Social Media - Thumbs up and down

Social Media has become an integral part of our everyday life and conversation in America and around the globe, with many people spending the better part of their day passively or actively participating on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other social network connectors. And Corporate America has picked up on this trend… Big Time.

IPO offerings by LinkedIn (LNKD) and Zynga (ZNGA) gave everyday investors a hint that social media was on the rise, but the recent Facebook (FB) IPO filing, and word that the company could be valued at $100 Billion, brings it all front and center.From media coverage to investment dollars, this sector is pushing its way onto Wall Street and into the mainstream of Corporate America. On Wall Street, LinkedIn was valued at $4.3B for its 5/9/2011 IPO and has since soared to $7.79 Billion. Similarly, Zynga was valued at $7 Billion with its 12/15/2011 IPO and that has since risen to $9.36 Billion (both valuations as of Friday’s stock market close). Note as well that Zynga stock is up almost 30 percent since the Facebook IPO news. Okay, so you get the picture. There is a lot of frenzied money flowing into this sector.

As this trend continues, I expect corporate America to spend time and money trying to figure out how to maximize the business side of the relationship.

I expect corporate America to spend time and money trying to figure out how to maximize the business side of the relationship.

The eyeballs are just too alluring. Whether it’s corporate influence, ad dollars or just creating a news outlet with a personality, businesses are signing up. And this trend stands to benefit big boys Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn quite a bit.

But with all the hype comes scrutiny. Privacy questions continue to dog the sector. Because of the personal nature of the business, this comes as no surprise. And it is an issue that will probably linger on for some time. Privacy advocates focus much of their attention on Facebook, but the sector as a whole will have to find a healthy medium and storyline if it wants to keep the star shining bright during the initial growth phase.

Other questions focus on valuations. Many look at the paltry earnings of these companies and scoff at their present valuations. But Wall Street is forward looking and focused on potential. Investors are looking out on the time horizon and seeing huge growth possibilities. However, with hype comes expectations, and no doubt investors will expect public companies like LinkedIn, Zynga, and soon-to-be public Facebook to outperform.

The combination of money inflows and growth expectations should fuel employment opportunities while providing additional ways for entrepreneurs to make money. Furthermore, hiring demands for social media positions are likely to land square in the lap of many corporate HR Managers. Additionally, I can see this increasing the need for advisors and consultants in the field.

The movement is gaining steam. And the best part for the industry is that it’s just now starting to take off.

Sincerely,
Andrew Nyquist

No positions in any of the securities mentioned at time of publication.

Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of his employer or any other person or entity.

About the Author:

Andrew Nyquist is the creator of See It Market, http://www.seeitmarket.com, a website that provides an entertaining, educational, and well rounded take on investing, economics, and everyday life. Visit See It Market, and sign up for free news and updates.

Andrew has been actively investing for over 13 years. His blogs, articles, and contributions have been published by highly respected Minyanville, and syndicated to sites including Minyanville and Yahoo! Finance. He has also been interviewed and cited by Dow Jones & Company owned SmartMoney.

Source

I have a love/hate relationship with the grocery store. I love the grocery store when I have time to wander the aisles, find new products, and scrutinize labels. Unfortunately, those times are few and far between. Most often, I’m rushing through the store with a half-written down list and about a half hour of time.

So what’s the hate part?

It’s been my opinion for a long time that grocery stores are breeding grounds for inconsiderate behavior…

I have found that the grocery store tends to pull out the worst in me – or at least my brain. I’m so very easily irritated while grocery shopping. It’s been my opinion for a long time that grocery stores are breeding grounds for inconsiderate behavior; loud talking on cell phones, standing just right where I need to be for what seems like endless minutes, and my personal favorite – the shopping cart parked in the middle of the aisle so nobody can get through.

About a year ago, I got so tired of feeling that way at the store that I just had to realize that, of course, the problem of the grocery store resided with me and not the other shoppers. In fact, perhaps these very shoppers that annoy me have been placed in my path to teach me patience. So then it becomes a mind game. I pump myself up before I go to the store with all kinds of positive thoughts and thoughts of gratitude. Then, here’s the real trick – I force myself to look right into the face of those annoying me and smile.

