I said Fridays will be devoted to faith (and this one still will) unless there is breaking news, and unfortunately, today there is breaking news that cannot be ignored:
U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for offering the world hope and striving for nuclear disarmament in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.
The bestowal of one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo. The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. . . .Obama’s press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt “humbled” by the award, a senior administration official said.
Last night, completely unrelated to all of this, I twittered that I was beginning to feel like President Obama was Roy Schieder in All That Jazz, waking up every morning to look into his mirror and smile, “it’s Showtime!”
This, I guess, is his Oscar. Or his Golden Globe.
Or it is Norway’s attempt to soothe the Ego that last week left Denmark so wounded. Or it’s attempt to say, “we really do love you, Obama, please don’t throw us under the bus where you’ve thrown England, Israel, Poland, the Dalai Lama, France and the Pope, to whom you recently lied! We’re your friends, just like Castro, Chavez and Gaddafi! We’ll help you to define down terrorism!
My email box is loaded* with gloating gleeful idiocy from the left, all of it in the form of “nannynannybooboo, look what we have. A pretty box…” They’re not interested in whether the box has anything in it, but it sure is pretty. And all Obama had to do for it was say “hope” a bunch of times, take down a defense shield, do nothing but talk while Iran goes nuclear and treat Israel rather badly.
After Obama helps the world take the US dollar out of currency, there will be no further awards because none will be big enough. He’ll simply have to become the King of the World, which is pretty much what he’s been campaigning for, all along.
I want to know why Michelle Obama did not share the award with him. She has done every bit as much as President Obama in bringing that nebulous notion of “hope” to the world, and she strives as hard as he does for whatever it is he is striving for.
Barack and Michelle seem to have a strong marriage and a lovely family. Since Oslo is obviously giving this award to Obama based on nothing more than the fact that it feels like it, they should have at least tried to find something meaningful behind it. They actually could have done that -and found a way to save face and restore some value to this absurd prize- had they included Michelle (and hell, even Malia and Sasha, and Mrs. Robinson, for that matter) and bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize upon The Obama Family for being a shining example of healthy marriage, family values and intergenerational connectedness to a world that is watching the elderly become increasingly despised and undervalued, fatherless communities implode and destroy themselves, shack-ups take the place of real commitment and (at the other extreme) ideas of marriage that are (despite assurances from Obama’s own adviser) oppressive, exploitative and harmful to women and children.
The Nobel Committee, fools that they are, just threw their grand prize at a man who -outside of making a very excellent marriage- has done nothing; his own supporters admit that Obama has not earned it. Giving the prize to The Obama Family is something that actually could instruct the world and give it genuine “hope,” and something that everyone can strive for – commitment and depth of feeling!
But in all likelihood, in their cartoon world, that would have seemed so very bourgeois to sophisticated, worldly Oslo, who has chosen meaninglessness over substance. And for that, I suppose, this award is a perfect marriage, of sorts.
Meanwhile, you’d better not do anything but fall down in praise of this award, says Ed Morrissey:
Even in a political environment where the two major parties send out ridiculous ding-dong reactions to events, this takes the cake. [The DNC] argues (almost assuredly uncomprehendingly) for a fuehrerprinzip where the head of state must never be questioned or criticized, lest one become a traitor to the fatherhomeland.
So, shut up and give empty praise to this empty award given to emptiness, or you are worse than the Taliban, whom this president says are not really that bad.
In Oslo they’re saying, “heh, let’s see him send more troops to Afghanistan, now!”
Obama says…nothing and of course, accepts it. He accepts it on behalf of the world he wishes to create and rule. And in his remarks, he says he is charged to “end a war” against “ruthless enemies.” Not WIN the war…end it. Every word is slick, but as much as can be expected, too.
A smarter response would have been, “thank you, but please wait until I do something…”
We might as well laugh. And laugh.
*The early morning glee-notes tapered in light of the laughter.
Schippert on Twitter: Last week “The Ego has landed” this week We have liftoff
Kim Priestap: “He won for wanting to spread hope and peace around the world. If that’s all it takes to get the award, then every beauty pageant contestant should have received one, too.”
Roundup (check back for additions throughout the day) :
Start here: With Instapundit
Washington Examiner: Can Obama legally accept this award while in office?
Jonah Goldberg: Nails it
Althouse: Even the French don’t think he’s earned it
Reuters: America asks “why”
No, the American PRESS wants this: “Americans want to be loved…”
Even some in Press: realize this is stupid
The Corner: keep scrolling
James Pethokoukis: How Obama can earn it
Arafat: Something in common
Byron York: even pro-Obama press stunned
Malkin: “Rather than recognizing anything concrete…”
Allah: Am I awake?
Melanie Philips: Embarrassment for his supporters
Don Surber: Looks at Obama’s accomplishments
Kaus says: If Obama is smart he’ll turn it down. He won’t.
Times UK: A Mockery
Walesa: So soon? Yes, they’re in a great hurry.
Deacon Greg: Pax Obama
Sweetness & Light: History of Nobel Prize
Radio Patriot: Has more
Accurate title: The Don Draper Prize
Rubin: It makes perfect sense
Okie: Spewwww & a roundup
Brutally Honest: Ugh
Victor Davis Hanson: The Power of Payback
Maggie’s Farm: Likes it
Examiner: Help Obama win the Heisman!
October 9th, 2009 | 12:10 pm | #1
[...] The Anchoress is being bombarded by readers from the Left that can’t contain their glee: My email box is loaded with gloating gleeful idiocy from the left, all of it in the form of “nannynannybooboo, look what we have. A pretty box…” They’re not interested in whether the box has anything in it, but it sure is pretty. And all Obama had to do for it was say “hope” a bunch of times, take down a defense shield, do nothing but talk while Iran goes nuclear and treat Israel rather badly. [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 12:12 pm | #2
(reposted from earlier and updated) –
The prize is UNIVERSALLY seek as a total joke, even by those on the left.
After a couple of moments of reflection, my thoughts are — fine. It’s good to give it to him. After a while the bulls**t piles up so high that even the libs can’t deny it.
Rather than boost Obama, this will be the prick that bursts the balloon of his deification, and it will be an albatross around his neck, as Politico puts it. At the same time, Rush echoes what my second thought was — this is intended to pressure Obama into continuing his weak and ineffectual foreign policy of bashing the U.S., coddling and appeasing thugs, and turning his back on those in the world who aspire to freedom. In Afghanistan, that means the old tried-and-true Democrat policy of dithering for a while, letting American casualties pile up, before running away so that all the sacrifice was for nothing, and so as to embolden the enemy.
Meanwhile, other world leaders (who have a little personal pride themselves) are sure to be disgusted with giving the award to someone they already know to be a done-nothing blowhard.
What a farce. So, this is what, the third “f**k Bush” award they have given (after Jimmy and Algore)? What a laughable farce. Even the libs won’t be willing to destroy their credibility defending this.
October 9th, 2009 | 12:20 pm | #3
Make no mistake, this lifetime achievement award, together with all the other symbols and mantras of Obamaism, will blow up in his face like a nuclear bomb.
It will be used, again and again, by his opponents to show just what a post-American, do-nothing empty suit Barack. Hussein. Obama. Mmm, mmm, mmm, is, just like every continued crashing of the economy is greeted by “how you like that hope and change”?
October 9th, 2009 | 12:20 pm | #4
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Anchoress. The Anchoress said: The #Nobel wld have been more meaningful if they'd given it to Michelle Obama & the kids! http://tinyurl.com/ygepbcy I'm serious! [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 12:28 pm | #5
The Taliban has spoken out on this award and they are not happy campers!
October 9th, 2009 | 12:30 pm | #6
[...] The Anchoress breaks a vow! The news that Barak Obama is receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace is too …. Needless to say, most of the citizens opposing healthcare have little regard for Nobel Prizes [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #7
Anchoress: This news is going viral, and it is making President Obama a laughingstock. I think this is intentional, to further weaken our country’s position. It is like they dropped an N-bomb on us.
October 9th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #8
[...] The Anchoress Share With Others: [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 12:46 pm | #9
I’d be so embarrassed. If I was the president, I’d simply say “I’m not worthy” and then return it.
October 9th, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #10
Meanwhile, the Prince of Peace celebrates by bombing the Moon.
As for Obama’s accomplishments — inspiring hope — it is all too clear that Obama is the Hope Nazi. He has a few favorites, but for most others:
Honduras: No hope for you!
Poland: No hope for you!
Czech Republic: No hope for you!
Dalai Lama and Tibet: No hope for you!
Islamic women: No hope for you!
Israel: No hope for you!
Young, perfectly healthy people who don’t need or want health insurance: No hope for you!
Senior citizens: No hope for you!
People of Afghanistan: No hope for you!
Especially the women of Afghanistan whose new freedoms will be destroyed when Obama acquiesces in the return of the Taliban: No hope for you!
American soldiers in Afghanistan: No hope for you!
American taxpayers: No hope for you!
Anyone wanting government to get the hell off their back: No hope for you!
Consumers: No hope for you!
Those seeking political peace in America: No hope for you!
October 9th, 2009 | 1:11 pm | #11
“We are giving this prize to Obama just because he is so awesome! Obama, just keep being you, you gorgeous lug!”
-The Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Oct 2009
October 9th, 2009 | 1:20 pm | #12
Once I got over the vomit factor of today’s latest insanity in the news, I googled for Mother Teresa’s Nobel prize acceptance speech. It’s a good palate cleanser.
You can read or listen to the speech here:
October 9th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #13
I wonder how much Soros money went into this.
October 9th, 2009 | 1:27 pm | #14
I am now, officially, not surprised by anything. If I haven’t seen it all, I don’t want to see the rest.
October 9th, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #15
Bender,
You forgot American business but I guess that’s included in Anyone who wants government to get the hell off their back, Consumers, and American taxpayers. I think I’ll just go back to bed and pull the covers over my head. Maybe tomorrow will be different. Sigh.
October 9th, 2009 | 1:38 pm | #16
There’s an old cartoon this brings to mind:
A man lies on the classic shrink’s couch. The shrink is on one knee, kissing the man’s hand. Caption: “This isn’t helping my Messiah complex, doctor”
October 9th, 2009 | 1:38 pm | #17
American business: No hope for you!
American industry: No hope for you!
The unborn, who are above his pay scale: No hope for you!
Healthcare providers with a conscience: No hope for you!
Freedom-seeking people in Iran: No hope for you!
Cuban dissidents: No hope for you!
People who want a legal system based on reason, the rule of law, and the Constitution: No hope for you!
Americans who want a president who is proud of, and stands up for, America: No hope for you!
October 9th, 2009 | 1:57 pm | #18
He himself has said it’s premature, and I agree. It doesn’t appear, however, that he solicited it. For the record:
“I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments….To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”
I don’t think we can legitimately ask any more of him under the circumstances.
I know that this blog and most of its commentors are likely to think him an insincere, grandstanding, egomaniac no matter what transpires in the future. And it is clear that, in some quarters, this award will probably harden that opinion into stone, epoxying criticism of the man on the front of disagreement with his views, rejection of his policies, and repudiation of his official actions for the next 50 years.
And if the Anchoress’ writings survive that long [which I think is far more likely than she probably does--she's that good], others can compare them and make the judgment between them, weighing which, in tone, tenor, and substance, will best represent this time in our common country.
But I’m pretty sure of what the tone, tenor, and substance of both sets of remarks represent right now. And I think I know what it will mean for our immediate political future, and that makes me sad–not because the policies I support will win or lose, but because the emotions they and Obama arouse in all of us will follow us to our graves. And I think, personally, beyond our graves. We will have no further second chance to change them from this point forward.
October 9th, 2009 | 2:11 pm | #19
[...] blogging: The Anchoress Brutally Honest Bookworm Room Print This Post This entry was posted on Friday, October [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 2:30 pm | #20
I guess they want to wait until health care reform passes before awarding him the Nobel prize for medicine.
The Nobel peace prize lost it’s luster years ago when they awarded it to Arafat – and didn’t Gore win it over his global warming crusade? Please.
October 9th, 2009 | 2:31 pm | #21
Actually, Joseph, I think we can ask more of him;
If he truly feels he’s unworthy of the award, and that his accomplishments aren’t what got it for him (and how they could?), then he should refuse the prize, allowing it to go to someone more deserving. He can tell the committee that, once he is out of office, they think he really has worked for peace, they can offer it to him then.
I don’t really care much about remarks, or what their tone might be. People can, and do, say any, and everything. I’m more interested in actions.
October 9th, 2009 | 2:36 pm | #22
I don’t think we can legitimately ask any more of him under the circumstances.
Well, I guess I will be illegitimate and suggest that a person with even a modicum of modesty and humility, not to mention honesty, would say that he, in all good conscience could not accept the award, but had to decline.
(Even someone with a modicum of political commonsense would decline. Then we would say that he was a stand-up guy for declining, but he would still have the historical record that they voted to give it to him.)
October 9th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #23
Please excuse me, but I’m so upset, I simply have to let someone in the world know.
Michelle Malkin says “It’s the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s coffin.”
Please, Jesus, excuse me, but please make this come true.
October 9th, 2009 | 3:42 pm | #24
I weep for the women & their undersung, underfunded heroes who could have been helped ENORMOUSLY had this prize (1.4 MILLION DOLLARS) been awarded to those nominees who were truly deserving.
The committee didn’t think this man deserving enough:
“Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”
or this woman:
Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
October 9th, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #25
Frankly, I really am too disturbed by this to get into a wrangle over what might be asked of Barack Obama. I do not know what the award will mean for peace in the world, but I’m pretty certain that yesterday was the last possible day for peace in America.
It is no longer of much use, but I will say it. What we think, say, and do leaves far deeper impressions on our mind than most people understand. Very durable impressions. Each one of us creates our future out of what we are doing now. Very literally and specifically.
What is coming will be an out-and-out loss for everyone who gets involved with it, no matter what their politics. But it’s our country and we owe it our political participation even if that participation creates emnity that lasts decades. And I think from this day forward it will.
I don’t have many decades left. Probably two at the outside. So I don’t expect to see the end of it. Before it is over no one on either side of this political divide will believe that they have any common ground of being American with someone on the other side of it.
I have feared this, largely unacknowledged but sometimes very acutely, for almost 40 years, since May 6, 1970, in fact. I think the fact of what I feared is finally here. I hope it isn’t, but I think it is. And, at least for the moment, has slammed into me like an avalanche and it weighs on me as much as anything in politics ever has.
I don’t think it will be violent, but I think it will be permanent. I sincerely hope I am wrong.
October 9th, 2009 | 4:40 pm | #26
My spouse first told me about it. I thought it was something from The Onion. Un. Be. Liev. able.
October 9th, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #27
Obama should do something like this if he wants to earn it. He already has a female Secretary of State, in my view a woman of great intellect & mastership of her brief, & he obviously thinks so too without regard to the view of Islamist cavemen who object.
Now, why not a gay ambassador to a more backward part of the world, & tell them what to do if they don’t like it?
I am patient because I know that gay rights & a sane approach to teh “war on drugs” aren’t exactly things an elected politician would rush to pursue. But I want some vague excuse for a hint that he is better than Republicans, which isn’t really forthcoming.
Less of this about sharia law- a lot of my Muslim friends are refugees from hardcore theocracies & are glad to live in a liberal country because they aren’t subject to this outrage & barbarism every day. What’s this hijab when it’s at home?
