Nobel Peace Prize?

Is the Nobel Peace Prize worth anything anymore?

As I sit here and think about El Baradei and the UN agency he heads up (IAEA) I cannot think of one concrete thing that they have accomplished which would merit the Nobel Peace Prize.

Apparently this has something to do with their work as it relates to N. Korea and Iran. Last time I checked nothing positive has happened in relation to these two countries.

So what is the award for? Well I will let you read the quotes for yourself.

The Nobel committee said ElBaradei and the IAEA should be recognized for addressing one of the greatest dangers facing the world.

"At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its director general.

And what did El Baradei himself say?

"The award basically sends a very strong message, which is: Keep doing what you are doing," ElBaradei said. "It's a responsibility but it's also a shot in the arm. They want to give the agency and me a shot in the arm to move forward."

It is amazing to read the last two quotes. For me personally it sums up my problem with the multilateral approach which is mainly nothing ever seems to get done.

On the other hand they (the supporters of the multilateral approach) love to pat themselves on the back for "trying".

Results don't matter it seems...the process is more important.

The EU / UN Internet Takeover?

Follow the link to read about attempts by the EU / UN to take control of the internet. As has been known for some time, many countries do not like the idea of the US maintaining control of the internet.

Under the US system the internet has been pretty wide open.

Anyone concerned that some of the biggest advocates of change are from countries like China, Cuba, Iran, etc? They would like to get a piece of the action.

What changes could they possibly want to see implemented? Hmmm...???

Let us see...we have a system that is wide open...but now we have countries interested in taking some portion of control who are well known in their attempts to stifle aspects of the internet.

I cannot see how that is in any way positive.

A question to be asked of those advocating change is....

If the US has a system that is wide open to anyone...what do they want fixed...and what changes do they advocate? It would seem to me more control...which means less freedom for the individuals utilizing the internet.

Do we really want China and other totalitarian regimes determining the structure of the internet?

Think about it.

The Press

Thought for the day:

As we have seen over the past couple of weeks the press did a horrible job in relation to Katrina. As we look back now it is hard to believe how wrong they were in almost all of their analysis.

Virtually all their claims seem to have been wrong.

The press "highlighted" all the dramatic news...and put everything in a very negative light.

Overhyped?....

In light of that...

Why should we believe the reporting (negative) you typically hear from Iraq?