If I were the inventor of dynamite, such as Mr. Alfred Nobel was, I would've created a Nobel Prize in mathematics. In 1895 he decided to create the awards as a testament to the achievements of mankind in five areas; including physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. Finally in 1901 they were awarded annually. Eventually they began to award the medal for economics under a slightly longer, not-as-to-the-point name. Why no mathematics? And why was economics not part of the original awards? Let me first divulge that previous winners of the Peace Medal have included the likes of Yasser Arafat, Lê Ðức Thọ, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, and now Barack Obama. Of course the Dhali Llama was a recipient in 1989, but recently our President chose to not meet with him because they want to improve relations with China. Huh? Who doesn't meet with the Dhali Llama? But I digress... mathematics, playing with numbers. Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions". Mathematics do not lie, its natures quanitative indicator. I believe that mathematics is intrinsic to common sense logic, and systematic reasoning. Is it any wonder why Pythagoras of Samos (creator of the Pythagorean theorem)was a revered and well-known philosopher? Mathematics solves problems with regard to logic. So why did Alfred Nobel choose to ignore mathematics up front? I have little proof on an exaggerated conspiracy, but you have to wonder if his original intentions or beliefs can be seen in today's prizes? Does someone deserve a preemptive award? Do they deserve the award if they have committed former acts of terror or aid in the escalation of a world war? I mean, hell... Ghandi, Reagan, Mother Theresa, many who deserved the award never got it. My point? Pro/ Con lists... what stacks up and wins. Some folks in Oslo agreed that it was better to give President Obama the award now then later, ok... fair enough. But then its not an award, its a recognition. Its an indicator of what the world wants him to be. Awards take work, and he has not done anything to warrant this. Regardless of past recipient's ideology, it lends the argument, no... the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize is a novelty, a club medal, a trophy for good sportsmanship with the world-leader establishment... it holds no weight, nor any integrity. Mathematics, had they been acknowledged by the committee as an award, would've lent to honest discussion of the number of nations Obama's changed, the ADDITION of dollars he's spent to "STIMULATE" the economy, the MULTIPLICATION of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the SUBTRACTION of jobs, the INCREASE of czars he's hired, the DIVISIONS of Americans he so promised to help heal, the TOTAL of taxes his administration has been introducing to congress, and other NUMBERS that can explain his true intentions. Numbers and economics are not on our President's side, nor is science, and his 2 biographies certainly wouldn't warrant such an award in literature (I read his first). I however hope for our nations sake, that he would one day warrant this in peace (I do)... too bad the man who could have one day earned this, is the man who fundamentally made it a joke. I digress to the words of a man I admire... "The laws of common sense do not change according to scale." Maybe a President who can acknowledge common sense could make decisions that benefit the peace we all want, even if he/she never gets a medal.
I'm curious. What are Obama's true intentions, that you've either inferred or believe he has implied? Blog away!
ReplyDelete“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” - Barack Obama, October 30th, 2008, University of Missouri.
ReplyDeleteJudging by the people he surrounds himself, and statements like these... Im pretty sure his true intentions speak for themself
Fear is best fostered when the object of it remains ambiguous or mysterious. So in order to assuage the idea that there is actually nothing to fear in Obama's intentions but fear based and fostered in rhetoric and/or ambiguity, I'll ask it this way - why should I be afraid? Given your certainty I feel that a response should be easily generated.
ReplyDeleteAnnita Dunn loves Mao Zedong, Van Jones loves socialism, Cass Sunstein believes hunting should be banned, and believes that animals can and should sue human beings (crazy, I know), Rahm Emmanuel never wants to let a crisis go to waste, Mark Lloyd wants to do the following
ReplyDelete* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
The president has said he wants to see America go to a single payer system, Oh who else can we muster up... Kevin Jennings, Vivek Kundra,Linda Douglass
Seriously, I enjoy the exchange of ideas and concepts. When our President does not have the courage to even sit down with Chris Wallace, Im beyond thinking this is a rational administration, nor one willing to engage with opposite view points. Please man, don't try and be a defense attorney here. Accept rational thought, and do the homework. If you consider "the right's" ways demeaning and nefarious then do the research on these people to write defenses of them, and also defend there actions and words, but you offer up 2 dimensional liberal rhetoric that gets old. The problem you and Micah have is the exchange and debate of ideas. Im clearly with Micah, but you try to lose people in a vast vocabulary. It comes off pompass and arrogant.
I debate for several reasons, mostly because i THINK ITS FUN. Was it John Adams that said "Thank God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I'm right."? But I also know that Im right, on principles and understanding that big government is evil. I think its a necessity to be comfortable with who you are principally and be right. How we go about solving the problems thus forth is my true interest. How do we use free-market expressions with clearly sane individuals and competent people at the helm? I believe Bush was competent in his first term, and other than the fact that I agreed with his Supreme Court picks and a couple economic decisions I was disappointed and disengaged from Republican politics in his 2nd term. However, there being 2 very different views on conservatism, our side (cons) who makes 40% of the electorate is uniting. Notice I dodnt say Republicans. The two sides I speak of are Paleo-Cons and Neo-Cons. That will get fleshed out some other time. But what all cons agree is that government is evil. And with the death of the free market on the horizon, we are empassioned and willing to take this to the most peaceful means possible, regardless of what liberals say, or so-called moderates print. The liberals won on principle in 2006. They won because the war was going "bad", and it was time to rack it up. Republicans will win only on principles, and thats smaller govt. I gotta shower, Ill pick this up tomorrow if you respond, take it easy