Most often, they smile back or discontinue the inconsiderate behavior. I’m not saying I’m 100% successful at avoiding annoyance at the grocery store, but trips have been a lot more pleasant these days. We all have things that irritate us or cause us stress, but if we realize that those annoying situations actually exist to teach us some life lesson, we can learn, grow, and be stronger.

Best of all, when we change how we look at annoying situations, they disappear from our lives.

Sincerely,
Betsy McGuire

About the Author:

Betsy McGuire invites you to visit http://www.chickpeawellness.com/ and sign up to receive her mind, body, and spirit blog the day entries are made. You can also “like” Chickpea Wellness on Facebook and receive new articles on your wall.

Source

The Syrian regime has turned against its own people. Killing, ,assacres, disfiguring and toruring prisoners, raping women, slaying children, nothing more atrocious, nothing more brutal and ugly. How far would human nature plunge into bloodshed and offer humans on the altar of a mad president and his entourage?

Nowhere in the history of Syria has been such atrocious crimes since the times of Holaco the leader murderer of the Mogols. But this surpasses all cruelty and all barabaric crimes. Crimes against humanity is a gentle expression used by the useless UN and its worth for nothing SC.

Nothing more disgusting and nausea vomitting sense than to see the Syrian people being murdered, women, men and children in their homes. Too easy to aim tank guns and mortars and heavy guns over the civil and peaceful districts of Homs, Hamah, Idleb and Daraa. Nothing more easy than to kill civilians by the thouands. No crime is more horrible than to kill ones own people. No cowardly act can be justified when mahine guns target children and bring the roofs of their houses on their heads.

As if this is not enough! Russians descendants of the cruel and savage Vikings, being well trained to savagery under the repression of the Tsars and then being well aducated by the Marxist atheist ideology, generations of the KGB, are backing up the Syrian onslaughter and heinous massacre committed by the Assad regime. Of course Russian children, women and old men are not targeted by the Syrian guns. They lose nothing by seeing the Syrians being murdered in the strretes of towns and cities of Syria.

After all the Russian bear is as cold as the Siberian snow and as ugly as the Godless regime of Moscow. The Kremlin is not new to atrocious crimes against humanity. But the Russians have forgotten the Russian revolution in October 1917 and how much bloodshed was spelt in the streets.

Their interest is not to save lives and human beings but count how much money they get for selling their arms to the Syrian regime to slaughter its people. Russia is now dominated by a dictator, another Tsar and few trillionaires feeding on the blood of the Russian people who live in appaling state of deprivation and poverty while life and survival are getting harder and harder and the Russian mafia rule the economy.

China, has backed up the slaughter and massacre of the Syrian civilians for calling for freedom and human dignity, but they have no hearts to feel, being descendants of the ruthless emperors of the tang and Ming dynasties of hundreds of emperors. They are very well trained by the Atheist Moa Tsi Tong after his godfather Karl Marx in rutheless and brutal massacre of their own people. Forty millions of respectable and honest intellectuals were masscared by the red army at the command of Mao, being accused of calling for freedom and dignity.

The Chinese regime cushed brutally and by tanks the peaceful uprising of students in the streets of Beijing. Hundreds of lives were sacrificed for the communist cause and there is nothing communist about it. It represents an authoratarian dictatorship for the ruling elite in China while the rest of the people suffer, poverty and deprivation. One billion and half of robot chinese live under the totalitarian oppression of the Chinese rulers, descendants of Mao and the ruthless emperors.

Thus, Russia and China as regimes of diciatorships have a lot in common with the Alaite regime in Syria. They are all atheist regimes, in form and essence, and this is why they have no conscience and no heart, human or otherwise. They all repress their people, They all justify their crimes against humans by proclaiming order and just cause.

Whenever God is exchanged by man and whenever religious moral codes are exchanged by ideological cheap morality serving egoist persons of the rulers, people  suffer the most.

Sincerely,
mardini

Source

“You must pay Social Security,” said the government man.

