If more people were able to analyze the effect of these tax cuts on the budget bottom line – they might have a somewhat different view of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts.

Some make the argument that total revenues collected collected after the Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts increased more than if these tax cuts were not in place or than the revenues collected under the higher tax rates in effect prior to these cuts. Total revenues did go up in the years after the Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts. But total revenues also went up in the years preceding these tax cuts. For the most part the Gross Domestic Product of the United States rises every year (there are exceptions – such as when the economy is in recession). Assuming the federal revenues have a constant relationship with the GDP, federal revenues should go up simply because the GDP increases year over year.

Republicans often criticize Democrats for being "tax and spend liberals". However, under recent Republican administrations, the federal budget deficit continued to grow at an alarming rate. You might say Republican are “tax and borrow conservatives”.

Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting bigger government. While Republicans “say” they are for smaller government, I am not aware of any President (Republican or Democrat)  who left office having cut the size of the government. Clinton certainly made progress with balancing the budget and achieving a surplus for a short period, but the size of his government at the end of his second term was greater than it was when he first took office.

So it seems everybody, regardless of what the espouse, Democrat or Republican, Red State or Blue State, Liberal or Conservative supports policies that are tax, spend, AND borrow. Look at what the do, not what they say.

Tax cuts without spending cuts means the government needs to increase borrowing. Tax cuts coupled with spending increases means you really need to increase borrowing. I am concerned about both the long and short term effects of these spending policies and the huge debt that results.

Here is an interesting chart showing Growth of GDP (in billions of dollars) annually from 1930 to 2009

The exponential growths of GDP has fueled the exponential growth of the Federal budget over the same time frame:

This chart shows Federal Revenue as a Percent of GDP for the same timeframe

As you can see above, since WWII, Federal Revenues have fluctuated between 15% and 20% of GDP.

The next chart shows the Federal Deficit from 1901 – 2009

I find the deficit trend in the last forty years to be particularly alarming. Up until the mid-1970s, with the exception of WWII, the federal deficit seemed to be reasonably well constrained. At one point, during the Clinton administration, there was actually a significant surplus for a period of several years. But this has been more than offset by the dramatic deficits in the last decade.

Finally, the Federal Debt for the Years 1901-2009

If this doesn’t alarm you or make you concerned that Federal Spending is out of control, I am not sure what will!

The first team is trying to devise ways to bring down an airliner (hijack with box cutters, PETN explosive devices, liquid explosives, etc.).

The second team is trying to devise ways to prevent the first team from being successful (remove sneakers for x-ray, eliminate all carry-on liquids, explosive sniffing dogs, body scanners, pat-down searches, etc)

Each time team one comes up with a new idea that passes through the second team’s current security checkpoints – team one gets 100 points.

Each time team two proactively prevents a new idea from team one from passing through security – team two gets 100 points.

The goal for Round One – let’s get creative and think about all the new ways we need to beef up security in the airports.

Round two – at sporting events such as the Super Bowl

Round three – at New Years celebrations

Round four – at the Olympics

Round five – at any place large crowds gather, etc..

We need to get out of the mode of reviewing old policies and security measures to find out what went wrong.

We need to get creative and become proactive.

We need disaster prevention, not disaster reviews.

Abdulmutallab’s family in Nigeria maintains that his father, prominent Nigerian banker Alhaji Umar Mutallab, had reached out to Nigerian security agencies two months ago. The father next approached foreign security agencies for "their assistance to find and return him home.”

Last month his father, reported his concerns to the American Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria. The father was worried that his son was in Yemen and "had fallen under the influence of religious extremists." The embassy visit by Abdulmatallab’s father triggered a Nov. 20 State Department cable from Lagos, Nigeria to all U.S. diplomatic missions and department headquarters in Washington. It was also shared with the interagency National Counter Terrorism Center.

