In this week's Global Pulse episode, Obama's Nobel War and Peace Prize, host Erin Coker asks whether the Norwegian Nobel Committee made the right choice in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. Watch the episode and share your thoughts below!

Following the unexpected announcement in Oslo last week, much of the domestic press attributed Obama's Nobel win to his international appeal, particularly in Europe.  The Christian Science Monitor notes the award indicated "a particularly European appreciation" of the U.S. president, while an AOL News headline reads "Obama's Nobel Reflects Europe's Approval."

"The puzzled and heated domestic reaction…is only the latest instance of a gulf in perception between the two sides of the Atlantic," writes James Graff. "The Nobel Committee's decision is a European vote of confidence on the way this particular American president is setting the global agenda."

There is little doubt that Obama is popular among Europeans. A recent Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Survey reported that 93 percent of Germans and 86 percent of Britons said they had confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. Similarly, 91 percent in France rated Obama favorably -- a dramatic shift from 2008 when only 13 percent of French expressed confidence in George W. Bush.

However, even the U.S. president’s transatlantic supporters were baffled and perplexed by the win, calling the award premature and, like their U.S. counterparts, questioning what Obama had actually done to warrant such an honor.  
 
"It used to be the rule that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to politicians if they could point to tangible political successes," writes Claus Christian Malzahn in a Der Spiegel editorial. "Awarding him the Nobel Prize now is like giving a medal to a marathon runner who has just managed the first few kilometers."

The U.K.'s Times Online took the criticism even further, calling the decision to award the prize to Obama "absurd," and accusing the committee of making a "mockery" of the award.

So if not an endorsement from Europe, what was behind the Nobel shakeup?

Some international media outlets point to former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland, appointed earlier this year to head the Nobel committee, as the driving force behind Obama's win. The Christian Science Monitor's global news blog notes that Jagland "has an activist vision for the Nobel as a prize that can spur peace, rather than simply reward its achievement."

France's Le Monde was even more blunt: "The former Nobel Committee president would have never nominated Obama."

Regardless of the politics behind the award, the reaction to Obama's Nobel is a reminder that action, not vision, will be most crucial in the president's long-term success at home and abroad.

Do you have a health care story? Visit Link TV's Real Conversations webcam site and tell us about it.

Health care reform is the hottest topic in U.S. news media this summer. One question that arises in this debate is whether the government should spend the money to overhaul the old system, or use the money to pay off federal deficits?
 
As one of the 47 million uninsured Americans, I think that the health care system in the U.S. is terrible. I earn barely enough to cover my expenses, and at the end of the month, I am left with very little extra cash to spend on something as important and necessary as health insurance.
 
I looked into buying insurance, and since I’m very healthy with no prior medical conditions, I expected to see insurance premiums of $50 - $85 a month. I was shocked to find that the lowest premiums started at $150 - $200, excluding dental or vision!! There was no way I could afford those prices.
 
Fortunately, I live in San Francisco, a very conscious and progressive city, where two years ago the City and County introduced a program called "Healthy San Francisco." This program covers primary care for all city residents, and the pay structure is based on income. I have now been with this program for one year and, although it doesn’t include major medical care, I’m happy.
 
But I began to wonder what would happen if I broke my leg. Would I be able to afford the hospital bills, or would they bankrupt me? A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation [PDF link] found that: "Every week, thousands of Americans file for bankruptcy related to medical costs [and] 42% of adults report having problems accessing health care due to cost." I definitely favor a system of health care that benefits everyone, especially those that cannot afford it. After all, the rich will always be able to afford health care whether it is universal or not.

Here’s a cartoon that says it all.
 
How do other developed countries manage their citizens’ health care? PBS Frontline’s "Sick Around the World" website describes how five of the world’s developed nations go about taking care of their sick.
 
A completely socialized health care system might not work in the U.S., but universal care with regulated options that are based on fair-market values just might work. While providing access to all, it will create motivation for insurers and providers to offer the best service they can.
 
In this week's Global Pulse episode, Health Care: America and the World, host John Hamilton asks for your health care stories. Share your thoughts at Link's Real Conversations site!

Obama declassifies Bush administration documents that detail and attempt to legalize what some have called "torture techniques." While the U.S media seem focused on the political ramifications, media worldwide present the brutality of torture and point the finger of blame directly at Bush.

SOURCES: FOX, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Daily Show, U.S; TV5, France; Press TV, Iran; TVN, Chile; Al Jazeera English, Qatar

U.S. TV news finally focuses on Afghanistan - why did it take so long? And what will they show us? Since President Obama announced plans to deploy another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, the U.S. networks are finally setting up bureaus there. But while the American focus is on U.S. troops and the political implications of Obama's policies, the international media is telling a different story. From the Middle East, there are reports of missile strikes, civilian casualties, and Pentagon ineptitude. And Russia reminds the U.S. that they have "been there, done that" - with disastrous results.

SOURCES: CNN, U.S; NBC News, U.S; Al Jazeera English, Qatar; South Asia Newsline, India; Press TV, Iran; New York Times, U.S; Bloomberg.com, U.S; RT, Russia.

- Global Pulse -

Comment on program page

As Global Pulse reports this week, US media attention towards Afghanistan has spiked in response to President Obama's recent call for the deployment of an additional 17,000 troops to central Asia. But does this new attention reflect lessons learned from Iraq and other recent US interventions?

In Henry Kissinger's case, his Op-ed in today's Washington Post applies creaky Cold War "containment" metaphors to the Afghan conflict, with the spread of "jihadism" across Asia standing in for communism in a previous era. At Time's Swampland, Joe Klein voices similar doomsday fears of "terrorist infestations" but with a focus on Pakistan, which he claims holds the true key to regional stability.

Meanwhile at Informed Comment, Juan Cole spotlights Al Jazeera English's report on the diverse groups that the US considers to be the "Taliban" in Afghanistan, a conflation that could hinder efforts to improve local tribal and militia cooperation with US forces. Cole further questions how the US plans to restore its military supply route to Afghanistan given current tense relations with nearly every neighboring country.

Will the new US media and military focus on Afghanistan produce a more wise and sensible policy? As always, let us know your comments in the episode section above.

The Taliban have taken control of a northern district in Pakistan known as Swat, wreaking havoc throughout the valley, even as Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, arrives on a fact-finding tour of the region. The Pakistani army isn't able to stop the Taliban; why not?

SOURCES: BBC, U.K; Russia Today, Russia; South Asia Newsline, India; Asia Today, China; Al Jazeera English, Qatar; Press TV, Iran; ABC, U.S; NBC, U.S; UCTV, U.S.

- Global Pulse -

Comment on program page

This week's Global Pulse examines the disturbing recent rise of Taliban activity in Pakistan, including in the previously stable Swat Valley. Now, observers wonder, what can the Obama administration do to ensure that Pakistan does not become further radicalized? 

Several writers in the Pakistani blogosphere fear that the military is not yet a strong match for the rising popular appeal of the Taliban in regions like Swat. Abdullah Saad sees a long history of popular sympathy for religious fundamentalism in the area, and that the military and government continue to underestimate its appeal. Ambreen Kazmi at Chowrangi points to FM radio use by radical clerics in Swat as an effective tool to organize popular support, particularly among women, for Taliban policies.

And finally the venerable Syed Saleem Shahzad at Asia Times interviews a top Taliban leader in Swat, who notes Western and Pakistani government support for the Taliban in its infancy in the late 1970s, a connection that continues to cloud the ties between Pakistani authorities and the Taliban today.

What options then does the Obama administration have in the region? Check out further analysis here and here, as well as do let us know your own ideas in the episode comments above.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that Illinois will move ahead with construction of a new power plant that aims to implement Obama-approved "clean coal" technology. But is there anything even remotely "green" about this plan to expand coal power production? The American Coalition for Clean Coal Technology, a coal power lobby organization, thinks so and uses an Obama campaign speech to prove their point in a recent ad below. For a more sobering take, check out views expressed here and here.

- Global Pulse -

 
- Global Pulse -