I have already commented on the Nobel Peace Prize and I'm not really going to do so again. If you are rabidly opposed to Obama then you are probably opposed to this award. If you are thrilled with Obama then you are probably thrilled with this award. If you fall somewhere in the middle then your opinion on this award probably falls somewhere in the middle as well. See how that works? It is somewhat amusing to note that more of those middle voices seem to be having a Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot moment with this award than not, but that's a different matter than I want to discuss today.
Today I want to comment on some of the comments, more specifically the loud, screeching chorus on the Left who are insisting that those opposed to this award are just Republicans being obstructionist or the radical Right being opposed to everything Obama-related. There are a number of liberal pundits who are all about, "Why can't the Right keep from screaming about such a relatively small issue?" Fair enough. I have a question for you: Why can't the Left keep from lying about such a relatively small issue?
Those pundits who are trying to dismiss the complaints as nothing more than more screeching from the right-wing hate chorus are either lying or they are ridiculously oblivious to their own industry. How do I know this? Because it takes nothing more than ten minutes on google to find more than a dozen prominent left-leaning or openly Leftist pundits who are also saying that the award was either premature at best or flat out wrong at worst.
Richard Reich (Huffington Post), Maureen Dowd (New York Times), Thomas Friedman (New York Times), Michael Russnow (Huffington Post), Richard Kim (The Nation), David Sirota (Huffington Post and Salon), Mickey Kaus (Slate), Peter Beinart (New Republic), Nicholas Kristof (New York Times), Ruth Marcus (Washington Post), Ezra Klein (Washington Post), Richard Cohen (Washington Post), Gabriel Rachman (Financial Times).
Everyone of these people is either a prominent liberal pundit or a writer who has been known to take the Left side of issues more often than not and everyone of them has publicly denounced this Nobel Peace Prize as wrong, premature, or a bad joke. You cannot convince me that those other paid pundits are so oblivious to their own profession that they don't know what these people have said. That leads to one inevitable conclusion: Those trying to dismiss the criticism of this award as just right-wing smear tactics are blatantly lying. They know there is nothing right-wing about these complaints. Almost every news story on this subject has gone out of its way to mention the fact that liberals are just as confused as conservatives about this award. These people know this and are lying about it, plain and simple.
Why would they lie about Republicans and conservatives in such a public manner and over such a laughable issue? Well, we are talking about the same people who have spent the last eight months flat out lying to the public by claiming that Republicans have done nothing but obstruction on healthcare, all the while ignoring or hiding the multiple bills and amendments the Republicans have put forward. Is this really such a stretch?
The internet age makes it almost impossible for those in the public eye to get away with these lies, yet the lies are parroted all across the internet. Nothing will improve as long as this is the way things are done, but it is up to you to stand up and demand that they tell the truth.
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Nobel What???
For anyone who still had doubts that the Nobel Peace Prize has become little more than political grandstanding in recent years, this fact was utterly proven today with the announcement that United States President Barack Obama has been named the winner of this year's award. Liberals across the country are doing a happy dance because this somehow proves them right, but what does it really mean? Absolutely nothing.
Set aside political posturing and partisan bickering for a moment and look at the facts. Nominations for this award were due in by February 1 of this year, by which date Obama had held office for barely eleven days. Short of maybe single-handedly saving the world from an alien invasion, I think we can all agree that it is not physically possible to have accomplished enough in less than two weeks to justify a nomination for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The list of "accomplishments" the Nobel Committee claims for Obama were nothing more than campaign speeches at the time he was nominated. Have you ever heard of anyone winning such a high award for campaign speeches? Because I haven't.
To be perfectly blunt, that list of so-called accomplishments is still nothing more than speeches, more than half a year later.
- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Extraordinary? He's made - what? - one major speech on this subject, last week at the United Nations?
- "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons"
Okay, I'll give you this one. He talks about this a lot. But what has he actually done about it? Not much. I'm not saying that he won't, but he hasn't. Perhaps we should wait till he's actually done something before we give him an award for doing something?
- "USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"
Whether you agree with this particular issue or not, you might want to notice that not one single initiative that Obama has pushed in this regard has actually passed yet. Again, nothing yet but speeches.
- "Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Notice the key words there: "are to be". It hasn't happened, but it will happen. Hasn't just about every U.S. President ever promised that this will happen? Regardless of what the results actually turn out to be, the prediction by someone is that it will improve democracy and human rights around the world. It rarely works out that way, but the promise is always made. Only this time you get an award just for making a promise.
It may be that Obama becomes a president and world figure who earns a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. His stated ideals and goals - disarmament, climate change action, healthcare, etc - are certainly well within the preferred areas of accomplishment for the Nobel Committee, but there is, as yet, no accomplishment. The Nobel Committee has only cheapened their award with what is blatantly nothing more than political posturing. This announcement says, "You are not Bush and you seem to do things the way we like, so we're going to pat you on the head for it, regardless of what the award is supposed to stand for." Liberals who are cheering this are only reinforcing the stereotype that they care more for prizes than for what is earned. For the record, I have seen some people say, essentially, "I love Obama and do believe that he will earn this award in the future, but this is ridiculous," so I know those people are out there as well.
This is ridiculous. This is, in fact, the kind of condescending, paternal attitude that liberal's get accused of displaying all the time. "I don't care what you've accomplished. Your heart's in the right place so here's a gold-plated cookie." If Obama were half the politician he thinks he is, he would graciously decline the award and ask to wait until he has accomplished more before being nominated again. Can you imagine the brownie points that would score?
Set aside political posturing and partisan bickering for a moment and look at the facts. Nominations for this award were due in by February 1 of this year, by which date Obama had held office for barely eleven days. Short of maybe single-handedly saving the world from an alien invasion, I think we can all agree that it is not physically possible to have accomplished enough in less than two weeks to justify a nomination for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The list of "accomplishments" the Nobel Committee claims for Obama were nothing more than campaign speeches at the time he was nominated. Have you ever heard of anyone winning such a high award for campaign speeches? Because I haven't.
To be perfectly blunt, that list of so-called accomplishments is still nothing more than speeches, more than half a year later.
- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Extraordinary? He's made - what? - one major speech on this subject, last week at the United Nations?
- "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons"
Okay, I'll give you this one. He talks about this a lot. But what has he actually done about it? Not much. I'm not saying that he won't, but he hasn't. Perhaps we should wait till he's actually done something before we give him an award for doing something?
- "USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"
Whether you agree with this particular issue or not, you might want to notice that not one single initiative that Obama has pushed in this regard has actually passed yet. Again, nothing yet but speeches.
- "Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Notice the key words there: "are to be". It hasn't happened, but it will happen. Hasn't just about every U.S. President ever promised that this will happen? Regardless of what the results actually turn out to be, the prediction by someone is that it will improve democracy and human rights around the world. It rarely works out that way, but the promise is always made. Only this time you get an award just for making a promise.
It may be that Obama becomes a president and world figure who earns a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. His stated ideals and goals - disarmament, climate change action, healthcare, etc - are certainly well within the preferred areas of accomplishment for the Nobel Committee, but there is, as yet, no accomplishment. The Nobel Committee has only cheapened their award with what is blatantly nothing more than political posturing. This announcement says, "You are not Bush and you seem to do things the way we like, so we're going to pat you on the head for it, regardless of what the award is supposed to stand for." Liberals who are cheering this are only reinforcing the stereotype that they care more for prizes than for what is earned. For the record, I have seen some people say, essentially, "I love Obama and do believe that he will earn this award in the future, but this is ridiculous," so I know those people are out there as well.
This is ridiculous. This is, in fact, the kind of condescending, paternal attitude that liberal's get accused of displaying all the time. "I don't care what you've accomplished. Your heart's in the right place so here's a gold-plated cookie." If Obama were half the politician he thinks he is, he would graciously decline the award and ask to wait until he has accomplished more before being nominated again. Can you imagine the brownie points that would score?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)