I woke up this morning at around 10 am Pacific Standard Time and tuned into KPCC 89.3, a National Public Radio station here in Los Angeles, located on the campuses of Pasadena City College. The host of Air Talk, Larry Mantle was discussing the subject of President Barack Obama being honored with the prestigious award of the Nobel Peace Prize. The conversation was centered on whether the President deserved the award or not. Numerous callers called in and weighed in on the conversation. Some people were happy to learn that the President had won such a big award whilst others were very contemptuous and said they believe that President Obama does not deserve to be given such a huge award.

I tried to call in on the program but all my efforts proved futile because the phone lines were very busy. People wanted to share their opinion about the issue. That is very normal on this radio station during talk shows. A lot of listeners yearn to chime in a comment or two. It is a very common practice here in Southern California.

The host Larry Mantle, made a lot of comments about President Obama being given this Nobel Peace Prize award, but the one comment that caught my attention and of which I thought warranted my response was one that he said the President himself noted that he does not deserve the award because other people were more deserving. And so according to this host, President Obama conceded that he was undeserving of the award. He also mentioned that people like Nelson Mandela who have a track record of human rights activities was more deserving. These statements prompted me to write this article.

First of all, every Noble Prize winner gives a very modest account of their achievements and they are invariably humble when accepting this great award. It was in this same spirit that the president of the United States of America, President Barack Obama, gave his acceptance speech today. He was humbled and he was very modest about such an honor being bestowed upon him. He said in his own words, “I am surprised and deeply humbled” by the award. The President gave a speech of about 6 minutes long on his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. You can find this video here: http://nux.cc/qzfb46.

Secondly, I will address the comment that many more nominees like Nelson Mandela deserved the award more than President Obama did. Here are the facts: Nelson Mandela has already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! He was awarded in 1993. December 10, 1993 to be exact. You can read Nelson Mandela’s acceptance speech here: http://nux.cc/98nrwq. So the host mentioning that Mandela deserved this year’s award more than President Obama just doesn’t make sense.

Moreover, the Nobel Prize committee explicitly stated that: “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the 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.” Note the reason for the award: “…for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Read the full text on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s website here: http://nux.cc/8pynqh. So the prize was not given according to what he has accomplished over the years but because he has instituted measures to help achieve global peace and as such deserves to be commended. The President himself stated that he will accept the award as a call to action.

In conclusion, I think the President deserves to receive this award. And I would like to congratulate President Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. Continue to inspire the world and do what you set forth to do- to make the world a better place for all.

Sincerely,
Emmanuel Ashford

Ashford is usually either researching and writing about disease pathophysiology or shopping online at http://www.dotcomsavings.com when I am not writing about current events.

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/president-obama-does-not-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-1321397.html

Highly paid government bureaucrats will be descending in masses on Copenhagen in December of 2009. They all have instructions to defend the status quo and make sure that the world will follow the outdated and ineffective recommendations and provisions of the ill conceived Kyoto Protocol.

Only a few, if any, officials have any concept of the coming horrors that continuing overheating of our planet has in store for its trusting citizens.

For two centuries, coal has powered the rapid industrialization of many countries. These countries are enjoying the countless benefits and the increased wealth that advanced industrialization has bestowed on them.

Since the midst of the twentieth century, a potentially fatal flaw of accelerating industrialization has become visible. Planet Earth is heating up. This phenomenon was barely visible early on, but is now escalating at a quickening pace.

Physicists can easily explain this rather sudden rise in global temperatures. Oceans and lands were capable to originally absorb huge amounts of heat and carbon dioxide with only minor indications of global warming and acidification of surface waters.

This period is ending while combustion of fossil fuels is increasing at continuously accelerating rates, caused by the explosive growth of energy consumption across the world.

China has become the most prolific user of coal for generating electricity and for supplying energy to its extremely rapid and successful industrialization efforts. This growth will accelerate further. Other countries are following the example of China and are beginning to produce and import more and more energy for powering their quickly growing economies.

Europe and Japan have been trying to reduce energy use and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such efforts are rarely successful in creating wealth and economic growth. Adhering to Kyoto Protocol provisions seldom makes economic sense.

Several countries may continue to follow Kyoto concepts. Others like the BRIC countries, made up of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, will be better off to abandon Kyoto and continue with their intensifying energy utilization. Following the axiom of “do as they do, not as they say”, these countries are entitled to imitate highly industrialized and wealthier nations.

But will such advice not accelerate global warming even further? Yes it will. However, as long as the major industrial countries cannot find the will to stop fossil fuel burning altogether, it is hypocritical to prevent less fortunate countries from joining the establishment.

Instead, the most prosperous countries can and must be the first to establish a concept and a plan for saving Earth from continuous warming. World energy supplies must be changed completely from fossil fuels to renewable and economical energy sources. Otherwise, the Earth will overheat severely long before the end of the twenty first century.

The consequences of severe overheating will be devastating. Climates will change and will spawn more violent windstorms, more destructive floods, and more severe droughts. Most dangerous and most damaging will be the indefensible rise of sea levels. Low-lying coastal lands will be submerged, precious and irreplaceable infrastructures will disappear, and large populations will have to flee to higher grounds.

Does the world really have to watch helplessly as it is being destroyed by the greed and stupidity of its most powerful nations, its clueless corporations, and its powerless governments?

The world’s most dominant economies, the USA and the European Union, have all the resources, the infrastructures, and the skilled workforces that must be mobilized to improve and deploy those advanced energy supply technologies, which can still rescue our Earth. A few, critical technologies are still missing but can be fully developed within one single decade.

World economies can continue their essential growth into the next century only, if the US and the EU decide to act decisively and soon.

It will be scandalous, shameful, and contemptible if the two, industrially most advanced, and wealthiest superpowers will wait for China to snatch the world from otherwise inevitable economic collapse.

It will be a moral disaster if the Earth’s wealthiest nations cannot agree to leave a better world for future generations!

Sincerely,
Klaus H Hemsath

Dr. Hemsath’s books, Climate Change-Gold Rush or Disaster? and Clean Energy For Centuries, offer a comprehensive plan for saving Earth from overheating. He is now writing a follow-on book, Petroleum Substitutes From Biomass. For fifty years he has worked on advanced energy technologies as scientist, engineer, inventor, Corporate R&D Executive, CEO, entrepreneur, and author. He holds more than 60 US Patents. Go to http://www.thermalexpert.com

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/copenhagen-can-open-new-era-of-clean-and-economical-energies-1289126.html

As the world celebrates the life of Michael Jackson (MJ), we have a Congressman who posted a video on You Tube, demeaning the life and legacy of “The King of Pop” Michael Jackson (MJ).

While I respect Congressman King’s right to free speech, I find it unfortunate that he is amongst a number of right-wingers who take this opportunity to spread hatred. Let’s break down the speech. King said,

“Let’s knock out the psychobabble. He was a pervert, a child
molester; he was a pedophile.”

Rep. King, MJ was found ‘not guilty’ of child molestation. He was acquitted in one case and settled out of court in another. In America, there is a trail by jury before declaring a man guilty.

One of the so-called victims, Gavin Arvizo, was 13 years old in 2005 when the alleged crimes occurred. If one paid attention to how the prosecution presented its case, it was almost seemed as if the acquisitions were fabricated. The jury felt that way too and found MJ innocent.

King, during the O’Reily show said,

“An adult male who sleeps with young boys is a child molester,

if nothing else, is abusing their psyche…”.

Rep. King, sleeping in the same bed does not constitute molesting a child.

If you think that that way, why not present a bill that would declare sharing a bed with a minor as child molester. I guess in your view, foster parents, nannies, older brothers, and caretakers can now be officially declared as child molesters.

You should know that Gavin Arvizo, his sister Daveline, brother Star and mother Janet were “upfront” and asserted that inappropriate behavior had “absolutely not occurred”. Janet in fact, asked her boys to call MJ a father figure. The Arvizo’s had insisted that while they slept in MJ’s bed, MJ himself slept on the floor. To further the rebuttal Janet Arvizo issued the following statement:

“The relationship that Michael has with my children is beautiful,
loving, father-son and daughter one. To my children and me Michael
is part of the family.”

Janet Arvizo is the same woman who made a fool of herself on the witness stand which included snapping her fingers and staring at the jurors.