“Why?,” I replied. “I can walk to the bank and save my own money or get an annuity with an insurance company. I don’t need you to steal money from my paycheck every week, then hope I live to 67 to get some of my hard-earned money back.”

“You must use our Post Office”.

“Why?”, I said, “UPS, DHL, and Fed Ex gives me better service.”

“You must support Medicare.”

“Why?” I replied, “I can pay for my own health insurance that lets me choose my own health plan, deductibles, doctors, and hospitals. Why don’t you remove your damn regulations on the health-care industry, close down the FDA, and allow a free-market in medical care? Then I would have a lot more doctors and insurance companies to choose from and pay a lot less for medical care and health insurance.”

Just holster your gun, withdraw your taxes, regulations, public schools, and entitlement programs, and get out of our way.”

p>”You must pay 50 percent of your salary in state and Federal income taxes to support all our entitlement programs. You are morally responsible to help the poor, unwed mothers, college students, corporations who want bailouts, big farmers who need farm subsidies, and Mexican illegal aliens who insist on free medical care.”

By what right,” I replied, “do you force me to be my brother’s keeper at the point of a gun? Why do you think you have the right to rob me to give unearned handouts to people who will vote for you? You turn compassion into compulsion and make me hate my brother.”

“You must not develop this land and create homes and apartments for thousands of people, as this would endanger the kangaroo rats and alligators living on the land.”

“You sick environmentalist,” I answered, “why do you value the life of kangaroo rats, alligators who kill children, and mosquitoes that kill millions of people a year with malaria, over the lives of men, women, and children? What made you so twisted inside, and why do you hate the human race? If I develop this land, thousands of families will have decent, low-cost homes and apartments to live in. If that means every kangaroo rat and alligator is killed in the process, I say the sooner the better. There’s a big market for alligator purses.”

“You must send your children to our wonderful public schools.”

“Why, you damn fool? I can teach my children to read with “hooked-on-phonics,” get them local tutors, have them watch math and reading videos, give them one-on-one instruction with computer software and free Internet libraries, or enroll them in a low-cost Internet private school that charges less than $975 a year tuition. My son and daughter will learn to read, write, and do math proficiently in two years, not in the twelve years your miserable, government-controlled public schools force on millions of kids.”

“In short, government man, why do we need you? Just holster your gun, withdraw your taxes, regulations, public schools, and entitlement programs, and get out of our way.”

Sincerely,
Joel Turtel

About the Author:

Joel Turtel is an public-policy analyst and syndicated columnist. He is also the author of Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children and The Welfare State: No Mercy For the Middle Class.
Contact Information:
Website: http://www.americanlibertynews.com
Email: jturtel@yahoo.com

Originally appeared here.

To the Editor:

If you are have forgotten or are unaware of what all the talk of Proposition 8 is about, be reminded that this California law was passed in 2008 to satisfy the will of the majority who wanted to define marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. On February 7th of 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to strike down Proposition 8 by declaring it unconstitutional.

The rulings against Proposition 8 are characterized by the biased presuppositions of activist judges. The function of these judges should be to simply interpret existing law and determine if concurs with the constitution. Unfortunately, most judges, even and perhaps especially Supreme Court Justices, are willing to prostitute their positions to advance their own personal political and social agendas. Was this not blatantly obvious when Judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly homosexual and sports a homosexual partner, ruled against Proposition 8 in his “love letter to homosexuals” where he declared that the proposition “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation” in a lower district court in 2010?

The Judges of the 9th District Court had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with any justification to oppose Proposition 8.

The best they could do was voiced by Judge Stephen Reinhart, “Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we are left with ‘the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward,’ or as is more likely with respect to Californians who voted for the proposition, mere disapproval of, ‘the class of persons affected.’” This judge effectively spit in the face of California voters who voted Proposition 8 into existence by declaring that their desire to sustain the definition of marriage that has worked so well for millenniums previous and their desire to preserve an institution that preserves opportunities for procreation are illegitimate desires concocted to cover up a bigoted hatred for homosexuals.

Bobble heads have emerged to offer their two cents and shamelessly promote themselves and their irreverent agenda. Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, represents the plaintiffs in Proposition 8. He declared the recent decision to be a first step in ending discrimination. “Today we are more American because of this decision”. May we request a definition for ‘American’?

Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate spoke for conservatives when he promised to appoint judges who would oppose same-sex marriages, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage.” Please notice he also put a negative slant on the fact that these judges were not elected, but appointed, and then promised to do more of the same.

President Obama played his typical part as a non-player too weak and timid to choose sides. He declared that his opinion on the issue is still “evolving”.

The rationale of the court is that the state of California is violating the constitution by denying a right afforded to one group (heterosexuals) from another. (homosexuals) It seems the real question here is what is the difference between a right and a privilege? The constitution was written to protect our rights, not privileges. In order for a certain thing to have a right that certain thing must be defined. Opponents of marriage for homosexuals have defined marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. You cannot grant this same right to any couple other than one that meets the definition. If the definition is corrupted there is no obligation to grant the right. The claim from proponents of gay marriage that they are not trying to redefine marriage is absurd. They must redefine it in order to qualify for the rights they demand. There has been no definition of marriage forthcoming from that side of the aisle.

The fact is, they are not redefining marriage. They are undefining it. (See How to Win the Marriage Debate, Selwyn Duke) The practice of declaring undeserved rights has become all too common in our modern society. Homosexuals in undefined relationships clamor for rights that are preserved for traditional married couples. Likewise, illegal immigrants expect to be treated as if they were legal, legitimate citizens of the U.S. Our youthful, dead-beat dropouts expect to be treated in the same way as the hard working, non-partying college grad that chose a different and more difficult path. There is a prevailing belief system that attempts to eliminate consequences for poor decisions and bad behavior. The majority of pre-birth murders are committed in an attempt to escape consequences for a decision regretted.

If the left wing of this issue (gay marriage) cannot specifically define marriage, how can they specify what marriage “is not”? If marriage IS between two people of the same gender, could marriage also not be between three people of the same gender? Is marriage deemed legitimate if it is between a single person of one gender and multiple persons of another gender? Is it necessary for marriage to include only human beings? Do we really want to open that can of worms? The 9th Circuit ruled on the ‘rights’ to marriage but did they even bother to define what it was they were supposedly protecting? How can you grant rights to something undefined?

It is for this reason most reasonable citizens believe the movement to legalized gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy the traditional, time-honored institution that was clearly sanctioned by God. When men begin to devise their own plans as substitutes to God’s plan it doesn’t go well for man. God’s plan was to “multiply and replenish” the earth. His plan makes wonderful provision for the care of the elderly who are loved and cherished by their many offspring. When we oppose this plan by reducing our number of offspring through abortion and homosexual unions we bring confusion, poverty and destruction upon society.

God never sanctioned marriage between same gendered individuals. In fact, he clearly condemned such a thing. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27) The absurdity of it all is that the 9th Circuit Court is trying to protect and preserve a ‘right’ to something that has not been defined and does not actually exist.

Sincerely,
Kevin Probst
About the Author:

Kevin Probst lives in Columbus, Georgia. He is a teacher of History and Apologetics at a private high school. He submits articles pertaining to theology, apologetics, Christian living and American culture. If you have an interest in those ideas please visit his website and offer your opinions or join the conversation.

Originally appeared: here.

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the daily sacrifices of our men and women in the armed forces and their families as well. In the celebrity-obsessed U.S. culture at least, we too often take our freedoms for granted and don’t understand they come at a price. I often think back to the days immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks and recall how silly our obsessions were with pop culture icons, musicians and celebrity gossip. Remember how the cult of personality media coverage disappeared for a year or so as we understood who the real heroes and people to be looked up to were?

Thank you to our troops and their families. Some of us think about you daily.

Sincerely,
Denny F.
Massachusetts

I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality, and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion. The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that is respect for and even awe before what they see.

Many scientists have a well-developed spiritual understanding based on facts and reality. This understanding is often senior to that preached by mainline religions.

A serious student of biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such things possible.

