I was surprised by the media response twelve hours later--they tore him apart on Lehrer. David Brooks actually said the prize would hurt Obama politically (!). What's a worm, Mommy? And why is everyone saying it's turned?
Kind of like giving a Grammy to someone who's never cut an album.
We can grant there have been any number of questionable Nobel Awards. For example, they gave the literature prize to William Faulkner. Don't get me started.
And there's always Milton Friedman and Yassar Arafat. We can deal with this...
But there's a key distinction here, which explains why this clinker is particularly astounding:
Those people had at least dabbled in their respective fields.
Milton Friedman really was an economist. William Faulkner had actually written books.
But as we all know, Obama has yet to enter the field of doing anything whatsoever. The Nobel folks have achieved a surreal new level.
If you can get a Nobel Prize in a field you've never entered, the sky's the limit. I've got my eye on the prize for theoretical physics.
... as the rest of the world, or parts of it, succumb to the mania that got Obama elected. No surprise that he has high approval in Europe considering who went before him. George W. set the bar pretty low in that department.
But why was this nomination kept such a secret? We knew of Gore's - and Carter's months ahead of the actual award. How comes this came as such a surprise - and how surprised was Obama, really? Why was he postponing decisions on Iran, Afghanistan this week - if not in waiting for his peace award?
The charitable view -- which may also be the true view -- is that the Nobel committee decided at the last minute to give it to Obama, in order to encourage him to pursue a peaceful path in Iran. Frankly, if the trick works, all is forgiven. War with Iran would be a disaster without parallel.
Joe, can you print up some T-shirts of the O(nanism, or other fine O's you've drafted) and get them to Marion Alabama before November 9th?? We'd love to be sporting those come Barack Obama Day. W00000t! Barack Obama Day!!
Opposition urges Nobel chief's resignation THE leader of Norway's main opposition has called for the resignation of the Nobel Committee's chairman, one day after US President Barack Obama was awarded the peace prize... Erna Solberg, leader of Conservative party Hoejre, also criticised Mr Jagland's attempt to do two jobs and questioned his decision to hand Mr Obama the peace prize. .. Friday's decision to hand Mr Obama the Nobel Peace Prize came as a shock and has divided world opinion, with some calling the move a victory for ideals while others condemned it as deeply politicised. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/opposition-urges-nobel-chiefs-resignation/story-e6freuyi-1225785391966
First, if there is some issue with this award, that issue is with the Nobel committee. Nobody's saying that O got himself nominated (ala the Nancy Reagan push for Ronnie's nomination), or exercised any influence over the process. (That I've heard of-- corrections welcome.)
Second, Obama has substantially demurred on the award, stating he thinks himself unworthy of being in the august company of transformational historical actors, and also that he has not done enough to deserve the award (paraphrasing, but that is close).
Enough for defense-- what about offense? Can Obama's award be justified whatsoever, in any regard? I argue yes.
Evidently little noticed, Obama's position on Iranian nuclear development was a sea change, reversing the previously adamant opposition of our country to Iranian nuclear power generation. What is more compelling still is that he dragged the monster Bibi Netanyahu into the same position. Again in a nuanced reversal that has been little remarked upon, when the two men gave press remarks after or before a meeting, Bibi restated Israel's opposition to Iran on the nuclear question with a new qualifier, that Israel was determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear **weaponry**. This was new, because Israel before hadn't distinguished at all between peaceful nuclear power generation and the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This new position of Israel, which must be attributed to Obama's pressuring them, opened a potential for a peaceful, non-military pathway for handling Iranian nuclear power ambitions, replacing the previous inevitable march to war there with realistic hope for an alternative.
Finally, Obama has returned to the long-standing US/world position on the occupied territories, not shying away from using the words, and insisting that stopping growth (even 'organic' growth) of the 'settlements,' and withdrawing from the occupation, are the sine qua non of not only Middle East peace, but world peace.
Perhaps people have overlooked how critical these changes can be for world peace, but the Israelis and their amen corner in the Congress, in Pat Buchanan's felicitous phrase, haven't missed them-- they are howling bloody murder over them.
Obama's reversing the deployment of SDI missiles in Poland and the Czech republic is another bold move toward easing tensions with Russia, and one that has garnered much gnashing of teeth from the permanent war party.
Could and should Obama have done still more? Of course. Much of what he promised has yet to be accomplished, and some things, he's even reversed or delayed. Yet these are not inconsiderable accomplishments and policy reversals, nor simply symbolic window dressing, but very serious initiatives worthy of praise. You can tell by the howling they engender.
First, if there is some issue with this award, that issue is with the Nobel committee. Nobody's saying that O got himself nominated
Which is irrelevant to whether or not he deserves it, so this point can be dismissed.
Second, Obama has substantially demurred on the award, stating he thinks himself unworthy of being in the august company of transformational historical actors, and also that he has not done enough to deserve the award (paraphrasing, but that is close).