I think it’s more ignorance than malice. Butthe new sophists have got to learn that while they are too sophisticated & clever-clever to take their religion too seriously, others do. Of course this is on about Christianity as well as Islam. So while I agree with your criticisms of Islam, I am an across the board left-winger & anti-clerical that you’d be better off not sharing a platform with from your perspective
I would have given it to someone like Morgan Tsvangirai or Malalai Joya myself- magnificent people whom we must all marvel at.
On a ligher note. Going to the farmers’ market tomorrow.
October 9th, 2009 | 4:55 pm | #28
As Catholics, we have to pray deeply, and try to understand the message.
A person not worthy is awarded a peace prize – what does Jesus say?
October 9th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #29
What all too few people are reporting on is that the nominations for the Peace prize closed just 11 days after Obama’s inauguration. So, it’s not what was done in March-September that should be considered, but what happened in the first 2 weeks of his administration. Considering some of the past recipients and their accomplishments, I’d really like to hear an explanation of how Obama rated even being nominated, much less how his actions as of the nomination deadline demonstrated that he was superior to the other candidates.
For those who are choosing to highlight that the Anchoress is violating her own rules – if they can answer what I’ve raised in my previous paragraph, I’ll consider your complaint – although, since this is *her* blog and *her* rules, subject to *her* discretion, the burden is on the accusers to show that they hold the moral high ground in support of Obama. I won’t hold my breath…….
October 9th, 2009 | 5:31 pm | #30
Bender
“(Even someone with a modicum of political commonsense would decline. Then we would say that he was a stand-up guy for declining, but he would still have the historical record that they voted to give it to him.)”
That would have been a brilliant PR move.
October 9th, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #31
[...] III:Even More Opinions: Anchoress Yuval Levin Glenn Reynolds Times of London – “Mockery” Jimmie Bise (put liquids [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 5:57 pm | #32
The amount of passion you have for destroying this man has reached a new height. I read this entire article with my mouth open. On a more positive note, this kind of dedication is truly meant for something outside of the blogging community. If you were slightly less abrasive, you never know; people other than ring-winged conservatives might give it consideration. Ease up a bit and I’m sure you’d see an influx of readers. Best of luck.
[Funny, I praised Obama and his wife, kids and mother in law and suggested that there was a way to actually JUSTIFY giving this man a Nobel Peace Prize, and you see this as an abrasive passion for destroying him. I have no "power" to destroy Obama, and I have no desire to destroy Obama, even if I did. I just want him to not destroy our country. How we receive things is certainly interesting, isn't it? And what we project on to others? Thanks for the advice, though. I'm sure the left-leaning folks who read here won't feel ignored by you! -admin]
October 9th, 2009 | 6:57 pm | #33
[...] this post early this morning, but couldn’t get it up before I had to leave the house. So The Anchoress beat me to it, but is this a mea culpa from the Nobel Committee to make up for the defeat in [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 8:21 pm | #34
Andre, you are dead wrong about us ‘losers.’ Speaking for myself, the problem with this administration is that it is trying to remake America in a manner that goes against everything the country was founded on. Taking a country based on freedoms and attempting to remake it into one based on government intrusion into everything is what has us up in arms, figuratively, of course.
What the hell is there to work with? Concede that we have to meet in the middle on every issue, or have policies rammed down our throats? B.S.!!!
Astonished – you must not have read Anchoress for long – she is the epitome of hard-hitting common sense and fairness.
October 9th, 2009 | 8:40 pm | #35
The world has officially Jumped the Shark.
I don’t see how we recover from this. Heaven help us, but I think Joseph Marshall’s comments are so right on target, they’re worth repeating and highlighting. I, too, have been fearing the coming of a civil war in the future, right here. The Democrats’ rhetoric of “If you don’t support Obama, you are a terrorist sympathizer” is going to contribute in a huge way to how things end up.
The last time a government or a ruling body said those exact words as the Democrats, “disappearances” of people began to happen soon thereafter. Just check Chile, Cuba and Argentina, and see for yourselves.
October 9th, 2009 | 9:12 pm | #36
Joseph Marshall, I am probably in your decade neighborhood, give or take a few years, so we have shared this country, obviously travelling different roads, for a long time. My first job out of high school, parochial, was working for a govt agency in DC that was dedicated to saving this country from the communists who had infiltrated our govt and who were bent on, as was commonly designated at that time, the violent overthrow of our government. Whatever the political differences, preserving our republic was a common goal of elected representatives, including the President. This common goal is no longer a given and America seems to be up for grabs to the highest bidder. All I know to do is what my common sense tells me is best for this country. I too think that we have reached a point of no return in the struggle to maintain our American way of life as defined by the constitution, which is the law of the land. Sides will have to be taken, like it or not. I believe that there are still a huge number of freedom loving American people who will not have to give a second thought to defending themselves within our own boarders. The socialists who now control the US govt cannot gloss over the ineptness of Obama much longer. At least it is becomming clear to the entire country what is at stake if the fiscal madness continues. You seem to be dispirited by the expressed or implied animas towards Obama but surely you realize that history repeats itself and those who seek to enslave a population will never have easy going. I sincerely hope you find peace of mind, we all must do what we believe to be right for God and country.
October 9th, 2009 | 9:15 pm | #37
[...] The Anchoress thinks that Michelle ought to have shared in the [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 10:41 pm | #38
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Embarrassing and shameful.
The European left loves Obama, isn’t that sweet?
Gag me.
October 10th, 2009 | 12:49 am | #39
Politico is reporting that the Nobel cmte was composed entirely of left liberal Norwegian politicians. Figures.
Fr. Philip, OP
October 10th, 2009 | 3:22 am | #40
Terror “threat” story exposed as a fake
Yes, it’s the return of the Lingerie Media crowd & their hangers-on.
October 10th, 2009 | 5:23 am | #41
Why wasn”t Mrs awrded too? Because 2 wrongs don’t make a right! The President has made some good noise but this award was way too pemature in my opinion.
Let’s not get carried away, she may be your first lady but please can you tell me what exactly she has done to bring “that nebulous notion of “hope” to the world”.
October 10th, 2009 | 8:18 am | #42
“Funny, I praised Obama and his wife, kids and mother in law and suggested that there was a way to actually JUSTIFY giving this man a Nobel Peace Prize, and you see this as an abrasive passion for destroying him.”
Anchoress, this is the Internet. What you link to is as important, if not more, than what you say. A link is an endorsement that something is worth reading. Read what someone thinks worth reading and you have the full picture of their heart that nothing they write can give, because it shows the part of the heart which is like the back of the head. What do you think what you endorse says about you?
If you want to “keep him from destroying our country”, you [and your commentors] have to do less than praise his marriage and more than savage his person and his motives:
“He’ll simply have to become the King of the World, which is pretty much what he’s been campaigning for, all along.”
You might stop to consider this: How could the distorted, power-hungry, and shallow egomaniac of your dreams and your posts possibly have such a sane, sensible, marriage and such a lovely family?
Your commentors might stop to consider this, too.
If Astonished had been reading regularly the blogs you constantly cite, he would have no reason to be astonished at all. On those blogs, no political adversary can be merely wrong, no advocate of a bad public policy can merely be advocating a bad public policy, and no one of different views can possibly be sincere.
They must all be evil and base in one way or another.
Can you seriously deny this?
Obama is the most extreme case of this calumny I have seen among those you read and endorse. I think this is so precisely because of the unacknowledged cognitive dissonance induced by his marriage and his family.
But list the names of those who have gone before him: Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi. Then take this list and go back though the posts of this blog and at one point or another you have attributed evil or base motives, and not merely wrong ideas or wrong actions, to each and every one of them.
You really have.
[Thoughtful post, Joseph. I don't know if I have attibuted "evil" as much as "base" motives to some of what those you mentioned have done...but I think there is a little of human nature in that; I can point to any number of references to Bush 43 as "evil". It is the baser side of myself, of course, which I work at correcting. If I have time this weekend, I will reply -admin]
October 10th, 2009 | 10:18 am | #43
It might be time to either change how the jury of the Nobel Peace Prize is selected or pay more attention to the other Peace Prizes out there. I don’t know if I should go for the Karlspreis, the Niwano Peace Prize, that deal the Community of Christ puts out, or one of the Catholic organizations peace prizes.
And in my case this is not based in the idea Obama can do nothing right. I didn’t vote for him, but I largely have a “wait and see” attitude. If Afghanistan or Gaza is truly at peace in 2012, or even 2016, perhaps this will prove them remarkably predictive. Stranger things have happened, but I wouldn’t bank on it. (And if it does I think it’ll likely be “Peace” under some repressive regime)
October 10th, 2009 | 11:26 am | #44
Hey Bender, That’s your opinion. That’s what we teach children too everyone has a opinion.
Well, it’s your opinion that it is merely my “opinion,” rather than fact-based observation.
(We could go round and round like this all day! But I’ve no desire to engage in such relativism today. No thanks.)
October 10th, 2009 | 11:30 am | #45
I woke up Friday morning, heard about the prize and thought it was a joke. Until I checked the serious news sites I just didn’t believe it.
October 10th, 2009 | 12:22 pm | #46
Well, it’s my opinion, too that i>it’s your opinion that it is merely my “opinion,”</i…
This reminds me Barney Fife for some reason.
Bender, you are right – don't go round and round. Finish painting your bathroom, instead.
October 10th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #47
I’m fine with those who think this is great news. The Nobel has lost integrity and relevance for most quite a few years ago with the honoring of Gore and Carter. For any honest person this is just a big chuckle.
October 10th, 2009 | 12:47 pm | #48
Dang – I think I messed up the first time I tried this – sorry if it’s a repeat.
Well, it’s my opinion thatit’s your opinion that it is merely my “opinion…
There, I got my daily ‘italics’ fix in.
Does this conversation remind anyone else of Barney Fife?
Bender, don’t go round and round. Go finish painting your bathroom instead.
October 10th, 2009 | 4:19 pm | #49
Bender,
Don’t forget to add,
Unborn babies, who have a right to be born and live, no hope for you!
If we take away the hope we have for our next generation, the unborn, we lose all hope there is for life for our future. That is what has happened to the demographics of so many countries, they have no young to come up behind them to continue their culture for them. Loss of babies = loss of hope for our future.
October 10th, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #50
Bender,
I caught that you had indeed mentioned the unborn in a later post, I rushed to add mine after reading your first, as I thought your comments were very clear and to the point.
October 10th, 2009 | 5:21 pm | #51
You want a REAL man of hope?
Then consider the man who, on May 10, 1873, came ashore to that hell of despair on Molokai. More than anything else, more than material relief, he brought hope as he embraced with love those wretched people afflicted with leprosy.
October 10th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #52
Loss of babies = loss of hope for our future.
If you haven’t yet seen it, watch Children of Men and see a future world that has lost all hope because there are no more babies to be born.
October 11th, 2009 | 4:19 pm | #53
“I can point to any number of references to Bush 43 as “evil”"
Probably. Although I think I personally stopped short of that most of the time. I know that the thing that impressed me the most favorably about him was the fact that he pulled himself out of a life of substance abuse. It takes character to do that.
But, frankly, I think Bush is one of the most difficult cases because his actions [each of which I'm largely sure were from what he personally thought was right at the time] are so wildly at variance with the political philosophy he espoused.
He can hardly be called the apostle of limited government and the free market. I’m not sure he fully understood how radical some of the things he did were, even if he thought they were right, and may not understand it yet.
Conservatives are finally starting to process this, at least on blogs, and I’m vitally interested that they do. As a people we have been getting more and more distorted into similar positions of dissonance between our actions and our words. I want my conservatives conservative, in the way I can still find them in Britain, so I can take them seriously even if I disagree with them. And I want my liberals to be consistently liberal rather than fall into some of the weirdly reactionary riffs you could find them falling into more and more as the Bush Administration lengthened into 8 years.
