That I'm nice, or optimistic/happy. Although oftentimes this is backhanded. I'm not sure why- people act like my being positive is a bad thing!

More often? Ummm.... well, I don't really need any more compliments. Not that I get a great amount, and not that I get a small amount, but I don't have any I particularly desire.
   

I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too!

I suppose today is Columbus Day, then.
Happy Columbus Day, everybody!
Now we acknowledge (for how many truly celebrate it?) the day that the Europeans realized the earth had another continent on it.
Who knew?!
Anyway, but before that there were people who lived in America. They were Natives (read: their ancestors had come from Asia SO long ago it didn't even count anymore. But actually, maybe they just started out in America? Who can REALLY prove what happened?).
So the story goes that good ol' Chris and his band of merry men stole land from the poor unsuspecting Native Americans, beating them down and treating them as inferiors without just cause.
What horrible people.
But are they? I mean, think about it- Europeans weren't starting anything new. Sure, Europe was very imperialistic. But in a way, so were the Native Americans.
Perhaps imperialistic isn't quite the right word to describe them. But many of the tribes were not very peaceful, and most tribes fought one another for land (e.g., warring tribe fights a peaceful one, gains land, thus peaceful tribe is involved too) and for resources. They pushed one another out of the good areas of the country in order to take for themselves.
Which is exactly what the Europeans did to the Native Americans.
And why not? They had been doing it for quite a long time, probably since one tribe discovered that another existed and had more buffalo than they did. They fought and kidnapped one another, just as the Europeans did to them. Europe shot, the Natives removed scalps. Honestly, I'd rather be shot dead than left with my head open and exposed until I died. *shudder*
You might say, "but the Europeans were much more advanced! How could they do that to someone so much weaker than them?" Bull. Of course, they were more advanced as far as weaponry and tools went. And of COURSE they used this to their advantage, just as the more streamlined fighters and workers of the Natives took advantage over lesser tribes. Besides which, the Native Americans certainly had something to offer. They knew nature very well, and could use it well, unlike many Europeans, who had some knowledge of nature in regards to hunting and logging but didn't use it well in terms of fighting. Thus, Guerilla Warfare- the Native Americans totally owned at it, and the Europeans still stood in their stupid little rows, waiting to be shot at. Certainly, bows, arrows, spears, and daggers were pretty nasty weapons, as well, especially considering the guns they were up against were not NEARLY as accurate nor deadly as they are today. (Well, that is debatable. Infection was much more difficult to treat at the time so the guns were deadly but also harder to aim properly.)
The point is that it did happen; the Native Americans were oppressed by the Europeans who came to the continent. But they were fighting and oppressing and stealing from one another long before the Europeans ever got a chance to. It was nothing new. So it is unfair that the Europeans should always come out the bad guys, with little or no regard to the often brutal ways of the Natives.

(Note: So much of this info could be screwed up... it's late and I'm tired and this is purely opinion, straight from my head and nothing more. Like, the only things are books and lessons I've learned from in the past that stuck with me. It doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just means some of this could be inaccurate.)

Once upon a time, I was told, "Don't listen to what a person says; watch what they do." Actions, not words, are what really matters. This is how we pick out the hypocrites.

Apparently the committee who decided to give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't think so.

As of yet, Barack Obama has not done anything to create peace- he speaks of it, but has not taken any action. In 1895, Alfred Nobel wrote in his will that a peace prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

So far as I have seen, Obama has done nothing but spit words. And since when have we been able to take a politician's word for granted?

Here's something that shook me a little bit:

"The secretive committee declined to say who nominated Obama. In Nobel tradition, nominations are kept secret for 50 years, unless those making the submissions go public about their picks. This year's nominations included Colombian activist Piedad Cordoba, Afghan woman's rights activist Simi Samar and Denis Mukwege, a physician in war-torn Congo who opened a clinic to help rape victims."

Simi Samar is a woman's rights activist. Most would agree (in America, at the very least) that women should be seen as equal to men, and that denying women equal rights is an atrocity. In fact, we have a fairly equal country today, and yet people still see room for advancement.

Afghanistan does not have nearly the same amount of equality as do America and European countries (I can't really attest for any other area of the world- actually, I can't exactly attest for Europe either, as I haven't been there.). Simi Samar is working for a very good cause, one that not enough people in that situation can reasonably stand up for, and that is very well deserving of a prize.

Denis Mukwege opened a clinic to help rape victims in the midst of a violent society. Many countries in Africa take no issue with the rape of women, and this man manages to see past this and reach out to traumatized victims when no one else will.

I don't know very much about Piedad Cordoba, but she has apparently worked to free hostages from a rebel group in Columbia. Apparently she has close ties with Hugo Chavez, however, and as he is a very controversial political figure (some believe he threatens the possibility of democracy in Venezuela) it is more understandable that she may have lost. But she still tries to help people and bring peace, saving lives and freeing people from enemy hands.

Barack Obama... has told us that he will bring hope and change. I'm not sure what kind of hope I'm supposed to be feeling, or what kind of change will happen (because so far, he has closed down a major prison and attempted to pass bills which have not gone through). Despite his proposed healthcare plan, it may not go through, and even if it does, it is unclear whether or not that will benefit America (I'm not going to get into my opinions on that matter. That is an entry for another day).

Inspiring hope is not such a difficult feat. One could get the same from a therapist, or a friend. Or even a pet. Dogs and cats can make people feel like their life is worth something, because there is at least that one friend who loves them unconditionally, thus giving them hope for the future.

The only difference is, Obama gets to say it on television.

Well, if you put ANYONE on television to talk about something moral, political, or otherwise controversial, someone will get hope out of it, just by knowing they're not alone in their convictions and beliefs.

In any case, hope and peace are not the same thing.

The committee chose Obama to help promote him. "Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as 'support and a commitment for Obama.'"

...and possibly to put down Bush. "

The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle."

Damn right I'm not happy. If a group of people blew up part of your country, killing thousands of people (and aiming to kill even more), would you just sit there and take it? Doesn't that leave it open for them to attack again? Clearly they did not want to sit and talk- they wanted to fight. Therefore, it was not because Bush believed war solves problems, but because the terrorists did, that we went to war.

If America had just let Pearl Harbor go, we could be much worse off today. The WWII generation is often seen as America's greatest. That's when we were strongest. If someone hit us, we hit them back, and they never bothered with us again.

But now everything gets strung out because we're hesitant about fighting back. Instead of punching, we swat. Who in the world is going to be afraid to attack us if we just want to "talk"?

Until Barack Obama actually does something to make sure our country will not be attacked, or puts action towards a good cause instead of just promising he will, he will not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Words are empty. A man or woman can say anything he or she wants to and then turn around and do something else. Just because a committee decides something does not mean it is well-deserved.

After all, even Adolf Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year.

(Actually, it just so happens that he was ALSO once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't win, but it's still an interesting fact.)

(I used a few articles for this: http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/1498476-p2.html and http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/252/story/867945.html)