Wade Robson and Brett Barnes are two other boys who shared a bed with MJ, and who also denied any inappropriate behavior had occurred. The same holds true for actors Macaulay Culkin, his younger brother Kieran.

Then there was young, Jordan Chandler, the benefactor of a reported $20 million dollar settlement. MJ, under advisement from his friend, which included Lisa Marie Presley, decided to settle out of court. Smart move. A long drawn out court case would have cost MJ many more millions of dollars in legal fees and undue stress for him and Chandler. Sources now believe that Chandler never told the truth. Congressman King, a settlement is not an admission of guilt!

Here is another thing King said.

” He may have been a good singer, he did some dancing. Bottom line is, would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson?

Mr. King, are you with the times? This is the same man honored by the Republican demigod, Ronald Regan, at a visit to the Whitehouse. MJ’s life is glorified not because he was a ‘good’ singer, dancer, and entertainer. No, he was a phenomenon.

He was a humanitarian. While you politicians aid the rich and stand by while children starve all over the world, MJ gave millions to charities to help such less fortunate children.

As an entertainer, he has the number 1 best selling album of all time, the greatest dance videos of all time, and he would sell out a 100,000 plus seating concert venue in a matter of minutes!

Rep. King, you are all the way in New York. The events of MJ’s passing are here in California. So why should it bother you? Do us a favor and focus on events that matter to the people who unfortunately elected you. Let the media do it’s thing and you do your thing, like trying to rebuild the Republican Party.

50 years from now, MJ’s legacy will be as strong as it is today.

However your legacy, Mr. King will be known not for your service to New York, but as the man who criticized ‘The King of Pop’ during the days of his memorial service. You have added a tremendous weight on your shoulders for your next election.

Sincerely,
Jim Hague

Hague is an author, lecturer, owner of Crystal Digital Images LLC, has no party affiliation and is a moderate. He is the author of ‘Abandoned Son: Roe vs. Wade is overturned.’

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/rep-peter-king-of-ny-wrong-about-michael-jackson-1289253.html

My recent writings have focused on the problems in the health care system and why the Democrats don’t seem to be making things any better. It seems that despite their large majority and control in both houses of Congress and the White House have not given them the courage to push for the reforms they were voted in to create. What’s worse, is that instead of passing real reform, or even doing nothing, they seem to be allowing and backing many of the issues that the Republicans are bringing to the table. This comes even when the Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in working with the Democrats to make real reform.

The fact that no Republican in the Senate is open to a public option for health care shows that as a caucus they will not help the Democrats, or anyone except themselves.

Meanwhile, in recent days, some of the Republicans’ favorite issues like anti-abortion reform, abstinence only education and guns are gaining momentum.

On the abortion front, while Republicans refuse to pass any meaningful health care reform, they have decided that if any reform passes, it will include restrictions on abortion procedures, even if the person has private coverage. This move is almost as ridiculous as the sudden concern for Medicare from Republicans. For 40 years, Republicans have railed against health care in the same way that they are now criticizing the public option. They don’t want government intervention, and they think the free markets will be hurt. Now with abortion, they don’t want the government involved in health care, but they do want the government to regulate what a woman does with her body. Democratic representatives need to stand up against this move and not allow an abortion issue to affect the ultimate outcome of health care reform. For one, women have the right to do what they want with their body. For another, 45 million people lack health insurance, and 45,000 die every year because of their inadequate coverage. An issue like abortion that doesn’t affect anyone except the woman and possibly her immediate friends or family, should be left to her, not legislated on.

But instead, the Republicans push forward, with support from their base.

To make the abortion issue that much more enraging, while Republicans say that women should not have the right to control their own bodies, they are also saying that children should not have the right to be taught comprehensive sex education. So, Republicans apparently feel that the only way to teach kids about sex is to not teach them anything substantive at all, and then if there happens to be a pregnancy, possibly because of this lack of education, the woman is out of luck.

The Senate Finance Committee, after rejecting two public option proposals the other day, voted to support abstinence only education. Led by Republican Orrin Hatch, the amendment that reinstates $50 million in support of abstinence only education. Two of the Democratic Senators, Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad, who voted against the public option apparently felt the need to support this amendment. Apparently, they feel like a person should not be allowed to learn about the realities of pregnancies and STDs, but in the very real chance that there is a pregnancy or disease as a result of sex, there will be no quality affordable health care coverage available.