If they both were this again, most of us would see that Obama’s prize is just plain goofy, so goofy and out of left field, that it is almost totally irrelevant to what the man stands for and what his adversaries stand for. So goofy, in fact, that it really means nothing, not even anything particularly partisan.
Beyond the personal attacks on Obama, which I still think deplorable, we were all just starting to pull back into a sensible relation between our words and our actions with the health coverage issue. Why people do or do not want this issue addressed is pretty congruent with their nominal political philosophy. And there has been very little in the way of this for the past 8-10 years.
I make no apologies for my political philosophy, and I work very hard to make sure that my actions, and the actions I advocate are congruent with it. And I think it important that we all do so. Far more important in a democracy that whether we agree or disagree.
[Yeah, but you slip a little once in a while, too, Joseph, and you know it. We all do. We each of us bring our faulty and imperfect selves to all of our endeavors and to our religious practice. Growth is certainly possible, but each of us at different rates, and I for one am too aware of how poor a grasp I have on each landing and how frequently I lose ground only recently gained. I would love it if we could all grasp hands and sing in the sunshine (and "laugh everydaayayayayay" - there I'm dating myself), but I am still faulty enough to react to some of the stuff I see, read and have directed my way in a less than edifying fashion. I'm working on it. I think more people are working on it than you know -admin]
October 11th, 2009 | 6:55 pm | #54
Now, if we can get him awarded the Heisman all will be complete!
October 11th, 2009 | 10:12 pm | #55
Jospeh – I don’t think you will find many conservatives (vs Republicans) who would disagree with you in terms of Bush’s actions being at odds with his stated philosophy. It’s pretty sad.
[I've often thought that one of the reasons I liked W (although I deplored some of his spending, I also supported the senior prescrip plan and wld have supported his immigration plan too) is because deep down I am not comfortably a "conservative." Or, to be honest, I am not comfortable attaching any label to myself, which is why I am an Indy at this point. What can I say, I've always been a lone wolf, and not much of a joiner. I'm still very much a classical liberal - it's just that classical liberalism, as personified by the likes of JFK and Hubert Humphrey, is considered "conservative" today. Which means that real conservativism is VERY conservative! I will say that Obama has proved himself so very much a part of the left that he makes Bill Clinton look rather conservative, in hindsight!
-admin]
October 12th, 2009 | 6:51 am | #56
Joseph Marshall wrote this
“You might stop to consider this: How could the distorted, power-hungry, and shallow egomaniac of your dreams and your posts possibly have such a sane, sensible, marriage and such a lovely family?”
I am addressing this sentence ONLY.
Joseph, many people with successful, loving relationships have completely different “approaches”/ethics when it comes to politics, workplace behavior or any number of things. A wonderful family does not equate to doing wonderful things in the world. Just as failed relationships do not equate to doing harmful things.
Also: We can never look into the relationships of others. We really do not know what kind of marriage the Obamas have.
[I agree with this. There are plenty of very good, very sane, very level people who have not been lucky in marriage, and plenty of very odd, or power-hungry people whose marriages appear serene and untroubled on the surface. For all I know, the Obama's have a lousy marriage but portray it well, but I prefer to give them the benefit of a doubt and believe that they have a good marriage. By his measure, would Joe look at the marriage of George and Laura Bush and still see the "distorted, power-hungry, and shallow egomaniac" of his own 8 year nightmare? Suddenly doesn't work, does it? Cynical, there, Joseph!
-admin]
October 12th, 2009 | 10:56 am | #57
You are absolutely correct, Beethovenqueen – who knows what the ‘real’ family is like? We all (well, most of us) put our best face forward in public, and were I in the public eye as the Obamas are, you better KNOW my family would sparkle!
October 12th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #58
the strong body language between barack and michelle does not suggest a happy marriage.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact