By now much has been said about the Norwegians awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. He is the first to say that he has not earned the award, and I would agree. So what were those crazy Norwegians thinking? Succinctly, they were saying to the US citizenry that their Norwegian fears matter. And not just Norway, but the rest of the world too.The people way up north, where it is dark half the time, have not forgotten the fear forced upon them in eight years of free world with George Bush, and “Dr. Evil” Dick Cheney, at the helm. We forget in America, with the promise of each new vote, how helpless the rest of the world must feel with no lever in front of them, but only a video monitor with a volume adjustment.
Perhaps the Nobel Committee is saying, whether we care to hear or not, that before we ever get to a new destination, we must turn the ship. This course change is what the world is desperate for right now. We need to talk to the Muslims, badly wanting peace, and ready to fight at the same time. We must disarm our weapons to a level that matches our ability to control them. We must care about polluting humanity into extinction. And this is just for starters.
I frankly don’t know how much of what the world cares about will get accomplished under Obama. He puts on his pants one leg at a time, and mistakes are inevitable. But we should consider that the Norwegians did not get to vote for change last November, even though they, and much of world, were just as desperate for it as Americans. And while they have made his job a bit more difficult in their premature recognition, it is unfair to deny them, with yesterday’s fears in hand, their right to be heard, today. Tomorrow is promised to no one.
James C. Collier
READ MOST RECENT POSTS AT ACTING WHITE...
Technorati Tags: Acting White: Peace Man, Norway, Nobel Peace Prize, Obama, Fear, Acting White
15 comments:
"the fear forced upon them in eight years of free world with George Bush, and “Dr. Evil” Dick Chaney, at the helm"
Don't be silly. No sane person in the developed world ever felt fear because of Bush/Cheney. And we should absolutely repudiate this blatant attempt to manipulate our politics.
You're talking about unilateral disarmament, and unilateral economic sacrifice. I'm sure that China would love for us to nail ourselves to that cross.
Anon@1:52, you seem to ignore the multi-decades of covert, but nonetheless "blatent", manipulations of the CIA and NSA in politics around the globe. BTW, America sold it's economic soul to the Chinese quite a while back, as I see it.
I wish I was there...
Hmm James? I wasn't aware Black people are on the bottom. Who told you that?
Poorly thought through. What are you basing your interpretation of the Norwegians' choice on? Do you have some insider info? More likely, the N. Prize, like most things at that level, is fixed--or manipulated, if you prefer--and the proponents of the status quo are throwing a bone to Obama's increasingly uncomfortable supporters and apologists.
Were you outraged at Bush's wars, The Patriot Act, etc? Are you outraged at the Banker Bailout and destruction of the currency? Corporate domination of the government, media, etc., emerging laws that trample civil liberties (such as the Obama-supported bill currently making strong headway, granting the federal gov. absolute power to shut down the web at will)?
This prize is the only thing it could conceivably be--a flimsy PR device. An aid to help people like yourself as you pretend identical obominations to those perpetrated by Bush aren't going forward with *increasing* momentum under Obama. Read up on it.
I would study policies, if I were you. In government, as in private life, they showcase a person's philosophies and convictions much more dramatically and truthfully than rhetoric. And the same applies to you--your policy of interpreting Obama's criminal policies as "mistakes" and stating that identical policies made Bush/Cheney "evil" pretty much tells the tale on your philosophies and convictions.
I'm betting alot of your readers can sure play a mean Pinball.
This last comment is a reference to The Who's Tommy, for those who didn't get it. implying that people who don't agree with Mr. Collier's take on this issue, or who think Obama is a pathetic ass, are "deaf, dumb and blind."
Of course, almost-clever quips don't take the place of substantive ideas, and I submit that it can't be logically proven that Obama's policies, especially in the areas of foreign affairs and economic and monetary issues, aren't diametrically opposed to his rhetoric, and also diametrically opposed to the the values of his extremely enlightened and stunningly intelligent supporters.
Can you demonstrate where his policies, in their principles and underlying logic, aren't a seamless continuation of Bush's policies?
Habeas Corpus springs to mind. I think there will be more significant discontinuations of the Bush policies coming. Your vague and premature judgments of Obama are telling in their own way. Good catch on the Tommy reference, though.
That's a pretty vague retort. Considering the aloof tone I would expect you based your strong support of this president on something in particular and could rattle off his accomplishments. It can't just be that you like his appearance, his slogans, and the handiwork of his speechwriters, can it? Maybe you lack the ability to think objectively on this subject?
Let's see ... Let's enter "Obama Habeas Corpus" in Google news......
This from the OCt 15 Christian Science Monitor:
"The administration has embraced Mr. Bush's law of war philosophy justifying the potential indefinite detention of terror suspects deemed by President Obama to be too difficult to put on trial, but also too dangerous to release.
Administration officials are hinting that Obama may fail to fulfill his pledge to close the Guantánamo prison camp by January. A new version of the controversial military commission process is expected to emerge soon from Congress. And construction continues for a new, expanded terror prison camp at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan.
"Bagram is becoming Obama's Guantánamo," Hope Metcalf, director of the National Litigation Project of the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School, warned during a panel discussion in Washington Thursday."
In case it strained your comprehension, that was a specific description of denying Habeas Corpus--indefinitely detaining *without trial* prisoners deemed "too difficult to be put on trial." Too difficult by whose standards? Where's the trial to decide if it's too difficult, then, eh? So the decision to let someone rot in prison, with no questions asked anywhere, boils down the discretion of what must, then, by definition, be a dictator. It's insanity.
And don't forget, Obama has taken part, actively, in perpetuating the Patriot Act and other laws that allow YOU to be labeled an enemy combatant, in case you thought this only pertained to Middle Eastern "terrorists" or non US citizens.
Address (not here, but for your own understanding) my other points. Consider the Obama war policy, and prove to yourself whether or not it is, in principle, *identical* to Bush's. Consider the destruction of the currency and demented policy of printing money and handing it out it to favored institutions (while poor people lose their homes and die in debt invented out of thin air. Thanks, Obama!"
At this point, with the administration in line every last Bush doctrine, you're either a moral coward or an imbecile if you continue apologizing for this piece of filth.
I think you want a King, not a President. If that article comes across as "Obama is Bush" to you, I don't know what to say. The comments made in the article seem to be in the tone of a warning. I believe public opinion holds sway with Obama, not Bush. Noone is telling you that you need to love Obama, noone is telling you that he's making all the right moves, but your insistence on this clone theory is premature and misplaced on a few issues.
Let me ask you, now that you've made up your mind about Obama, what do you propose? Revolution? Migration? Or do you want the action that's so bad they put the word "ass" in it twice?
I notice, significantly, that you can't counter my overall premise, that their policies, in principle and underlying assumptions are identical, differing only in packaging and shuffling of details.
That article, in itself, doesn't come across as Obama is Bush. I never said that. Merely pointed out that the one example you attempted to cite was faulty, so you're back to searching for a *tangible, provable* way in which the direction established by the previous administration has been altered or interrupted by this one.
The direction firmly established by the Obama administration *cannot* lead to other than further war abroad. *Cannot* lead to other than economic disaster at home. Can't. It's impossible. Period. You can't deepen and expand military operations in someone else's country, naturally rousing the opposition and offending the people who live there, and not expect war to go on and on. By the same token, you can't occupy their country into the foreseeable future, or at best set up puppet governments and undermine the will of the people in that country, and not expect desperate, outraged retaliation--what we like to call "terrorism." Were you against this with Bush or weren't you?
You can't expand the amount of currency in existence, create an unfathomable debt out of thin air, and not destroy the existing currency, raise prices at the grocery store, force people into the streets, etc., etc. The first leads to the second without fail, and Obama is resoundingly in favor of the first. Read up on it. I dare you.
Let me ask you, what's your timeframe for supporting Bush's policies via Obama? If I'm premature, what day, on your calender do you stop being in favor of the government monitoring you and curtailing your free speech? Abandoning Habeas Corpus? Undertaking perpetual War? Destroying regular folks' well-being via manipulation of the currency and economy? Because, you must be aware, Obama has come out *by his voting,* *by his staff choices,* and by his *actions* in strong, strong, strong favor of these things. Or weren't you aware of that?
Oh yeah, finally, this says a lot: "I believe public opinion holds sway with obama, not bush" !!! What kind of asinine logic is this? Public opinion, at one time, "held sway" with the notion that blacks were subhumans...gee, must have been okay, since at least 51 percent of the people believed it.... Whether the public believes, or has been duped into believing, in anything, has no bearing on whether or not it's correct or even sane. I think you've got a lot of reading to do.
No answer to your question. If I'm right--and there's no evidence that I'm wrong--what do you suggest?
let's see them be honest for once in their lives and rename it to 'The Politically Correct Award'.
First Al Gore, the world's biggest polluting hypocrite, get's it.
Now Obama gets the award BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. The people who run the Academy Awards must now be furiously trying to figure out how to give an Oscar to Obama. After all, the same type of politically-correct bigots gave an Emmy to Gore, for his *movie*, though Emmys are meant for tv shows.
All aboard the reverse-bigotry bandwagon.
I don't see it as a racial thing, except African ancestry being a feature of the overall Obama product. His father's race is just an important selling point to people who attach meaning--positve meaning, that is--to certain physical characteristics. There are other features of the product... relative youth, hypnotic speaking ... But "Now with Nobel Prize!" is a good thing to put in a little star on the package.
Although it has backfired a bit, as we see in this post, since it forces us all to contemplate how empty a human being and leader this is.
Collier's thoughts seem kind of like brainstorming, like, uh, man, yeah, what the hell is this about? And his conclusion is sort of funny--the Norwegians, like a lot of Americans, voted for the word "change" with no evidence of substance.
I have to wonder...
If Obama were lily white would he have gotten the award.....
Opinions?
I think unlikely.
Yeah, he would have gotten the award. The point really isn't his half blackness. The point is to deluge morons with confusing messages so they're convinced that here is a pro human rights, anti war president, even as he expands the wars and government controls put in place the other president--the one the other collection of morons cheered for. The prize is just another shovelful of bullshit flung at the morons. Not really worth thinking about.
From Carol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
Post a Comment