As a result, Abdulmutallab was listed along with about 550,000 names in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, known as TIDE. TIDE is maintained by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. There are other, smaller lists that trigger additional airport screening or other restrictions, but intelligence officials have said they did not have enough information to move him onto one of these more targeted lists.

Further, Britain refused to grant Abdulmutallab a student visa in May 2009. Unfortunately, there was no apparent effort to revoke his U.S. tourist visa, issued in June 2008 and good for multiple entries over two years.

On December 27, two days after the NWA 253 incident, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was making the rounds on the Sunday morning news shows. On each of these shows, the host asked several reasonable and penetrating questions. These are questions the public deserves answers to. Questions such as: “Why was Abdulmutallab not already placed on a ‘Do Not Fly’ list or, at a minimum, a list which triggers additional screening when boarding an aircraft?” or “Why was he able to board an aircraft with 80 grams of PETN hidden on his body?”

Secretary Napolitano offered little by way of real explanation. Her response, repeated during many interviews on Sunday, was “The system worked.” or “The system has worked very, very smoothly.” The Secretary was widely criticized for her superficial response. Her answers (spin) to important questions suggested that the Department of Homeland Security simply did NOT have a system that worked.

The fact that a disaster was narrowly averted by some alert passengers and airline personnel does not mean that any preventive system worked. The fire extinguisher worked. It extinguished the fire caused by the failed attempt to detonate the explosive device.

On Monday (today), Secretary Napolitano began to back pedal from her earlier statements. Unfortunately she tried to claim that her previous statement, “The system worked.” was taken out of context. I listened to several of the Sunday news shows. She repeated the same spin on each show. The “context” was that she was asked “Why didn’t airport security prevent him from boarding an airliner bound for the U.S.?” In each context, her answer was essentially the same: “The system has worked very, very smoothly.”

Secretary Napolitano is now trying to clarify her earlier remarks by saying she was referring to “the system of quickly notifying other flights and law enforcement on the ground.” Unfortunately that is NOT the context of her earlier remarks. She was not asked whether the system had succesfully notified other flights and law enforcement agencies (to prevent other attacks). She was asked how THIS attack was not prevented.

I am very disappointed in this spin from the Secretary of Homeland Security, and similar spins offered by Robert Gibbs, the Presidential spokesperson. Americans are not well served by such spin. We deserve, indeed we demand better answers from our public officials. Most importantly, in addition to the reactive reviews of current security provisions and processes as announced by President Barack Obama, we deserve, indeed we demand, better proactive plans to prevent future attacks or attempted attacks.

Perhaps you believe that the security lapse was the fault of Northwest Airlines or the Dutch authorities at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam. Well indeed, shame on them for not having adequate security controls in place prior to the departure of NWA 253. However, I believe the problem is NOT limited to the lack of proper security on the departure end. I believe the United States is also at fault here.

The United States, through the Department of Homeland Security should no longer permit airplanes destined for U. S. airports to take off UNLESS the plane, crew, and passengers have passed more stringent security checks than were apparently in place in Amsterdam on Christmas day. Even before Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, attempted to take down American Airlines Flight 63 on December 22, 2001, the United States government should have had more adequate security checks in place.

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) is an extremely powerful explosive. Both Richard Reid, in 2001, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in 2009, smuggled PETN explosive on board their respective aircraft. Both thankfully tried and failed to successfully detonate this explosive. Had either succeeded, hundreds of passengers would have died as the aircraft plummeted to earth. Reid apparently hid the PETN in his shoes. As a result everybody boarding an aircraft in the United States today is required to remove their shoes and pass them through an x-ray machine. Abdulmutallab apparently hid the PETN by sewing it into the lining of his underwear. Will we now be required to remove our underwear and pass it through an x-ray machine. Will we be subjected to strip searches?

Shame on the transportation safety officials in 2001 to be so narrowly focused on preventing box cutters from being carried onto aircraft after 9-1-1. In 2001, we had a failure of imagination, a failure to plan for alternative means to bringing down a plane carrying hundreds of passengers. Now, eight years later, are we still suffering from a failure of imagination or a failure of leadership?