Once again, the Republicans, without a majority in either House of Congress or control of the White House, are managing to push forward their agenda, and the Democrats are not fighting back.

And if the Republicans have not been successful enough in continuing their agenda in Congress, they are also making gains in the judiciary. The Supreme Court just accepted to hear a case about a gun ban in Chicago. The case has not yet been argued, but if it goes anything like the Heller case did in DC, where the gun ban was overturned, even more guns will be allowed on the streets of an already violent city. Since the Heller case dealt with federal land, the Chicago case would be the first time that the Supreme Court rules on local gun bans. This could open up the possibilities for right wing gun nuts to have more access to dangerous weapons that are responsible for countless murders across the US.

Speaking of gun rights, we are reminded of seven years ago when the DC sniper killed ten people at random. Now the New York Times details how the Congress has done very little to reform any gun laws, and if anything, has further protected the gun industry from any Civil charges that could have come from the DC sniper case.

Despite the Democrats bending over backwards to let the Republican agenda through, even when the Republicans have shown no interest in bipartisanship with the Democrats, there may be at least one Democrat who has had enough.

Rep. Alan Grayson from Florida’s 8th District recently charged that the Republicans’ solution to health care is that people should not get sick. And if someone does get sick, their health care solution is that the person should die quickly. Finally a Democrat has grown a backbone and stood up to the right! The Republicans do not have any true plan for health care reform. They have no true plan to cover the uninsured or lower health care costs or improve quality. Rep. Grayson is finally someone who is calling them out on this point.

Some Republicans were upset by Rep. Grayson’s charges and demanded an apology. Rep. Grayson apologized, but not for what he said, but instead to the 45,000 people each year who die because they don’t have adequate care. He apologized for the Republicans, and once again stood up against any games that the Republicans tried to play.

The Republicans had one more chance at Rep. Grayson when he went on the Situation Room on CNN. Again, instead of backing down, Rep. Grayson stood strong and continued to talk about his beliefs for the need for true health care. Surely the Republicans will come out and attack him more, but it is important for Rep. Grayson to maintain his aggressiveness and his colleagues should join in. This is just what those of us who support health care reform have been waiting to see.

Forty-five million people need health care coverage, the rest of us need better coverage. All of us need less of the Republican talking points, and finally Rep. Grayson seems to be leading a charge against the Republicans. Let’s just hope it is not too little too late.

Sincerely,
Sam Edelstein

Edelstein’s Web site is http://www.randomsamthoughts.blogspot.com

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/stand-up-to-the-republicans-1292278.html

Sen. Max Baucus said the public option offered a great opportunity to “hold insurance companies’ feet to the fire”. Then he voted against two amendments that included the public option. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Well it seems in the political world it does. Apparently, because Sen. Baucus doesn’t believe the Senate has 60 votes to pass a health care reform bill, he is not supporting the bill either. Of course, we don’t yet know how much support a heath care reform bill with a public option would have, but in order to get to 60 votes, Sen. Baucus’s support would be essential. Without his support, it is a virtual certainty that the bill will not get the desired 60 votes.

This is not the first time that a politician, or the electorate, has refused to back a bill or a candidate because they did not think there was enough support for the bill to pass or candidate to win. But guess what? It is really difficult for bills to pass and candidates to win elections when people don’t support them.

President Obama, while on the campaign trail said that he originally supported a single payer health care system, and in a world where health care policies could be rewritten, it would be the best system. But, he says now, we are too entrenched in our system and the country isn’t ready for that much change. This coming from the “change” President. In reality though, Obama taking this point of view not only took any discussion for single-payer off the table, but also hurt chances to get a public option because he had already conceded so much before negotiations for reform even began. Maybe if he hadn’t assumed that single-payer didn’t have a chance before actually giving the public a chance to voice their opinion, we would have had a better system already. As it turns out, almost every poll shows a majority of people support a government run system of some kind.

During the 2008 campaign, I was disappointed with all the Democratic candidates for president, and decided to vote third party. When I spoke with friends and acquaintances about this decision, they said I was throwing away my vote because the third party candidates would have no chance to win. I would reply that of course they didn’t have a chance to win if people weren’t voting for them simply because they didn’t think they had a chance to win.

It is time that progressives in this country started standing up for their beliefs no matter if the belief is popular or not. Who cares if it doesn’t seem like the idea doesn’t have majority support? In most cases, it actually probably does have the necessary support, and if it doesn’t, all change has to start from somewhere.

There was a time in this country where the majority were in favor of slavery, then that thankfully ended because people’s opposition got louder and louder. Then their opposition to segregation got louder. Then the opposition to Vietnam, then support for women’s rights. Now there is a push for gay rights that is quickly finding itself as the majority opinion. Health care reform is there too.

We need to stand up for our beliefs, and tell our representatives that it is not their job to vote on what they think can pass, it is their job to vote on what we, and they, think is right. 

Sen. Baucus says, ”my first job is to get this bill across the finish line. No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option.” I say, “who cares!?”

The people have already expressed their support for a public option, and if the Congress refuses to pass true reform, we’ll let them know how we feel about it. We already let the Republicans know how we felt about their running the country, just like we let slave owners and segregationists know that they were no longer welcome.

Stand up Sen. Baucus, and all the rest of the Senate, and support what your constituents support. Don’t support what fringe right wing media and huge corporations support.

Sincerely,
Sam Edelstein

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/stand-up-for-your-beliefs-1292299.html

The Barack Obama racism issue in America is one that threatens to tear this nation’s core values apart. Whether you are a red or blue state follower is less important than the values that we bring to our children and our children’s children. If any one “race” has “claim” to the U.S., it’s the indigenous Native Americans. Other than that we are all immigrants here.

As an American born Chinese growing up in San Francisco, I saw firsthand how cultural differences caused misunderstandings, distrust, and sometimes even hatred. But, I never understood how these cultural barriers began. I was called everything from “Chink” to “Slanty-eyes” to “banana.” The funniest part of that was being called “banana” by even some of my own race. Banana refers to being yellow (Asian) outside, but white on the inside.

Dissecting “white on the inside” a bit further, it means not truly acting “Chinese or Asian.” How is an AMERICAN born Chinese / Asian supposed to act? None of us spoke Chinese, so by default we were American, wouldn’t you say?

The Barack Obama racism issue also holds no logic. Here is an AMERICAN born black person with degrees from Columbia and Harvard, Magna Cum Laude, no less. How many Americans, forget about whether you are Yellow, Brown, Black or White, have that type of pedigree? Couple that with the fact that he was a respected Senator who dedicated his life to public office.

I find it interesting that the 2008 US Census doesn’t even know how to “categorize” people. While the overwhelming category in the U.S. is 79.8% White, the definition includes peoples of Europe, Middle East or North African descent. In some people’s calculation North Africa means you’re African American. Let’s also look at the Asian category, which according to the 2008 bureau stats is about 4.5% of the U.S. population. They include people of Indian and Pakistani descent. Yet, knowledgeable PhDs believe that they should be considered “white.”

The categorization of Middle Easterners as “white” would suggest that the “white” culture should have no issue with accepting people from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, to name a few. Yet, we know the prejudices or predispositions that we ALL bring to the table when we meet someone who is culturally different or appears to be different from ourselves.

At a minimum this tells me that the Barack Obama racism issue itself is one that makes no sense whatsoever. Whether we like it or not, the U.S. was founded on the principle that “all men are created equal” and we pledge as Americans to “liberty and justice for all.”

With all of the other problems that we face here in America, the one of race prejudice is one that we don’t have time to wage. Education is at an all time low, unemployment at an all time high and health-care completely inadequate.

In America, we don’t need to wage a war based on racism. We’ve waged enough wars both abroad and our own soil to last multiple generations. The time for sensibility, openness, and yes, civility is a time that’s come. In fact, it’s way overdue.

Sincerely,
David K. Chan

Chan is a high tech professional who consults on business development, leadership and marketing opportunities. Read more about [http://davidkchan.com/barack-obama-racism]Barack Obama Racism and leave your comments on this issue.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_K._Chan http://EzineArticles.com/?Barack-Obama-Racism&id=2965725