You certainly have the right to an opinion that Bush should have put 300 million people at risk against the possibility that Saddam was bluffing.... but then again you have no responsibility for that particular gamble

What the hell are you talking about? Do you honestly believe Sadaam was threatening the USA? Or that he could have affected more than a tiny portion of the US? 300 million people at risk. Hell, that's like saying you put 300 million people at risk every time you get behind the wheel of a car.

Sadaam had nothing at all to do with alQueda or the events on 9/11/2007. You had more to do with it than he did.

Or do you mean when Saddam was bluffing that he'd actually destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction, which he had. The ones the inspectors said he didn't have. The ones inspectors wanted to keep looking for 'cause they hadn't found any evidence of any yet and their verification was keeping him from developing more?

You can't have meant that bluff 'cause Bush knew he wasn't bluffing, that's why Bush Co had to go make up fake evidence and sell it to the world.

Bush put 300 million people at risk the first time simply by becoming president. He put them at risk by subverting democracy and getting his buddies on the Supreme Court to install him instead of having a recount. He put them at risk again by ignoring terrorism and again by ignoring environmental and economic problems in the nation. He put them at risk again by invading Iraq because his daddy didn't "finish the job". He put them at risk again by declaring "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring 'em On!" He put them at risk again by becoming president for a second term through lies, manipulation and intimidation. He tried to put them at risk again by trying to dismantle Social Security. He put them at risk again by vetoing healthcare for poor children. And on and on and on and on...

How do you feel about killing monks? All for it are you?

Nope, hate it. Shame there's not a damn thing we can do about it militarily because of Bush tying down and depleting our military in a war he chose from personal pique.

Sadly, Asimov is dead and the Nobel cannot be posthumously awarded. His expansive and prolific writings in both fiction and non-fiction were surely deserving of such an award. He wrote about what it means to be human and explained the world through readable, detailed prose. His writings were inspiring and illuminating, which is what the winner of a Nobel should write. Sadly he died long ago.

Dystopian futures don't just belong to the cyberpunks

Dystopian futures have been around for far longer than the cyberpunks. The truth of the matter is that SF regularly addresses issues that the Nobel winners are lauded for finally getting around to. It is as though the Nobel is a prize for "normal" writers for finally catching up to SF. SF is ignored here for the same reason it is looked down upon by many "serious" reviewers and editors: they don't understand it. It is too advanced for them, so they pretend it is all rocketships and Buck Rogers.

Had Doris Lessing been best known for her SF, she'd never have won the prize.

At the World SF Convention in Japan this year, I was talking with Robert Silverberg and he happened to mention that no SF author had won the Nobel Prize. I believe this is still true. While these two that have been mentioned may have written some fiction that could be considered fantastical or is SF, neither was a SF author. They were authors who wrote some SF and managed to win despite that. Both are considered "serious" authors. When someone wins who is considered a SF author, then SF will have won a Nobel.

The angry left doesn't dream of Bin Laden in the crosshairs of Hellfire missile; the angry left fantacizes about a war crimes trial for Bush and Cheney.

You have an amazing track record, how are you able to be wrong every single time you open your mouth? 100% wrong is amazing.

1) it isn't the "angry left" wanting a war crimes trial for Bush and Cheney, it is anyone that honestly looks at what they've done.

2) As a progressive, I'd be perfectly happy to see Bin Laden in jail, or failing that, killed in the field. Your buddy Bush is the one that said he's "not a high priority".

3) Personally I'm not "dreaming" of either. If you are, you should likely up your meds.

So keep up the bad work Heffalump. Your delusions are your own and no-one can take them from you. Stay perfect(ly wrong)

I'm not saying she doesn't belong in the field of SF. I'm with the majority of SF fans, we call all that you mentioned SF. I'm saying that she wasn't given a Nobel becuase she's an SF author, she was given one because she's a "serious" author, despite the fact that she wrote some SF.

I'm hopeful this is a sign the Nobel committee will get off its high horse and recognize that SF is literature, though I doubt they will.

If you listen to most media accounts that mention her SF, it comes across as "My god, can you believe she wrote some SF! How gauche!"

You can get "tired" of all the bickering about labels and subgroupings if you want. Most fans still just call it all SF.

I presume that any coalition military officer who is captured by terrorists will be treated abominably, no matter what we do in our interrogation techniques. Because that is what the Islamofascist terrorists do.

So then that's what we should do too? We're no better than the ones we deplore? If they're "enemies of civilization" and we act like them, doesn't that make us enemies of civilization too?

So much for America setting the standard to which others should live.