This past weekend, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security appeared on several Sunday talk shows. I found her responses to many questions to be superficial, non-responsive, and yes, disturbing. Apparently we are “in the process of reviewing the possible security lapses from NWA 253.” Her carefully couched answers provided little comfort to me. She was speaking from a political position not a position of leadership. And she was not the only politician who shows a lack of leadership on the issue of airline security.

This is a key issue for me. I voted for Barack Obama as President in 2008 because I believed he would represent a significant change from the policies and lack of leadership shown during the eight years of the prior administration. I must say, that on the issue of airline security I am deeply disappointed. The fact that the NWA 253 incident happened at all demonstrates a lack of leadership in this area. The administration’s responses to this incident have been disappointing at best.

Certainly we need to review what happened on NWA 253 on December 25, 2009. But we should have been showing more leadership prior to this incident so as to prevent this from happening in the first place. Failing to prevent Richard Reid from bringing PETN onto an aircraft in 2001 was a significant security lapse. Failing to prevent Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from bringing PETN onto an aircraft in 2009 is an even more significant security lapse. And it is a failure of leadership. Have we learned nothing from the Richard Reid incident and others in the succeeding eight years?

I believe the technology exists, and has existed for several years, to detect PETN on a person’s body – without requiring that person to remove shoes (and underwear) for x-ray, or strip searches, or pat-downs. I believe the technology exists to detect the presence of PETN in a reliable and non-invasive way. The failure to deploy existing technology over the last eight years is a failure of leadership. It is an example of politics prevailing over leadership.

What would I expect? What do I expect from the Obama Administration. I expect the Obama administrative to take a proactive, leadership position on airline passenger safety. I expect this administration to deploy available technology and to require all international points of origin to deploy this technology.

Obviously reviewing the circumstances leading to the significant security lapse on December 25, 2009 is of vital importance. But how many other times have substances been smuggled onto aircraft since 9-1-1. Why are passengers prevented from bringing water bottles or cans of soft drinks onto planes? Because we are reacting to another attempt to smuggle explosive materials onto an aircraft.

We cannot win this battle, we cannot close the security gaps by staying in reactive mode. We need proactive leadership, and we need it now. It starts by being candid with the American people and the people of the world.

A legal system based on Common Law relies on precedential case. In this system, cetain prior decisions of courts in a jurisdiction are binding on future decisions of courts in this same jurisdiction. However, prior court decisions may not necessarily be binding on a court even within  a particular jurisdiction.For example, decisions issued by appellate courts in a given jurisdiction are usually binding on all lower courts in that same jurisdiction, but are not binding on lower courts in different jurisdictions. Further, decisions of a lower court in a given jurisdiction are generally not binding on other lower courts in the same jurisdiction.

Common Law legal systems, therefore, rely on the principle of stare decisis. This principle states judges are obligated to obey precedents established by prior decisions. In recent years, during hearings by the Justice Committee of the United States Senate,  Supreme Court justice nominees are frequently asked their position with respect to the principle of stare decisis.

For example, Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973 after oral arguments on December 13, 1971 followed by a second oral argument on October 11, 1972. This case is generally considered to be a landmark case and one of the most socially and politically controversial cases in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 7-2 ruling the Court held that a woman had the right to an abortion for any reason up until the point where the fetus becomes viable. The Court based its ruling on a constitutional right to privacy based on the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth amendment.

It is not my intention to argue the merits for and against of Roe v. Wade. Rather I want to use this case, and the political debate that surrounds it, to explain why stare decisis is important to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most nominees, when questioned about whether they agree or disagree with the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, will refuse to take a position. Senators who publicly support a woman’s right to privacy and the right to an abortion will press a nominee to take a strong public position on stare decisis. It is hoped, I believe, that when a nominee to take a strong stance in favor of stare decisis, they will be forced to uphold Roe v Wade should a similar case come before the court.

The English Common Law system originated in the middle ages shortly after the Norman Conquest in 1066. The United States has a legal history that is strongly based on English Common Law.

The Federal Judiciary of the United States is not today a pure common law legal system. Prior to 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court acted like a common law court. The Supreme Court looked to prior decisions of other courts in the Federal  jurisdiction for precedent. Such precedent would be binding on decisions issued by the Supreme Court.

In another landmark ruling in 1938, Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts did not have the power to create new federal law when hearing civil claims of state law involving citizens of different states or non-U.S. citizens (diversity jurisdiction). Based on this ruling,  the law of the State where the case was originally filed would be applied in a diversity case. This ruling was significant because it held that there was no federal general common law. Federal courts after 1938 are limited to interpreting laws that originate elsewhere.

For the reasons above, I believe it is important to understand the role of Judicial Philosophy and Statutory Interpretation in the decision making process of the United States Supreme Court. That will be the thrust of this blog and future postings. Stay tuned….

In the 222 years following the Ratification of the Constitution, there have only been 27 amendments, or improvements to the original text. By Constitution was designed to be a stable foundation for a long-lasting democratic government. As such, the process of amending the Constitution is rather difficult. Amendments require a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress before they can be submitted to the States for ratification. Three fourths of the State Legislatures must vote in the affirmative before the amendment is ratified and added to the Constitution.

The first ten Amendments were ratified in 1791 and are collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights.

I have long been fascinated with the Judicial Branch of our government, in particular the role and history of the Supreme Court, and the diverse personalities of the Justices of the Supreme Court. In our history, there have been only 111 Justices. The Chief Justice is the head of the United States federal court system (The Judicial Branch), and the chief judge of the United States Supreme Court. The first Chief Justice was John Jay. In our history there have only been seventeen (17) Chief Justices.

Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution describes the judicial powers of The Judicial Branch. It states: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Section 2 of Article III describes Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, and Jury Trials. This section begins: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects”

The eleventh Amendment was ratified in 1795 and described Judicial Limits: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” In effect the eleventh amendment limited the Judicial powers originally laid out in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court (or High Court) is the highest judicial body in the United States. Currently is consists of the Chief Justice of the United States (John Roberts) and eight Associate Justices (the newest of whom is Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor). Justices have lifetime tenure which means that their term terminates only upon death, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.

The primary role of the United States Supreme Court is to serve as an appellate court. The court also has primary jurisdiction over a small range of cases. As an appellate court, most cases come before the court by way of petition for “writs of certiorari” or “cert.” The Supreme Court may review any case in the Federal Courts of Appeals “by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case”.

The Supreme Court can also review “final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision can be had.” as long as these judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.

The Supreme Court’s Rule 10 spells out the compelling reasons for granting a petition for cert. These reason include:

One of the key concepts I want to probe in this blog is described in the first reason above. Namely that the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to make new law. The Constitution is quite clear that it is responsibility of the Legislative Branch to make new law.

I believe there is much common misunderstanding as to where the line is drawn between making law and interpreting law. In future postings to this blog I hope to probe this misunderstanding in greater detail.

For now, let me state my general perspective. When the Supreme Court issues a decision I personally might disagree with, that does NOT mean that the Court is necessarily legislating (making law)  rather than interpreting the law. When a Justice of the Supreme Court authors an opinion or dissent that I personally might disagree with or when another Justice concurs with an opinion or dissent that I personally might disagree with, that does NOT mean that the Court is legislating rather than interpreting the law. Disagreement, I might add is a fundamental characteristic of the Supreme Court. It is rare that the Supreme Court ever issues a unanimous opinion – either to grant or deny the Petitioner’s case.

So what is really behind all this disagreement, or should I state in more positive terms, differences of opinion? What is an activist judge? What is judicial restraint? In the next few “issues” or postings to this blog, I want to take a look at Judicial Philosophy. That is the philosophy a judge, in this case a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, uses to interpret the law.

To be continued….

It made me think. There seems to be a lot in common between passionate people and perfectionists. A lot of the characteristics Harry describes about passionate people seem to apply to perfectionists.

Then it hit me! Perfectionists are passionate about achieving perfection. Perfection is a difficult, if not impossible goal. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. For some mediocre is good enough. But perfectionists, by their very nature, hardly ever achieve perfection – at least in their own eyes.

Perfectionists, therefore, I think are more frustrated in general than those for whom mediocre is good enough. Mediocre is easy to achieve.

For those for whom mediocre is good enough they achieve their goals easily and without frustration.

So which is better? Being passionate about perfection- or being willing to accept mediocre?

I submit the passionate person who seeks perfection but rarely, if ever, achieves it is the person to admire.

I am not sure that being a perfectionist is a choice one makes. I think it maybe a combination of nature and nurture that makes one passionate about perfection.

This may also be true for people who are willing to accept mediocrity. I submit it is easier to help such a person reach for higher goals, than it is to help a perfectionist seek more reasonable goals.

When I was a child, I never remember being concerned about my safety when I walked over a mile to school (starting in first grade). My biggest fear back then was being attacked and bitten by one or two barking, aggressive dogs who “owned the street I was walking on.”

Is the world today so different from the world I grew up in? Are children today more at risk than they were thirty or forty years ago? Are child predators more numerous today? Are there more sex offenders today? I don’t know the answers to these questions.

Maybe the answer is that the world today is not so much different from the world I grew up in. Maybe with television, cable, satellite radio, the internet (WWW) we all have constant access to news (both good and bad). Maybe it just seems that the world is different today, and not in a positive way.

I do know that the impact of television today is much more significant than when I was a child. Back then my family had one TV.. then two.. then three. All of them were Black & White.

CBS Evening News began as a fifteen-minute broadcast in 1948. In 1963, shortly before the assassination of JFK, CBS News with Walter Cronkite was expanded to 30 minutes. Soon all of the major networks followed with their own thirty-minute news broadcasts.

In 1980 Cable New Network (CNN) became the first cable news network to provide 24-hour television news coverage. A couple of years later CNN2 began broadcasting 30-minute “headline news” shows, repeated around the clock. Soon CNN2 became Headline News and is now HLN. I remember, years ago, the byline was “You give us twenty minutes, we’ll give you the news!”

Today we have many 24-hour “news” networks. Many of these, in my opinion, are less focused on news and more focused on current events or political opinion.

On HLN today, Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell each have one-hour shows focusing on issues of justice. These shows are rebroadcast several times each night and repeat during the weekend. These shows have brought new meaning to the words “breaking news.” Often these shows focus on the same one or two events, often about crimes involving children. Most of the time the conversation, video highlights, sound bites, commentary, and “breaking news” are the same over and over, night after night, week after week, month after month.

These shows and those from other cable and traditional networks keep the “bad news” in our face constantly around the clock. Even the cartoon shows for young children seem vastly different from the “Bugs Bunny”, “Porky Pig”, and “Road Runner” cartoons I remember from childhood. The characters seem more scary and evil, the plots seem more violent and mean.

Once again, I ask is the world so different from the world of thirty or forty years ago? Or is it our perception of the world that has changed?

Finally I ask is television on balance a positive or negative influence on our children. Do parents today casually turn on TV so it can be a distraction for their kids… a surrogate baby sitter? Do parents really understand what their children are watching, and how these shows impact their learning, behavior, and ability to focus. I often think that Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is really Television-Clicker-Commercial Overload Disorder (TCCOD).

I challenge everyone to watch TV, with no distractions and no clickers for one hour. Can you do it without getting out of your chair to change the channel? How are those commercials, by the way?

Grab a book, listen to a music CD, spend time with your children… with the TV turned off for a whole day.  There.. it’s not so bad is it?

For example, I ask people to name a prior recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who was *more* deserving of the award at the time they received it. I usually only hear two names: Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Jimmy Carter is often recognized for his work towards Middle East peace, and the Camp David accords. If the measure of worthiness for the Peace Prize is accomplishment, what long-lasting accomplishment did Jimmy Carter achieve. Is the situation in the Middle East better or worse today than when the Camp David Accord was signed?

With respect to Al Gore, he is often recognized for his work in the area of Global Warming. Did Al Gore achieve anything with his Global Warming campaign? Is the world today better or worse today with respect to Global Warming than it was when he received his award?

To my point that the Nobel Peace Prize is overrated- turn off your computers and answer the following question. Name the last 25 recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Failing that Name the last 15 recipients, or the last ten, or even the last five recipients. If the Nobel Peace Prize is anything other than a momentary recognition of an individual for that person’s efforts and vision (rather than achievements)… why is nobody I talk to able to list more than three to five prior recipients.

To those who feel Obama is not deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, I ask – who were the other people being considered for the award this year. What achievements did they have that caused them to be nominated for the Peace Prize. Which of these people is more deserving than President Obama?

Then I ask… name the important accomplishments of Jimmy Carter. Often the Camp David accord is mentioned, but rarely is the Nobel Peace Prize mentioned. In a few weeks people will remember the Camp David accord but will probably forget that Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize. Or that Gore received the Nobel Peace prize.

Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Did Arafat leave a lasting legacy of peace? I think not. He was a terrorist until his dying day.

Who is Martti Ahtisaari, and why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize? Who were Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank? Who is Wangari Maathai? Who is Shirin Ebadi? What did Kim Dae Jung achieve? Why did Mohamed ElBaradei win the Peace Prize? Kofi Annan also won, what achievements did he have in the name of World Peace?
In addition to Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama, these were the other recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in the last decade. How do I know? I had to look it up!!! I bet you would too!

I simply say… whether you like President Obama or not. Whether you agree with his foreign policy initiatives or not. Whether you think he is better or worse than George W. Bush with respect to World Peace. Don’t get hung up on the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. It is a nice award. It comes with a bundle of cash. But it is a forgettable award.

To those who say that this year’s award is political, I totally agree. And I am not trying to compare any of the Nobel Peace Laureates against each other. I am trying to make the point that the award itself is and has long been irrelevant.

Remind me again who the 2008 recipient was. And did you honestly remember Martti Ahtisaari or did you look him up before your post. What did he accomplish? In fact what were his efforts focused on specifically.

I could not answer my own questions here, without doing research. Yes, it is easy to do this research today. The WWW offers instant answers. But my point is the Nobel Peace Prize is irrelevant and forgettable. This is because most of the recipients are irrelevant and forgettable.

Some have said that there was not a lot of thought put into the nominating process this year. But when was there a year when more thought went into the nominations? The Nobel Peace Prize nominating process is, in my opinion, a farce. Thousands of people every year are invited to submit nominations (which cannot be revealed for fifty years). 

To be qualified to submit a nomination you simply must be: Members of national assemblies and governments of states; Members of international courts; University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes; etc.

In 2008 there were reported to be almost 200 nominees from whom Martti Ahtisaari rose to the top.

Who was the most qualified prior recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize? On my list would be Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., Elie Wiesel, and Nelson Mandela. Who comes to mind as someone deserving but not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. On my list is Mahatma Gandhi, who was nominated in 5 different years, first in 1937 and lastly in 1948, the year he was assassinated.

I conclude the Nobel Peace Price is irrelevant. The passionate debate is about Obama. He could have won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy, Medal of Honor, Key to the City, MegaBucks, PowerBall – and the debate would be passionate. The debate is a political debate – not a debate that proves the relevance of the Nobel prizes. There was none of this passion when the award went to Martti Ahtisaari last year. The prize is the same, the recipient is the reason.