False modesty from the man who has, on multiple occasions, actually declared himself to be God (or at least equal in power to same).
Evidently little noticed, Obama's position on Iranian nuclear development was a sea change, reversing the previously adamant opposition of our country to Iranian nuclear power generation
Which is more than countered by his pushing for war with Iran, most recently on - as Joe has noted - grounds as phony as Bush's WMD claims for Iraq.
in a nuanced reversal
On the contrary, it not saying much for an aggressor nation with nuclear weapons would oh-so-graciously allow a non-aggressor nation to have peaceful nuclear energy. And a REAL concession by Israel would have been either that Iran could have nuclear weapons just as Israel itself has OR that Israel would give up its own nuclear arsenal. In other words, to say that Iran and Israel had equal rights as nations, neither better or worse than the other.
Obama's reversing the deployment of SDI missiles in Poland and the Czech republic another bold move toward easing tensions with Russia,
Actually, Obama pushed hard FOR Bush's system, but backed down in the face of widespread European opposition. On top of that, he simply replaced Bush's land-based system with a water-based one (that is to say, in a locale where Euros were not legally able to object to it). In other words, he went ahead and gave the "F-U, you can't do anything about it" to Europe. So it did nothing to ease tensions with Russia at all, and it only pissed off Euros that he made and end-run around their opposition.
The point of not having a missile system is that having one creates a new nuclear arms race (to overwhelm the system), creates another arms race (anti-missiles), and makes nuclear war more likely, not less.
I have to say, even though Obama's history - as I've proven here more than once - is one of getting things he neither earned nor deserved, I was still surprised by this.
And given Obama's history of taking bribes, a watchful eye should be kept out for anything that might indicate Obama giving something in return....
15 comments:
This made my night.
I was surprised by the media response twelve hours later--they tore him apart on Lehrer. David Brooks actually said the prize would hurt Obama politically (!). What's a worm, Mommy? And why is everyone saying it's turned?
Kind of like giving a Grammy to someone who's never cut an album.
We can grant there have been any number of questionable Nobel Awards. For example, they gave the literature prize to William Faulkner. Don't get me started.
And there's always Milton Friedman and Yassar Arafat. We can deal with this...
But there's a key distinction here, which explains why this clinker is particularly astounding:
Those people had at least dabbled in their respective fields.
Milton Friedman really was an economist. William Faulkner had actually written books.
But as we all know, Obama has yet to enter the field of doing anything whatsoever. The Nobel folks have achieved a surreal new level.
If you can get a Nobel Prize in a field you've never entered, the sky's the limit. I've got my eye on the prize for theoretical physics.
... as the rest of the world, or parts of it, succumb to the mania that got Obama elected.
No surprise that he has high approval in Europe considering who went before him. George W. set the bar pretty low in that department.
But why was this nomination kept such a secret? We knew of Gore's - and Carter's months ahead of the actual award. How comes this came as such a surprise - and how surprised was Obama, really? Why was he postponing decisions on Iran, Afghanistan this week - if not in waiting for his peace award?
The charitable view -- which may also be the true view -- is that the Nobel committee decided at the last minute to give it to Obama, in order to encourage him to pursue a peaceful path in Iran. Frankly, if the trick works, all is forgiven. War with Iran would be a disaster without parallel.
Joe, can you print up some T-shirts of the O(nanism, or other fine O's you've drafted) and get them to Marion Alabama before November 9th?? We'd love to be sporting those come Barack Obama Day. W00000t! Barack Obama Day!!
Come on. Tell me you didn't see that one coming?
well it could have been the one for literature, after all he wrote 2 books
Opposition urges Nobel chief's resignation
THE leader of Norway's main opposition has called for the resignation of the Nobel Committee's chairman, one day after US President Barack Obama was awarded the peace prize...
Erna Solberg, leader of Conservative party Hoejre, also criticised Mr Jagland's attempt to do two jobs and questioned his decision to hand Mr Obama the peace prize. ..
Friday's decision to hand Mr Obama the Nobel Peace Prize came as a shock and has divided world opinion, with some calling the move a victory for ideals while others condemned it as deeply politicised.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/opposition-urges-nobel-chiefs-resignation/story-e6freuyi-1225785391966
First, if there is some issue with this award, that issue is with the Nobel committee. Nobody's saying that O got himself nominated (ala the Nancy Reagan push for Ronnie's nomination), or exercised any influence over the process. (That I've heard of-- corrections welcome.)
Second, Obama has substantially demurred on the award, stating he thinks himself unworthy of being in the august company of transformational historical actors, and also that he has not done enough to deserve the award (paraphrasing, but that is close).
Enough for defense-- what about offense? Can Obama's award be justified whatsoever, in any regard? I argue yes.