Someone possessing in-depth knowledge of science would therefore have respect for and even awe of the universe; but that does not necessarily mean that he is going to agree with the concept of Biblical God. The reason is that Christianity holds a dismissive, even damning, attitude toward nature, seeing “flesh” (meaning the human body and the rest of physical natural world) as being a creation of the Satan or as being poisoned by sin. A serious student of biology would be angered by attitudes of this nature. The reason is that what’s being damned or impugned here is something possessing far greater complexity, richness and viability than anything that the person possessing such attitudes knows how to create. And he would likewise be angered by brainless economic practices such as destroying the extraordinarily rich environment that is Amazon to make ranches that become useless in two years, when there are many other ways to feed Latin America, or flooding the atmosphere and the oceans with CO2 from dirty coal and oil, when there are many other ways to provide energy that are a lot less destructive.

That does not mean that the scientist is going to have no spiritual feelings; indeed he may have very profound spiritual feelings – once again as a rational consequence of what he sees. He may be more likely to agree with a creed such as Deism, which was practiced by America’s founders Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, that sees divine truths as being found in nature and discovered through rational inquiry. He may believe in some providence or some higher intelligence, but he is not likely to agree with the Biblical beliefs that damn the natural world or the human body. The reason once again is that he will have respect for the natural world and the human body as a rational reaction to what he finds out about these things.

Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another; indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with scientific knowledge. The more one studies natural life the more he values it and respects it. The attitude of the romantic is a natural outgrowth of the obvious implications of scientific inquiry: A logical consummation of the respect for natural life that scientific study of life engenders. And if one believes in some higher power, it becomes power that is congruent with, and not held opposite to, life.

The person involved in real scientific inquiry is likewise going to be in disagreement with the people who deem themselves rational while they have contempt for natural processes. Such contempt is an obvious mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Until one can create something as complex as human body or Amazonian rainforest, one has no business having contempt for such things; and a person who has such contempt either possesses inadequate understanding of the preceding or does not possess adequate reasoning faculties to understand the logical implications thereof.

There are any number of scientists with very profound spiritual understanding, and it is spiritual understanding that is driven by fact and logic. It is driven by understanding just what it is that exists in nature and in the universe and by grasping the full complexity thereof. What the Native Americans referred to as the Great Mystery, science makes explicable, and in the process instills respect for it. The lack of such respect – whether it comes from Biblical attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves rational – is a mark that one does not know what one is talking about and has no real knowledge of what it is that he holds in disrespect.

Sincerely,
Ilya Shambat

Originally appeared here.

We sit at the table of crisis but also at the table of opportunity. Clearly we must bail out the mistakes of “Wall Street”. Let’s fix it all for good.

One Trillion dollars for stabilizing the markets…why stop there?

How about printing TEN TRILLION DOLLARS and shipping all of those dollars to those that hold our National Debt?

The underlying problem is that the price of real estate is sliding. The solution to fixing this is to create inflation so that real estate stabilizes and rises.

Printing more money will create that inflation.

Paying off our National Debt will create 30% more available money in our National Budget and allow us to fix Social Security for good.

Most of the debt is held by foreign entities…if we ship actual “cash” overseas it will come back very slowly if ever. What it will do is establish the “dollar” as the global currency because so much of the trade that will occur overseas will be done in the “cash” dollars that we ship to pay off the debt. We limit visitors to our country to transporting no more than $10,000 in cash at any one time. With the Patriot Act we make it difficult to move money into the country… so this TRILLIONS of dollars would hit us slowly.

We deregulated everything. Now “Wall Street” has created derivatives on everything… this cannot continue. This needs to be fixed. “Margin Requirements” need to be placed upon every form of leverage… taking an asset and leveraging it 30 to 100 times its worth just isn’t prudent. It is time that we get back to sound banking principles. We switched from the “Gold Standard” and replaced it with a “Real Estate” backed currency… it is time that we make this more than just implied. Merge Freddie and Fannie into one entity and clear the log jam by allowing a mortgage to any person or entity regardless of credit history as long as they put up 30% of the value of the property – 20% if there are solar panels on the roof contributing electricity to our power grid.

Now if we end our dependence on foreign oil over the next five years we will have surplus money to begin spending on building our failed infrastructure.

Sincerely,
Michael Douglas Carlin

Carlin is the author of “A Prescription For Peace” (available at Amazon.com) He is credited with the quote: “Our work will not be done until every man, woman and child alive has three square meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to quality health care, personal security, an education, and a job.”

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/fix-it-all-1325095.html

We can have peace in our lifetime if we all do our part.

This must be a partnership of every individual, non-profit organization, corporation, and government – all working together to bring the basic needs to all of humanity.

It is time for humanity to grow up. Our “Identity Crisis” is ridiculous. We run around like little spoiled brats sweeping our messes under the carpet rather than deal with them in a forthright manner. Turning a blind eye to problems like homelessness ends up costing more than facing the problem with housing, meals, and services that recycle lives and get them back on the road as productive members of society.

The debate between Socialism and Capitalism continues because of the merits of both systems. We hear the entrepreneur say, “I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps and was never given a thing…why should we give them anything?” We also hear those that have been helped by social programs say, “I reached out to the government for help during a time of crisis in my life and now, I own my own business.” The engine of capitalism cannot be refuted. It is what has driven the global economy. The benefits of socialism cannot be refuted either. That is why the debate is so compelling.

The overused phrase, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime” also has merits. We need to assume nothing during the education process that teaches men, women and children to “fish”. We need to understand that in today’s complicated world the process of teaching men women and children to fish is a process that may take time. Not everyone has the ability to fish while learning. The reason why we should help people that can’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is that it is the right thing to do. Helping people while they learn is more humane and costs less than sweeping them under the carpet.

Let’s put the debate of Capitalism and Socialism to rest. Turning a blind eye to people who have no ability to “fish” is no longer acceptable. A layer of socialism where not only do we teach men, women and children to “fish” but where that burden is shared by government, corporations, non-profits, and individuals, fueled by Capitalism for those who take personal responsibility and want all that capitalism provides. Two systems living side by side coexisting and flourishing.

Let’s move the debate forward to renewable systems that prepare and plan for the next thousand years.

This is A Prescription For Peace:

1. Food
2. Shelter
3. Health Care
4. Personal Safety
5. Education
6. Livelihood
7. Empower Women
All leading to HOPE

Thomas Jefferson wrote the words: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

If we have the right to life then we have the right to three square meals a day, a roof over our head, access to quality health care, personal security, an education and a job. For how could we ever begin to experience liberty or pursue happiness without the basic needs being met.

Sincerely,
Michael Douglas Carlin

Carlin is the author of “A Prescription For Peace” (available at Amazon.com) He is credited with the quote: “Our work will not be done until every man, woman and child alive has three square meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to quality health care, personal security, an education, and a job.”

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/capitalism-vs-socialism-why-not-have-both-1325103.html

WHY did Obama win the peace prize? What is it that he has done as president in NINE months?

Despite less than one year in office and leading two wars, President Obama snatched the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, stunning the world one week after failing to win an Olympic bid for his adopted hometown. Maybe the award is based on HOPE, on a future PROMISE, rather than a reality.

The Nobel committee’s decision was motivated by Obama’s initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism. Motivated by “initiatives”? Good intentions are, well you know that phrase. The choice was stunning given that the nomination deadline of Feb. 1, less than two weeks after the Obama presidency began.

What’s up with that?

The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. There’s no fruit, but we’re voting on HOPE for fruit?

Yes we can! 

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” said Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee. Still, the U.S. remains at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass a law reducing carbon emissions and there has been little significant reduction in global nuclear stockpiles since Obama took office.

That sure puts the pressure on Obama to NOT send more troops to Afghanistan!

Sincerely,
Ernie Fitzpatrick

As a spiritual-futurist, I have a BA degree majoring in history. One cannot know the future without knowing the past which holds clues to what is on the horizon. The world is in such a rapid expansion of knowledge that we are close to entering a tipping point that will forever change earth as we know it.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-1320362.html