally positive (and not just for america) on the order of FDR, lincoln, kennedy - a small handful of super-presidents who have followed Washington.

[wellington1869]

Yes, because respecting Nobel's wishes would be an awful thing to do, wouldn't it?

forgive me raj, I just think its funny that this is the strategic tack for your argument that you've chosen.  It seems, for lack of a better phrase, and as I said above, 'bizarrely legalistic'. If you're going to stick by this tack, then for perspective we should really examine a lot of the past nobel peace prize decisions and see if they ALL abide by the bizarre legalism that you've suddenly decided is the acid-test for the prize.

[itlnstln]

I'm sure Texas has lots of smart people. They mostly work at Metadot.

That would be funny, but it describes most of the TX populace. So does www.peopleofwalmart.com.
 
Texas has a funny mentality. We are one of the poorest states in the US, but we have, arguably, the most conservative population. It's like the people that could most use the help don't want it. I would like to say that this is a pride thing, but it's not. What part of it is, is that because there might be a way to abuse the system (e.g. illegal immigrants getting free healthcare), they would rather the system not exist.

[itlnstln]

Alfred Nobel was the inventor of that great peacekeeping device: Dynamite.

It was the non-peaceful use of this invention that he created the prize.  It's similar to Gatling.  He thought his invention (the Gatling Gun, or more generally, the machine gun) would save lives not create more casualties.  Oops.

[wellington1869]

quite honestly, this is the shock that america still hasnt recovered from: having a president who:
a) can speak and think - and even commit to building consensus before acting
b) can speak and think really decent and really practical things

honestly, lets be frank: America is not used to this. its a shock for us. We honestly dont know how to respond. The only thing we can think of doing is shoot him (lincoln, kennedy).  Whats more, this one's black.

Our country is like, holy ****, what should we do? Join the world community as a civilized nation under this guy's leadership? But we're not used to that! It'll be weird! Possibly 'unamerican'!

The comments on this thread are indicative of just how much a shock Obama's shift is for us.  Peace prize? Change? Hell yea.

He's not a commie and he's not a laissez-faire capitalist. What to do? I know, lets call him a commie and a capitalist -- simultaneously!!
Yup, thats our American mentality, about 10 years behind where Obama is right now.

[microsoft windows]

What has Obama excactly fixed? He has talked a lot and has plenty of plans, but he really hasn't fixed much.

I don't really call wanting a health-care system that will put the national budget further in the red "fixing". I don't call spending billions to bail out financial companies which encouraged predatory lending, which eventually led to their troubles, "fixing". Obama supports the people like Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), who helped create laws to encourage predatory lending. He is also closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and plans to incarcerate terrorists on our mainland. That doesn't fix anything.

I wouldn't say that Bush was perfect either. I did not support his such as passing of massive spending bills ("bailouts") in the late part of his presidency. I also disagree with some of his decisions with foreign policy involving Iran.

People called Bush's spending policies "runaway spending". If that was running away, what are Obama's spending policies?

Nowadays, people are becoming dissatisfied with their government for a good reason. Obama was pressing for the health care bill to be passed by Congress' August recess. It wasn't. Now look what people have found in that 1000 page monster I'm sure only few congressmen have voted for. Did Obama read it before endorsing it? No. Did at least 5% of the left-wing members of the houses read it? No. That's something I don't think is right. How would you feel about that if the people you pay to represent you do that too? They do.

Now, a movement is starting up. Many people are upset by the government's runaway spending and corruption. People are writing to their congressmen. People are proteting in Washington. Now there's some change to believe in.

It is always important to not confuse peoples' political agendas with the people they really are. George Bush and Barack Obama two very good people. However, I do not agree with the Nobel Committee's decision on awarding Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize when there are numerous others who have put their lives at risk and worked much harder to create peace.

[SCTony]

Webwit- did you mean "a corporate fascist warlord- PUPPET ?"

[wellington1869]

What has Obama excactly fixed? He has talked a lot and has plenty of plans, but he really hasn't fixed much.

I don't really call wanting a health-care system that will put the national budget further in the red "fixing". I don't call spending billions to bail out financial companies which encouraged predatory lending, which eventually led to their troubles, "fixing". Obama supports the people like Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), who helped create laws to encourage predatory lending. He is also closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and plans to incarcerate terrorists on our mainland. That doesn't fix anything.

I wouldn't say that Bush was perfect either. I did not support his such as passing of massive spending bills ("bailouts") in the late part of his presidency. I also disagree with some of his decisions with foreign policy involving Iran.

People called Bush's spending policies "runaway spending". If that was running away, what are Obama's spending policies?

Nowadays, people are becoming dissatisfied with their government for a good reason. Obama was pressing for the health care bill to be passed by Congress' August recess. It wasn't. Now look what people have found in that 1000 page monster I'm sure only few congressmen have voted for. Did Obama read it before endorsing it? No. Did at least 5% of the left-wing members of the houses read it? No. That's something I don't think is right. How would you feel about that if the people you pay to represent you do that too? They do.

Now, a movement is starting up. Many people are upset by the government's runaway spending and corruption. People are writing to their congressmen. People are proteting in Washington. Now there's some change to believe in.

It is always important to not confuse peoples' political agendas with the people they really are. George Bush and Barack Obama two very good people. However, I do not agree with the Nobel Committee's decision on awarding Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize when there are numerous others who have put their lives at risk and worked much harder to create peace.

mwindows, what you're forgetting is exactly what makes obama different from you. Obama also committed to not ramming these things down america's throat. You (and other activists) would like nothing better than ramming.

Yup - he's different alright.  Consensus building is how our government is supposed to operate.  After 8 years of bullying 'activism' I think we've all forgotten that. Thankfully Obama didnt.  In a way its incredibly old-fashioned of him. In the 40s and 50s thats how things got done, back in a more civilized era of American politics.

[wellington1869]

Webwit- did you mean "a corporate fascist warlord- PUPPET ?"

oh this will be fun -- so who's "controlling" him?  Who's the "one enemy" whom if we get rid of everything will be hunky dory? Come on, enlighten us!

[microsoft windows]

Everyone has the right to have their own opinions. However, it is always important to back them up with facts and state them politely.

[Rajagra]

...bizarre legalism that you've suddenly decided is the acid-test for the prize.

Not me. The Statutes of the Nobel Foundation.

§ 7.
...Each year the prize adjudication shall embrace such nominations as have been submitted during the preceding twelve months up to February 1.

§ 8.
Nominations should be explained and accompanied by the publications and other documents cited in support of them.

Adjudication should be based on the nominations, which should contain explanation and documentation of why the nominee is deserving of a prize.

They broke their own rules to give Obama the prize.
He should have been nominated for next year.

[wellington1869]

They broke their own rules to give Obama the prize.

they broke nothing - what you mean to say is that you dont agree with their estimation of what obama has been saying his entire political career -- personal responsiblity, global cooperation.  Apparently they thought it was a message whose time had come, and you didnt.  We can talk about your politics just as much as we can talk about the committee's politics.

In the end, all this nonsense about whether he 'deserves' it comes down to just that - more politics, different politics. Those who have disagreed with obama's shifts have been piling on this nonsense and refusing to acknowlege what a far ranging impact obama has already had on the international community - what an impact even his campaign had already had by february. It was a global event (with a global message).

Its not unlike the (non)"controversy" over his speech to school children, where right-wing parents actually demonstrated against the "brainwashing".  Politics.

[wellington1869]

I also love the obvious double-standards here. Obama wins the prize, and everyone is like, "well, he's no Gandhi! What about MLK or Mandela?"

Did we say that about Gore when he won? Why not? Could it be our politics this time?

Why didnt people take to the streets saying Gore is no Gandhi? Or that environmentalism is different from peace making?

Imagine a president who, after less than a year in office, has to be compared to gandhi and mlk for someone to make an argument about 'deficiency'.  It says a lot.

(Now imagine an American president who has to be compared to gandhi and mlk.)

[SCTony]

Well, you can't make everything hunky-dory; it's way past that point. We don't have it too bad yet, but we are on a downward spiral. That's how I see it. Lol I'm not as mad about it as I used to be- I guess I've kinda come to accept it as just the way it is. Please don't explode, but 9-11 was "the powers that be" at work.

[wellington1869]

Please don't explode, but 9-11 was "the powers that be" at work.

lol, ok i had to modify my response, i dont want to seem rude. I mean to say, yes, speak freely, i wont explode, because afaik its people with theories such as you have, who keep us centrists in business. So yes, please, tell us your theories freely.

[itlnstln]

I don't think Al Gore should have won the Peace Prize.

[Rajagra]

Imagine a president who, after less than a year in office, has to be compared to gandhi and mlk for someone to make an argument about 'deficiency'.  It says a lot.

Yes, it says that you DO need to be compared to the likes of Gandhi and MLK to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. You think that's unreasonable???

I have nothing against Obama. Nothing at all. I haven't mentioned my politics (which you seem to have made assumptions about) because they aren't relevant to the point I'm discussing.

Even Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Good job they didn't award it to him based on his promises for bettering the world.

[wellington1869]

I don't think Al Gore should have won the Peace Prize.

i can respect that because at least its consistent.  But it also just shows that no particular 'exception' was made for obama.

 I think anyone can disagree with the way the peace prize in general is run. Thats a perfectly fine debate to have.

[wellington1869]

Yes, it says that you DO need to be compared to the likes of Gandhi and MLK to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. You think that's unreasonable???

I think thats a perfectly fine argument to make -- but then make it for Gore and for everyone else who didnt quite measure up to mlk and gandhi who won, year after year.  

My point is there was no 'exception' made for obama. Its one thing to simply say that you disagree with the way the prize in general is given out. Thats fine, but all that says is the committee disagrees with you, thats all.

I haven't mentioned my politics (which you seem to have made assumptions about) because they aren't relevant to the point I'm discussing.

your politics is relevant because the nobel peace prize is almost always a political prize. Gandhi? Politics. MLK? Politics. Even environmentalism is a political issue.

The question isnt whether the nobel peace prize is "political" -- but what kind of politics have they always, reliably, supported? Gandhi, mlk, arafat/rabin, aung san suu kyi, dalai lama, rigoberta menchu tum --- the politics of cooperation and dialogism and disarmament.
In that politics, again the obama prize is 100% consistent. That has been his unchanging message from day one.


So I just find it strange taht people are suddenly discovering (and suddenly decrying) the "political" nature of the peace prize. It has always been about politics - about a particular kind of politics.

[SCTony]

When you watch the twin towers fall, do you not see controlled demolitions at work? I do and I am firmly convinced of that. I have looked into it a good bit and the evidence, as well as my own observations, convince me. I'm just a laid-back guy from South Carolina- I'm not running around trying to overthrow the government nor am I involved in any kooky clans/cults/militias. That's just the way I see things.

[wellington1869]

Judge: What do you have to say for yourself?
Murderer: But what about OJ?

Fail, welly.

lol, webwit the only failures here are:
1) your failure to communicate using the english language
2) your failure to grasp the political or historical terrain around this (or any) issue.  

But listen, none of that is important. Please tell us more about your latest conspiracy theory/theories.  And how its all America's fault.