Evidently little noticed, Obama's position on Iranian nuclear development was a sea change, reversing the previously adamant opposition of our country to Iranian nuclear power generation. What is more compelling still is that he dragged the monster Bibi Netanyahu into the same position. Again in a nuanced reversal that has been little remarked upon, when the two men gave press remarks after or before a meeting, Bibi restated Israel's opposition to Iran on the nuclear question with a new qualifier, that Israel was determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear **weaponry**. This was new, because Israel before hadn't distinguished at all between peaceful nuclear power generation and the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This new position of Israel, which must be attributed to Obama's pressuring them, opened a potential for a peaceful, non-military pathway for handling Iranian nuclear power ambitions, replacing the previous inevitable march to war there with realistic hope for an alternative.
Finally, Obama has returned to the long-standing US/world position on the occupied territories, not shying away from using the words, and insisting that stopping growth (even 'organic' growth) of the 'settlements,' and withdrawing from the occupation, are the sine qua non of not only Middle East peace, but world peace.
Perhaps people have overlooked how critical these changes can be for world peace, but the Israelis and their amen corner in the Congress, in Pat Buchanan's felicitous phrase, haven't missed them-- they are howling bloody murder over them.
Obama's reversing the deployment of SDI missiles in Poland and the Czech republic is another bold move toward easing tensions with Russia, and one that has garnered much gnashing of teeth from the permanent war party.
Could and should Obama have done still more? Of course. Much of what he promised has yet to be accomplished, and some things, he's even reversed or delayed. Yet these are not inconsiderable accomplishments and policy reversals, nor simply symbolic window dressing, but very serious initiatives worthy of praise. You can tell by the howling they engender.
XI
do not presume obama did not know in advance:
Swedish journalist claims Obama Nobel jackpot
While the decision to award US President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize has been received by widespread surprise, one Swedish journalist is toasting the Norwegians after winning 50,000 kronor ($7,177) betting on the outcome.
Peter Lindholm, a journalist working on the free Swedish newspaper Metro, tipped Obama for the prize after reading the line up of artists booked to perform at the gala concert in the Oslo Spektrum arena on December 11th.
"As soon as I saw the artists, a penny dropped," Lindholm told the Resumé newspaper.
The line up, which includes a slew of Obama favourites, and is set to be hosted by close ally Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith, was all that Lindholm needed to write up an article for the paper predicting the US president to emerge as the winner. ..
http://www.thelocal.se/22570/20091009/
First, if there is some issue with this award, that issue is with the Nobel committee. Nobody's saying that O got himself nominated
Which is irrelevant to whether or not he deserves it, so this point can be dismissed.
Second, Obama has substantially demurred on the award, stating he thinks himself unworthy of being in the august company of transformational historical actors, and also that he has not done enough to deserve the award (paraphrasing, but that is close).
False modesty from the man who has, on multiple occasions, actually declared himself to be God (or at least equal in power to same).
Evidently little noticed, Obama's position on Iranian nuclear development was a sea change, reversing the previously adamant opposition of our country to Iranian nuclear power generation
Which is more than countered by his pushing for war with Iran, most recently on - as Joe has noted - grounds as phony as Bush's WMD claims for Iraq.
in a nuanced reversal
On the contrary, it not saying much for an aggressor nation with nuclear weapons would oh-so-graciously allow a non-aggressor nation to have peaceful nuclear energy. And a REAL concession by Israel would have been either that Iran could have nuclear weapons just as Israel itself has OR that Israel would give up its own nuclear arsenal. In other words, to say that Iran and Israel had equal rights as nations, neither better or worse than the other.
Obama's reversing the deployment of SDI missiles in Poland and the Czech republic another bold move toward easing tensions with Russia,
Actually, Obama pushed hard FOR Bush's system, but backed down in the face of widespread European opposition. On top of that, he simply replaced Bush's land-based system with a water-based one (that is to say, in a locale where Euros were not legally able to object to it). In other words, he went ahead and gave the "F-U, you can't do anything about it" to Europe. So it did nothing to ease tensions with Russia at all, and it only pissed off Euros that he made and end-run around their opposition.
The point of not having a missile system is that having one creates a new nuclear arms race (to overwhelm the system), creates another arms race (anti-missiles), and makes nuclear war more likely, not less.
Sergei Rostov
Oh, and a p.s. -
I have to say, even though Obama's history - as I've proven here more than once - is one of getting things he neither earned nor deserved, I was still surprised by this.
And given Obama's history of taking bribes, a watchful eye should be kept out for anything that might indicate Obama giving something in return....
Sergei Rostov
P.p.s.:
Perry -
Kind of like giving a Grammy to someone who's never cut an album.
More like giving the prize for Literature to one of Ray Bradbury's "firemen."
Sergei Rostov
P.p.p.s. -
I can't believe I nelgleted to mention the fact that Obama also:
- escalated the senseless-and-counterproductive war in Afghanistan
and
- spread that war by conducting military operations in on the soil of our ally Pakistan without its permission
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment