Weren't very good, but then again he was as safe a bet as Bill Clinton. Regardless, both were better off than MJ or W, as well they should have been--if only because Obama would be hard-pressed to fuck up as royally as George Jr. But, that's also why it was a stupid move (in the words of some diplo-type "Absolutely stupid"--thanks M.) to give Barack the award: he hasn't really done anything yet, and the few things he has done aren't worth the approbation. And, perhaps not as importantly but more annoyingly, this is just the kind of thing the Right will use to support their horror that the world is sucking at the teat of Obama-nation.
Still, what's most disturbing about the whole affair is this creepy graphic
The Economist used in their
reaction piece about the award.
Heard George Packer (of
The New Yorker) on the radio say Obama should not accept it (didn't know it was an option), that they should put it on hold, so to speak, until he has accomplished something. I completely agree.
Otherwise, I've mostly been creeped-out by science. Like the oncoming war of man versus machine ala Terminator. There's the
singularity that Ray Kurzweil talks about, explained on this
podcast from Future Tense, a weekly science/tech show. Basically, the rate of technological advance will increase so much that soon we'll be able to live indefinitely, if only virtually. But first computers are just going to get smarter than we are, hence the possible catastrophe. According to
The Economist, it will be here soon.
"How soon before evolvable machines become cleverer than people? Little over a decade is the current consensus. One such machine has already been awarded a patent for something it quietly invented on its own."
Crap.
Alongside the computers outsmarting us, not only will medical technology increase, but we'll be incorporating computers into our biology, like some of us already (or soon will)
have. Though for now technology only tacks on a few years, eventually it will allow us to live a really, really long time. Ready for that?
"'Very long lives are not the distant privilege of remote future generations -- very long lives are the probable destiny of most people alive now in developed countries,' Kaare Christensen of the Danish Aging Research Center wrote on Friday in a study in the Lancet medical journal.
Many governments in developed nations are already making moves toward raising the typical age of retirement to try to cope with aging populations."
What? As soon as people start living a little longer they talk about making us work more? Screw you
Reuters.
"The researchers said this was an important strategy, and added that if part-time work was considered for more of the workforce, that could have yet more benefits.
"If people in their 60s and early 70s worked much more than they do nowadays, then most people could work fewer hours per week.... Preliminary evidence suggests that shortened working weeks over extended working lives might further contribute to increases in life expectancy and health."
Oh, okay, I like the sound of that. But still:
"'People younger than 85 years are living longer and, on the whole, are able to manage their daily activities for longer.'
But for people older than 85, the situation is less clear, the researchers said. Data are sparse, and there is widespread concern that exceptional longevity -- with ever larger numbers living to 100 and more -- could be grim for the people themselves and the societies they live in."
Crap.
Sex-master wrote: